Lack Of 'Conclusive Evidence' Ends Kolhi's First Innings Effort
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-12-03 13:59:07
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
Captain Virat Kohli, returning after a short break, lasted just 4 balls in the first innings of the second Test between India and New Zealand at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. He was given out leg before to spinner Ajaz Patel for a duck. One uses the term 'given out' as a huge controversy has erupted over the dismissal.
On being given out by the on-field umpire, Kohli sought a review of the decision. The third umpire was not sure. Numerous replays showed the ball spank in the middle of the bat and pad and the sound was also there. But the adjudicator could not, as also the millions of viewers including experts and commentators could not, exactly point out or come to a conclusive view that what the ball hit first - the pad or the bat. In the end, the third umpire said that in the absence of conclusive evidence, he was constrained to let the on-field umpire's decision stand.
Since cricket is a game and not a debatable point of law in a court, the rule that a person is not guilty until proven could not be applied here. Yet the moot point is, in cases like this, who should get the benefit of the doubt, the batter or the bowler?
If the conclusive evidence about what the ball hit first could not be discerned from the replays, why should the third umpire let the on-field umpire's decision stand? The review is taken precisely for the reason that the contesting party feels that the on-field umpire had erred. If the third umpire, even with the aid of technology, could not decide clearly, the question is how could the on-field umpire decide the matter in an instant by just seeing the ball hit the region where both bat and pad were vying to touch it and on hearing a sound? How could he decide that the ball hit the pad first? And if he was unsure like the third umpire, why did he not give the benefit of the doubt to the batter?
However, these are academic questions as the umpiring decision has to be respected. But the incident does raise a few questions about DRS, its efficacy and the need to fine tune the technology further. It is very disappointing for contesting party to learn that their review failed due to inconclusive evidence. They, then, might be left wondering why the benefit of the doubt did not go in their favour.
picture courtesy: screengrab from a video uploaded by the BCCI
