grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They are trialling a change, so it's not like they're not doing anything to assuage the problems.If you rely on a piece of tech to prove something the lack of proof on that piece of tech has to at least suggest that there wasn't an edge, otherwise you end up with situations like this. I mean, if you break it down, I'm sure we all see the through process Dharmasena went through, right? Following Trott in the first test, where he was given out because hotspot did not show evidence of an edge, they're clearly under directive to not count a lack of hotspot as evidence of no edge but use other tech. So the umpire gives it out, video replay shows no evidence of an edge, hotspot shows no evidence of an edge, there is an unexplained sound that could theoretically be the ball hitting the bat, that sound was obviously the basis of the on-field decision, so there's some "doubt". Can't overturn the umpire's decision. You have to at least conclude that if there is no evidence on hotspot you need something else conclusive to suggest the ball hit the bat.
To put it another way, there's a reason you talk about "reasonable" doubt in a criminal trial and not just "doubt" full stop, because you can create doubt out of basically nothing, as Dharmasena did. You have to take the lack of evidence on tech as a strong suggestion the ball did not hit the bat unless something else conclusively suggests otherwise.
Either that or forget about lawyering over umpiring decisions and let the umpire's decision stand. Because the current system is clearly non-functional.
That's why I fail to understand the level of ire, they've admitted that things aren't perfect, and they're trying to change that.
Last edited: