INDIA IN AUSTRALIA, 1ST TEST - HOW CAN UMPIRING GO OUT OF FOCUS?

I was far too young to follow India's tour of Australia in 1991-92. Once I started understanding and following the game of cricket, India has toured Australia in 1999-00, 2003-04, 2007-08 and the current one now in 2011-12... and each time, umpiring has been a subject of sharp focus!

If that is not enough, the scrutiny of umpiring decisions have started in the 1st Test on all but one of the above tours. Only in 2007-08 did the opening Test at MCG on the Boxing Day go through without an umpiring decision worthy of remembrance years later! Unhappy with how incident-free the 1st Test was from an umpiring perspective, the cricketing Gods put in all their efforts to ensure that the 2nd Test would not only compensate for the 1st one, but also supersede all other incident-involving Australia-India Tests of my living memory.

1999-00: The first Test was in Adelaide... and it will always be remembered for the infamous shoulder-before-wicket LBW decision by Daryl Harper against Sachin Tendulkar of Glenn McGrath's bowling. Even in that era, that particular decision gathered a lot of inches and minutes in print and television media respectively. I shudder to imagine what would have happened had such a decision been given in this era!

It was a marginal call, as the ball could have clipped the top of the stumps or gone over it. In normal circumstances, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. Only when the batsman does not offer a shot does the benefit of the doubt go to the bowler. Was that a case of no shot offered? In my view, definitely not! When a batsman ducks under a bouncer that hits him on any part of his body and goes for runs, it is given as leg byes. When no shot is offered, and the ball is deflected of the pads of the batsman, no runs are given. This rule may be farcical, but as long as it exists, ducking cannot be deemed to be a case of no shot offered, and the benefit of doubt in that case should have gone to the batsman.

While I remember just this incident clearly from that tour, I do remember that there definitely was discontentment about umpiring during that tour. I have read that that particular tour accelerated ICC's plans of implementing the concept of two neutral umpires in Tests. This article from the Cricinfo archives points out that there were arguably three contentious decisions against Sachin Tendulkar alone in his 6 Test innings on that tour.

2003-04: The first Test was in Brisbane... and the central figure was once again Sachin Tendulkar. The bowler this time was Jason Gillespie and the umpire was Steve Bucknor. Again, the media coverage was immense and even Gillespie had admitted that his appeal had only been academic and that he wasn't actually expecting to get the decision in his favour.

While the ball pitched outside off and seamed in, even the naked eye could tell that the bounce was far too much in that ball to be able to hit the stumps. Truth be told, I think that this ball would have passed the stumps at a higher altitude than McGrath's bouncer four years previously that resulted in the shoulder-before-wicket dismissal. That same article to which I have provided the link above talks of the coverage that followed this Steve Bucknor decision.

2007-08: Like I said, the first Test at MCG was more-or-less incident-free, and the second Test at SCG overcompensated for that! There has been more than enough coverage of the Sydney Test of 2008 - both the racial abuse allegation as well as the collection of umpiring errors! Andrew Symonds was reprieved thrice (twice by Steve Bucknor and once incredibly by the third umpire Bruce Oxenford!) and Ricky Ponting was reprieved once and then given out when he shouldn't have been. Sourav Ganguly was ruled out caught by Michael Clarke by umpire Mark Benson in consultation with Ponting rather than the third umpire.

There were some more incidents (I remember Rahul Dravid too falling victim of a Steve Bucknor error), but the key one definitely was the first reprieve that Andrew Symonds received on Ishant Sharma's bowling. Steve Bucknor (once again!) failed to see/hear a very clear edge with its big woody noise and a clear deflection of the ball on its way to MS Dhoni behind the stumps. That decision was very clearly a result-impacting decision. Symonds was on 30 then, and Australia 193 for 6. Australia ended up with 463 with Symonds unbeaten on 162. Even though India had no business losing the Test on Day 5, there might have been a completely different result had Symonds been ruled out there and Australia slumped to 193 for 7.

2011-12: The first Test at Melbourne, Day 1... and both umpires in the limelight for one caught-behind decision each. Maraius Erasmus ruled Michael Hussey out for a golden duck off Zaheer Khan's bowling and soon thereafter, Ian Gould ruled the debutant Ed Cowan out for 68 off Ravichandran Ashwin's bowling.

While I wouldn't call either of those decisions a 'howler', the debate on it shall be no less than the other decisions of the past... because we live in the era that has tasted the implementation of DRS. Where I stand on the issue of DRS is absolutely unrelated to what this post is about, and so I'll refrain from getting into that. But it must be said here that there is a difference between a marginal call and a howler, and DRS is starting to obliterate that line. Had it not been for the debate on DRS, the Hussey and Cowan dismissals might have been talked about just for a few hours, and then archived somewhere in history. But now, we'll have gigabytes of data to tell the future generation different versions of what actually transpired there!

THE DRAVID DISMISSAL DEBATE

After my previous post on The Dravid Selection Debate, this one is now on the 2nd innings dismissal of Rahul Dravid during the 4th Test at the Oval. It looks like Dravid debates are the fashion for this season! Already, this dismissal has been discussed and dissected all over Twitter and other cricket forums on the internet. Here are my thoughts for what they are worth!

First, let me state very clearly that I did not see the dismissal live and did not even manage to catch a replay till well after the end of day's play. When I did see the replay, I already knew that Dravid had admitted to have edged it. So whether I think there was an edge or not does not matter, because my eyes were always going to be prejudiced after that admission by Dravid. But here's what I do know:

1. Most English commentators and tweeters were of the opinion that they saw a slight deflection from a certain angle, and so Steve Davis was justified in ruling Dravid out.

2. Most Indian commentators and tweeters were of the opinion that they saw no conclusive evidence for Steve Davis to overrule the on-field decision. Since DRS over-ruling works on the basis of conclusive evidence, Davis was not justified.

3. Amongst the neutral, I don't recall many opinions. But I do recall Mike Haysman tweeting that he didn't think there was any conclusive evidence to rule Dravid out.

I think that based on these statements, we can assume that it was a marginal call either way.

Now what I am going to state here has been stated so often already that it's sounding more and more like a cliché, but it has to be mentioned nevertheless. So here it goes again - the DRS was meant to eliminate howlers, and not rule on marginal calls. Where marginal calls are involved, the ground umpire's decision should be taken as the final one. Only when there is overwhelming evidence against the ground umpire's ruling should that decision be overturned.

But while I state all this, lets not forget that the primary aim of the judiciary (and this includes the umpires as well as the technology that has been provided for their aid) is to come to the right decision. And in Dravid's case, the right decision was indeed reached, even though in a wrong way! I remember once an umpire (I think it was Simon Taufel, but I'm not sure!) stated that they would not want their walkie-talkie conversations ever recorded, because often they reach the right decisions in very wrong ways!

So what to make of this debate? Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, in my opinion and strictly in my opinion, I think that the right decision was made and Steve Davis was good to have spotted that faint edge and deviation. In his mind, he was must have been reasonably sure that the edge had been taken, however thin it may have been, and he relayed that decision back to the ground umpire. That's it!

But that's not the end of the story! What I have trouble comprehending is that why are umpires inconsistent in this matter. Some like Billy Bowden prefer to go exactly by the rule book and rule Ian Bell not out in the World Cup match against India even though the evidence overwhelmingly suggested that he should have been Yuvraj Singh's victim! And some like Steve Davis decide to use their initiative and overrule the foundation on which the DRS is based - i.e. the foundation of overwhelming evidence!

I know that the "Ian Bell - Yuvraj Singh - Billy Bowden" example is not quite an exact parallel to this one. And to be honest, I couldn't find any exact parallel. So I will give you the best I could find...

