IND vs ENG: Virat Kohli Recommends Changes in Umpire’s Call Rule

 - Sakshi Post

One word that is entering into the minds of all cricket fans, especially after the completion of the recent test and 20/20 series against England, is the “Umpire’s call.” This has raised the eyebrows of many great cricketers around the world. Even the ace spinner, Shane Warne has been harping on this rule, calling the authorities to amend the clause.

Now looks like it is Virat Kohli who has given strength to this fiercely debated clause in DRS (Decision Review System). The Indian skipper has said that this decision is creating a lot of confusion. According to Kohli, LBW decisions should be based solely on whether the ball is hitting the stumps, even if marginally.

As per the preset rule, when an umpire's decision is challenged, at least 50 percent of the ball should be touching any one of the three stumps for the batsman to be declared as out. Kohli has presented his theory which sounds completely logical. 

“According to me, the umpire's call right now is creating a lot of confusion. When you get bowled, as a batsman, you don’t expect the ball to hit more than 50 percent into the stumps to consider yourself bowled. So from basic cricket common sense, I don't think that there should be any debate on that,” explained the Indian team captain.

“If the ball is clipping the stumps, that should be out whether you like it or not, you lose the review. That's how simple the game has to be. If it hits the stumps, or it misses the stumps, it should not matter how much it is hitting, because it is creating a lot of confusion” says Virat.

Kohli felt that these aspects have to be reconsidered given high-stakes tournaments in future. He felt there should be clarity in defining factors during big tournaments. Some feel that if we leave the final say based on a soft decision or umpire's call we are making a mockery of technology and not using it to the fullest. What is the technology for if we allow human decision to stand?

However, let’s analyze this problem ourselves. The ball tracker is generated by hawk-eye cameras with high resolution and it produces a composite picture that allows you to generate apart the points. The greater the number of points, the more accurate will be the imaginary curve that decides where the ball would have finally hit. We presume that whoever formed the rules back then would have given room for allowing these marginal errors due to the inaccurate performance of cameras. Those days have gone by. We now have cameras with high resolution and there is likely scope for the suggested amendments in the rule.

Back to Top