Nathan McCullum’s controversial catch – A question for the review-system?
In a day and age where cities are under surveillance, let alone cricket matches, one would expect the officials behind the television screens to make the right decisions. Cricket is one of the few games that has whole-heartedly embraced video technology,
a move that has helped the game in many ways.
The review system has given each side a chance to voice their doubts over the on-field umpire’s decision. It gave the players a much needed sense of empowerment and at times, satisfaction when the wrong decision was reverted and the correct decision made.
Long before that, however, the third umpire had pretty much the simple task of reviewing run-outs when the on-field umpire would signal with the now trademark television screen gesture. Everyone and anyone watching knew that this kind of technology was helping
the game and very soon left one wondering what else it could be put to use for.
Infrared cameras showing where the ball hit the bat or batsman, the ‘Hawk eye’ showing whether the ball would go on to hit the stumps and whether or not the ball pitched in line and a very sensitive sound detector that would show the slightest contact between
bat and ball were all being used regularly during broadcasts to viewers around the world.
One by one each of the aforementioned technologies was allotted to the umpires in the hopes that it would make the game fairer with the correct decision being easier to make. To some extent, it did just that but then on the biggest stage of the game, the
http://www.senore.com/Cricket/ICC-World-Cup-2011-c100625 World Cup, it failed in spectacular fashion.
http://www.senore.com/Cricket/NL-McCullum-c2120 took one of the catches of the tournament if not the decade, only to have it wrongly over ruled. Just after his follow through, he dove for the ball in an effort that any action movie stuntman would have been jealous of. Taking the catch
with two fingers just before the ball hit the ground, he rose up and his celebration matched the catch he took.
Sri Lankan batsman, http://www.senore.com/Cricket/DPMD-Jayawardene-c1397 was unconvinced and he asked for the decision to be reviewed. This is what the review was in place for to ensure that fair play prevails. Nathan McCullum had nothing to worry about as he knew he had taken the catch,
yet with countless camera angles available, the third umpire perhaps did not use the best one.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman he ruled it not out, sparking immediate protests from the gob smacked McCullum and the livid Kiwi captain, http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Rauf-c84151.
Later replays from a more suitable angle showed that McCullum had in fact taken a blinder of a catch. Justice was not done as Jayawardene should have departed for 26 runs, yet he batted on to make an impressive partnership with his captain. Ross Taylor,
who knew all about making sides pay for dropping catches having destroyed http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Pakistan-c755 himself, was well within his rights to be frustrated.
He said, “. . . at the end of the day you just hope the technology is right and if the technology is not right, well then don't use it."
While his words may have been more out of frustration, they did carry weight. Video technology is there to help reduce controversy in decisions, not to add to them. In the end, Nathan McCullum’s catch will not be remembered because according to the video
decision, it never happened.
Tags: