Skip to main content

Unnecessary Dodgy Regressive Scenario!


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

Popular posts from this blog

Should Cricket Embrace The 5 Rings?

Another glorious edition of the Olympics goes into the sunset. A couple of weeks that showcased the best athletes compete for the ultimate glory, an event that exhibited disappointment, defeat, joy, pride, victory, glory and a portrait that had participation from 204 nations! A rich history, a massive platform, unparalleled glory and probably the biggest show sports can offer, makes an Olympic Games edition stand out. Ardent cricket fans/followers would feel left out from this marquee sports event. Unlike Motorsports, Cricket is a recognized by the International Olympic Committee. Though cricket wasn’t an outright success in multi-sport models previously, times have changed and today cricket has its T20 avatar to offer for such events. The ICC has 105 countries as its recognized members, spanning continents and covering most of the globe.

Adieu Rahul Dravid

It could have been timed better, it could have come a little later, it could have been better celebrated but the retirement was always going to come some day. It is easier said than fathomed - the Indian test side without Dravid! The news on first instance was a moment of disbelief, followed by a moment of daze before logic struck saying that it had to come and the moment had indeed arrived. Dravid was never a glamorous character on or off the field, more of a thorough gentleman commanding respect from all quarters. His announcement was synonymous with his usual self - calm, composed, dignified and non-fussy. Dravid was, is and will always be remembered as a role model for his conduct, dignity, selflessness  on the cricket field & off it  along-with his technically impeccable batting. On the global scene the game has lost one of its modern-day great and an all-time legend. The clock was ticking for Dravid much before, but an exceptional tour of England postponed this event (

More Than Just An Aberrational Dip

As the team’s head to London for the final test of the series, 2-1 is not an unimagined scoreline at the beginning of the tour and in most ways is a fair reflection of superior execution of skills. The nuances though have a different story to tell - some of England's top performers of this series have emphatically over-achieved (given form and/or ability), while those rated highly in the visitor's camp have grossly under-performed. The form or the lack of it, of two young, promising Indian batsmen has been a source of pronounced scrutiny, disappointment & poor form for the batting unit. While Pujara's problems are restricted to lack of conversion, Kohli is struggling to even getting to that stage. Yes the openers have failed consistently and the lower middle order hasn't provided that assuring cushion, but given Pujara's attributes & Kohli's dream batting form, averages of 25.87 & 13.50 respectively are frustrating for themselves, the team &