"The Beauty of the game is in the glorious uncertainties", the statement, the prophecy which we so desperately want to unsettle. The recently promulgated 3rd umpire review system for all kinds of decision is one such effort. The system which is under heavy scrutiny, in its very early days has depicted some flaws.
It seems that the logic behind reviews has not been established clearly. The cleanest one would be to have the on-field umpire give the decision first. Clear evidence should be required to overturn 'that decision', whatever it is. The assumption is that the on-field umpire is correct unless the technology INCONTROVERTIBLY proves the decision was wrong. It can't be that you need clear video evidence to give someone out. The batsman can always stand and hope that the cameras didn't catch something clearly. What if the umpire saw it clearly? If the umpire gave the batsman out, and if the replays are not clear, the on field decision would stand. Otherwise, the rule becomes "not out unless you can prove it on replay". Not fair to the fielding side. With the method above, decisions will never be worse than what they would have been without the replays. It will also be a blow to an umpire's self confidence & belief if he has to overturn his decision despite lack of damning evidence. With the method they are using now, decisions can indeed be worse when the cameras are not clear.The conspiracy theorist would be wondering whether ICC deliberately nobbled the review process, in order to ensure its failure and preserve the sanctity of the on-field umpire...
But like on so many other issues in recent times, the ICC just can't seem to do anything right. Technology is introduced, but only half-hearted and more likely than not as an alibi. Why not go the whole hog and allow the best available technology even though it may not be perfect at this stage? It probably is better than the human eye anyway and is void of any human perception or bias. Hawk-eye, the snick-o-meter and the hot spot are all tangible technologies, which, in any case, eliminate any ambiguity and have a much higher degree of acceptability between the teams involved and the public at large. How can a batsman (Dilshan) be first perceived and given out and then the decision be rescinded although the applied technology is non conclusive? Maybe Richardson should try explaining that away instead of giving lectures on how the umpires are "in any case" 94% correct in their decisions without stating the mathematical analysis upon which that conclusion was made? Are we that gullible?
All but the most biased fan can accept an umpire giving a batsman not out if Hawk-eye says 0.5mm of the ball will hit 0.5mm of the top of leg stump, but few can stomach the clear-cut shockers we saw in Sydney. The review process, if properly implemented, removes these.
Another interesting twist in the tail occurred on Day 2 of the Colombo Test. Zaheer Khan had a marginal no-ball called, but there can be no referral because, as, "the batsman might well have changed his shot selection upon seeing the no-ball signal." That tilts things back toward the bat over the ball rather heavily! A simple solution: Let the 3rd umpire make all no-ball decisions based on the perfect camera. He can radio the result to the 1st umpire who can make the signal 'after' any shot has been played. This would virtually eliminate incorrect no-ball calls, and release the 1st umpire to focus attention solely on what is happening 22 yards away at the other end.
