For a technology that is expensive, isn't universally accepted by the entire fraternity and is reeling under constant debate, to witness a howler like the one Khawaja endured, has to be the final blow. As the batsman waited for the review, replays proved how ambiguous the entire process was. The slow-mo proved nothing.
The audio evidence was misleading as the bat kissed the pads. The Hot Spot clearly had nothing to show. From all angles, it appeared as if Khawaja would survive. Hill, of course, had other ideas.
The batsman simply had to go because the third umpire didn't have enough evidence and therefore the on-field umpire's decision stood as final.
Here is where the trouble for DRS grows. BCCI, a staunch critic of the system, has time and again simply pointed out that if a system is not fully convincing and is seriously flawed, it is always better to rely on the on-field umpire.
The most appalling thing about this entire process is also the fact that Khawaja - the sufferer in the present scenario - had to ask for the referral himself and could not depend on his batting partner or teammates in the dressing room to decide for him. In doing so, it is a risk he had to take even if it eventually jeopardized his team's cause and robbed them of a referral.
At almost $50,000 per Test, the system's cost doesn't vary if the numbers of referrals per team, per innings are increased. The only area of concern could be the duration of a day's play if players keep challenging the on-field umpires.
In that case, the ICC may do well to pay heed to Ian Chappell's view that the decision to call a review should not rest with the players but with the umpires. Referrals too should rest with the third umpire who should be allowed to intervene if and when he feels necessary.
For now, it is clear that the system should go until it reinvents itself.
0 comments:
Post a Comment