Umpiring once again!
It's really frustrating to wake up at 3:15 am, watch more than three and a half hours of tough, gritty batting and then see a very poor umpiring decision end quite a splendid innings by Rahul Dravid. One can imagine what the batsman himself must be feeling while walking away from the center!
The debate about increasing use of technology to aid decision making in cricket has been on for a while now and there have been many changes that have been brought about over the years. However, till date we haven't found a way to really make sure that matches are not decided due to umpiring decisions. There have been many instances when umpires have been made to look stupid for the decision they made, when we look at replays in slow and super slow motion modes, with the advantage of hawk-eye, sneekometer and thousands of other hi-fi technologies and pretty graphics, but many of us would agree with the fact that the umpire's job out in the middle is not easy as he has to make a decision based on what he saw just once and with that in mind, don't really go hard at the umpire. The point that concerns me more is the involvement of the players in these decisions.
I can understand there are some instances when no one on the field knows what exactly happened - say the run out and stumping decisions, or the boundary rope decisions - these are cases where TV replays are clearly helpful and most often, decisive. But in several other cases, I believe there is definitely someone on the field (among the players) who knows for sure which way the decision should go. There have been discussions about players being truthful and sportsmanship spirit etc. and its often said that one should not walk after knicking a ball or a fielder should not own up saying that the ball hit the ground while he was attempting to catch it just because there is always a chance that the player will get a harsh decision going the other way sometime and he won't have a say about that! I have been on both sides of this sportsmanship debate at different times, but more often I feel the players have to be truthful and thats the only way the game can be played fairly. The current Dravid dismissal was just a glaring case of bad sportsmanship on the part of the kiwis - there was no chance that the forward short leg fielder ever felt that Dravid had got a bat or glove on the ball, but was appealing just because he knew the umpire might just make a mistake!
So when it comes to use of technology in sports, I feel cricket is different from many other sports such as soccer or tennis in the sense that in cricket, the players themselves are more capable of making most decisions than the umpires and that too on the basis of objective rules well understood by everyone. Hence, I feel the system of referrals for decisions that is being discussed in cricket circles should be looked at a bit more seriously. There would be several implementation issues involved - is the technology foolproof etc. - if we are to heavily involve hi-tech stuff like HawkEye and sneekometer in the decision making process. But I think there can be something simpler that should be looked at, based on the belief that players know what decision should be made better than umpires. And if players feel its not worth respecting the spirit of tha game by itself, they should be forced to do it by way of some regulations.
Every innings of a match, the bowling team can take a maximum of 10 wickets. How about allowing the bowling team only 10 wrong appeals during the course of the innings? It might slow down things a bit in terms of time per appeal - because the bowling team will have to decide if they really want to appeal, with the consent of players around the pitch - but there is an assurance that it can't happen more than 20 times in an innings and in a test match, that shouldn't be a great concern. Also, the batting team has, say 5 chances to wrongly appeal against a decision. Only in cases where the ground umpire needs help or the batting team has appealed against a decision will the third umpire come into play.
Don't know if the above system is likely to work, or even sensible ... but I think one thing is for sure. In cricket, we have to look at things involving on-field players, more than the technology to ensure fairness. Will be interesting to see how this great game evolves itself and the changes that are brought about in rules to make it fair for both teams involved in a match, in an effort to remove the possibility of umpiring decisions influencing the way a match goes.
The debate about increasing use of technology to aid decision making in cricket has been on for a while now and there have been many changes that have been brought about over the years. However, till date we haven't found a way to really make sure that matches are not decided due to umpiring decisions. There have been many instances when umpires have been made to look stupid for the decision they made, when we look at replays in slow and super slow motion modes, with the advantage of hawk-eye, sneekometer and thousands of other hi-fi technologies and pretty graphics, but many of us would agree with the fact that the umpire's job out in the middle is not easy as he has to make a decision based on what he saw just once and with that in mind, don't really go hard at the umpire. The point that concerns me more is the involvement of the players in these decisions.
I can understand there are some instances when no one on the field knows what exactly happened - say the run out and stumping decisions, or the boundary rope decisions - these are cases where TV replays are clearly helpful and most often, decisive. But in several other cases, I believe there is definitely someone on the field (among the players) who knows for sure which way the decision should go. There have been discussions about players being truthful and sportsmanship spirit etc. and its often said that one should not walk after knicking a ball or a fielder should not own up saying that the ball hit the ground while he was attempting to catch it just because there is always a chance that the player will get a harsh decision going the other way sometime and he won't have a say about that! I have been on both sides of this sportsmanship debate at different times, but more often I feel the players have to be truthful and thats the only way the game can be played fairly. The current Dravid dismissal was just a glaring case of bad sportsmanship on the part of the kiwis - there was no chance that the forward short leg fielder ever felt that Dravid had got a bat or glove on the ball, but was appealing just because he knew the umpire might just make a mistake!
So when it comes to use of technology in sports, I feel cricket is different from many other sports such as soccer or tennis in the sense that in cricket, the players themselves are more capable of making most decisions than the umpires and that too on the basis of objective rules well understood by everyone. Hence, I feel the system of referrals for decisions that is being discussed in cricket circles should be looked at a bit more seriously. There would be several implementation issues involved - is the technology foolproof etc. - if we are to heavily involve hi-tech stuff like HawkEye and sneekometer in the decision making process. But I think there can be something simpler that should be looked at, based on the belief that players know what decision should be made better than umpires. And if players feel its not worth respecting the spirit of tha game by itself, they should be forced to do it by way of some regulations.
Every innings of a match, the bowling team can take a maximum of 10 wickets. How about allowing the bowling team only 10 wrong appeals during the course of the innings? It might slow down things a bit in terms of time per appeal - because the bowling team will have to decide if they really want to appeal, with the consent of players around the pitch - but there is an assurance that it can't happen more than 20 times in an innings and in a test match, that shouldn't be a great concern. Also, the batting team has, say 5 chances to wrongly appeal against a decision. Only in cases where the ground umpire needs help or the batting team has appealed against a decision will the third umpire come into play.
Don't know if the above system is likely to work, or even sensible ... but I think one thing is for sure. In cricket, we have to look at things involving on-field players, more than the technology to ensure fairness. Will be interesting to see how this great game evolves itself and the changes that are brought about in rules to make it fair for both teams involved in a match, in an effort to remove the possibility of umpiring decisions influencing the way a match goes.
posted by Sangram @ 7:25 PM
0 comments