The following video shows the wickets and close calls during the Canada vs. Kenya match in the World Cup 2011. Watch this video from 5:02 onwards - the batsman is Kenyan Steve Tikolo, and the bowler is Canadian Rizwan Cheema.



Now, from what I see here, I think that the edge was clearer here on Steve Tikolo's bat than it was in case of Rahul Dravid at The Oval. I know that it may be a futile exercise to compare, since the situations were different and the umpires involved were different (Bruce Oxenford was the third umpire in the Steve Tikolo case). But the point I'm trying to make is that Oxenford saw it was a marginal call, and though some angles suggested an inside edge, he decided to rule it in favour of the on-field umpire's call. He saw no overwhelming evidence to overrule!

Here, I am not trying to blame Steve Davis in any way. I have already stated that with the benefit of hindsight, we can all agree that the correct decision was made. But the blame lies entirely with ICC's pathetic implementation of the DRS, and its use for marginal calls.

I understand that Bruce Oxenford may not have been as convinced as Steve Davis was to overrule the on-field call, but if I am allowed to judge the third umpires here, I am sure that neither Oxenford nor Davis could have been 100% sure about the edges. Even if Steve Davis was reasonably certain about the edge, I am prepared to bet that he could not have been a 100% confident about his call... simply because it indeed was a very marginal call and the replays could not have been deemed to be 100% conclusive. The varied opinions all over Twitter suggest nothing else.

So what does the ICC have to state? Are the on-field calls to be over-ruled where the third umpires are just reasonably sure about the evidence on offer? Or are they to be over-ruled only when the third umpires are a 100% certain about the error in the on-field decision? Till the ICC does not answer this question clearly and decisively, we will continue to have such vagaries in decision-making even in the future. How this decision might affect the result of this match will be known only tomorrow (and even then, just speculatively), but what it did was that it ended a marathon effort by India's best batsman on this tour on a very sour note!

Well played, Rahul Dravid! Much respect!

INDIA VS. REST OF THE WORLD

NOTE: All the information on the cases mentioned in this blog post (except for the last one) comes from a singular source - this page on the official website of the International Cricket Council (ICC). Thank you to @HomerTweets for tweeting this link.

NOTE AGAIN: I have just quoted whatever information I deemed was relevant from the above-mentioned webpage. Whatever comments I wanted to make have been made after all the cases have been quoted.

So here goes...

Case 1: South Africa v India, 3rd Test, January 5, 2011, Cape Town

"Sreesanth kicked the boundary kicked the boundary rope after his two LBW appeals were turned down in the previous over. A charge was brought by Ian Gould and Simon Taufel of the Emirates Elite panel of ICC Umpires, third umpire Brian Jerling and fourth umpire Shaun George. Action: Sreesanth pleaded guilty to contravening Level 1 offence (Section 2.1.2) of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings". Sreesanth has been fined 10 per cent of his match fee.Sreesanth accepted the decision without contest, there was no need for a hearing."

Case 2: Australia v Zimbabwe, 21st Feb, Ahmedabad

"Roshan Mahanama of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees charged Australia captain Ricky Ponting after an incident was brought to the ICC's attention through the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the Gujarat Cricket Association. He was found to have breached clause 2.1.2 of the code which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". The charge was brought by the chairman of the Event Technical Committee David Richardson on behalf of the ICC Chief Executive, in accordance with the regulations. The incident occurred shortly after Ponting was run out in the match when he caused some damage to a television set in the team dressing room. The damage occurred when he threw down a piece of equipment which bounced off his kit bag and hit the corner of the television. Action: Ponting accepted the Level 1 charge and the proposed sanction. He was officially reprimanded. As Ponting accepted the offence and the proposed sanction, there was no need to convene a formal hearing. Level 1 offences carry penalties ranging from an official reprimand to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 3: India v England, 27th Feb, Bengaluru

"The incident took place on the last ball of the 49th over when Tim Bresnan, after he was clean bowled by Piyush Chawla, hit the stumps with his bat. Bresnan pleaded guilty to contravening Level 1 offence (Section 2.1.2) of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Billy Bowden and Marais Erasmus, third umpire Rod Tucker and fourth umpire Aleem Dar who are all from the Emirates Elite panel of ICC Umpires. Action: As Bresnan accepted the decision without contest, there was no need for a hearing. All Level 1 breaches carry a minimum penalty of an official reprimand and/or a maximum penalty of the imposition of a fine up to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 4: Bangladesh v England, 12th Mar, Chittagong

"England off-spinner Graeme Swann was charged with a Level 1 offence under article 2.1.4 of the code which relates to, 'Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match.' The charge was brought by on-field umpires Rod Tucker and Daryl Harper and third umpire Aleem Dar, all from the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Umpires. Action: Swann pleaded guilty to the charge and as such, under the provisions of the code, the matter was determined by Jeff Crowe of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees and so there was no requirement for a full hearing. Swann was charged with a Level 1 offence under article 2.1.4 of the code which relates to, 'Using language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match.' He was fined 10 per cent of his match fees."

Case 5: England v Sri Lanka, 2-6 June, Lord's

"England wicketkeeper Matt Prior was reprimanded for breaching the ICC Code of Conduct during his team's Test match against Sri Lanka at Lord's. He was found to have breached clause 2.1.2 of the code which relates to "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Billy Doctrove and Rod Tucker as well as third umpire Aleem Dar and fourth official Richard Illingworth. The incident occurred shortly after Prior was run out in the match when his actions caused the window to break. Action: Prior accepted the Level 1 charge and the proposed sanction from Javagal Srinath of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees after an incident where a window was broken in the England team dressingroom. As Prior accepted the offence and the proposed sanction, there was no need to convene a formal hearing. Level 1 offences carry penalties ranging from an official reprimand to 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 6: West Indies v India, 20-24 June, Kingston, Jamaica

"India spinner Amit Mishra has been fined 10 per cent of his match fee for a Level 1 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during his team's first Test against the West Indies in Jamaica. Mishra was found to have breached Article 2.1.3 of the code which relates to "showing dissent at an umpire's decision by action or verbal abuse". The charge was brought by on-field umpires Ian Gould and Daryl Harper as well as third umpire Norman Malcolm. Action: After play concluded on day two, the player accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Jeff Crowe of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees. All Level 1 breaches carry a minimum penalty of an official reprimand and a maximum penalty of 50 per cent of a player's match fee."

Case 7: England v India, 29 July-2 August, Nottingham

"India bowler Praveen Kumar has been fined 20 per cent of his match fee after pleading guilty to a Level 1 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during England's innings on the first day of the second Test at Trent Bridge, Nottingham. The charge related to an incident at the end of the 18th over of the day during which Kumar had an appeal for leg before wicket against England batsman Kevin Pietersen turned down and at the end of the over he then engaged in a debate with umpire Marais Erasmus about the decision. Action: Kumar was found to have breached Article 2.1.3 of the code which relates to arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the umpire about his decision. After play concluded for the day, the player admitted the offence and accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Ranjan Madugalle the chief referee of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees. As such, there was no need for a formal hearing. The charge had been laid by the on-field umpires Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus and third umpire Billy Bowden of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Umpires as well as fourth umpire Tim Robinson."

