Today’s two dismissals by Aleem Dar reiterates why it is time we use technology in cricket. Sure some one can say that Aleem Dar is a poor umpire but some one being a poor umpire shouldn’t mean that games are affected like they are. Even the best umpires make mistakes as they are only human. The problem is larger.
Cricket is a sport where dismissals are a key element. In test cricket, there are a maximum of 40 dismissals. A batsman given out when not out or vice versa can have a huge impact on the way the game shapes up. So why should we not use technology where it can help us conclusively where decisions are concerned?
Kasporwicz was not out in Ashes 2005 if we go by the rules. However, there was no way the umpire could have judged the same with the angle he had and made the best decision he could have made given how he saw things. If we can get a decision like that right within a minute (which is practical given we can see replays on the screen instantly), why should the thid umpire not talk with the umpires officiating and immediately get the decision right?
Do such decisions waste too much time? Let teams use referrals - 3 or 5 in a game. Every time you use a referral incorrectly, you have one referral less to use in the game. Simple.
Would it undermine the authority of the umpires? Not really. We would cut the pressure from the umpires this way more than any thing. At the end of the day, we should strive to get decisions right wherever we can. It is ludicrous that the whole world can see what y decision should have been and yet we have the scenarios of x batting when he is clearly out or x sitting in the pavilion when he is clearly not out.
Reports are suggesting ICC has decided to remove Hair from the ICC panel of elite umpires. The above video has Hair saying “the ICC is with me“. Not any more it seems. Any way, loved this video and hope you enjoy it as well even though parts are not in English.
Is there any former cricketer who hasn’t spoken up on the Pakistan-Hair contoversy? The latest is Mr. Michael Holding. He speaks on how the cricket world his divided and how the recent incident only reiterates this fact.
The last time I checked, the subcontinent had 40% of the votes on the ICC panel. The last time I checked, I also found out that most of the money in the game came from the subcontinent. So you would imagine that if any thing, the cricket world would be more in tilted towards the subcontinent. Every cricketer is trying to get his own mileage from the cricket controversy and Mr. Holding is no different in getting mileage from the controversy.
I am pretty sure that Hair would have gone about the matter just as Mikey says if the fielding team at Oval had been Australia, England, West Indies or even New Zealand.
By speculating and discussing, we are already creating a rift. Maybe, just maybe, the former cricketers can talk on how Md. Hafeez looked promising yesterday or how good Stuart Broad was in the Twenty-20 game.
Holding has got his newsprint and spotlight now and his remarks will be discussed at length. If every one pays Hair royalties for the mileage they are getting out of the controversy, I am sure he will far have more money than he demanded from the ICC.
The hearing of Inzamam has been delayed till the end of September. You would think that the ICC would want to resolve this matter as soon as possible as they were serious regarding the ball tampering issue. The ICC is more concerned that the one dayers at hand are played without controversy and the revenues from the tournament are not risked rather than taking bold steps. They prefer that the matter is cooled off and away from the public eye so that they can take their normal toothless approach of doing nothing.
One thing the ICC was pretty active in was to bring in Ranjan Madugalle for the hearings in place of the match referre for the controversial match, Mike Procter. Even if Mike Procter was a part of hearing the points of the Pakistan cricket or it’s management (Woolmer) or Darrel Hair, would that mean Procter is no longer a neutral? Procter was the match referee and he should have been in the middle of the decisions. The reason that the ICC now gives to postpone the hearing of Inzamam - illness in Madugalle’s family is hilarious and unbelievable. They could replace Procter in a jiffy so why not replace Madugalle in a jiffy as well now?
What to make out of the whole issue? Depending on which country you are in or which local newspaper you subscribe to, you can get views on the issue from every one from Steve Waugh to Javed Miandad to Dilip Vengsarkar to the cricket superstar of your block. I still do not believe so much has happened over nothing really. Had Pakistan accepted to let the 5 points go off their records, won the match and then protested over the verdict, not only would they have won the match, we would have been spared of a lot of nonsense.
A few days ago, I read in an article that cricket has reached the front pages of US newspapers and media world wide after the Darrel Hair - Pakistan controversy emerged. This, when the football world cup didn’t manage to get the front page spot lights.
Now, we have the revealing news of Darrel Hair asking the ICC for money for which he would resign.
I had titled my comment immediately after the Hair-Pakistan controversy first broke out as cricket suffers. I did not imagine back then the extent could be so big though. Expect more coverage of cricket in media all around the world now.
Earlier, cricket was this game which people outside the traditional cricket playing countries found to have a set of very complicated rules. Now, it is a joke and not much else.
The Pakistan cricket team is accused of ball tampering by the umpire and hence cheating. They refuse to come out to play for the post tea session.
Darrel Hair takes off the bails from the stumps and according to the rules, as Pakistan didn’t come out to play, the umpires could technically forfeit the game and award it to England. A bit later, the Pakistan team came out to play but the umpires refused to officiate.
More than thirty minutes passed in the above stated ludicrious events. If a player or team is accused of cheating, he doesn’t become a cheat necessarily. Appeals can be lodged and strong statements by boycotting if not heard properly can be made later on. By refusing to play and cuasing commotion when there wasn’t need for it, the Pakistani cricket team did not see the larger picture of the responsibility of letting the show go on. The personal issue was given more importance than the good of the game at large.
That Darrel Hair was the umpire did not help matters. He prefers donning the hat of a police man in the middle, showing his importance. The good umpires, an old adage goes, are the ones who are noticed the least. Darrel Hair doesn’t believe in this adage and likes to be in the centre of every thing. He ignored the larger picture, not for the first time - the good of the game is vital above every thing else.
