A blessing for Sri Lanka's Dilshan
published:
Sunday | July 27, 2008
Tony Becca FROM THE BOUNDARY
THE FIRST Test between India and Sri Lanka in Colombo's Sinhalese Sports Club stadium ended on Friday night (Jamaica time).
Although Sri Lanka, led by spinners Muttiah Muralitharan and Ajantha Mendis with 19 wickets between them, won by an innings and 223 runs with a day to spare, in the final analysis, in years to come, the result may be of little interest to those interested in the development of the game.
To them, the Test match will be remembered as the first match in which players were allowed to question the decision of an umpire.
The first match in which players asked for reviews following the decision of an umpire and the match in which a batsman, given out after he had scored one run, appealed to the third umpire, won his appeal, and went on to score 125 not out.
Review
Tillakaratne Dilshan, batting at number six for Sri Lanka, was given out by umpire Mark Benson caught by wicketkeeper Dinesh Karthik off pace bowler Zaheer Khan, he made the 'T' sign asking for a review.
After looking at it, third umpire Rudi Koertzen ruled that the bat had hit the ground and not the ball and, therefore, the batsman was not out.
Like Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid who, based on the evidence of the replay, were correctly ruled out caught after a challenge by the fielding team, Virender Sehwag was ruled out leg before after a challenge to the third umpire.
The replay showed that the delivery from Muralitharan, bowling around the wicket, had pitched on the line of the leg stump and that the batsman had not offered a stroke. The ball brushed the inside of the left pad on the line of the leg stump and hit the right leg in front of the middle stump.
With the review rule stating that the third umpire should only confirm that it was not a no-ball, should only look at where the ball pitched and where it first made contact with the batsman and nothing else after that, with the batsman still expected to benefit from any doubt, that dismissal was controversial and Sehwag had every right to be upset.
There will be days when Dilshan will lose his challenge, just as there will be days when Sehwag will survive.
Game better off
For me, however, although it is not yet fool-proof, even though there are some things to be ironed out, cricket is much better off for allowing a batsman, or a team, a chance to seek justice, especially so as the system has nothing to do with lack of confidence in the umpire.
Umpires, as good and as experienced as they may be, do make mistakes and batsmen, bowlers and teams suffer or benefit from those mistakes.
In this day and age of professional sports, it can be disastrous as a wrong decision, for example, can ruin a career and there can be nothing wrong in using technology, not to embarrass umpires but to assist them in making the right decision.
Using technology
In fact, commonsense suggests that the game must benefit if the game uses technology, as much as possible, to assist the umpires in making, as much as possible, the correct decision.
Nothing is perfect, but the less mistakes, the better the game will be, and although it may now appear to be confusing, even though it will take some time for the umpires, including the third umpires, to get accustomed to what is required of them, the use of technology must make it easier for the umpires - and better for the players and for the game.
