IND vs NZ First Test: DRS, Ashwin, Cricket Spirit-How did the referees perform?

[ad_1]

In the first test, which ended here on Monday night, it was not uncommon for on-site referees to cross-sign their arms to indicate that the on-site verdict was revoked during the review.

At least six times the decision made by the referee must be changed during the review, and at least four more times the decision will be changed if it is reviewed. DRS was successfully used by the victim as early as the third round of the game. At that time, Shubman Gill was mistakenly abandoned by Tim Southee lbw, and the last time it was used by Rachin Ravindra of New Zealand at the end of the fifth day of the game.

Will Young’s dismissal on the fourth night was painful for New Zealand, mainly because his scrutiny-he was 1 second or less late at the time of the signal-could have saved him. Will the accuracy of the referee be better?

Former international referee Vinayak Kurkani believes that given the pressure and lack of experience they are under, the referee’s performance is satisfactory.

At least six times the decision made by the referee must be changed at the time of the review. If the review is conducted, at least four other decisions will be changed

“In that stressful situation, they did a good job together because one of them had less experience and a lot of things happened—things that didn’t usually happen. Everything was said and done, and the decision was overturned. Is advantageous,” Kurkani told athletic star.

“If the DRS is overturned, those decisions should not be included in the statistics, because apart from the two lbw decisions, they are all excellent decisions made by the referee. I will not give the referee a positive opinion on these two decisions alone. ,”He said.

However, Kurkani felt that the referee might sometimes try to stay safe.

“Our referee stood without any gadgets. No slow motion, nothing. How much time do we have? A lot of things happened: seven outfielders stood around the bat at a time.

“I also think that the referee is also safe in the game: two or three times the referee sends the batter out and the batter immediately conducts a review. This means that the batter is sure that the ball did not touch his bat. It was Overturned. They might act cautiously: “If I give it, it won’t be blamed on me, it will be overturned.” But this shouldn’t happen. The referee shouldn’t stay safe.”

Cricket spirit

Also testing the referee was R. Ashwin’s strange approach and follow-up trajectory during a stage of the first game in New Zealand. Ashwin did not land in the danger zone, but directly in front of the referee when passing the ball from around the wicket, and finally in front of the non-forward in his follow-up. The referee Nitin Menon (Nitin Menon) had a long conversation with him, and the captain Ajinkya Rahane also had a conversation with the referee.

R. Ashwin. -PTI

Before giving up the experiment, Ashwin repeated it several times.

The writer, former top cricketer, referee and referee Raju Mukherjee pointed out that Ashwin can drop his foot and place himself in front of the referee when passing the ball.

“The bowler can be on the court, but the referee also has the right to tell him-‘If you do this, I may not be able to get the batter out because I can’t see him. You block my sight’,” he said.

He added: “Here, an arrogant bowler can say-if so, there is no dispute, I will only let him pitch. This is just for debate. What would happen if the catch was there? The bowler had to go. Go to that side and block the line of sight, so it gets caught and throws the ball. Generally speaking, a catch is something you can see if it is caught correctly. This means that the bowler can be in front of the referee. But if he To do this deliberately and obstruct the referee’s vision, then the referee can also say-“I don’t mind, I won’t give a verdict of lbw. “

“This may have happened a few years ago, when there was no third referee. Today, if a decision of lbw was to be made and the referee said,’I didn’t see it and couldn’t make a decision’, they would submit it to the third referee. “

According to Mukherjee, the spirit of play and its traditional practices are the key to solving this situation.

“These are very important questions. The idea is: there is no law to run the game like this. It is the spirit of the game, it is the traditional practice of the game. If you block his vision, he can say-‘Please don’t block it. My line of sight’-the bowler must switch positions accordingly,” Mukherjee said.

Kulkarni also believes that the spirit of cricket is an important concept in this situation. He felt that Ashwin did not block the referee’s view because he was moving quickly to the left, but he blocked the non-forward.

“If the outfielder deliberately blocks a non-forward, a law can be invoked. But there is also a provision that the non-forward can stand on the opposite side. Meaning-the bowler is playing on the same side of the bowling ball. If the non-forward asks the referee to be allowed to stand on the other side, the referee can allow it. Him,” he said.

“Whether Ashwin deliberately blocks non-forwards or part of the game is up to the referee. This usually comes down to the spirit of the game.”

Violation of the Code of Conduct

Kurkani believes that what can be definitely considered a violation of the code of conduct is Ashwin’s behavior later in the fourth day. When Will Young asked the referee to review, Ashwin pointed to the huge screen to remind everyone that the batsman’s 15 seconds had passed. Other members of the Indian team also protested to the referee.

Kurkani said: “Ashwin’s approach is incorrect. The players who protested (pointing out the delayed review decision) are on the verge. You can say that they want the referee to notice this, but not just the referee on the court. You can tell if 15 seconds have passed. There is a third referee; he gave the timing. He is the one who said the time is up.”

[ad_2]

Source link

Recommended For You

About the Author: AZ