![]() When the system was first considered, one of the reasons put forward for its introduction was to protect a player's career from a poor decision. As former Australian prime minister Paul Keating remarked: "Always back self-interest because you know it's a goer." When cricketers are playing for their living, self-preservation is often the No. If the system had been subjected to a thorough examination before it was implemented, then there should have been a red flag next to players initiating reviews. That's when words are exchanged, resulting in distrust and anger between players on opposing teams.ĪLSO READ: Which umpire fares the best when reviewed by DRS? ![]() What does cause animosity between players is when a poor decision affects the result of a match. Both batsmen and bowlers know that one day they go for you and on another day they go against you. ![]() Umpiring decisions should never be part of cricket's tactical battles.įifty/fifty decisions always have been and always will be accepted by cricketers. In its current form it's mostly used to review 50/50 decisions, is occasionally employed as a tactic, and is overused in the interests of self-preservation. So long as there are a finite number of reviews, it can never be guaranteed to achieve those goals. It struggles to achieve at least two of the ICC's prime objectives: arriving at the correct decision and eradicating the howler. I'm no longer in lock-step with the BCCI on this because I still don't have much faith in the DRS. ![]() There was a time when the BCCI distrusted the DRS. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |