11 March,2017 09:11 AM IST | | A Correspondent
The game administered by the ICC under the rules and regulations of the MCC has presumably considered all these issues and decided that it worth continuing and spending more money on perfecting the technology and imposing this on to all countries and broadcasters around the world
Theâu00c2u0080u00c2u0088game administered by the International Cricket Council (ICC) under the rules and regulations of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has presumably considered all these issues and decided that it worth continuing and spending more money on perfecting the technology and imposing this on to all countries and broadcasters around the world. By seeking to get 100 per cent decision-making accuracy, only from wicket to wicket, the game is constantly being dragged into disrepute rather than being enhanced.
We see the current dispute between Indian and Australian camps over who has been looking to the player's viewing area for a signal. Such a dispute has risen due to the tense competition with one side trying to gain some advantage over the other. Two batsmen in the centre of the wicket is glaringly obvious. When the fielding side goes for a review, what prevents any one of the 11 persons on the ground being the designated person to get a signal and rush it to the captain? How do umpires keep track of all players if that is their job?
There were a number of instances in the Bangalore Test which I think shows that technology might not work. Take for example the Kohli dismissal. Umpire Llong gave it out. Kohli knew he had hit it, and signalled immediately. After almost five minutes of reviews where technology is supposed to enhance the game, the resultant decision was inconclusive, and as a consequence, the decision went back to where it should always be, on-field. Disappointed Kohli accepts the umpire's decision and walks off.
