Tags:
Journalism of Courage
In a game where each and every of the umpire8217;s misjudgments is expected to even out in the end, cricket8217;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 8220;failed appeals8221; 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 8212; and then too, only to the anachronistic purist8217;s alarm 8212; becoming a sport of shrinking uncertainties, a sport more constrained by the rule book?
By the latest controversy in cricket, absolutely not. Take Kevin Pietersen8217;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.
