Dirty eyes: England Vs West Indies - Sri Lanka Vs New Zealand

Two days in a row, two bad decisions, both from the off field umpire.

England Vs West Indies

Russell was batting on 39. The scorecard read 204/6. West Indies needed another 40 runs to win the game. Exactly at this point, Russell tried to clear Swann on the ON side but ended up finding Trott at the boundary. It was a superlative catch only to be ruled not out by the off field umpire. The evidence was inconclusive and the decision went in favor of the batsman. In my opinion, Trott shoulders hit the shadow of the boundary and not the actual boundary line. However, the benefit of doubt went in favor of the batsman. Thankfully the decision did not cost the game. Otherwise it would have been curtains for England’s dream for making any progress in the World Cup.

Sri Lanka Vs New Zealand

Jayawardane was batting on 24. The scorecard read 85/2. Jayawardane tried to steer the ball to the ON side of Nathan McCullum. The bowler realizing an opportunity quickly flew to his right to take a stunner. Any professional acrobat would be proud of that effort. Once again a stellar catch went to the third eye wanting for evidence. Due to lack of sufficient proof, the third umpire once again ruled the decision in favor of batsman. In my opinion, it was definitely a clean take. 9 out of 10 third umpires would have given that out. Jayawardane went on to add another 40 runs to his tally.

Now look at it this way. We all know that Sri Lanka’s biggest worry is their middle order. The scorecard read 164/3 in 36.1 overs when Jayawardane got out. The rest of the batsmen went to add only 100 more runs to the total.  If you look at the Lankan scoreboard, it reads as 3, 3, 111, 66, 41*, 5, 3, 1, 6, 7 and 0*. Had it been 85/3, the chances are good that Sri Lanka would have bundled under 200 runs.

At this time, I don’t know the result of the game. I’m waiting eagerly like you to know if that decision has impacted the outcome of the game and altered the journey of Kiwis.

If the decisions like the above come from the on field umpire, it is acceptable. After all the on field umpire watch the action live in split seconds and then arrive at the conclusion after discussing with the other umpire, which may or may not be correct. However, the third umpire can see umpteen replays with the slowest possible motion and in variety of angles. Despite inconclusive evidence, they can still make educated guesses based on the situation and circumstances.

I’m also surprised why the magnifier technology is not being used in this World Cup.

Bottom line: Dirty eyes of the third eye needs a lot of cleansing

Dinesh

Cricket Lover