What a great game of Test cricket at Nottingham! If there ever was a need for an advertisement of Test match cricket, here was one. Notably, we seem to be getting quite a few of these of late. In fact, Test match cricket has become so interesting in the modern day that the case for getting rid of it now seems increasingly absurd! What is equally absurd though is the case for extending the failed DRS or Decision Review System. England won't be complaining about the DRS at all, considering that it has won them the first match this Ashes. It's almost intriguing too that the tides of the DRS - a system so staunchly supported by viewers and experts in England - always seem to favor the Poms!
Frankly speaking, the DRS is a failed mechanism. Although novel when introduced, the system has been disappointing in adding flavor to the game. Let's face it - the DRS has taken the zing out of this particular Test match for both sides. The umpires have been allowed far less sleep after its inception and captains now spend as much time training their players on umpiring as they do on batting, bowling or fielding! There are technical issues with the DRS as well, I hear, but I have enough complaints against it without having to even touch on those.
Firstly, as hard as it is for the system's supporters to admit this, players are not exactly great umpires and they certainly aren't great umpires when they're playing for their country and are fighting for sporting glory. They don't have to be either. Even if they were great umpires, there is enough stress on them to perform their playing duties without having to watch the lines, predict leg-befores or sense faint edges. Why all this fuss? If the umpire can't do his job all so well, how can the players be expected to do it? After all, when the ball is being bowled, the umpire has nothing else to do but watch closely and make decisions. He's paid for it and he's expected to be good at it. If part of his job is being given to the player, you might as well start allowing umpires play for their teams on the field as well!
My second grievance with the DRS is the fact that the umpire's authority on the field is essentially being challenged by it. An umpire is a match official. He is above and beyond the players and therefore, it is his duty to ensure that the game is played fair and square. As much as we universally agree that an umpire is a human being and is hence entitled to make his fair share of mistakes, no umpire likes to know when his decision is wrong. No umpire likes to overturn a decision. It is no coincidence then that when an umpire overturns a decision early in the match, he suddenly starts looking so ordinary for the rest of the game. No, it messes with the morale of the umpire. He does not feel authoritative anymore and when an umpire does not feel like an authority, he almost loses the ability to stand above and beyond the game of cricket he officiates in, thereby becoming unable to ensure that the game is played fair and square. After all, that is his primary duty, without which, in the age of technology, there is no need for him to stand with a hat on his head all day.
My third grievance is quite clear cut. When an umpire has a bad day and gives an absolute howler of a decision at a crucial juncture in a match (like Aleem Dar did with Stuart Broad) and when the team at the receiving end has run out of reviews to challenge him (like Australia did in the same episode), the DRS effectively fails. The DRS, I hope, wasn't formulated in order to check the umpiring skills of players and captains and penalize them for default on that front. It was, again I hope, formulated in order to arrive at the right decision. In the above instance, the right decision certainly wasn't arrived at. At the end of the game, that particular instance proved to be quite decisive and Australia, therefore, in a way lost this match due to their poor umpiring skills. So how then did the DRS prove to be a success?
My case is not to call for a return to the previous status quo. What world cricket needs is to stop reviewing the umpire and allow the umpire review for himself. It must become more of a convention - perhaps even part of the training of umpires - to use technology by on-field discretion when you're in doubt. Also, when an on-field umpire makes a call which violates all common sense and is clearly obvious to the man assisted by technology (which is the third umpire), the latter must make an intervention and ask the on-field umpire to correct his call. In this way, the umpires are not made to lose their authority and nor are they challenged, and eventually, the correct call is made every single time. The players are also relieved of their umpiring duty and can now play the game without a fuss.
When the DRS was introduced, many people called comparisons with tennis and invoked the great success of the review system in that game. Unfortunately, cricket is not tennis. Cricket involves far more complex variables and there is nothing really clear cut about it. So it's time to let the umpires do their job without wreaking any further havoc.
Frankly speaking, the DRS is a failed mechanism. Although novel when introduced, the system has been disappointing in adding flavor to the game. Let's face it - the DRS has taken the zing out of this particular Test match for both sides. The umpires have been allowed far less sleep after its inception and captains now spend as much time training their players on umpiring as they do on batting, bowling or fielding! There are technical issues with the DRS as well, I hear, but I have enough complaints against it without having to even touch on those.
 |
| Crossing his heart: Umpire overturning a decision |
My second grievance with the DRS is the fact that the umpire's authority on the field is essentially being challenged by it. An umpire is a match official. He is above and beyond the players and therefore, it is his duty to ensure that the game is played fair and square. As much as we universally agree that an umpire is a human being and is hence entitled to make his fair share of mistakes, no umpire likes to know when his decision is wrong. No umpire likes to overturn a decision. It is no coincidence then that when an umpire overturns a decision early in the match, he suddenly starts looking so ordinary for the rest of the game. No, it messes with the morale of the umpire. He does not feel authoritative anymore and when an umpire does not feel like an authority, he almost loses the ability to stand above and beyond the game of cricket he officiates in, thereby becoming unable to ensure that the game is played fair and square. After all, that is his primary duty, without which, in the age of technology, there is no need for him to stand with a hat on his head all day.
My third grievance is quite clear cut. When an umpire has a bad day and gives an absolute howler of a decision at a crucial juncture in a match (like Aleem Dar did with Stuart Broad) and when the team at the receiving end has run out of reviews to challenge him (like Australia did in the same episode), the DRS effectively fails. The DRS, I hope, wasn't formulated in order to check the umpiring skills of players and captains and penalize them for default on that front. It was, again I hope, formulated in order to arrive at the right decision. In the above instance, the right decision certainly wasn't arrived at. At the end of the game, that particular instance proved to be quite decisive and Australia, therefore, in a way lost this match due to their poor umpiring skills. So how then did the DRS prove to be a success?
My case is not to call for a return to the previous status quo. What world cricket needs is to stop reviewing the umpire and allow the umpire review for himself. It must become more of a convention - perhaps even part of the training of umpires - to use technology by on-field discretion when you're in doubt. Also, when an on-field umpire makes a call which violates all common sense and is clearly obvious to the man assisted by technology (which is the third umpire), the latter must make an intervention and ask the on-field umpire to correct his call. In this way, the umpires are not made to lose their authority and nor are they challenged, and eventually, the correct call is made every single time. The players are also relieved of their umpiring duty and can now play the game without a fuss.
When the DRS was introduced, many people called comparisons with tennis and invoked the great success of the review system in that game. Unfortunately, cricket is not tennis. Cricket involves far more complex variables and there is nothing really clear cut about it. So it's time to let the umpires do their job without wreaking any further havoc.
No comments:
Post a Comment