It was ironic that the final dismissal of the recently concluded test between India and South Africa involved the TV umpire. Lonwabo Tsotsobe was indeed short of his crease when the stumps were disturbed, but the officials needed the aid of replays to confirm the decision. Ironic indeed, as soon after the match got over Graeme Smith and the South Africans raised a clamor soliciting more involvement of the third umpire, and rooting for the use of the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS). While Smith’s statements after the unexpected defeat does make him look like a whiner and a sore loser (and that is exactly how a part of the Indian media is portraying him as!), we must consider carefully his opinion before labelling him as one. At the press conference, Smith expressed displeasure over a few decisions that went against the Proteas, and also urged the International Cricket Council (ICC) to establish uniformity in the usage of UDRS.
Not even the most ardent Indian supporter can deny that at least 3 decisions which went in favor of India in the Kingsmead test were dubious. Steyn had Zaheer plumb in front in the second inning (as I read somewhere, he couldn’t have been plumber if he repaired bath fittings!), but umpire Davis did not think so. And then De Villiers and Boucher were both ruled leg before, incorrectly, in the crucial run chase. Having said that, the Indians were undoubtedly the better side throughout the course of the match and would, in all probability, have won even if the decisions were to be reversed. As for the UDRS debate though, I feel Smith was spot-on in requesting its usage, and in questioning the ICC’s action, or the lack of it, in ensuring uniformity.
Ever since the UDRS was first employed in 2008, the ICC has maintained that the choice of using it lies with the host nation. And so, while countries like Australia and South Africa have used it in most of their recent matches, the Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) has remained steadfast, unfathomably so, in its refusal to employ the review. Cricket South Africa did want to use UDRS in the current series, but apparently could not convince the BCCI.
It must be said, our cricket board’s apprehension towards the review system is quite baffling. More so, because the first time UDRS was employed was in a series that featured India, against hosts Sri Lanka. It might be that the experience of this first series was what turned the Indians away from UDRS. Without any prior knowledge of the system, and sans any notion of how and when to challenge a decision, the Indians ended the series with just 1 successful challenge. In contrast, Sri Lanka had 11! But what our board and the cricketers failed to realize was that the problem was not so much with the system itself, as it was with the way the Indians used it. Sri Lanka reaped better rewards because they were tactically superior, and not because the system favored them! Also, the technology used nowadays, Hawk-Eye, is a lot advanced and more dependable than Virtual-Eye – the technology used in that series back in 2008.
The Indian board, as well as captain Dhoni, has gone on record saying that the reason for their lack of faith in the system is because they feel it is not completely foolproof. Dhoni even compared it to a life-jacket that did not come with a warranty. Well, nothing, from the electronic voting machines to the airport security check devices, is foolproof these days. Don’t we still use them to make life simpler and more secure? And is it not a better idea to have a life-jacket without warranty that still gives us some hope of staying afloat, than having none and getting drowned? With so much at stake in modern day cricket, I feel any device that helps in decision making should be made use of. Yes, the on-field umpires may lose some relevance, and the game would definitely be depleted of some of its old-world charm, but we will get more correct decisions. And memorable victories, like India’s win in Kingsmead, will no longer bear the scars of umpiring howlers! Come to think of it, even the tv replays aren’t always foolproof! How many times have we seen a batsman ‘out‘ in one frame, and ‘in‘ in the very next, and wished we could view that split-second frame in between to reach a decision?
Individuals and cricket boards are always entitled to have their own views on a subject, but the bigger concern here is the role of the world governing body. It is diffcult to understand the reason for ICC’s reluctance to take a firm stand on this issue. The verdict on whether UDRS should be continued with or discarded should, most definitely, come from the ICC, and should not be left to the participating boards to sort out. That was how the tv umpire concept, as well as the not-so-popular tactical substitute rule, was implemented. And that is how it should be in the case of UDRS too.
The financial clout of the BCCI is probably one reason for the ICC’s lackadaisical approach. As former Indian captain M.A.K. Pataudi recently commented, “The ICC might be the voice of cricket, but the BCCI is the invoice”. Sure enough the BCCI is the richest cricket board in the world, and India contributes almost three quarters of the total world revenues in the game. And that makes it quite diffcult for the ICC to flex its muscles over Shashank Manohar and co. However, let us hope that common sense prevails and that the Indian board and the players realize the benefits of UDRS. They would know very well that not always will the decisions go in their favor. And they would be left to rue their own obstinacy if the umpires fail to detect a Kallis or an Amla edge in the Cape Town test!
Looking for fast live cricket scores? Download CricRocket and get fast score updates, top-notch commentary in-depth match stats & much more! 🚀☄️