Case 8: England v India, 29 July-2 August, Nottingham (Source)

"Graeme Swann has been reprimanded for a level one breach of the ICC Code of Conduct during the second day of the second Test match between England and India at Trent Bridge. Swann was found to have breached Article 2.1.2 of the code which relates to abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match. After play concluded, the player admitted the offence and accepted the proposed sanction offered to him by Ranjan Madugalle, the chief referee of the Emirates elite panel of ICC match referees. As such, there was no need for a formal hearing. The charge had been laid by the on-field umpires, Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus, as well as third umpire Billy Bowden, of the Emirates elite panel of ICC umpires, and fourth umpire Tim Robinson. The charge related to an incident at the end of the 80th over of the India innings when the England bowler kicked the stumps in frustration and dislodged the bails. He immediately apologised to the on-field umpires for his actions."

Now, here are a few points to note:

1. Sreesanth (Case 1), Ponting (Case 2), Bresnan (Case 3), Prior (Case 5) and Swann (Case 8) were all pulled up for the same offence, i.e. "abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings during an international match". Ponting, Bresnan, Prior and Swann were reprimanded. Sreesanth was fined 10% of his match fees. And though this isn't necessary, I should mention that kicking a boundary rope does not result in as much monetary damage as breaking a television or a window.

2. Mishra (Case 6) and Kumar (Case 7) were fined 10% and 20% of their match fees respectively for breaching Article 2.1.3. The Article 2.1.3 includes (pdf):

"(a) excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision; (b) an obvious delay in resuming play or leaving the wicket; (c) shaking the head; (d) pointing or looking at the inside edge when given out lbw; (e) pointing to the pad or rubbing the shoulder when caught behind; (f) snatching the cap from the Umpire; (g) requesting a referral to the TV Umpire (other than in the context of a legitimate request for a referral as may be permitted in such International Match); and (h) arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision. It shall not be a defence to any charge brought under this Article to show that the Umpire might have, or in fact did, get any decision wrong."

Given what Stuart Broad did on Day 5 of the 1st Test of this series at Lord's, I wonder why that was not classified in clauses (a) and (h) of the above-mentioned Article. Sitting on haunches after an appeal is turned down should easily classify as "excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision" and slipping in a word to the umpire at the end of that over / start of next over about that decision should classify as "arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his decision". Broad might want to argue that it was not an argument or a prolonged discussion, but if he is talking more than the umpire (for his lips seemed to move more than Billy Bowden's), it is "arguing"; and if that discussion continues at the end of the over, it is a "prolonged discussion".

3. As per Article 7.3 of the ICC Code of Conduct (pdf), if a Level 1 Offence is committed for the second time within a span of 12 months, then the penalty shall be "the imposition of a fine of between 50-100% of the applicable Match Fee and/or two (2) Suspension Points."

Swann was charged of a Level 1 offence (Case 4) on 12th March 2011. Only 4 months and 18 days have passed since that occasion and Swann has been charged with another Level 1 offence (Case 8). So why was he just reprimanded and not fined 50% of his match fees, which is the minimum penalty to be imposed.

And if my aforesaid argument of Broad's behaviour in the 1st Test holds good, then he too should have faced strict sanctions since he has already been pulled up and fined 50% of his match fees for a Level 2 offence on 1st July 2011, merely 29 days ago! Given that the earlier offence was Level 2, I daresay that he should have missed the current Test match at Nottingham!

THE WALL STANDS 15 YEARS TALL

When Rahul Dravid starts his 151st Test match in a few hours from now at Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica, he will be doing so on the day he completes 15 years in international cricket.

On 20th June 1996, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly walked out to the cricket field as India's 206th and 207th Test players. Incidentally, it was also the last Test match of the great umpire Dickie Bird! Ganguly got his chance to bat on 21st June in the evening, but Dravid had to wait till the next day.

When he did get his chance, he fell agonisingly short of a Test century on debut at the Lord's cricket ground. Kumble recalls that Dravid was disappointed at having missed that hundred, and hopes he gets a Lord's hundred when India tours England next month.

But next month is way too far ahead. It is today (or tonight as per Indian time zone) that is a great moment. It would be fitting if he were to get a 100 to mark this day.

A lot of words have been written about him, his match-winning knocks, his attitude, determination and what not! I will never be able to match the cricket writers who have showered him with all the duly deserved poetic praises, much like his batting when in full flow... but in my own small way, I want to salute a great servant of Indian cricket!

He may not have a lot more time left to play for India... and his batting now may not be what it was once... but his contribution to Indian cricket shall never be forgotten. After winning the World Cup, Dhoni remarked in his press conference about the contribution made to the team by the former players like Kumble, Ganguly and Dravid. In a way, it was a salute to a remarkable generation of cricketers that India is unlikely to ever see again, and Rahul Dravid was a big part of it!

Not a lot of people got up this morning knowing that this day marks 15 years of Rahul Dravid's international cricket career, and a number of them may even sleep tonight without realising it. It's been like this throughout his career. Most of his accomplishments have come quietly. And quietly yet again, Rahul Sharad Dravid will take guard in Sabina Park...

SACHIN TENDULKAR'S AJMAL MOMENTS

When Ian Gould had to reverse his LBW decision of Sachin Tendulkar off Saeed Ajmal's bowling, he looked quite miffed. I don't blame him - it was the first time in this entire World Cup that an Ian Gould decision had been reviewed and reversed. This now leaves only two umpires with clean records - one controversial and the other absolutely spotless. The controversial clean record is held by Billy Bowden (read Ian Bell) and the spotlessly clean record is held by Aleem Dar - that man is as good as the latest piece of technology available!

Tendulkar was very very lucky to survive that LBW call. Have a look:

Had even a little bit of that ball made contact with the leg stump, Tendulkar would have been out for 23. That distance between the ball and the leg stump was just about 1 centimeter (my approximation technique tells me it was about 11.2 millimeters). Phew!

Later on, it became more and more clear that Sachin Tendulkar survived because he was destined to, even if he tried his best to change the course of destiny! He admitted later that such a thing (5 chances) had never happened to him ever before. And trust me, it is unlikely to happen ever again!

The ball immediately after this LBW appeal was masterfully bowled by Ajmal. While the earlier ball was an off spinner that Tendulkar had played across the line to and missed, he now bowled a doosra that Tendulkar failed to pick and was almost stumped (again saved by similar margins)! But I have a problem with Ajmal's doosra.

For long I have felt that most doosras are clear cases of 'chucking', and in Ajmal's case, it is very very apparent. I do not know how the ICC calculates the 15 degree margin, and which point is taken as the axis, but here's what I saw and made of it.

The first image below is the delivery stride of Ajmal on that stumping appeal (doosra). The second image is the same as the first one, worked on a little by me.

Assuming ICC uses a similar methodology to measure the 15 degrees elbow bending rule (with obviously a lot more sophisticated and accurate technology), I am sure they will find that this one clearly exceeds the limit. I don't know what is the exact measure of the angle made by the red lines in the second image, but I will tell you this - if that angle is less than 15 degrees, then I am ready to jump off a 10-floor building!

I hope ICC cracks down on this increasing violation of the 15 degree bending rule. Johan Botha's doosra had been banned for some time, and I am sure that if ICC look into Ajmal's action closely, then they might well have a case to ban not only his doosra, but also his pehla!

WANKHEDE STADIUM, MUMBAI

The failed light tower

The Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai is getting ready to host the Finals of ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 on 2nd April 2011. We have been reading about tightening security, lack of tickets, Haroon Lorgat's comments about why Wankhede Stadium was chosen, speculation of who will eventually play there and so on.

Amidst all this, one concern that I have not read or heard much about was the fact that one of the light towers during the New Zealand v. Sri Lanka match at that stadium had met with power failure. The match continued as the umpires deemed that the light from the rest of the towers was good enough, which is commendable. However, such a fiasco will not be seen in good light again if it happens in the World Cup Finals.