The fans who came to watch the cricket at The Oval on a Sunday chosing cricket over football or the ones who decided to watch on TV were left with the mockery for more than an hour. That is 2/3rds of the time it takes to finish a football match. That the crowd behaved calmly is complementary. The watching public, sponsors and the television companies are within their rights to get back their money for the day as the cricket, for which they paid, didn’t actually occur for 15-20% of the day for circumstances which could have been controlled.
Damage control needs to be done and the test match should continue tomorrow. If the egos of the men involved is so big that they cannot talk it out and the match is called off, it would disgraceful for the game. The persons involved in effecting the disgrace should be penalised but you would be a fool to bet that the ICC will do that.
Not long ago, when the BCCI tried to get mobile companies to stop sending cricket scores as SMS updates to their users, I had a hearty laugh. Did these chaps actually believe that they owned cricket scores? It seemed evident that once these scores were in the public domain, anyone could use them in any way they wanted… Later, there were murmurs about them trying to get Cricinfo to stop ball-by-ball commentary…
A case between a St. Louis company and the internet arm of MLB over the legality of using player names and fantasy league stats is also quoted from The NY Times which shows such matters do not exist only in India.
A few months ago, Jagmohan Dalmiya made the point on Sportcentre India that this form of cricket is not in the agenda of India for the near future. The Reason? As its 40 percent of a limited overs match (in terms of overs and time involved), it results in 40 percent of income.
Tim de Lisle points out in cricinfo why a Twenty20 World Cup is the logical step forward:
It is the first professional cricket format to fit into the lives of people who have a job or a school to go to. A typical game starts at 5.30pm and is over by 8pm. For the first time, you can see a whole match without a meal break. Ergo, it attracts people who wouldn’t normally have the time.
Perfect for nations where cricket is merely a sport. In the subcontinent, however, cricket is more than just sport. So matches will be played to packed houses, revenues will come in despite the period of the match. Interest will not recede. In simple economic terms, the demand is inelastic.
The people who head the BCCI have changed. But the stance remains the same in this regard. Sharad Pawar has said:
The working committee of the board unanimously decided not to participate in that for a lot of reasons. The BCCI decided that it was not in the interest of the game.
Limited overs cricket is the duck which lays the golden eggs. No one wants to tamper with it. Virtually every one has at least heard of cricket in the subcontinent and who ever can be drawn to it has been sucked in. A pro-Twenty20 attitude can, however, lead to audiences in the subcontinent finally realizing that the limited overs game is mundane and repetitive. Add to it the attraction a new product, in this case, ‘the Twenty20 game’ will have and lead to a lot of attention, there is a real chance of a portion of the audience shifting allegiance.
There is genuine fear among the brasses which rule cricket in the subcontinent. Twenty20 cricket was marketed and shown with international standard broadcasting last year in Pakistan. Like in England, it drew record domestic crowds. Matches were played to packed houses. This year, Pakistan has continued with the successful experiment domestically. However, PCB Chairman Shahryar Khan has opposed Twenty20 for international cricket. Even The Bangladesh Cricket Board is expected to take the same stance. As India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are likely to bid jointly for the 2011 World Cup, their official view on this matter is unlikely to be different.
Different markets have different interests. We have to understand and then ask the real question though – Is the interest of cricket being affected in all this? Is the game of cricket really so weak that a new version will hamper future sources of income? Test cricket has survived nearly 130 years. If limited overs cricket is good enough in itself, it will hold its own. If it is not, it would have served its purpose. Open economies should prevail and Twenty20 should be allowed free existence and chance to capture whatever market it can. Sadly, the power games will not recede any time in the future and cricket will continue to suffer.
A very interesting discussion is taking place at Wicket to Wicket on racism.
Sport is about trying your best to succeed. If you do not, never mind. At least you tried your best. Applaud your opponent and try harder next time, learning from the experiences of the previous battle.
The sportsmen in the modern era forget this and try to win at all costs. The common excuse given is – sport has become more competitive, there is so much of money involved. Joey Cheek, an American speed skating champion who won gold in the 500 metre race at the Torino Olympics yesterday, donated the $25,000 he won for the refugees in Chad. Sadly, such attitudes are more exception than norm.
While sport simply meant a battle of skills earlier, it means much more today. The media attention, spectator interest, money, external pressures are all there. Players expect more. Spectators too want more in every regard. Expectations aren’t always fulfilled. As a natural consequence, anger results. Anger in displayed in various ways by various people.
I was at the Eden Gardens when the semi-final between India and Sri Lanka was abandoned. Some people threw bottles and oranges. Others hurled abuses at Azhar. Abuses were also hurled at Sangita Bijlani, the actress Azhar would marry after divorcing his wife. India had lost and Azhar was the main culprit as far as the emotionally charged crowd was concerned. In such a passionate state of mind, some people felt the above actions were excusable. Others felt bringing in their racial slurs were excusable as well.
Society has a lot of evils. As cricket grows, it is harder to resist such evils. Jagmohan Dalmiya wanted to globalize cricket which is good for the game. But a level of maturity is needed to deal with the evils which globalisation tends to bring with it. Without maturity, the evils take over and the significance of sport is lost. In the recent past the cricket world has dealt with quite a few issues with immaturity – The Zimbabwe issue, the ambush marketing issue.
I hope some maturity is shown to rid the game of racism or at least shrink it to its minimum.
