The UDRS drama over Ian Bell during the India-England game, highlighted the fact that even international players are unaware of certain laws of cricket
The UDRS drama over Ian Bell during the India-England game, highlighted the fact that even international players are unaware of certain laws of cricket Ian Bell being reprieved by umpire Billy Bowden despite Hawk Eye suggesting that the batsman was leg before wicket in Sunday's pulsating tie between India and England at Bangalore has raised a shindig that will undoubtedly play out through this entire World Cup. However, this might be much ado about nothing.
|
| India's Yuvraj Singh appeals unsuccessfully against England's Ian Bell for leg before wicket. The decision was then unsuccessfully reviewed by India during their
World Cup match in Bangalore on Sunday. PIC/Getty Images |
There is both confusion (amongst most players and spectators) and unhappiness (primarily in the Indian team and its supporters) about the efficacy of the Umpires Decision Review System: if technology indicated so strongly that the ball would have hit middle stump ufffd leave aside off or leg ufffd why and how did Bell survive?
The problem, however, is not the intransigence of the third umpire who reviewed Bowden's original decision but the ignorance of the players. World Cup rules stipulate that if a batsman is struck on the pad when he is 2.5m or more (approx 8 feet) in front of the stumps, the UDRS will not apply in case of a leg-before appeal.
As it happened, none from either the Indian or England teams seemed to be aware of this rule. MS Dhoni was critical of the review decision in his post-match conference, Andrew Strauss looked nonplussed in the middle and even after the game, while Ian Bell had actually walked off the field after watching the replays on the giant screen on the ground before being called back by Bowden.
To the uninitiated, it might seem strange that international players should be unaware of the laws/rules of cricket/tournament. But it's not the first time I have seen this happen in a match. I recall the 1983 Mumbai Test between India and the West Indies when opener Desmond Haynes stopped a ball from rolling on to his stumps with his hand.
On being given out 'handled the ball' Haynes remonstrated with the umpire for a length of time before walking off shaking his head. It was only after he had returned to the dressing room that he learnt of the law governing his misdemeanour.
Coming back to the matter under review and involving Bell, the Indian team and Billy Bowden's decision at Bangalore, it can be asked why the 2.5m rule should be in existence at all? The most compelling reason for bringing in this caveat is that technology can sometimes falter so badly that it can get counter-productive.
Consider for example a big hit by a batsman which looks like it will easily sail over the boundary. The technology available can measure the distance which the ball has travelled after it lands. But there is no way it can predict whether or not the ball will run into some 'headwind' and instead of crossing the fence, land within the boundary itself, as happens so often with skiers.
In the context of a ball's passage after it has been delivered, even 2.5 m is a long distance to be travelled. In the days before technology arrived, umpires were loathe to give a batsman out even if he was a metre or so down the pitch. As technology has improved, the distance to which it retains its accuracy has increased, but there is a threshold beyond which it cannot be trusted.
Indeed, Hawk Eye itself had informed the ICC about the limitations beyond the 2.5 metre distance, which the ICC accepted in consultation with the different teams and captains; or so it should be, except that evidence from Bangalore suggests otherwise. Clearly that wonderful truism ufffd ignorance of the law is not an excuse ufffd sometimes bypasses the best practitioners of the game.
That said, there can be an argument against the use of Hawk Eye if it is so fallible. To be fair, the Indian team has objected to it frequently. Some players have preferred Hot Spot. Perhaps a combination of the two would make the use of technology more comprehensive and thereby limit the margin of error.
Whether even this would impress the BCCI ufffd which has played hardball with the ICC on the use of technology is unknown. But that's a different story altogether.
