Why should cricket teams be allowed only one review?
Bangladesh's stunning victory over New Zealand, coming back from an almost impossible position, was the most magnificent batting performance I have ever seen and the greatest fightback in one day cricket ever. Shakib and Mahmudullah are both genuine international calibre batsmen but this took something more than just that. It took courage and skill and determination and self-belief - all those things that once in a rare while, lift a sporting encounter to something that is so moving that perhaps one can say it is almost ennobling, bringing out our best emotions.
There was never any panic. There was never an instance in which it even remotely appeared as if either Shakib or Mahmudullah were in trouble, or gave any indication to suggest that they thought they would not be able to perform the mammoth task at hand. Each batsman scored at the same rate so that neither would feel the pressure of a scoring rate getting too high. If I had one small regret it was that Shakib did not stay till the end with Mahmudullah so that the two could walk off the field together, the flamboyant cavalier alongside the measured professional, both hand in hand after putting up one of the most remarkable displays ever seen on a cricket field. I was privileged to watch it.
Because of England's win against Australia, Bangladesh has made it to the semi-finals. They deserve to go even further, for after all, in Tamim Iqbal, Mushfiqur, Shakib and Mahmudullah, they have four batsmen of genuine international calibre. I wish Pakistan had a batting side half as good.
Perhaps in the very justifiable euphoria of a great performance and a splendid win, the fact that poor Soumya Sarkar was sold a ripe lemon by Umpire Gould, adjudged leg before when the ball was going over the stumps, will be forgotten. He could not ask for a review because the team had used up the one review it is allowed under the ICC's current rules governing the use of UDRS (Umpire Decision Review System). It begs the question, why are teams allowed only one review? After all, an umpiring review adds to the drama and makes a cricket match that much more exciting for the fans. Let's not forget that the broad genre under which international cricket comes is entertainment, and this certainly adds to the entertainment value for which many people have paid good money, The phrase 'through the nose' certainly comes to mind. Also, one would like to have the result of a sporting encounter decided, as far as possible, on correct decisions, and limiting the number of referrals does not serve that end.
The answer would be that it would be used frivolously and that would take too much time; so let us have a provision that a team is allowed any number of referrals but that three referrals that are turned down would mean the end of a team's entitlement; also, an umpire would have resort to any number of TV confirmations he wanted and that if he gives a wrong decision without referral to a TV replay when he could have resorted to such a confirmation, will never stand in international cricket again. Such a provision would never pass muster, I assure you, because 'it would take too much time'.
It is that same desire to limit the duration of an ODI in terms of time that prompts the completely screwed up rule whereby the captain of a bowling side is suspended for as many as two games over slow rates. It is not unusual for the captain to be one of the best players in the side and therefore, this affects adversely the entertainment value of the next two games which he is not allowed to play. I cannot see how that is fair for the many people who may have bought tickets – again, very expensive ones – for these games. The quality of the entertainment they are given is severely reduced and why? Because cricket officials do not want cricket matches to go on too long as it is working overtime for them without any recompense. It is not a decision made for the fans, for I am yet to come across a fan who complains when a cricket match 'has gone on too long.' Indeed, if the argument is that without such rules a match could go one till midnight, then let us have a system whereby after a particular cut-out time, a certain number of runs will be added to the score of the batting side on the basis of an agreed formula. Quite apart from anything else, it will be infinitely more effective in serving the desired end.
It is time for cricket to seriously rethink its priorities. Brilliant performers like Tamim Iqbal and Shakibul Hasan will always pull in crowds but the authorities, who claim to be so worried about falling attendance at cricket matches, have to work with the players, not against them.
The writer is the former editor of the Pakistani daily The News in London.