The decision to over turn the on-filed umpire’s decision and give Dravid out LBW is a correct one. However, the time taken and the persistent querying of the umpires have created a controversy over Dravid's dismissal.
According to the commentators, Mahela was clarifying why Dravid was not out. The commentators were saying that the umpire told Mahela that Dravid had hit the ball on to his pad. Mahela standing in the slips was sure that it had not and hence went for the referral. While the commentators were explaining away the prolonged questioning of the umpires thus, their explanation is in sharp contrast to Mahela's own explanation:
According to the commentators, Mahela was clarifying why Dravid was not out. The commentators were saying that the umpire told Mahela that Dravid had hit the ball on to his pad. Mahela standing in the slips was sure that it had not and hence went for the referral. While the commentators were explaining away the prolonged questioning of the umpires thus, their explanation is in sharp contrast to Mahela's own explanation:
The reason behind these referrals is to see whether the umpire has made a mistake. The space of time we have been given, I should be able to ask why he said not out. I needed to clarify why he said not out. I needed to know whether he had made a mistake. I was just clarifying. He said it pitched outside the off-stump. He gave the reason and then only I thought to go for the referral.
This has justly planted a seed of doubt on the very process of referrals. Until now, it was a commonly held belief that a Captain should go for the referral as soon as he feels the decision was incorrect. In addition, the decision to go for the referrals was independent of the on-field umpire and the players had to go for the referrals based on their own judgment.
That is not the case here. Another factor that contributes to the ill feeling among the Indian’s is that a Sri-Lankan umpire was substituting as the third umpire and he took an inordinate amount of time to come to his conclusion. Clearly, it indicates he was not sure and needed quiet a few replays to convince him. This flouts the fondly cherished tenet in cricket that doubts should always favour the batsman.
It is to be added that there are no two opinions that the referral is a good innovation and does help in getting the correct decision. The ICC, which is trialing the referrals in this series should ensure that there are no anomaly's and everything is transparent. If not, this welcome innovation will sink under the weight of what could very well be false conjectures.
9 comments:
Are they planning to do a Bucknor on the referal system itself. We will end up as the most unsporting cricketing nation. This cannot go on like this.The referal will take some time and u have to accept this fact. Our batsmen who poke their pads the moment they THINK that it is pitched outside the stump area will never learn from their mistakes.
R,
Dravid was out. I believe they are questioning the process and not the decision itself.
I agree with Ottayan, Dravid was out; but the way the SL skipper used the procedure is debatable. The initial appeal when not conceded to, was changed to an appeal for Leg before and that's definitely a breach.
but look how animated dravid was, finally signs of life on mars
Bisht,
I was unaware of that. Did they change their appeal to leg before?
NC,
Was it signs of life or was it the death throes? :)
Read this link:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=d94e35da-d3c9-4305-85b0-b1fca09a9383MissionSriLanka_Special&&IsCricket=true&Headline=Dravid+dismissal+spins+controversy
Oty They were mentioning abt the time taken. Let them also ponder over the time lost due to rain . They want decision in a jiffy in their favour.
I made a wrong comment. My apologies to the blog owner and other readers.
Post a Comment