Posts Tagged ‘ECB’

Umpire Decision Review System: Stop the Nitpicking, please!

In continuation of my thoughts in support of the Umpire Decision Review System and the use of Hawk Eye by the ICC in my previous post on the same topic.

I need your advise, Mr. TV Umpire

Justin Golding, the editor of ecb.co.uk (English Cricket Board Website) writes on his piece suitably titled Doubting the Missiles against the Umpire Decision Review System that “if the authorities do not have (full) confidence in the new technology, then, it begs the question, why is it being used?”. Golding advocates his case against the Review System employing the most used argument that ‘the new system is imperfect, so where is the point in replacing the previous imperfect system with another one?’

I cannot but bang my head against the wall whenever I read or hear another rant against the Review System on the same lines. Because what the ICC is now doing is what the human race has been doing to arrive at a decision for centuries now. What does a rationally behaving human being  do when he is confused and is not able to arrive at a clear answer on something important? He consults – with his family, his friends, colleagues and one normally tries to talk to a person who he may think be an authority on the subject. Based upon the advise he gets, he may retain his original decision or reverses it if he has been duly convinced against it.

This decision making process in consultation with friends/peers/family/experts has stood the test of time. Isn’t that is what is exactly happening on the cricket field now? If a player is not convinced about the answer that he has been given by the on-field umpire, he requests the gentleman to consult with his colleague upstairs who has a few more tools at his disposal that will help them to arrive at a more ‘educated’ answer.

After a review has been asked for, the worst thing that can happen is that the original decision which was incorrect may stay. We have enough evidence now to say that the new decisions that come after the due process of consultation are definitely either ‘better’ decisions or at worst ‘as bad as the original one’.

In fact, in his entire article which runs into over 800 words, Mr. Goulding himself has nowhere claimed that the ‘new’ decisions that are arrived at after consultations with the 3rd umpire are worse than the original one. It is just a case of nitpicking and building up a false case based on a few random examples.