A few days back, I got a link to this interview of Mr. Sudhir Naik (the pitch curator of Wankhede Stadium) uploaded as a podcast (via @grangergabblog). Here, he addresses the concern about the failing light tower, and also touches on other interesting bit about the kind of surface he will prepare for the Finals, especially if India makes it till there. It is an interesting interview, and you must listen to it if you have not already done so.

FINALLY, AN ICC DECISION WORTH APPRECIATION

For a good part of last two months, I have been getting more and more incensed by some of the decisions taken by ICC. The 10-team World Cup for 2015, defending Billy Bowden's decision of Bell non-LBW, then changing the UDRS rules again, reprimanding William Porterfield for public criticism and not acting against Graeme Swann for his share of public criticism after he had already been fined for swearing at the umpire!

But finally, ICC has taken a decision that I can support. They have decided to drop Ashoka de Silva as an umpire for some of the crucial matches coming up, and relocated him to the dead rubbers remaining. So whereas earlier he was scheduled to stand in England v. West Indies and sit as a third umpire in India v. West Indies matches, he will now stand in the Zimbabwe v. Kenya match and be the fourth official during Ireland v. Netherlands game. (Report)

Ashoka de Silva has given some shockers in this World Cup, and though some of them have been corrected by UDRS, that did not stop him from giving a howler even with the help of UDRS. I have already stated that I consider him the least elite of ICC's Elite Panel of Umpires and frankly, do not find him competent enough to be a part of it.

However, wrapped in this news was something unusual. In that news report, ICC has listed a certain Tyron Wijewardene as the third umpire for the Australia v. Pakistan match. I wonder how does he end up having this job without having officiated in a single match so far in this World Cup. We are coming to the end of league stages and an umpire who has not yet been a part of the World Cup will be officiating as a third umpire in a match between two heavyweights that would potentially decide the group toppers! WEIRD!

Oh well, I am again coming to terms with the fact that there is hardly going to be a single decision taken by the ICC that I will completely agree to! Maybe, I should run it one day... at least, that would help me avoid disagreements with myself!

ANOTHER UDRS BLUNDER

A lot of people believe that Ashoka de Silva is the least elite amongst the ICC's Elite Panel of umpires. How he is deemed to be competent enough to officiate in a tournament as prestigious as a World Cup remains a mystery to many. In today's Ireland v. West Indies game at Mohali, he gave a howler (despite having used DRS) so large that it would have made Billy Bowden look a genius!

At 41.3 overs, Ireland were 199 for 5, requiring another 77 runs to beat the West Indians off 51 balls. Gary Wilson, batting on 61 off 61 balls was on strike, accompanied by a newly-in Alex Cusack. Despite having lost a couple of quick wickets, Ireland were in with more than a decent shot at the victory target. West Indian captain Darren Sammy was bowling... and on his next ball, Ashoka de Silva virtually decided the game in favour of West Indies.

A back-of-a-length off-cutter struck Wilson on his front pad as he was late in getting his bat down to guide the ball towards third man. When the ball struck his pad, his bat was behind the pad and came down later to meet the ball as it rolled to the left of the point fielder. As Wilson set for a single, Sammy appealed for an LBW decision and saw Ashoka de Silva raise his finger. Wilson immediately called for a review. Now have a look at the sequence of images below:

One look at just the three images, and any person who knows a little bit about the UDRS and the laws of LBW will immediately say that the umpire should reverse his decision. However, Ashoka de Silva decided to go with his original decision because allegedly, he believed that the batsman had not offered a shot to that delivery. What rubbish!

How does a man who is batting on 61 with a strike rate of 100 play a non-shot when his team needs more than 8 runs an over to win the game! Forget the situation of the match. Just read what the Irish skipper William Porterfield had to say about this: "The word we are getting at the minute is the umpire went back upstairs to check if he hit the ball before the impact on the pad and if it was pad first, or bat first. Surely if you are asking if it was pad first or bat first, you know he is playing a shot. In my opinion they got it wrong."

Simple logic that puts the argument to rest! If the umpire wants to see three replays to determine whether it is pad first or bat first, then there should be no doubt that a shot was attempted. Forget the fact that it was clearly a shot being attempted as Wilson tried to run it down to the third man... just ask yourself when do you say that no shot has been attempted. In my opinion, where the bat makes no deliberate attempt to make contact with the ball and does not make contact with the ball, one can say that no shot was attempted.

With the images, over the video footage and by Porterfield's crystal clear logic, I think it is very easy to conclude that a shot was clearly attempted on that ball. Yet when the umpire decided to rule it out with the commentators claiming that it must have been because of a non-attempt at a shot, my mind wandered off in search of some other explanation. And this is what it came up with...

I believe that the moment Ashoka de Silva saw the yellow light saying "Wickets: On Field Call", he presumed that his call will stand. He didn't bother to use his brain and see that when there is a clear green light saying "Impact: Outside", it should be Not Out regardless of the original decision. I believe that he had trained his mind into thinking that every time a yellow light saying "On Field Call" is displayed, he will not be required to reverse his decision, irrespective of whether there are other red or green lights!

I purposely placed three images up there in this post. I'll explain why. In my view, if the ball is pitched outside the line of leg stump, the review should stop there and the path of the ball should not be shown further ahead by the broadcaster to make it absolutely clear that it is a Not Out call.

Where it pitches in line or outside off, but the impact is not within line, again the broadcaster should stop right there (like in the first image). Now here, if the umpire feels that the batsman has not offered a shot, then he should request the broadcaster to continue with the projection... or else, the decision is made. At least, this will ensure that the viewers will know for certain that the umpire was genuinely in doubt of a shot being offered rather than some other reason!

I have a feeling that had the broadcaster restricted his projection till the first image instead of going on till the second image, Gary Wilson may well have survived. I know I am questioning the aptitude of Ashoka de Silva and might even be a bit biased against him, but then I cannot help it for a man who has had all 4 DRS reviews against him (before this match) in this tournament overturned and then comes up with this shocker deserves no less, in my opinion!

And if you look at the third image, you might well say that the decision should have been "Not Out" even with the naked eye. That ball is barely clipping the outside of the off stump as per Hawk Eye! Even if it were striking in line, most umpires would have given that Not Out and called right for their decision. How he gave this to the bowler casts a doubt over his umpiring abilities!

UDRS 2.5 M RULE - CRITICISM AND SUGGESTION

First and foremost, I am sorry but this is a pretty long and detailed post... and will also be a little repetitive to the readers who have read my previous post on UDRS. But this one is more comprehensive and includes a suggestion for improvement at the end, on which I'd like you all to comment.

In one of my earlier posts on UDRS which I put up after the end of the India v. England World Cup match due to the Ian Bell reprieve (yes, I call it a ‘reprieve’), I received a few comments where the basic question that everyone was trying to seek an answer to was why Billy Bowden could have ruled it not out. 

This UDRS debate has raged on and gotten bigger now with Dhoni calling it as “an adulteration” of technology with human judgement, and then ICC coming out with an explanation defending that decision, followed by Haroon Lorgat (ICC Chief Executive) and Dave Richardson (ICC General Manager) too lending support to that decision and the rule of 2.5 metres (distance between the stumps and the point of impact) and 40 centimetres (distance between the point of impact and the point where the ball pitches). 

I have already explained in the earlier post about how the 2.5 metre rule makes the UDRS partly-redundant. I will re-explain that point here again and also suggest and alternative that, in my view, be a much better solution in respect of the ball-tracking technology (Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye). 

Wordings of the actual rule {Appendix 5, Clause 3.3, Sub-clause i (iii)}

"If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is hitting the stumps, the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball would have hit the stumps within an area demarcated by a line drawn below the lower edge of the bails and down the middle of the outer stumps.

