Lady Luck smiled big on Chris Gayle in Canberra on Tuesday. So much so that the Jamaican made use of it to score the highest-ever individual score in World Cup history, which also happened to be the first double century in the quadrennial event. But he should have been out for a golden duck. If not for a chink in the DRS rule called 'The Umpire's Call'.
Lady Luck smiled big on Chris Gayle in Canberra on Tuesday. So much so that the Jamaican made use of it to score the highest-ever individual score in World Cup history, which also happened to be the first double century in the quadrennial event. But he should have been out for a golden duck. If not for a chink in the DRS rule called 'The Umpire's Call'.
First ball Gayle faced, there was a big LBW appeal and he was adjudged not out by the Australian umpire Steve Davis. However, television replays showed that he was indeed out as the Tinashe Panyangara delivery was clipping the bails.
When Zimbabwe went for the DRS, they were only denied the big wicket as the third umpire Ranmore Martinesz sent it back to the on-field umpire as the 'Umpire's Call'.
Fair enough. Davis, relying only on his naked eye, doubted that the ball would have even hit the bails. But spare a thought for the Zimbabweans. The fielding side was robbed of the lone unsuccessful review just because the on-field umpire stuck to his original decision of Not Out.
Rarely have umpires changed their decisions from not out to out and vice-versa when reviews left it to the 'Umpires Call'.
Former England Test opener Mark Butcher tweeted from his handle @markbutcher72 soon after Zimbabwe's review was struck down thus: "Gayle dodges a bullet on review. Ridiculous that you lose a review when the ball is clipping the stumps #WIvZIM"
Zimbabwe captain Elton Chigumbura termed it as "we were just unlucky" at the Gayle LBW appeal being negated even after reviews.
The authorities in the ICC should give it a serious look if they are to use technology to the maximum. The 'Umpire's Call' should be removed from the DRS. It should either be OUT or NOT OUT. Nothing in between.
Otherwise, the very purpose of DRS is defeated. And this is precisely why the Board of Control for Cricket in India has been against the DRS. "That it is not fool-proof" is what we often hear from both the officials and players when the subject is raised.
It is not the fielding side's fault that the umpire has given a player not out and their review has been termed unsuccessful, while for a similar appeal, the batsman has been adjudged out. As we saw in the case of Zimbabwe opener Regis Chakabva when the same Davis reversed the decision from not out to out following West Indies' review.
Also, as in Gayle's case, if the ball indeed was going on to hit the bails, why should the fielding side be penalised and their right to review again be struck off?
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}