The relentless march of technology....
Poor old Dickie Bird. Times are changing, technology is coming in and he believes it's a "sad moment" - I can understand why umpires are reluctant to accept change, but they - as with all people across organisations across the world - need to divorce themselves from what has happened previously. If you started the game of cricket today, with the technology now available, you wouldn't rely on the human eye to make decisions - it really is as simple as that....to me at least!
On a similar note, before the 1st India v Australia Test there was much discussion about catching and whether or not teams could be trusted to have a "pact". And previously Michael Vaughan rejected Ponting's attempts to agree a pact in the 2005 Ashes series. I have a simple way to sort out the issue - at least I think it's simple!
Currently batsmen that are in doubt stand their ground knowing there is no way they can be given out as the benefit of the doubt goes to them and cameras often can't prove the catch was clean. I would simply swop that for catches when it relates to whether the ball touched the ground - the benefit of the doubt should go to the fielder. As the length of grass on a cricket field is often longer than the diameter of a human finger, until this is the case, legitimate catches will often be ruled out. I would add one further disciplinary rule - players who knowingly try to cheat by claiming a catch that is subsequently proven to have bounced, would be banned for the rest of the series and their next one. That would stop a repeat of the incident this English summer where AB de Villiers claimed a catch that very obviously bounced.
Thoughts?
3 comments:
seems ok to me. vaughan's catch of amla this summer might have stood if the benefit of the doubt went to the batsman and that was a crucial decision
I don't like the argument that umpires and administrators "need to divorce themselves from what has happened previously". Not only does tradition have a huge part in cricket and other sports, surely we don't want to abandon all ideals that have fallen by the wayside. What about sledging / conduct on the field? That used to be fine and now isn't - particularly at club level. Do we really want to go with the current norm over and above what happened before?
I do quite like the proposal of changing the benefit of the doubt, though.
Yes - I can see that the word "divorce" might not have been ideal as it depends on how you interpret it.
I guess the point is that it would be great if we can look forward rather than look backwards the whole time. What has historically happened is one consideration on which to base plans for the future, but it can't be an overbearing one if the game is going to expand and grow successfully.
Post a Comment