However, in instances where the evidence shows that the ball would have hit the stumps within the demarcated area as set out above but that the point of impact is greater than 250 cm from the stumps, the third umpire shall notify the on-field umpire of:
a) The distance from the wickets to the point of impact with the batsman
b) The approximate distance from point of pitching to point of impact
c) Where the ball is predicted to hit the stumps.

In such a case, the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision."

How UDRS becomes partly-redundant 

With this 2.5 metre rule, the UDRS becomes completely redundant for a fielding captain when a batsman lunges forward more than 2.5 metres. Where there is an appeal for LBW denied with the batsman so far ahead, the fielding captain shall be averse to go in for a review no matter how plumb it looks. This is because the umpire can always go with his original decision even if the review shows all three criteria (pitching, impact and hitting the stumps) as red, simply because the batsman was lunging a long way forward and the ground umpire can cite that as a reason to not reverse his decision. 

Had the impact been 2.49 metres in front of the stumps, the umpire would HAVE HAD TO reverse his decision and rule the batsman out. But because the batsman was 2.51 metres ahead, the umpire gets AN OPTION to stick by his original decision. I am sure 2 centimetres wouldn’t have made that big a difference in the decision. 

If you like it, then lets have a hypothetical situation. Imagine Lasith Malinga or Mitchell Johnson bowling to Kevin Pietersen or Matthew Hayden (I know he’s retired, but we can always imagine!). These two bowlers, because of their slinging actions, release the ball from right on top of the stumps (when they are bowling over the wickets, of course!) and these two batsmen like to stand outside their crease even to fast bowlers and usually get a HUGE stride forward as a result of their lengthy frames. 

If Malinga / Johnson were to bowl straight and full and strike the front pad of Hayden / Pietersen and the umpire were to rule not out to an LBW appeal, the fielding captain should not even contemplate a review if the batsman in question was struck on the front foot. Even if the ball pitches on off stump, impact is on middle stump and the ball-tracking technology suggests that the ball would have gone to hit between middle and leg stump half-way up, the umpire would still have AN OPTION TO RULE NOT OUT… simply because of that big stride. What’s the use of those Malinga yorkers then! 

Why this rule 

In Haroon Lorgat’s own words, “The rules were designed with serious thoughts in mind. That particular one [pertaining to the 2.5m rule] was to accommodate the scepticism that some players have got with predictive technology.” 

Another quote from that Cricinfo article – 

"What we have been trying to avoid because of the DRS is the absolute shocker. Umpires will acknowledge this and they are happy with the system. They can go to sleep at night knowing that had they made that one mistake, it can be rectified. That would not have happened without DRS."

The rule about the distance between impact and the stumps had been put in place precisely because experts had said that the accuracy of the ball tracker - in this case Hawk Eye - begins to falter from that point. "So we said if it's a longer time frame than 2.5m, and people say the prediction cannot be relied upon, then we are allowing the umpire (to take his decision)."

Dhoni had asked why the mark had not been stipulated at 2.4, or 2.6m, and Lorgat said that while, "You can call a mark wherever you want to, where Dhoni was saying 2.4 and 2.6, whatever, call it whatever you wish... it was the experts' views that had been taking into account by the ICC. From the experts' point of view, they said beyond 2.5m, beyond a longer stretch than that, you rely on the umpire." 

The absurdity 

In Lorgat’s own words, where the prediction becomes even tougher for the technology (after 2.5 metres), they are leaving it to the human judgement. Usually, technology is used in any field to assist people when it becomes difficult to use human element. Here, human element is being used when it is becoming difficult for technology! 

My suggestion to make it more acceptable 

I admit that over a longer distance, the predictive element of the technology will become less accurate. However, to set a rigid marker like 2.5 metres is incorrect… as I have shown in an example above where 2 centimetres between 2.49 metres and 2.51 metres can impact the result of a match! 

Instead, what I would like to see is that the companies who manufacture this technology (Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye) should include this element of uncertainty and inaccuracy in their predictive path. In other words, when the tracker is being shown on the television replay, the ball path predicted after the impact should continuously grow larger in radius as it progresses towards the stumps. This will enable the umpires to judge a lot more accurately about the probability that the ball would have hit the stumps. 

The circular area depicted in red around the ball is an addition made by me in an attempt to portray how the area of inaccuracy / uncertainty can be depicted over television replays.

I have taken this screenshot above from Cricinfo’s Hawk Eye application. This is the ball path of Graeme Smith’s LBW dismissal to Zaheer Khan during the first innings of the Third Test recently in January 2011. As I have illustrated above, let the technology show up its area of inaccuracy / uncertainty (whichever term they may want to use), so that we know with absolute certainty that the ball could not have hit outside this area. I have highlighted that with a red circle around the ball.

Here, we know now that larger the distance between the point of impact and the stumps, the bigger will be its area of inaccuracy / uncertainty. Now the umpire will get all the information required that is required for as-accurate-as-possible decision-making, i.e. (a) he shall know what is the most probable path the ball will take, (b) if not that path, then where and how much can the ball deviate, and (c) most importantly, how much percentage of that area is making impact with the stumps.

Where more than 50% of the area of inaccuracy / uncertainty is making impact with the stumps, the batsman should be ruled out (obviously assuming that other conditions are satisfied as well). I am sure that Yuvraj Singh would have earned the dismissal of Ian Bell if we were to follow this methodology of predicting ball paths.

For one, Yuvraj was bowling around the wicket and since Hawk Eye showed that impact was on the off stump, it is obvious that the ball couldn’t have missed off stump as Yuvraj hardly turned that ball… it just straightened very little. It definitely wouldn’t have climbed over the stumps on any sub-continental track. And I am sure it wouldn’t have missed leg stump as well, because the Hawk Eye showed impact between middle and off stumps… so even if the area of inaccuracy / uncertainty were to be very large, there would be no way that it would exceed the leg stump by a margin so huge that even 50% of it would not be deemed within the stumps.

Conclusion

So firstly, ICC should reconsider their rules and usages of technology… because till they don’t get it as right as possible, they cannot shirk away from criticism. Secondly, they should admit that the decision from Billy Bowden was wrong simply because he failed to apply common sense in that decision, which I have applied in the previous paragraph. And thirdly, they should set standards on this type of decision-making… for there have been cases in the past where similar Not Out decisions by the on-field umpires were overturned on review despite the impact being more than 2.5 metres out!

Case 1: Here is the video link of Tim Paine (Aus) being dismissed LBW by Liam Plunkett (Eng) at Perth (out of all places) on 6th February 2011 (7th match of the recently concluded ODI series), as a result of umpire Paul Reiffel overturning his original Not Out decision on review by the English captain, Andrew Strauss (watch the portion between 4:15 and 7:20)!

Case 2: Here is the video link of Shane Watson (Aus) being dismissed LBW by Graeme Cremer (Zim) at Ahmedabad on 21st February 2011 (4th match of the ICC World Cup 2011), as a result of umpire Richard Kettleborough overturning his original Not Out decision on review by the Zimbabwean captain, Elton Chigumbura (watch the portion between 3:03 and 3:48)!

UDRS: UMPIRE'S DAFTNESS RECORDING SYSTEM

The title has made it obvious what this is about. I was confused for a moment when Billy Bowden signaled Ian Bell not out on that ball off Yuvraj Singh. I thought that Billy must have made a mistake and will raise his crooked finger soon... because Bell was already walking off. Then he called Bell back and the Indian fielders surrounded him to ask whether it was something they didn't know about or whether his head was not in his place! It turned out to be the latter...

