MUMBAI: Going by the few experiments and frequent pronouncements, it would appear that there is as much research going on in the corridor of power of international cricket to save Test cricket, as is taking place in labs around the world to find a sure cure for the H1N1 endemic.
David Morgan, the president of the International Cricket Council, seems to be in the forefront of making all the suggestions for change to make the five-day version of the game more attractive and competitive in the face of the threat of rising popularity of limited-overs cricket. First of all, let us all accept that Test cricket is in the danger of extinction. All the recently played series, between Pakistan and New Zealand, India and Sri Lanka, Australia and West Indies and the ongoing England-South Africa clash and some close battles thereof, hardly suggest that Test cricket is at all sick,
Morgan himself said the other day, “I don’t think the game has ever been in better health,” which would seem to contradict his earlier statements that waning attendance at Test matches has led to suggestions of likely day-night matches played with pink balls.
The traditionalists, of which former players make quite a number, have naturally revolted against this queer plan. But if you think that has caused a furor, it’s nothing compared to the DRS, also a Morgan-backed plot. DRS stands for Decision Review System, where either team can challenge any decision given by the umpires on the field. Each team is entitled to three such chances per innings to ask for a review. The television umpire then adjudicates with the help of several video replays from as many angles as are available to him.
This was introduced last year on an experimental basis between India and Sri Lanka. Needless to say, neither side was happy. England and Australia rejected the same for the last “Ashes” series. It has now come back with the Australia-West Indies and England-South Africa series. Aussie captain Ponting has been quite critical of the system. “It makes field umpires look like jokers,” he said.
As it is, the umpires follow the procedure of referring to TV umpires if there is any ambiguity in their minds about a decision. Why give this right to players on the field? Is this a part of the motivation at cost cutting ? With the DRS in place, there need be no qualms of conscience in appointing all home umpires in future instead of neutral ones who have to travel thousands of miles criss-cross for their assignments. Whatever the motive, the DRS is loaded with several in-built problems. For one, it has been seen that even the most sophisticate technology cannot always be foolproof. In quite a few cases, different angles of slow-motion replays have produced different conclusions. More importantly, frequent negation of a field umpires faithfully given decision will make him look like what Ponting says “a joker.”
