Some years ago ICC decided to embrace technology to better assist the on field decision makers to reach "the correct decision" Barring India, all test, ODI and T20 nations backed the thing that became DRS or 3rd Umpire. Now remember that 3rd Umpire honorific.
First we have the issue of India refusing to follow everyone else down the DRS road. Originally I was unable to see why they refuse to do so, and by and large I still don't. But, lately , more especially these last two Australia/New Zealand series, I have started to wonder if DRS is the Fairy Godfather of modern cricket after all.
Actually my thoughts are not shifting from DRS perse, more the qualifications and experience of the umpires used in those positions. Yes the two on the pitch and the 3rd in the Umpire Review Chair. Sure, these guys have all the tools in the world to come to the correct decision, but as evident in past few months, mistakes are prevalent, and in the cricketing world - HOWLERS!! The 22 who ply their trade out in the middle deserve the best decision making process available and by and large that happens. But just about all tests this series has had some sort of contention, and largely by any of the three Umpires.
So what of DRS? Several things:
Status Quo, i.e. On Field Ump refers to 3rd Ump. Decision pending. I would add here a time limit of 2 minutes, still no result then, Umpires original call.
Status Quo - however video and sound replays only visible to 3rd Ump. 2 minute duration, or Umpires original call.
One that won't sit too good for audiences or broadcasters, no replays of any Umpire calls where possible to counter the decision making process. Go back to the days when technology was hand operated scoreboards and sightscreens were just white or black.
In a nutshell, technology has only achieved one thing, dissent, be it players, captains, coaches, or a adoring public. Do we need DRS? Leave it to the retired Aussie Quick:-
Aaron Meikle Retweeted Mitchell Johnson
Aaron Meikle added,
No comments:
Post a Comment