Referral system dismissed, caught Harper bowled ICC

The third umpire referral system is on trial during the West Indies v England Test series and there can only be one verdict: guilty. It simply cannot be used in the long-term in its current format. Daryl Harper has seen to that.

The system has flaws and leaves room for confusion. Ignoring the fact that it contradicts the moral code of players not challenging the authority of umpires, the system is badly constructed.

Third umpires need irrefutable evidence that the original on-field judgement was incorrect, not an element of doubt that umpire Harper cited when he gave Ramnaresh Sarwan a reprieve at Sabina Park.

This is fine in theory, but the man behind the monitor does not have the tools available to him to make such a decision. Sarwan therefore should have therefore been given out, as per Tony Hill’s original call, just as umpire Harper was right to uphold the dismissals of Devon Smith and Ryan Hinds at Barbados.

However, it is revealing that surely neither Smith nor Hinds would have been given out if they were originally given not out – there was not enough evidence to prove that Graeme Swann’s deliveries would have hit the stumps, that is until Hawkeye confirmed as much by using the predictive element that the ICC has not sanctioned for use in the referral system.

It is not these borderline decisions that TV evidence seeks to police. It is the blatant ones, the missed inside edges and instances where the ball pitches outside leg stump for LBW appeals, the flick of the pad rather than glove for caught behinds. We have not seen many of those in this series, suggesting the problem of bad on-field umpiring is not as bad as many think.

The system is only as good as the people who use it and the final nail in the trial system’s coffin came not when umpire Harper failed to reprieve Shivnarine Chanderpaul when he was hit on the pad by one going over the top, but soon after when he gave Brendan Nash out.

It is worth remembering that Nash had originally been given not out by Aleem Dar. England referred it, as it certainly did look close, and perversely Harper saw enough reason to overturn the decision. In other words, he was 100% sure the ball would have hit the stumps. Hawkeye went on to prove otherwise.

We really do have a problem when the use of technology results in the reversing of a decision that was correct in the first place.

Umpires make mistakes due to human error; Daryl Harper has proved that that factor is not taken away by the extra time TV referrals allow for. If the ICC find umpiring mistakes so unpalatable, they must tighten the third umpire system by making sure its adjudicators know if they are making decisions based on doubt or irrefutable evidence and that they have all available technology to hand.

Written by Philip Oliver, an online sports writer who blogs about Test match cricket.

In praise of the batting power play

The latest ICC amendment to the One Day International playing conditions looks like being a hit with spectators and batsmen, if not bowlers.

The batting power play is cricket’s best new regulation for some time. It might not be as significantly game-changing as the expanded third umpire referral system, but its introduction represents a much-needed fillip for 50 over cricket and shows the law-makers do take spectator enjoyment into consideration.

The new system needs tinkering. There is a grey area surrounding the element of choice involved – what happens if fielding team and batting team want to take their power play at the same time?

The current convention is for the fielding captain to tag his power play onto the first 10 overs of compulsory fielding restrictions, with the batting side targeting a spell two thirds through the innings, around the time of the mandatory ball change at 34 overs.

However, a flying start by the batting team might prompt them to call for their power play at the same time the fielding captain does; whose power play it is is important, as the state of the game might be very different after 15 overs – either side might not want to choose their power play at that stage.

Bowling changes also need to be looked at. It is part of the cat-and-mouse nature of the rule for the batting team to pounce on a part-time bowler by commencing five overs of fielding restrictions; for the fielding captain to stand down a fill-in bowler at the start of his run-up in favour of his star man goes against the spirit of the new regulation.

These are mere teething problems. The meandering middle overs of a One Day innings have been instantly enlivened and a new tactical dimension is introduced. Big hitters can now reside at four and five in the batting order rather than as openers or number seven sloggers – it is the licence Andrew Flintoff has needed to play his natural game, although as Kevin Pietersen’s power play go-to bowler, he must curse the new regulation.

India’s current superiority over England might persuade them to try new batting power play tactics – as soon as possible as mentioned above if Virender Sehwag is in full flight, or at the death if Yuvraj Singh and Yusuf Pathan are new to the crease – although the ease with which teams score in the batting power play asks some interesting questions.

Why do England remain so incapable of utilising the 10 overs of compulsory power play? Why do all batsmen not play with more freedom at all times? Is limited overs cricket heading towards a full innings of fielding restrictions? These queries suggest the batting power play is here to say and not about to join the Supersub on the ICC scrapheap of abandoned regulations.


Written by Philip Oliver, a sports writer who blogs about cricket betting.

Pietersen's switch-hit: bad form or just brilliant?

The MCC has ratified Kevin Pietersen's switch-hit – a shot which enabled him to hit two fantastic sixes - but debate still rages within the game over its legality.

Even if the Laws of Cricket do not ban such a shot, questions have been raised as to whether it complies with the spirit of the game. It has been compared to a bowler switching bowling hands just before a delivery, but surely, such individuality and enterprise can only be good for the game?

Cricket does not want to be seen as regressive and stifling of progress, so the ICC will do well to quash the planned review of the switch-hit. Few batsmen will be able to pull off such a shot, and Pietersen's incredible ability allowed him to not only execute it perfectly, but also pick up two maximums in the process.

Scott Styris was the bowler left red-faced, but he could only praise Pietersen, "Sometimes you've just got to take your hat off and say 'well played'. We all admire good cricket and that's what it was. I don't view it in any other light, I don't believe it's against the spirit of the game or anything."

And it is not just natural talent that enabled the self-assured 27-year-old to succeed in such an audacious shot. Pietersen admitted he has "spent many hours in the nets working on it" - and why should that go to waste?

It is fitting that Pietersen, a player who loves to ignore age-old traditions of cricket, should be the one who leads the game forward and his ingenious shot, rather than being treated with cynicism, ought to be cherished.