Mahela Jayawardene explains Dravid's controversial dismissal

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:

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Anil Kumble makes first umpire referral

Is it easy umpiring a Twenty20 game?

By the frenetic nature of Twenty20 format, one would have thought that umpiring is difficult as too many things happen at a rapid pace.

However, according to Billy Bowden, it is difficult to umpire a Test match as there are long periods of relative inaction. This could lead to umpires losing focus.

Do you think umpires have it easy in a Twenty20 game?

What is Nielsen's objection to the challenge system?

Australia's cricket coach Nielsen has expressed reservations over the introduction of the new tennis style challenge system in cricket. Careful analysis reveals that he has sound basis to his objection.

.

"It means almost one-third of the (10) wickets that you need to get a team out, you can contest, which seems like a high number to me."

Don't you think it is one challenge too many?

Update:

A grounder on the what exactly the 'challenge' is.

Under the proposal, each team would be limited to a maximum of three unsuccessful challenges per innings. The on-field umpire would consult with the third umpire when a decision was challenged, before the on-field umpire gave the final decision.

'Sin-bin' for sledging

In an attempt at weeding out sledging and cultivate good behavior, schools in the UK are experimenting with 'sin-bins'.

By agreement between cricket masters before matches, umpires will warn a fielding side about their conduct if they indulge in sledging. After two 'cautions', the master in charge of the offending team will be invited to remove his captain from the field for 10 minutes, with no substitute allowed.

Though it is not revolutionary,by penalizing the Captain the concept can force teams to behave. However, the onus on enforcing it is on the umpires.

Do you think 'sin-bins' will deter International cricket teams from sledging?

This is exactly how we felt about umpiring

View this video in the context of the Sydney Test match and Clarke’s bump catch appeal.

Does Bucknor’s deserve our sympathy?

If you were to go by what he has to say in his defense, then it is assuredly a big whooping NO!

Here is what Bucknor says in his defense:

"To err is human, to forgive divine, as the old saying goes. However, I consider
it a sad day to see umpires sidelined after making only two wrong decisions out
of a record of 35 appeals."

He would have certainly gone up in my estimation if he had expressed remorse on making two erroneous decisions which changed the course of a Test match.

Furthermore, his capacity for self-delusion is astonishing. He is talking about 2 bad decisions, whereas by my count there were 4 bad decisions.

Undoubtedly, removing an umpire for making bad decisions is a bad precedent, but by portraying himself as man more sinned against than sinned; Bucknor reveals an unabashed aptitude for self-pity and a longing for sympathy.

Surely he does n’t deserve our sympathy?

BUCKNOR SHOULD HAVE RETIRED

"Former Test umpire Dickie Bird believes controversial official
Steve Bucknor has now 'gone on too long' and should retire."

He also added that "When you get to that age... I have said to
Steve, 'Don't go on too long, get out while you are still respected'. I think he
has gone on too long."

If only he had listened, he would had his reputation and respect he had earned intact.

Hair ends ICC discrimination case

If you ever wondered at what Hair was going to achieve with his discrimination case against ICC, wonder no longer.

Hair could now return to umpiring non-Test playing nations next March.

Then, the ICC board will meet to discuss the results of his rehabilitation and decide whether he can return to elite umpiring, and if so, on what terms.

It is understood that no financial pay-off was made to Hair.

True, no financial pay-off was made, but he got what he wanted, or didn't he?