On Rudi, Australia-Srilanka
Rudi Koertzen did something earlier today. The apology itself is not what I hope sets off a precedent. What I do hope umpires emulate is the act of accepting that they are human and can make mistakes which, as the cliche goes, could have changed the course of the game.
For too long now, the ICC's panel of match referees has acted harshly on players who stand their ground , often in disbelief than in dissent, after an umpire's decision or comment on the umpire's decision during or after the match. The case for the spirit of the game is definitely made by the match referee's action, added to the fact that such action provides the umpire reasonable indemnity against the press and players' reactions to such decisions. Umpires are under no moral obligation to own up to or feel that they have wronged. A recent case in point is Yuvraj Singh being fined for standing his ground after being dubiously ruled out caught behind by Suresh Shastri when the ball only brushed his shoulder en route to the keeper.
I've heard of the ICC's umpiring review committee reviewing video footage after a match. Captains of playing teams also file reports of their grievances after the series and assuming that these reports contain questions on the validity of dubious decisions, it seems there is a feedback process in place. What, however goes on, behind the doors of the ICC after these reports are filed and footage is viewed is a little hazy.
Today's 5th day between Australia and SriLanka started some hope of drama. If Cricinfo's online commentary and suggestions therein are anything to go by, there was even optimism about Sri Lanka being able to overhaul the 500 odd target. It is another story as to how the Aussies ripped the heart out the Lankan middle order within a space of 20 odd runs. Sangakkara's innings, however, stood out amidst the rubble as he took the attack to the Aussies. For some time during his partnership with Malinga, the blitz looked like taking the score close to the Aussie target.
In retrospect, had Koertzen ruled in Sangakkara's favour, the match may realistically have lasted a little longer and probably culminated in more exciting circumstances. Having said that, Koertzen deserves some credit for having owned up his mistake to the batsman. Koertzen and Taufel, in my opinion, seem a lot more morally aware and transparent about the consequences of their decisions on field. Something the ICC could do well to encourage.
Among other things, in this very article, Mr. Honesty Ponting has these points to make:
Ponting, who has given up trying to set up an international honesty system on catches, said the low-to-the-ground takes should always be judged by the on-field officials.
"The other captains wanted to have the replay referral system, which I don't think is right because as we've seen in this game, 100% of them are given not out," he said. "I think there's only been one that's been given to the third umpire that's been given out and I don't think that's right because then you will get batsmen just standing there all the time. That is not what the game is all about."
Ponting's reasoning is specious to say the least since he tries to judge the overall effectivness of the referral system from a single game. Secondly, the Aussies may have sobered up but there is no reason to think that they are the moral upholders of the game's spirit. Which is to say that not all catches claimed by an Aussie (or for that matter any other team's players) ought to be given out because the player is probably claiming it in all 'honesty' and in keeping with the game's spirit. The only reason to empathise with Ponting's suggestion is for the fact that the Aussies may have been at the receiving end of such decisions more often than not.
(recent case in point: Michael Slater's infamous standoff in the 2001 series vs. India)
There is a good case for technology to take over where the human eye can fail. Some may argue the case for preserving the game's excitement and uncertainty by tolerating such human failures, but if something like that comes at the cost of terminating an innings like Sangakkara's, then technology better take over in such contentious situations.
For too long now, the ICC's panel of match referees has acted harshly on players who stand their ground , often in disbelief than in dissent, after an umpire's decision or comment on the umpire's decision during or after the match. The case for the spirit of the game is definitely made by the match referee's action, added to the fact that such action provides the umpire reasonable indemnity against the press and players' reactions to such decisions. Umpires are under no moral obligation to own up to or feel that they have wronged. A recent case in point is Yuvraj Singh being fined for standing his ground after being dubiously ruled out caught behind by Suresh Shastri when the ball only brushed his shoulder en route to the keeper.
I've heard of the ICC's umpiring review committee reviewing video footage after a match. Captains of playing teams also file reports of their grievances after the series and assuming that these reports contain questions on the validity of dubious decisions, it seems there is a feedback process in place. What, however goes on, behind the doors of the ICC after these reports are filed and footage is viewed is a little hazy.
Today's 5th day between Australia and SriLanka started some hope of drama. If Cricinfo's online commentary and suggestions therein are anything to go by, there was even optimism about Sri Lanka being able to overhaul the 500 odd target. It is another story as to how the Aussies ripped the heart out the Lankan middle order within a space of 20 odd runs. Sangakkara's innings, however, stood out amidst the rubble as he took the attack to the Aussies. For some time during his partnership with Malinga, the blitz looked like taking the score close to the Aussie target.
In retrospect, had Koertzen ruled in Sangakkara's favour, the match may realistically have lasted a little longer and probably culminated in more exciting circumstances. Having said that, Koertzen deserves some credit for having owned up his mistake to the batsman. Koertzen and Taufel, in my opinion, seem a lot more morally aware and transparent about the consequences of their decisions on field. Something the ICC could do well to encourage.
Among other things, in this very article, Mr. Honesty Ponting has these points to make:
Ponting, who has given up trying to set up an international honesty system on catches, said the low-to-the-ground takes should always be judged by the on-field officials.
"The other captains wanted to have the replay referral system, which I don't think is right because as we've seen in this game, 100% of them are given not out," he said. "I think there's only been one that's been given to the third umpire that's been given out and I don't think that's right because then you will get batsmen just standing there all the time. That is not what the game is all about."
Ponting's reasoning is specious to say the least since he tries to judge the overall effectivness of the referral system from a single game. Secondly, the Aussies may have sobered up but there is no reason to think that they are the moral upholders of the game's spirit. Which is to say that not all catches claimed by an Aussie (or for that matter any other team's players) ought to be given out because the player is probably claiming it in all 'honesty' and in keeping with the game's spirit. The only reason to empathise with Ponting's suggestion is for the fact that the Aussies may have been at the receiving end of such decisions more often than not.
(recent case in point: Michael Slater's infamous standoff in the 2001 series vs. India)
There is a good case for technology to take over where the human eye can fail. Some may argue the case for preserving the game's excitement and uncertainty by tolerating such human failures, but if something like that comes at the cost of terminating an innings like Sangakkara's, then technology better take over in such contentious situations.