Another ICC meet (Chief Executives Committee (CEC)) has backed the mandatory usage of UDRS in all matches.
This topic has been debated and discussed too often, yet it hasn’t reached a
point of convergence. The problem is not with the change but with the resolve
to accept it. The BCCI, with its reluctance to its usage, is doing no good to
the betterment of the game. The most powerful board in the world should be
leading the way rather than resisting. It appears that the board conveniently
chooses to listen to the players’ views whenever it comes to technical calls;
firstly on the WADA issue and now the UDRS issue, while having its way
otherwise. MS Dhoni was deeply miffed by the way Ian Bell during a World Cup
match was let off after referring it to the TV umpire, but a couple of weeks
later Sachin Tendulkar was saved by the UDRS after he was adjudged out by the
on-field umpire. The sensible question that should have been asked from the
cited examples should be on the implementation of technology (rules) rather
than pressing for it to be ousted from the UDRS completely.
The approach of the BCCI, which these days is the deciding
factor for any decision by the ICC, is taking the game one step behind. Call it
pressure or bulldozing but the ICC has allowed BCCI to have its way courtesy
taking the Hawk-eye or the Virtual-eye out of the mandatory UDRS. The reasoning
for BCCIs reluctance to Hawk/Virtual-eye appears absurd viz. it is not 100%
accurate. A simple counter argument to this hypothesis would be the accuracy of
the run-out decisions that are inferred with the aid of the square cameras. The
benefit of the doubt is always given to the batsman, as the cricketing laws
suggest that a batsman should be adjudged out only if the umpire feels he
should be out rather than could be out but yet we have the 3rd umpire call on
run-out/stumping decisions without much controversy.
Questions have asked about the integrity of the people
operating the predicting tool, and also on its security regard possible
adulteration which are not invalid. But we have to move forward trying to
overcome these doubts, rather than waiting to implement it repetitively
questioning its accuracy. Another reason for the reluctance to the use of the
ball tracking technique has been about its predicted ball path after it strikes
the pad which is a scientifically calculated path. To be honest to ourselves,
even the umpire calculates/predicts the line the bowl will follow after striking
and adjudge out only if he feels the ball might go on to hit the stumps.
Umpires in the elite panel have endorsed the assistance
of technology to improve the percentages of correct decisions. The flipside
could be the depletion in the quality of umpiring. Traditionally umpires have
been an integral part of the game, an entity which adds to the flavour of the
game. The fear about the growing usage of technology is that 15-20 years down
the line, we might end up with cricket without umpires, only technology to
adjudge decisions. Technology was brought into the game to reduce errors by
umpires, and hence technology should be used to overcome the limitations of
umpires.
There is always room for improvement and same is the case
with the ball tracking technology. The BCCI has suggested indirectly that the
boards endorsing the Hawk-eye or the Virtual-eye have vested interests in those
private companies. If the BCCI feels so, why can’t it appoint its own team to
develop or research a similar or a different but better technology to compete
with the existing methods? Even the ICC could think on similar lines. Another
issue with the usage of technology is the rules/laws associated with it. By
allowing only 2 unsuccessful reviews, all the eleven in your side won’t have
the chance to review their dismissal. The controversial 2.5 metre rule could be
revisited and umpires could become a little more flexible with their
interpretation of the evidences keeping their egos aside. UDRS is a method to
reduce incorrect decisions but teams so far have used it as a tool to question
what they feel are ‘iffy’ decisions and hence very few challenges/reviews have
been found to be correct. The players too need to understand the nuances of
using UDRS rather than hyping it more than needed. Technology is the way
forward, but to avoid controversies every entity of the game should accept it flexibly
and the shortcomings of the system should be got over in due course. Endorsing
technology by no way implies disrespect for the umpires; the umpiring
institution is and should remain the highest authority on the cricket
field.
Comments
Post a Comment