Tweet
Old-fashioned ICC
published: Sunday | August 6, 2006
Tony Becca
Once upon a time cricket was almost as big a sport as football. Today, however, football is bigger, much bigger than cricket.
Why is that so? It is so simply because whereas football has made an effort to spread its wings as wide as possible, where as football has come up with innovations to attract participation and fan support in an effort to spread the gospel of the game, and where as football has from to time changed its rules to accommodate the changing times, cricket has been marking time - at least in one important area of the game.
improving standard
It is true, no question about that, that the International Cricket Council (ICC) has, through the one-day version of the game and more recently through the Twenty/20 version of the game, made an effort to spread the gospel of the game, and that recently it has also been making an effort to improve the standard of the game among its associate members.
One of the things that turns people away from cricket, however, is the fact that, as far as a bowler is concerned, a batsman can be given not out when he is out, and that, as far as a batsman is concerned, a batsman can be given out when he is not out - and that has been going on from time immemorial, so long in fact that it has become a part of the game.
Regardless of whether it has become a part of the game or not, to be given out when one is not out, or for some players, to be given not out when one is out, is wrong, whether it was a difficult decision or not, it adds up to a bad decision, and something must be done about it.
trial period
In fact, something was attempted when, earlier this year, the ICC's cricket committee voted for a trial period during players would be allowed three appeals per innings to the TV umpire if they felt a decision made by the on-field umpire was incorrect.
Although football is thinking about using television for decisions regarding goals, although American football allows controlled appeals against on-the-field decisions, although tennis, in some tournaments, is already allowing players to appeal line calls, and even though, with the on-field umpire allowed to appeal to the third umpire, it already uses the TV camera and the third umpire to assist the on-field umpire in making some decisions, cricket, good old cricket has said no to the player appealing decisions even though such appeals would be limited to three.
The recommendation by the cricket committee was made after a vote of 6-5, and the recommendation was turned down comfortably at the ICC Board meeting in July.
According to the ICC, the recommendation, which was set to be tried at the ICC Champions Trophy in October, "was rejected on the basis of the impact it may have on the authority of the umpire and the spirit of the game, and according to then president Ehsan Mani, "the reservations expressed by the cricket committee when they recommended the player appeal measure were mirrored to a much greater degree by the ICC Board in its rejection of the concept after extensive deliberation".
According to Mani, the board was concerned about the impact of the trial on the spirit of the game and the effect it might have on the integrity of umpiring at all levels.
weak umpiring
The fact is that umpiring at some levels, is weak. While one will put up with it at the amateur level, it is difficult to do so at the professional level, because of that it needs some help, and as the governing body for the game the ICC has an obligation to step in and do something about it regardless of how the umpires may feel about it - especially remembering that, unlike Wavell Hinds during the West Indies tour of England in 2000 and Damien
published: Sunday | August 6, 2006
Tony Becca
Once upon a time cricket was almost as big a sport as football. Today, however, football is bigger, much bigger than cricket.
Why is that so? It is so simply because whereas football has made an effort to spread its wings as wide as possible, where as football has come up with innovations to attract participation and fan support in an effort to spread the gospel of the game, and where as football has from to time changed its rules to accommodate the changing times, cricket has been marking time - at least in one important area of the game.
improving standard
It is true, no question about that, that the International Cricket Council (ICC) has, through the one-day version of the game and more recently through the Twenty/20 version of the game, made an effort to spread the gospel of the game, and that recently it has also been making an effort to improve the standard of the game among its associate members.
One of the things that turns people away from cricket, however, is the fact that, as far as a bowler is concerned, a batsman can be given not out when he is out, and that, as far as a batsman is concerned, a batsman can be given out when he is not out - and that has been going on from time immemorial, so long in fact that it has become a part of the game.
Regardless of whether it has become a part of the game or not, to be given out when one is not out, or for some players, to be given not out when one is out, is wrong, whether it was a difficult decision or not, it adds up to a bad decision, and something must be done about it.
trial period
In fact, something was attempted when, earlier this year, the ICC's cricket committee voted for a trial period during players would be allowed three appeals per innings to the TV umpire if they felt a decision made by the on-field umpire was incorrect.
Although football is thinking about using television for decisions regarding goals, although American football allows controlled appeals against on-the-field decisions, although tennis, in some tournaments, is already allowing players to appeal line calls, and even though, with the on-field umpire allowed to appeal to the third umpire, it already uses the TV camera and the third umpire to assist the on-field umpire in making some decisions, cricket, good old cricket has said no to the player appealing decisions even though such appeals would be limited to three.
The recommendation by the cricket committee was made after a vote of 6-5, and the recommendation was turned down comfortably at the ICC Board meeting in July.
According to the ICC, the recommendation, which was set to be tried at the ICC Champions Trophy in October, "was rejected on the basis of the impact it may have on the authority of the umpire and the spirit of the game, and according to then president Ehsan Mani, "the reservations expressed by the cricket committee when they recommended the player appeal measure were mirrored to a much greater degree by the ICC Board in its rejection of the concept after extensive deliberation".
According to Mani, the board was concerned about the impact of the trial on the spirit of the game and the effect it might have on the integrity of umpiring at all levels.
weak umpiring
The fact is that umpiring at some levels, is weak. While one will put up with it at the amateur level, it is difficult to do so at the professional level, because of that it needs some help, and as the governing body for the game the ICC has an obligation to step in and do something about it regardless of how the umpires may feel about it - especially remembering that, unlike Wavell Hinds during the West Indies tour of England in 2000 and Damien