I attribute that one moment as the reason why England were able to tie the game that was India's for the taking. Andrew Strauss batted like a dream... but a chase such as that is possible only with partnerships. And Ian Bell was his partner in what could have been a match-clinching partnership, which shouldn't have been so long but for Billy Bowden.

The 2.5 metre rule of UDRS is as ridiculous as any rule I have come across. And I don't get it why the law makers did not see how absurd it is when they framed it. Do they not run simulations to check whether the rule has any bad effects? In this case, the 2.5 metre rule only has the wrong effects. Here's why...

If that rule is implemented the way it was implemented today, there is no point in asking for reviewing a leg before decision by a fielding captain when someone like Kevin Pietersen is batting. Because even if the ball pitches on middle (RED), impact is on middle (RED) and goes on to strike the middle of middle (RED), the decision will always have to be not out because the umpire's original decision was not out as Pietersen plays his game a long way in front of the stumps.

In short, the moment a batsman comes more than 2.5 metres from the stumps, the UDRS becomes redundant... because no matter how plumb it looks, the ground umpire's original Not Out call will stand. In a way, insertion of this clause of 2.5 metre in the UDRS rule seems to have changed the law of Leg Before Wicket itself. UDRS was introduced to assist with LBW decisions, not to change the law of LBW!

From what I understand, this 2.5 metre guideline has been inserted because the makers of this technology believe that if the ball has to travel more than 2.5 metres after impact, its ball projection accuracy reduces. Fair point. They have claimed that their technology is not perfect and I have no problem with that!

But they say that the accuracy reduces... it does not say that accuracy goes down to zero. In such a case as was played out today, where the ball was striking half way up between the middle and off... even if we consider that the path projection may not have been completely accurate, it seemed obvious that the ball would still have hit the stumps.

It might have been on the off stump or on the middle stump... it might have been a little higher or a little lower... but there was no way on earth that that particular ball would have done anything but hit the stumps had Ian Bell not existed. In such scenarios, it pains me to see that the umpires (both ground umpire and the third umpire) do not make use of their common sense and grey cells to make the decision. This one was a very daft piece of decision-making on display today.

The purpose of UDRS is to implement a technology that assists the umpires... and not replaces them! If the 2.5 metre guideline is going to be a decisive rule, then as I said earlier, for a batsman like Kevin Pietersen, UDRS becomes redundant. However, had the 2.5 metre guideline been used as a suggestive rule, then not only would Ian Bell have been dismissed and the result of this match possibly different, but the UDRS would also have has a lot more credibility. It would certainly need some now!

PONTING SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH A LEVEL 1 OFFENCE

Might once again get away without punishment

It is all over the news that Ricky Ponting reportedly smashed the glass of the LCD TV in the Australian team's dressing room after watching the replay of his run out dismissal during their first World Cup 2011 game against Zimbabwe on February 21, 2011 at Ahmedabad.

We all know that this is not the first time that Ponting has been involved in an act that is not worthy of a sportsman, let alone the captain of the three-time defending champions! His most recent tryst with ICC's Code of Conduct was when he was involved in a heated argument with Aleem Dar during the Ashes 2010-11 after the third umpire upheld the ground umpire's decision to rule Kevin Pietersen not out. He was fined 40% of his match fees back then... a punishment too light, in my opinion.

But the media reports suggest that Ponting might well get away with his glass-breaking act this time. Reports state that Ponting apologised for this incident and claimed that it was an accident and not an intentional act of smashing the glass on the TV set. The Australian media manager has also claimed that the glass has not been shattered, but just a corner of the screen has suffered a blackout due to unintentional impact with Ponting's box, which flew up to the screen as he threw it into his kit bag.

Whatever the case may be, the possibility that Ricky Ponting will get away with his apology is a depressing news to hear. I have never been a fan of Ricky Ponting's behaviour on the cricket field... and even though this act came in the dressing room, it was a direct result of what happened in the field.

I will be very surprised if eventually, Ponting escapes with no punishment for his act. Ayaz Menon tweeted that while ICC may be able to frame codes to regulate the players' conduct on the field, there isn't much that can be done for what happens in the change rooms. But he is wrong here.

Level 1 Point 1.2 offence in the ICC Code of Conduct is defined as "Abuse of cricket equipment or clothing, ground equipment or fixtures and fittings."

Isn't the television in the dressing room a part of the ground equipments? Matthew Hayden had been charged with this offence and fined accordingly when he had broken a piece of glass in his team's dressing room after his dismissal during the 5th Ashes Test at Sydney in January 2003. Why isn't Ponting being charged with a similar offence?

At the risk of sounding like a frustrated Asian ranting out against the Aussies, I have to pose a question for the readers to ponder - had Sreesanth broken the glass of the LCD TV in the dressing room after his bad spell of bowling against Bangladesh and then apologised, would he have been let off?

A NEW IDEA FOR UDRS

There has been a bit of debate going on in the blogosphere about the way UDRS is being implemented. Kartikeya makes a few very valid points here about the flawed execution of this Decision Improvement mechanism.

So, thinking about UDRS, I came up with an idea... it is not the perfect solution, but just an idea that can be looked at. Kartikeya has summarised UDRS as: "Umpires can make mistakes, and since this is so, we will allow players to make at most two mistakes in an effort to correct the umpires' mistakes."

The Michael Hussey plumb-LBW-that-was-given-not-out also pointed out the fact that howlers have not been eradicated as of yet. I had mentioned once a few months back that howlers from a match where UDRS is implemented leaves a lot more bitter taste in the mouth than howlers from match where the umpiring is left to human beings. The on-field umpires can walk up to the players at the end of the day and apologise... but Hot Spot and Snicko cannot do so.

Some bloggers suggest that it should be left to the umpires as to when to use the help of technology in decision-making and that players should not be allowed to challenge the umpires and in effect, undermine their authority. But then just 2 unsuccessful reviews in one innings is a bit of a farce. In tennis, each player is allowed 3 unsuccessful challenges in a set that barely lasts over an hour at max. If they enter a tie-breaker, they receive an additional challenge each. If the tie-breaker reaches 6-6 or 12-12 or such further scores, they again receive an additional challenge each. Where there is no tie-breaker (in the deciding sets), the challenges are reset to 3 apiece every time the set score reads 6 games each or 12 games each or such further scores. So to allow only 2 unsuccessful reviews in an innings that usually lasts for more than a day (about 10 hours usually on flat pitches) is a pity.

So I thought of a way to counter this problem. Here's my line of thought... allow unlimited reviews. But there is obviously a catch. Every time a fielding team makes an unsuccessful review, 5 penalty runs shall be awarded as extras to the batting side.

This may become unfair sometimes when the calls are very close and the final decision is the original umpire's decision... for example, when the ball is just clipping the stumps or has just pitched in line of the leg stump. In such cases, where the reviews can be justified as genuine, the penalty can be waived... but where the technology shows that it was a clear not out decision, the call for review should be considered a time-wasting strategy that shall be punished with 5 penalty runs to the opposition.

But what about when a batting team gets a review wrong? I first thought of deducting 5 runs as penalty. But we cannot have a situation where a team is minus 5 for 1. That wouldn't do! So I thought of this... when a batting team gets it wrong, do nothing. I will explain why.

When a batting team makes an unsuccessful review, it means that they have just lost a wicket. Why punish them further in such a scenario? There can at max be only 10 unsuccessful reviews by a batting team in every innings... and it is a very unlikely situation where there will actually be 10. Not all the wickets to fall are going to be LBWs or close caught-behinds. There will be some other obvious dismissals. So even if we say that a batting team makes 5 unsuccessful reviews in an innings, I really wouldn't mind the interruptions if the flip side is that the howlers in every game are being reduced to zero.

