Is this cricket?

In a game where each and every of the umpire’s misjudgments is expected to even out in the end, cricket’s latest improvisation may appear somewhat odd. In a trial beginning with the India-Sri Lanka Test series next month, the ICC will allow both the batting and fielding sides three “failed appeals” in each innings. Among the appeals allowed will be leg-before-wicket decisions, with the third umpire empowered to use Hawk-Eye technology, but only to track the ball till it strikes the batsman. The limit of three will presumably not result in repeated hold-ups, unless of course the umpires on the field are revealed to be chronically in error. Is cricket then — and then too, only to the anachronistic purist’s alarm — becoming a sport of shrinking uncertainties, a sport more constrained by the rule book?

By the latest controversy in cricket, absolutely not. Take Kevin Pietersen’s shot improvisation during a one-day international against New Zealand. The MCC was to meet on Tuesday to discuss the legality of his switch-hitting. On Sunday, Pietersen twice switched from a right-handed to a left-handed stance when the bowler was already approaching the crease. Pietersen and many others argued that the tactic is legitimate, and that it is simply a logical next step from the reverse sweep. Critics argued that the ploy would give batsmen too much of an advantage over bowlers, who are bound to tell the umpire if they intend to change their bowling arm. This is not a debate the MCC could be expected to settle in the course of a single meeting.

Joy, therefore, to cricket’s chattering classes. There is a curious — and disproportionately influential — elite amongst commentators of the game that resists any change. No Twenty20 for them — it would make batsmen too impatient for 2 runs an over Test innings. No third umpire referrals for them — what-ifs are too much a part of cricket’s charm for them. In a season when cricketers get to question decisions, at least Pietersen has given them something to debate.