An Impressive Debut

So, Cricket's much anticipated referral system got underway today in the first Test of the ongoing Sri Lanka - India series.

In summary...both the batsman and the captain of the fielding side are allowed to ask for a referral (aka challenge, review). Each team gets three unsuccessful challenges per innings (there is no limit on successful challenges). The third umpire looks at a few replays to determine whether there is enough to overturn the on-field umpire's decision. Use of Hawkeye or anything like that is not allowed (which is fine).

There were three referrals done today, with the second one a perfect example of why referrals are a great idea:

45.4: Harbhajan to Warnapura. LBW appeal turned down by on-field umpire. Kumble refers to third umpire, who agrees with on-field umpire's decision. Challenge was unsuccessful.

105.3: Zaheer to Dilshan. Dilshan given out caught behind. Dilshan challenges it. Third umpire overrules on-field umpire's decision! Challenge was successful.

119.1: Harbhajan to Dilshan. LBW appeal turned down by on-field umpire. Kumble refers to third umpire, who agrees with on-field umpire's decision. Challenge was unsuccessful.

Of course, there are innumerable pros which are fairly obvious. But I'll mention a couple of potential issues I see with this system...first, there is the time delay factor - how much will this referral system impact a sport that is already so pressed for time (yes, even five days aren't enough! ;-). Second, what is the time limit to challenge a decision? You want to avoid pavilion involvement, i.e. you don't want the supporting cast to see a replay and then signal accordingly to the on-field players. As long as a player decides to challenge within 10-15 seconds, it should be ok.

Overall though, a great idea, and a much-needed relief for players, umpires, and fans. This cricket fan, for one, is extremely excited. Let's hear it for Technology! And, we all take our shots at them all the time, so let's give them a rare moment of appreciation...kudos to you, ICC, for pressing on with this system despite less than welcoming attitudes from many in the cricketing world, and a failed trial in domestic cricket.

It's About Time!

A big day of cricket is about to begin. As India take on Sri Lanka in the first test, the eyes of the cricket world will be on the trial of the new referral system (Tendulkar's potential record-breaking innings notwithstanding).

I, for one, am very much in favour of the system. Cricket has been at the forefront of technology - from replays for runouts, to Duckworth-Lewis. So why not take the next logical step, especially when it's fairly easy to do so?

Per the system, there will be three referrals per team per innings = 24 potential referrals per match. Now that could mean a lot of time dedicated to referrals, but we'll have to wait to see whether teams actually take advantage of the system.

Many sports have headed the direction of replays. Tennis, NFL, etc. Baseball is planning to get replays as well. Football/soccer definitely should have it to, at least for goals that were declared offside.

Here are some interesting comments regarding the cricket referral system, some favorable, others more skeptical.

I do wonder who will be the first referred dismissal (or non-dismissal). Could it be Sachin Tendulkar, the man who was the first player to be given run-out by a TV umpire?

Like any new system, there will be success and failure, and the system will adapt over time. So let's accept any failures as a learning process, and cherish the successes as a much needed step in the right direction.

To referrals...cheers!

Carry For...What?

I just realized that India and Sri Lanka got 2 carry-forward points each from the group stage. My simple reaction was...WTF??? Why???

CF points are normally used in lieu of playing the same team again in the next stage. But in this tournament, each team plays each other again anyway. What were the organizers smoking when they put the rules together???

So thanks to the pointless CF points, Sri Lanka has to beat India for Pakistan to have a chance (assuming Pakistan beat Bangladesh). Without CF, even if India beat Sri Lanka, it would come down to NRR between Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka (again, assuming Pakistan beat Bangladesh).

Last time it was some obscure bonus point that screwed Pakistan. This time it very well could be CF points.

However, if you do look at it from the angle that CF points were carried forward and the relevant teams didn't play each other again, then you'd have the following situation after today's match:

SL: 4
Ind: 2
Pak: 0
Ban: 0

So in that way, SL would have to beat India anyway for Pakistan to have a chance.

Regardless, I think the best would be to have everyone play each other as happened, but no CF points. Combining the two makes no sense.

grumble...mumble...

Analysis of World Twenty20 2009 Groups

Let me caveat this post right up front. THERE ARE HUGE ASSUMPTIONS I AM USING!!! I have been burned by this before (WC 2007), but apparently I have not learned my lesson.

OK, now I will proceed. In a previous post, I posted the schedule for the 2009 World Twenty20 in England next June. The groups were actually decided many months back, but I never really looked at them until now. So here's a basic analysis.

First off, just like the ODI WC 2007 (and I believe the previous T20 WC as well), teams are assigned a "seeding" which they carry with them into the (poorly termed) "Super-8s".

e.g. Pakistan are B1 in the group stage. They will be B1 for Super-8 purposes too. If one of the seeded teams is knocked out (now, would that ever happen???), then the team that qualifies in its place assumes its seeding. e.g. if West Indies qualify instead of Sri Lanka, they will assume Sri Lanka's seeding of C2.

Logistically, this is pretty good. Competitively, this is not a really great idea. Unlike in the ODI WC 2007, all Super-8 teams will not end up playing each other. So it could be that one Super-8 pool is composed of all second place teams from the group stage, and the other is composed of all first place teams.

Anyhow, here are the initial groups and the "seedings":

GROUP A
A1 India
A2 Bangladesh
A3 Zimbabwe

GROUP B
B1 Pakistan
B2 England
B3 Associate1

GROUP C
C1 Australia
C2 Sri Lanka
C3 West Indies

GROUP D
D1 New Zealand
D2 South Africa
D3 Associate2

Now, the Super-8 groups are already fixed too, and they are:

GROUP E
A1
B2
C1
D2

GROUP F
A2
B1
C2
D1

Using basic algebra, AND ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE NO MASSIVE UPSETS (wow, this sounds so familiar!), this is what the Super-8 groups will look like:

GROUP E
India
England
Australia/West Indies
South Africa

GROUP F
Bangladesh/Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Sri Lanka/West Indies
New Zealand

Obviously, Group E is the tougher group. IF (and the "if" is capitalized and bolded for serious emphasis) Pakistan make it to the Super-8s, they could potentially get to the semis without ever playing Australia, South Africa, or India.

Lucky for Pakistan (hey, I shouldn't complain), but not so great from a competition perspective. Given that all the Super-8 matches are in London itself (albeit different grounds), they should have made Super-8 groups based on standings at the end of the group stage. So two first placed teams, and two second placed teams in each group. That would have made more sense.

BTW, many of the second round matches are double headers, so you could, get to see matches like India vs Australia, and Pakistan vs Sri Lanka/West Indies on the same ground, same day.

Once again, please take into account the assumptions I have made. Pakistan and India have shocked and pissed off their fans before - I know this way too well!. They can do it again!