In this idea, it is still left upto the players to decide when to use UDRS, so the method of questioning the umpire's decision continues, but it at least ensures that a Michael Hussey-like situation is avoided. There may be some loopholes in my idea (there are bound to be as I am half asleep as I think of it and type it)... but I am sure you guys can come up with your own ideas to fill the cracks of replace my idea completely.


P.S.: One of the reason why I continued with the methodology of players calling for the Review (and not umpires using it on their own initiative) is that we all saw what happened in the 2005 ICC Super Series in Australia when the umpires used technology for decision-making. In my opinion, it was a flawed system... and that's why I prefer this system where the players can decide when to use the technology.

MOHALI 2010... EVOKING MEMORIES OF EDGBASTON 2005

Over 4 and a half days - 28 hours and 10 minutes of enthralling cricket... after watching the Fates tilt their heads this way and then that... after watching men battle physical barriers of their injured bodies as well as thwarting the opposition every time they threatened to go one better... after watching myriad emotions etched on the faces of different men at different stages of the match... I am left a satisfied being

It was Test cricket at its very best, and this match ranks up amongst the very best there have been. Amongst the matches involving India, this one was the most thrilling finish to a Test match in my living memory. Kolkata 2001 and Chennai 2001 against the same opposition from Down Under do come close, as more than 2 results were possible on both those occasions as well till the very end. But this one takes the honour for me.

I know the Tied Test of Madras 1986 (again versus Australia) was brilliant... but that does not constitute as my living memory... you see, I was born a couple of years after that.

Australia have played Edgbaston 2005 against their Ashes rivals England... and they have had some thrilling draws as well against the same opposition. But for the Indian fan in me, this was a treat.

All through Day 5, my head kept going back to the great England - Australia battle at Edgbaston in 2005, where the heroics of Brett Lee and Michael Kasprowicz almost stole the Test from England before Steve Harmison and Geriant Jones combined to create a moment etched in history.

This match was a little different though. At Edgbaston, England were clearly the team on top through majority of the Test match. Australia came fighting back only on Day 5 to reduce the gap to 2 runs. At Mohali 2010, the two teams were involved in a very equal battle... and no side could claim to be absolutely on top of the other at any point in time through the Test. Some sessions were won by India and some by Australia, but a high number of them were in the grey areas... neither mine nor yours!

There were many moments today that were extremely special... and some of them will remain vividly clear in my memory for a long time to come. Laxman getting animatedly angry at Ojha and mouthing a few colourful expletives that I'd thought he didn't even know, the pain on Ishant's face as he was trudging off after being ruled out by Ian Gould, the horrific mix-up between Dhoni and Raina that resulted in the former being run out, the pumped up reactions of the Aussie outfit when Tendulkar's attempted upper cut ended up into the hands of Hussey at gully, Ojha's leg byes that sealed a win... oh, and there were many more!

In the end, it panned out just as Laxman had said earlier - that the Aussies don't give you an inch. And they didn't... or at least, till Marcus North's Steven Smith's (thank you, Elegantstroke for the correction) overthrow that gave India the match.

SYNOPSIS OF DAY 4 AT MOHALI

Wow, what a brilliant Test match we are having! The last Test played in India was the 2nd India - South Africa Test at the Eden Gardens, Kolkata. And now this one! Test match cricket is alive and kicking, biting, turning and doing all sorts of things even in India...

Today (Day 4) was the best day in this test so far... I love days that see heaps of wickets falling... and 14 was more than I bargained for last night!

When Watson began the attack this morning, it was good to watch. I think that innings shows, more than anything else, that scoring is still not too difficult on this pitch if the batsmen are looking to score. If they get bogged down, it will be extremely difficult.

Ishant's match-turning over was exhilarating to watch. Watson's wicket was gifted, not earned. And then Ponting and almost Clarke. What can I say about Ricky Ponting. In the lead up to this series, there was a slightly subdued talk about Ponting's new ailment called the 'short ball'. Subdued because short pitched stuff in Indian conditions was very unlikely to trouble a puller of the caliber of Ricky Ponting. But if Ponting is so keen to trouble himself with that shot, then so be it.

Tendulkar loves his cover drives and punches through the off side. They are the biggest run-generators for him. But he gave them all up in Sydney 2004 because they were letting him down. Once his confidence was restored, they were back. Ponting, who saw Tendulkar play that innings, should have learnt his lessons by now. Its not as if Ponting does not have any other shot in his repertoire... he has more than most other batsmen around. If only he could use them judiciously, he would increase his Test career by 2 years at least... that's a guarantee!

The second session was also panning out nicely before we saw an Ian-Gould-howler! Harbhajan should have been embarrassed to even appeal for it... instead, we had Mr. Gould raising his finger. Katich and Hussey had added 16 in 6.4 overs and were looking good... but after that, the next 5 wickets went down for just 38 runs in 13.4 overs. Target 216.

A tricky target... but manageable. And then came the second howler of the day - this time from the crooked finger of Billy Bowden. If anything, this was an even bigger howler than the first one. The big edge and the ball going outside off... what on earth was Bill thinking! Ben Hilfenhaus then bowled an inspired spell to skittle out a few more... and India ended at 55 - 4 with Sachin on 10* and Zaheer on 5*.

Oh man, I just can't wait for the Day 5 to commence. Though most believe that the balance is tilted towards Australia today, I still feel that India is not too far behind. The key is the fact that there are only 161 more runs to go. Two expensive overs tomorrow and Ponting will be forced to spread out his field a little... it may happen even earlier since he is known to be a defensive captain these days!

A lot will depend on Laxman's fitness tomorrow. If he can bat, it will be a huge thing for India. Because just the sight of Laxman walking out to bat (maybe with a runner) will help shift the momentum towards India. He's had a good history of 2nd innings scores and a good history of scores against Australia. Add the two together, and Ponting will be dreading the sight of Laxman walking out tomorrow. Plus, there is a small matter of Sachin Tendulkar still batting... he's looked comfortable against all bowlers in this Test, maybe except Marcus North ;)

An intriguing, exciting and exhilarating day of Test cricket awaits us tomorrow. Sad that there again won't be too many people witnessing it live from the stands!

P.S.: And yes, I was delighted to see Pujara make his first mark in Test cricket with the two catches. Does anyone know if they will be credited to him or the player on whose behalf he was fielding?

UMPIRING CANNOT BE THE EXCUSE

India's One Day team has put up another horrible performance in Dambulla. There are cries that I hear about poor umpiring. Granted, the umpiring was poor... but the only ones who lost out due to that kind of umpiring were Sehwag and Yuvraj.


Sehwag is in top form and will feel genuinely disappointed at being given out on a ball where most Elite Panel umpires would kept have fingers to themselves. Yuvraj, on the other hand, was getting some very valuable practice in match conditions in a lost cause... but considering that he has been in a very bad form and really needed that practice, he will feel wronged on being cut short by an Asad-Rauf-howler.


Well, as for Dinesh Karthik... the decision may have been wrong, but the umpire just reduced the suffering for Dinesh Karthik and the Indian fans. That guy has now had more than enough opportunities. How he manages to maintain his place as the first replacement to a top-order batsmen with just 20s and rare 30s is beyond my understanding (actually not, it's obviously the Cheeka factor)! And Suresh Raina just had to shrug off his piece of bad luck after having encountered good luck just a few moments before.


