Saturday, 16 January 2010

Something strange and unusual

This is with reference to the argument by the England coach Andy Flower citing that Smith was given a life when the batsman was on 15 then, which had to be given out. If the England coach's words are to be believed, the South African captain Graeme Smith had a knick before the ball went on the find the keeper's gloves. But, this was not to be the case as far as the onfield umpires were concerned. Smith stayed on the crease, probably not knowing what had happened waiting for the umpires decision which finally went in his favor. And so was the decision of the third umpire.

Smith eventually went on to score 105, which was his 20th hundred in test cricket if statistics are to be believed. But, one thing hardly anyone can understand is that how could Andy Flower or Andrew Strauss hear the knick which neither was heard by the onfield umpires nor by the third umpire, who has the power to see the replays repeatedly? Of course, there has been situations where the third umpire has been partial to one side, when Andrew Symonds was given not out despite videos suggesting that his foot was above the ground in the famous Sydney test 2008.

But, the present case under consideration is a different one. That test played at Sydney was a controversial one where 8 decisions from the umpire had gone wrong, out of which one decision was given by the Australian captain Ricky Ponting (when he raised his finger to declare Ganguly out for a ball caught off a bounce) and the other by the third umpire as mentioned above. However, in the same test, Ricky Ponting was given out which replays suggest was not the case. But, this issue should not have been blown out of proportion by either Strauss or Flower.

If one has to go by Strauss' words, there should be such an issue popping up in every match almost when, there can be atleast one case of a no ball being declared a legal delivery and viceversa. And, this I bet would be witnessed by every test match wherein atleast one leg before decision turns out to be a wrong one. But, none of these decisions make news whatsoever. And, even if Strauss words are true to an extent, there was nothing to go in for a complaint to be lodged. No one in the crowds had heard a noise and so was the batsman. But complaints. And, how does Andy Flower say that the TV umpire had turned down the volume low before replaying the ball? Was Daryl Harper a dumbo by any means?

No comments: