Sangakkara's Dismissal and The Need For a Review System in Cricket
Yesterday, Sangakkara played an innings of sheer brilliance... I wasnt able to watch it, (here is a frank description of the day's happenings by our friend Uncle J Rod) but any man who plays with the belief that his side can reach 500+ in the 4th innings of a test match and that he can lead them to it deserves accolades. Most teams would have started out trying to draw the game, because that is also an honorable outcome against the mighty Australians. To all Sri Lankan's, there is glory in defeat - you should hold your head high because of the way you lost the game.
An now on to the main talking point of the game - the fact that Sangakkara's brilliant innings was curtailed by a very poor decision. Umpires will make mistakes, so will players (who initiate horrendous appeals in the first place). I respect Koertzen for apologizing to Sangakkara after the game. But the fact is that such decisions can be reduced if not eliminated. My proposal is that each team should get 2 chances to ask for a review per session. I foresee the batting team initiating most of these requests, but I can also see the bowling team request for the review (for example if a player gets out on a no ball or an appeal is not referred to the third umpire). here is how it would work...
If the ref makes a decision which one team doesn't like:
This review system works pretty well in NFL and has also been introduced in ATP Tennis games. Surprise, surprise, it works! Its not perfect, because technology has its limitations, but it does work.
As for Mr Ponting and his demand for system for fairness and that people on the field judge whether they caught the ball cleanly or not. I believe that's a load of crap. Lets use technology when it is available so there are no "what ifs" at the end of the day... so that Sangakkara's leave with their head high with the belief that they did everything they could without unnecessary intervention.
An now on to the main talking point of the game - the fact that Sangakkara's brilliant innings was curtailed by a very poor decision. Umpires will make mistakes, so will players (who initiate horrendous appeals in the first place). I respect Koertzen for apologizing to Sangakkara after the game. But the fact is that such decisions can be reduced if not eliminated. My proposal is that each team should get 2 chances to ask for a review per session. I foresee the batting team initiating most of these requests, but I can also see the bowling team request for the review (for example if a player gets out on a no ball or an appeal is not referred to the third umpire). here is how it would work...
If the ref makes a decision which one team doesn't like:
- The coach of the team can ask for a review only until the next ball is bowled. A review can only be requested for the last ball bowled.
- If the team requesting the review is proven correct, then they maintain their review, otherwise they lose a review for that session
- Each team gets 2 reviews per session
- Reviews can not be requested for lbw decisions
- If there is insufficient data (for example bad camera angle, inconclusive frame sequence etc) then the ruling on the field stands.
- There should be standard camera angles and positions so the same evidence/footage is available on all test match venues
This review system works pretty well in NFL and has also been introduced in ATP Tennis games. Surprise, surprise, it works! Its not perfect, because technology has its limitations, but it does work.
As for Mr Ponting and his demand for system for fairness and that people on the field judge whether they caught the ball cleanly or not. I believe that's a load of crap. Lets use technology when it is available so there are no "what ifs" at the end of the day... so that Sangakkara's leave with their head high with the belief that they did everything they could without unnecessary intervention.
Labels: Australia, Australia vs Sri Lanka, Obaid, Ponting, Sangakkara, Sri Lanka
