 |
| |
WEEKLY
SECTIONS |
 |
|
 |
| A blip in the UDRS |
|
|
|
Saturday, November 28, 2009
DUNEDIN: The fourth day’s play between New Zealand and Pakistan in Dunedin revealed a minor loophole in the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS), making its official debut in this Test.
When Mohammad Asif challenged Billy Doctrove’s decision — in favour of Grant Elliott — the replays showed that while the batsman was plumb lbw, Asif had marginally overstepped. It would have been a successful challenge but for the no-ball that was originally missed by Doctrove. Yet it ended up costing Pakistan a run and, more importantly, it counted as an unsuccessful challenge.
It raised the question of whether the bowling side should be expected to keep an eye on no-balls, or actually be penalised for having missed one. The ICC’s regulations remain silent on the issue. A guide to the system circulated several days ago by the ICC offered this: “If the original decision of ‘out’ is upheld but for a different method of dismissal than the on-field umpire originally intended, then the review will still be regarded as being unsuccessful.” But it doesn’t advise on cases when the original decision of “not-out” is upheld for reasons other than originally intended by the on-field umpire.
When contacted after Friday’s incident, Dave Richardson, the ICC’s cricket operations manager, said it was not a loophole but an issue that needs sorting before every series. “It was something that was not covered specifically in the playing conditions. But I know that in the Australia series it was decided beforehand if that happens [a no-ball which is initially overlooked], the fielding team would not lose out on a review.”
|
|
|
| Back
| Send
this story to Friend | Print
Version |
|
|
|
ISSN 1563-9479 
