The first test between Sri Lanka and India got underway last Wednesday, heralding, for the first time, the opportunity for each team to make three challenges against the decisions of the umpires. Television replays are then used to determine the accuracy, or otherwise, of the umpire’s decision. If the TV reveals that the umpire was wrong in dismissing a player, then that player is permitted to remain at the crease.

What Can Cricket Learn From Wimbledon

As with all response to injustice, the proposed remedy needs to undergo close scrutiny to ensure that, in solving one problem, more problems are not created. Fair-minded sports betting fans recognise that the use of technology has its place in modern sport. The virtual TV replays of line calls at Wimbledon revealed a few errors and justice was served with a change of decision. The problem lies in the area of more complex assessment of play. TV is not yet capable of reliably telling us whether or not a batsman ‘snicked’ the ball on its way to the keeper’s gloves. It’s also impossible to tell if a ball has grounded before a low-level catch.

What if a team has used up all their challenges and then they perceive a truly gross misjudgement by the umpire. How aggrieved will they then be? How undermined will umpires feel, in terms of their confidence, if they find that their skills at spotting true LBW’s are too often shown to be wrong? Will the crowd be happy to have to sit around during these breaks while officials mull over TV footage?

Don’t Change The Rules Just Because You Can

Cricket has been played quite happily since the 16th century. Certainly injustice has occurred, sometimes critically for the outcome of the game. Until now players have been content to conclude that sometimes a decision will go with them and sometimes against. Swings and roundabouts. I hope all cricket betting enthusiasts will join me when I say let’s not fix it if it ain’t broke. The cricket game is too wonderful to risk messing it up just to satisfy the modern obsession of winning at all costs.