- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Virender Sehwag became the first player to be given out LBW on review when a Muttiah Muralitheran delivery thudded into his back leg in dusty Colombo seven years ago.
The controversial call occurred in 2008 and the DRS still to this day has continued to divide the cricketing world.
One of the biggest questions regarding the DRS is whether the initial umpire’s decision should affect the final call. Another is whether how much of the ball Hawk-Eye suggests to be hitting the stumps should matter.
When a Nathan Lyon delivery wrapped the front pad of Moeen Ali in the Lord’s Test last week, umpire Kumar Dharmaseena gave it not out and Michael Clarke reviewed the decision.
The final decision remained that of the initial call however, as Hawk-Eye suggested that less than 50 per cent of the ball would have gone on to hit leg stump.
Earlier in the match though, a Joe Root off-spinner had trapped Steve Smith LBW on 215.
The double-centurion reviewed the out decision, only for the final call to remain with the initial decision of the on-field umpire as Hawk-Eye suggested the ball would have clipped off stump.
Utterly preposterous.
There is something innately wrong with this method of ruling and the ICC need to act.
My first point is that the initial decision of the umpire should not maintain any significance to the final call as it leads to too many inconsistencies.
Why it does is simply to account for the imperfection of Hawk-Eye, a characteristic quite frankly shared by umpires?
The main reason for the implementation of the DRS after all, was to eliminate the ‘howlers’ of umpires, thus eliciting their tendency to not always make the right call.
This is not an attack on the man behind the stumps. No human is perfect.
My second point is that the batsman should be given out if Hawk-Eye suggests the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps, of course providing it hits in line and doesn’t pitch outside leg.
Irrespective of whether the red leather is suggested to be kissing leg stump, or thundering into the middle peg, the batsman should be given out.
The ICC opted to take the path of technology, so they should give it all their support with the onus on striving to improve it: Hawk-Eye, Snicko, Hot Spot and so on.
Shane Warne expressed his disapproval to the Moeen Ali case during the Channel Nine commentary of the second Test, likewise saying that the technology should be supported irrespective of the on-field decision.
“I’ve said this a few times, we’ve got to take away what the umpire says when we’re talking about these referral decisions,” he said.
“You can’t see the same dismissal being given out or not out depending on what the umpire says.”
“It’s a bad on-field decision and that causes inconsistency with the review process.”
A batsman can be given out because Hawk-Eye suggests the ball would have clipped leg stump, yet in another case a batsman can remain at the crease despite the same showing from Hawk-Eye simply because of the opposite initial decision of the on-field umpire.
It’s not all bad news though, as there is a solution to the problem.
The ICC could throw all the support in the world behind the technology.
Umpires have proven that a reversed decision does not affect their mental state, as the DRS has done well to eliminate ‘howlers’. Umpires have proven to be able to keep a stiff upper lip even in the face of these exposing circumstances – they are often seen laughing it off with their square leg counterpart.
We need to forget the perceived importance of the initial umpire’s decision. If it is hitting, then it is hitting.
You could say it would be a big step forward.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.