Cricket went on with its traditional ways for the first century or so, yet in the post-1987 World Cup era with the game becoming more commercialized and Pakistan’s then World-Cup winning captain Imran Khan being very serious about neutral umpires standing at all international matches, things began to change.
Today is a far cry from the good ol’ days of traditional cricket. Everything is provided may be from a set of neutral umpires especially employed by the ICC to Hawkeyes to Duckworth and Lewis system to look into other intricacies like the vagaries of the weather. All this is done with the idea of simplifying the game and make it more housewife-friendly. Finally what the authorities want is to telecast an international match studded with their idols and bring that into your living room with less headache and fewer controversies.
Yes, the stakes are high. Everything is weighed in rupees and cents and the match schedules are done to ease the burden of the television companies and their viewing public.
Though everything has gone highly commercial at this juncture, I feel there are still people who try to keep cricket’s raw identity intact.
That interesting evening on Sunday, left-arm spinner Yuvraj Singh thought he had Pommy Ian Bell trapped in front and maybe he is still under the impression that Kiwi umpire Billy Bowden erred.
 |
| England's Ian Bell (L) hits a six off the bowling of India's Piyush Chawla as Mahendra Singh Dhoni watches during their ICC Cricket World Cup group B match in Bangalore February 27, 2011. However the Indian skipper Dhoni believes the DRS system is flawed and was furious that his side was denied a wicket following a review in their epic tie with England. REUTERS |
Bell was given not out by umpire Bowden but then Yuvraj was more than certain that he had trapped the batsman lbw, and convinced the captain MS Dhoni to ask for a review. When the replay came on the big screen at the Chinnaswamy Stadium and the ball had struck Bell in line and was going on to hit the stumps, Bell started his walk back into the dressing room. Bell was turned back by the fourth umpire Aleem Dar, who was sitting on the sidelines and knew that Bowden was sticking to his decision.
In fact Ian Bell was more than 2.5 meters down the pitch when he was struck, and from that distance the Hawkeye tracking technology could be less reliable, they say. So the on-field umpire can decide to trust the computer or stick to his own eye.
This was largely one of the reasons for England to chase behind India’s imposing target of 339 and just fall one run short and agree for a tie.
Finally who pays the ferryman? Is it the side batting or the side bowling? I was exchanging views with a custodian of the game who has been responsible for producing a large number of national caps in Sri Lanka. As he is still directly involved with the game, he preferred to stand behind the screen.
He too agrees that the game should keep evolving. For instance, he said the difference of the carry of a 1970 bat of an international player and the bat of a present-day player was enormous. He pointed out that one of the sixes that Tendulkar hit that evening was off the top hand and involved a minimum of body movement. Yet it ended up as a sizeable six, he said. In this backdrop, he agrees that innovative technology is a good aid. Still what he cannot understand is if the modern umpires are going technological and keep seeking the third umpire’s assistance for so many issues why umpire Bowden stuck to his guns about how far down the wicket Ian bell had moved.
He says in the past or in a game where technology is not involved, if a batsman has moved out of his popping crease, the umpire refrains from ruling him out even if he is hit within the stumps as he cannot be certain what would the ball do within the next almost eight feet from the point of impact and the wicket.
Yet he argues that if the umpire could live with a decision of using technology to rule a batsman run out or to rule a batsman stumped, the same method could have been used to rule Bell out leg before as the Hawkeye showed the ball was going to hit the wicket square in front.
Coming home to Sri Lanka’s match against Kenya a similar incident occurred. In the second ball of the twentieth over Lanka’s spin wizard Muttiah Muralitharan hit Kenya’s one drop batsman Collins Obuya in front, yet again the umpire – this time it was the Indian umpire Tarapore ruled the batsman not out.
The batsman had stretched and the ball hit on the roll and he was 2.5 meters out. The Hawkeye showed the ball was well sailing over the wicket and Tarapore stuck to his guns after the Lankan skipper standing behind the wickets had asked for a review. Nevertheless people who live cricket 365 x 7 the Hawkeye may have been wrong here as the ball at that speed and on that Premadasa wicket could never balloon so much.
The onus goes to the custodians of the game. Now at the pace that the game is moving in these modern times, the game also must change accordingly. I think even the rule book must go through this ritual. It should be amended to suit the umpires and the modern technology. When a stumping is being given, every square inch is probed to satisfy the umpire to rule the batsman out. Here, the technology says the ball was going to hit the wicket, and the umpire stand on some hypothetical norm saying at the distance of 2.5 meters the Hawkeye maybe wrong.
Moreover the ICC also should have taken steps to bring in all available technology into this World Cup like the hotspot and the Snicko which they have left out.
We at this end feel if a player has the freedom to question the decision of an umpire he also must have all available technology to back his appeal. At the same time, the umpire also should have the right to use it just to prove the player that he is wrong and wrong for all cricketing reasons beyond any doubt.
No wonder the Indians are still averse to the Decision Review System in international games that they are involved. Maybe they are of the view that modern technology is still imperfect. |
E-mail
