The system has been under controversy from the word go. First it was ECB which opposed it and then the BCCI got against it. The system got under way as there were not enough boards opposing it.
In the last match where India played England, Yuvraj bowled a ball which hit Ian Bell's pads and the on field umpire Billy Bowden ruled it as not out. Dhoni referred it and the tv umpire reviewed it and gave the decision back to Billy as the distance between the impact of the ball and the wicket was 2.5m and he ruled it as not out.
The controversy is the 2.5m rule which says that if a batsman is outside crease for over 2.5m, then the tv umpire can rule it back to the on field umpire and he can choose either to go with his original decision or changing it.
The gimmick is that the ICC says that hawk eye cant be trusted beyond 2.5 meters.
If ICC is so sure that the rule cant be a hundred percent perfect then why using it? The UDRS in itself is good as it helps minimize the errors of the on field umpires and helps in keeping the game clean and makes it more fair.
The problem for ICC is the hawk eye which is still not complete and i doubt if it is going to be perfect. ICC instead can use more reliable technologies like the snickometer and hot spot which are a 100pc perfect. Now ICC wants to save some money and that's why they dint install either hot spot or the snicko.
ICC will have to pay up now with more controversy in the world cup.
If the on field umpire had given it not out and if there was no review system, the players and the fans would not have gone against the UDRS and there would not have been any controversy as we believe that umpires can err and we can live with it.
But if ICC wants to use technology, they better use the reliable ones which are already perfect and leave the LBW decisions to luck and the on field umpires accuracy unless there is an edge.
Snicko and Hot spot can be trusted... I wonder why we aren't using it...
ReplyDelete