Rifle’s angled butt
View(s):At present in international cricket, it seems some umpires of the ICC Elite Panel have found a new fool proof ruse to curry favour with the Elite Big Three (EBT) of the game. It is a system that no one can directly find fault with because they are executing official duties and expressing their opinions on appeals made by cricketers in match situations.
How it is performed is interesting.
When an appeal is made for leg-before, the interpretation of the verdict varies.
England's Stuart Broad (R) and Sri Lanka's Shaminda Eranga (2nd R) react after the last ball as the match is drawn on the fifth and final day of the first cricket Test match between England and Sri Lanka at Lord's cricket ground in London on June 16, 2014. England and Sri Lanka drew the first Test at Lord's in dramatic fashion to leave their two-match series all square at 0-0. Sri Lanka, set 390 to win after England captain Alastair Cook declared before play on the fifth and final day, were left clinging on at 201 for nine come the close. - AFP
For instance, if it is a batsman from the EBT camp, he is declared not out. Then it is the onus of the fielding side to seek refuge in the Decision Review System (DRS) system. When the fielding side makes the appeal it is up to them to prove the umpire wrong. If there is a slight disparity even though the ball is hitting the middle stump, the batsman is ruled not out – it is the umpire’s call. The rule is very clear.
Then when a batsman from an under-privileged team like Sri Lanka is batting and if there is an appeal for leg-before he is ruled out. Then the onus is on the batsman to make the appeal for DRS. There even if the ball is slightly clipping the stump he is ruled out on the umpire’s call. The rule is clear and it is the accepted norm.
But, here the clear disparity is how the umpires are using the rule to the advantage of a given side. How the umpires are exploiting the powers vested in them blatantly. During the drawn first Test between Sri Lanka and England at Lord’s there were more than one instance where the on-call umpire exploited the situation.
We will just take two random instances to support our argument.
Debutant Moeen Ali is held in the slips by Mahela Jayawardena for 48 off left-arm spinner Herat with the England score on 209. Two balls later England wicket keeper Matt Prior who is groping for a good knock to hold on to his Test place is hit on the back leg by Herat. Umpire Reiffel says not out. Ball is hitting the stumps but the impact is marginally outside the off stump. If he was ruled out by the umpire even if the batsman reviewed it would have stayed out. At 209 for 6 England could have gone anywhere! But, Prior goes on to make 86 and the rest is history.
Ironically, even in the second inning, Prior survived in the second ball off a leg before decision off Heart, in the same manner and even at that time England were struggling at 102 for 5.
Then in the post-tea session, Sri Lanka is struggling to save the game. Lankan skipper Angelo Mathews is holding stubbornly at one end. Fast bowler Stuart Broad hits Kulasekera on the pad. England are battering away at the Lankan door. Head Umpire Reiffel didn’t think long about this and the finger went up. The ball nipped back off the seam and thumped into the front pad. Hawk-Eye says it would 
have only clipped the leg stump. If it was given not out and the bowler called for DRS, it would have stayed with the umpire’s decision.
However the Lankans should be glad that Kulasekera did not lose this DRS appeal by calling for it. Because in the penultimate ball Reiffel once again ruled out last man in for Sri Lanka, Nuwan Pradeep, leg-before against Stuart Broad. However, this time the umpire had gone a little too far in his enthusiasm as there was a huge nick, which the umpire, probably, decided to ignore. However, the twenty-seven-year Lankan who began his hard ball cricket career only at the age of twenty had the presence of mind to review it and the umpire was proved wrong. The result — Sri Lankan cricketers managed to save the game and go in for the second Test with a better frame of mind.
Now the order of command has changed. Since, the Elite Big Three comprising India, England and Australia suddenly decided to take over the control of the International Cricket Council, uninvited, everyone knows it is they who rule the roost and others get the crumbs that fall off the table. I just wonder what the captain’s report of the Sri Lanka camp would contain about the first Test which ended on Monday. What would the Sri Lanka Cricket manager have to say? Mostly how seriously the relevant ICC authorities would take the Lankan reports? At the same time, will the England match reports contain any complaints about the standard of umpiring? Anyhow by chance if the England camp had been worried about umpiring standards, the umpire would have to look quite a number of times over his shoulders as to what is following him. But, the Lankan report is sure to be read by someone and then……
There are some stubborn facts. While playing in some parts of the globe, there are things that could transpire. For instance take the Senanayake issue. He was playing in Australia and all over Asia barring India, in the recent past, even though he played against them in the T-20 World Cup final, where he kept the Indian batsmen under firm control. Then crossing over to England the bowler continued his reign over the bat. But, quite interestingly the ICC officials, who were present even at previous internationals, suddenly became active and reported the bowler, who had been cleared by the ICC once before while he was touring with the Lankan ‘A’ team in England.
In the present context, the ICC is losing its credibility by the hour. It is more interested in keeping the Three Bags full rather than serving the world cricket. Then under these circumstances, the match referees and the umpires should come under a separate independent entity from which the ICC and the cricket playing nations could hire experts to officiate at their events/matches. If not this situation is sure to drag on.
Under the present context, if an umpire or a match referee goes against any of the three sharks, they are sure to be wallowed. So, as mundane human beings they also like to keep their home fires burning. To do that, they have to be in the good books of the rulers. Then the best way is to live within the laws and bend and title it towards the ruling party.
Not only we at this end, even the Sri Lankan cricketers are fully aware of what is going on in the cricketing world. Unfortunately, they are under a contract – not to speak on the evil they see.