Of all the decisions made by the International Cricket Council (ICC) on the conduct and during the current World Cup 2011, yesterday’s was the most welcome and also the most bizarre. It is welcome because unlike the more popular Football (Soccer) administration (FIFA), the ICC is willing to use and modify the use of electronic aids and means to adjudicate on-field, which promises a more fair playing conditions, minimizing human error.
However, it is bizarre, because they changed one rule relating to the Umpires Decision Review System, (UDRS) a rule which guided the Umpires on how to approach a disputed Leg Before Wicket (LBW) decision - when the batsman has reached forward and the point where the ball hits the batsman is 250 cm (2.5 m) or more from the stumps.
:-?
It created a controversy with the not-out decision of Ian Bell during the fantastic India-England Tied match. The incident almost blew up into a three-way-spat with the Indian Captain Dhoni, the ICC General Manager and the BCCI walking into the picture (no pun intended).
To my mind, the Indian players are needlessly playing up the controversy. If there was no UDRS, then Dhoni could not have called for a review on Ian Bell’s not out, by the Umpire Billy Bowden. So if the umpire let the decision stand, what is he complaining about?
That a decision was not given to his team’s benefit, when he asked for a review from a system which he (they) don’t believe in (and want junked)?
8-0
In fact, I personally believe that Alex Cusack should have had the benefit of the doubt in the India-Ireland game - because Hawkeye, the prediction software, indicated that the ball would’ve hit the top portion of the stumps. Without understanding the rule-tweak, most Indian press went to town raging against the UDRS, going as far as to suggest junking it.
As for the 2.5 (250 cm) distance: It is the distance beyond which the Hawkeye prediction has been shown to be unreliable; but inside that distance, Hawkeye has been tested out to be very accurate.
When we play gully-Cricket, one of the rules is that the batsman is never given an LBW, if he is too far down the wicket (something like 2 m) because of the same problem - unpredictability of the line and bounce of the ball. Thus it is surprising that this rule has created so much controversy at home.
My Mischievous Half murmurs, ‘I would’ve only thought that we, of all the cricket playing people, would understand it better. Not slam it!’
However, it is bizarre, because they changed one rule relating to the Umpires Decision Review System, (UDRS) a rule which guided the Umpires on how to approach a disputed Leg Before Wicket (LBW) decision - when the batsman has reached forward and the point where the ball hits the batsman is 250 cm (2.5 m) or more from the stumps.
- In simple terms, the original rule said that
- part of ball should hit the ‘centre line’ of the middle stump.
- It has now been amended to
- part of the ball should hit ‘any’ part of the middle stump.
:-?
It created a controversy with the not-out decision of Ian Bell during the fantastic India-England Tied match. The incident almost blew up into a three-way-spat with the Indian Captain Dhoni, the ICC General Manager and the BCCI walking into the picture (no pun intended).
To my mind, the Indian players are needlessly playing up the controversy. If there was no UDRS, then Dhoni could not have called for a review on Ian Bell’s not out, by the Umpire Billy Bowden. So if the umpire let the decision stand, what is he complaining about?
That a decision was not given to his team’s benefit, when he asked for a review from a system which he (they) don’t believe in (and want junked)?
8-0
In fact, I personally believe that Alex Cusack should have had the benefit of the doubt in the India-Ireland game - because Hawkeye, the prediction software, indicated that the ball would’ve hit the top portion of the stumps. Without understanding the rule-tweak, most Indian press went to town raging against the UDRS, going as far as to suggest junking it.
As for the 2.5 (250 cm) distance: It is the distance beyond which the Hawkeye prediction has been shown to be unreliable; but inside that distance, Hawkeye has been tested out to be very accurate.
When we play gully-Cricket, one of the rules is that the batsman is never given an LBW, if he is too far down the wicket (something like 2 m) because of the same problem - unpredictability of the line and bounce of the ball. Thus it is surprising that this rule has created so much controversy at home.
My Mischievous Half murmurs, ‘I would’ve only thought that we, of all the cricket playing people, would understand it better. Not slam it!’
No comments:
Post a Comment