Bat and ball / Frank Gregan / 28 July 2008 /

Frank Gregan is all in favour of the innovation allowing Test cricketers to appeal umpiring decisions. We're not sure if Darrell Hair feels the same way.

A little piece of cricketing history was made last Thursday when Sri Lanka batsman Tillakaratne Dilshan became the first player to take advantage of cricket's new trial laws and successfully challenge an on-field umpire's decision. Dilshan had been given out caught behind but confident in the knowledge that he had not touched the ball he challenged the decision which led to the third umpire adjudicating in his favour.

The first ever challenge had been made earlier in the day when the Indian captain Anil Kumble had an LBW appeal turned down and asked for a review. Surprise, surprise the third umpire decided that the on-field decision was correct. I hope that somewhere out there in the land of stattos that someone is keeping score on how many challenges are successful and in what context.

The only flaw I can see in the system is that the LBW review is still too subjective. Even on subsequent review a case can virtually always be made for the decision of the on-field umpire to be upheld. This leaves the door open for the 'umpires union' to support each other and the likelihood is that a tiny percentage of LBW challenges will be successful. The only way to counteract this is to rely solely on technology. Get the tram lines in place in relation to where the ball pitches and rely on Hawkeye to determine if the ball would hit the stumps. That would make for a much fairer system, technology has no allegiance and consequently can only be objective!

Modern thinking is that the concept of each side being allowed three challenges per innings will reduce the number of poor decisions given throughout the course of the match. The procedure is relatively quick, straight-forward and does not interrupt the flow of the game. If anything it increases the level of excitement.

I have spoken to three people involved in the game and all three are in favour. One point that they all made is that cricket is unique in that although it is a team game an individual's statistics are meticulously recorded. It is accepted that 'what goes around, comes around' and the dodgy decisions even themselves out throughout the course of a test series. However, like the struggling fielder whom the ball seems to repeatedly find, it is not uncommon for a batsman in a rut to receive a sequence of bad decisions. The one thing that an unlucky batsman always knows is if he has edged a ball, now that he has the right of appeal and thermal imagery on his side he should be able to right the wrong.

The trial laws are not being used in the current series between England and South Africa so there will be no embarrassed umpires on show during the third test which starts on Wednesday. I think there is a gulf in class between the two sides and recommend that the Proteas be backed at [3.0] to be triumphant. I still like the look of the [7.6] which should be available for them to win the series 3-0.

Whenever I am asked if I am in favour of technology being used in any sport to ensure that the correct decision is reached I always answer in the affirmative. However, I am English and a fervent football man. Ask any of my generation of similar stock if in 1966 they would have preferred absolute perfect technology or a Russian linesman and you will likely find that to a man we were all grateful for a bit of human error!

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: