Given 'im

Human error has often caused more than a stir in sport. Sports with a high level of physical interaction have turned into blood rings on occasions thanks to disagreements and unintentionally unfair decision making. In far gentle sports like cricket, errors have triggered furious outbursts off the field, for more often that not, it has been the Asian bloc at the wrong end of the benefit of doubt. However, evolution of sport has had a lot to do with its interlacement with technology. Nowadays, it is the extent of usage of a technical solution that determines the success of a sport.

On similar lines, cricket has had its transitions. Right from the time Sachin Tendulkar was ‘squared’ upstairs to be given out by the third umpire at Kingsmead.

The latest step towards perfection has been the ‘referral system’ which is on trial at the ongoing India-SL series. And like other introductions such as Duckworth-Lewis formula, Hawk eye etc., has been against India for we’ve cut the ribbon on many an occasion. This is no new innovation. Lifting this from the rulebooks of tennis, without any improvisation or thought about how a direct implementation of the system from another sport would impact, was much like mating a swan and a crow, in a bid to have an elegant, yet robust offspring.

It feels good all round to watch the batsman or the fielder challenge an umpire but the manner in which the rule has been brought in without tuning it to cricketing frequencies has reduced the umpire to pusillanimous mass.

Why ‘three’ referrals? Because it was presumed that its effects would have been well reasoned out while introducing it to tennis, so all that was to be done was lob it into cricket’s court.

Not realizing that lobs and volleys weren’t part of this sport. Also, the lights, red or green are flashed based on inconclusive visual eye results completed by a quivering gaggle of umps which not only pushes the ones on field to feel an uncertainty in their decision making but also forces them to go negative for a referral will always be expected of the players. Instead, considering the number of players involved during play, the referrals should have been upped to five with a carry over of pending referrals to the next inning of the same match. Smart exploitation of the tweaked rule would enhance the precision of the calls made, making it competitive for the umpire and fair to the player. Also, the men on field who call based on what they see. Repeating the replay to them makes no sense. So the doubt must be entirely thrust upon the man sipping on a soda, equipped with PCs upstairs.

Nonetheless, as they say, “to err is human” and to “forgive is divine”. So let’s hope “we learn from our mistakes”…