And there is no excuse for Rohit Sharma and MS Dhoni. Rohit Sharma frustrates an Indian fan like very few others can... he is so obviously full of unconverted talent! I now fully appreciate the angst of a Bangladesh cricketer over the case of Mohammed Ashraful. In fact, I have a feeling that even I can get Sharma's wicket on my bowling. The only thing I do well is bowl those gentle dibbly-dobbly off-cutters... but then, that is how Rohit Sharma gets out! I can keep bowling those in the knowledge that very soon Sharma will get his front leg across and I will catch him plumb in front!


And MS Dhoni... the skipper! I have always been of the opinion that he is a master of mediocre attacks and mediocre conditions. Once in a while he may come up with a truly astounding performance in a pressure situation... but those occasions are very rare now... and have happened more often for Chennai Super Kings than Team India in 2010. If Dhoni really wanted to play a captain's knock today, he'd play himself higher and not wait till 4 wickets are down to finally show his presence.


But I am still not worried about India's batting scene... because with the entry of Sachin Tendulkar and Gautam Gambhir, not only will a lot of stability be instilled in the team... but also the frustrating figures of Rohit Sharma and Dinesh Karthik will vanish! And considering that the World Cup is in the sub-continent, Dhoni will not be very troubled either...

RANDIV'S SUSPENSION - OVER THE TOP!

Now this is what I call an over-the-top reaction. I have just read the news that Sri Lankan off-spinner Suraj Randiv has been suspended for 1 game and docked off his match fees for bowling the deliberate no-ball that denied Virendra Sehwag his century. And what's more, TM Dilshan has also lost his match fees for being the one who suggested such an act to Randiv.

I have already stated in my blog two days ago and by way of comments on numerous other blogs that the act by Randiv was not right! I don't know about the Spirit of Cricket (no one really knows, but everyone wants to pretend they know)... but it certainly left a sour taste at the end of the match. The match should have been remembered for India's win with more than 15 overs to spare... not for Sehwag's almost-century.

Coming back to the point... the suspension and the fines is too much! Well, Sri Lanka Cricket says that they are proud recipients of ICC's Spirit of Cricket award for two years in a row and that's why they came down hard on this issue. But in their minds, the Sri Lankan officials should know that this was way too hard!

The matter, in my opinion, should have ended with Randiv's apology to Sehwag! Maybe the captain / coach / manager / match referee / Board official should have had a quiet word with Randiv thereafter. At the most, the Board should have given him a slap on the wrist. A one-match suspension is way too much!

I mean, Simon Taufel was not suspended when he gave Sachin Tendulkar out LBW on 99 to a Paul Collingwood delivery that would have missed the off-stump quite easily! He later apologised to Tendulkar, and both got along with it. It was the same with Rudi Koertzen and Kumar Sangakkara when the latter was wrongly adjudged to have edged the ball when on 192. Then why should it be different now?

True, the umpires were not deliberately trying to deny the batsmen their landmarks... but they still did make wrong decisions that did or could have influenced the result of the match. Allow me to insert here that Steve Bucknor was punished for an entire collection of mistakes... not just one! So please do not bring on that angle of the argument over here in this issue.

Back to the point now... it is a sad and a sorry state that Sri Lanka Cricket resorted to acting against their player in a move that seems quite evidently an act to appease the BCCI. I doubt a stronger Board would have taken such an action!

A SIX THAT DID NOT COUNT

Now that is one rubbish rule! With India requiring 1 run to win the match, Sri Lankan off-spinner (the man with a delivery stride as large as my normal step) bowled a no-ball that was dispatched by Sehwag (99*) over the long off fence for a six. But as per the laws of our beloved game, the six runs did not count and the game was deemed finished as soon as the no-ball was bowled.

This is a stupid law for the following reasons:

1. If the runs are not going to be counted, then why count the ball in Sehwag's numbers? Before that ball, Sehwag was 99* of 99 balls... and after that ball, he finished with 99* of 100 balls.

2. Had the six off a no-ball been scored on any other occasion during the match, then the 6 would have been credited to the batsman. Why should it be any different for the winning runs?

I can understand a need for such a rule (for the winning runs) in this scenario: the chasing team needs 1 to win with 1 wicket in hand and the batsman is stumped of a wide / no-ball. Since one can't have a situation where a team wins by 0 wickets, we need to have a different rule for finishing the game. But that rule should be in respect of dismissals, not runs. Had Sehwag hit that six (off a no-ball) when 2 were needed to win, then the runs would have been counted in his tally. Then why should it be any different when its 1 to win?

3. India eventually finished with 171, and not 177. The 6 runs that have not been considered may well affect the Net Run Rate scenario. If not in this series, such a situation may occur in other multi-team tournaments.

Imagine a situation where AB De Villiers hits a 6 off a no-ball when 1 is needed to win in South Africa's first match of the World Cup 2011. But only the no-ball counts and the 6 runs are wasted. If South Africa were to bow out of the World Cup 2011 in the Group stage due to NRR and it is discovered that those 6 runs would have helped them qualify, then it would have created an uproar! The tag of 'chokers' would have stuck to them due to no apparent fault of theirs... just because of a stupid and illogical law!

4. Most importantly, when the umpire signals a no-ball, the ball is still in play. It does not become dead. Till the ball is dead, all the activities that occur within the field of play should be recorded... irrespective of whether it is the 1st ball of the match or it is 1 run needed to win.

I really do hope that MCC changes this law at the earliest. The fact that Sehwag missed out on a well-deserved 100 is not as important as the controversy that might happen due to this rule if that hypothetical-South-Africa-situation were to really occur!

UDRS: A HALF-COOKED MEAL

Sachin Tendulkar: c. P Jayawardene b. L Malinga 41 (72)

This is what happened in the very first over of the day when Sachin chased a wide one from Malinga and nicking it to the jubilant young keeper as the Lankans gathered to celebrate Malinga's 100th Test wicket... a special one as it was of the Indian maestro!

But something perplexed me in the replays that followed. The 'Snicko' did not detect a nick as the ball went past the bat. But everyone could detect the nick in Sachin's expression immediately after the shot and the confidence of the Lankan appeal. Usually when SRT feels that he has been given a harsh decision (it has happened many a time so we know that reaction well!), he just shakes his head before making the walk. Today there wasn't any shake of the head... there was just a grimace, showing the disappointment of having nicked a ball that did not deserve the wicket of the highest run-scorer in Test cricket!

So we know one thing for sure: SRT did nick that ball! Then the question to be asked is: WHY DID THAT NICK DID NOT REGISTER ON THE SNICKO? The stump microphones are turned up to their full volume reception when a bowler is delivering the ball. If SRT's nick was so obvious to the keeper, bowler and the umpire, then surely it must have created a sound. The fact that it went undetected forces me to conclude that Snicko is an imprecise technology.

Given that the Hawk Eye team admits that they have a certain small percentage of imperfection in their predictive techniques, we now have two pieces of technology that can be easily qualified as 'imperfect'. And guess what, ICC plans to form its Umpires' Decision Review System in the base of these two technologies in its showpiece event next year... the World Cup!

The news is out that the Hot Spot cameras are too expensive to purchase... what rubbish! This is Cricket World Cup... one that happens once in 4 years... and one that is happening in India after 15 year! If this cannot generate money, then I don't know what can! But in any case, moving on... with the Hot Spot technology unavailable atleast till the Quarter Finals stage of the event, the UDRS will be restricted to Super Slow-Motion Replay Cameras, Snickometers and Hawk Eye Technology. The first one usually proves nothing conclusively... and the other two have already demonstrated their imperfections!

In such a case, I would rather suggest the ICC to not use the UDRS at all till the Quarter Final stage of the event. A bad decision from the UDRS leaves a much worse taste than a bad decision coming from a human umpire. Umpires can later walk up to players and apologies... UDRS cannot do that! A half-cooked meal is bound to cause a nasty stomach ache!