Dhoni no-ball outrage

What an eventful week on the Decision Review System front! Not only was progress made in Hong Kong with the BCCI and the ICC agreeing on a watered down compromise, which is in my view a far from ideal scenario, but human error threw it all back into a blindingly bright spotlight a couple of days later in the Caribbean.

Former Indian opening batsman Arun Lal raised an interesting point as I hosted a television studio show for Ten Sports in Dubai upon the DRS concession being made public. During discussions he enthusiastically commented that due to the technology aspect of the game now attaining such a universal profile, some form of ‘technological policing’ will be required to ensure accuracy is maintained. He went as far as to suggest that even the no-ball review needs to be adequately checked from a replay perspective to ensure the correct no-ball evidence is presented to the TV umpire upon a request to confirm legality. His basis for making that comment was that mistakes regarding this have been made previously and I can confirm he is accurate in that assessment.

He must have had a crystal ball.

Lo and behold, the very next day that exact scenario hogged the headlines. Dhoni was dismissed, tamely caught at mid-on, in what looked like a regulation dismissal. Off he trundled. Umpire Ian Gould decided he wanted to make certain all was legitimate and requested a review of the no-ball to ensure Fidel Edwards was behind the front-foot line in delivery.

This is where I had some privileged information!

As broadcast rights holders for cricket in the Caribbean, Ten Sports have access to technological aspects of the broadcast that are not available elsewhere. Upon checking that evidence I can confirm that what was reported and excitedly buzzed the Indian airwaves in particular, was 100 per cent accurate. For one reason or another the wrong clip was presented by an extremely inexperienced video tape operator (it is actually all digital) and, as a result, the incorrect decision was made. It was a no-ball and Dhoni should have been reprieved. At this juncture I will add that extraordinary circumstances on the ground in Barbados resulted in inexperience being entrusted with operating that particular videotape machine.

I know the personnel involved, who are producing the cricket in the West Indies, extremely well. They will be absolutely shattered by the error and I have no doubt whatsoever that it was a totally innocent mistake. Not all share my view though. You just need to check some of the scandalous reporting on certain Indian news channels to get the picture of how sensationalism attracts eyeballs. It really is outrageous that the more undesirable channels in that region get away with such nefarious journalism. Thankfully not most, but some.

Arun Lal was correct, 24 hours before the time. For the moment ignore how and why the mistake was made. The bottom line is that although expensive machinery and technology was slaving away to deliver the pictures and the correct evidence, it failed. It did not fail due to inadequate equipment; it failed due to human error. It also failed even though some of the very best and the most experienced in the business of live sports broadcasting were responsible for the overall production.

It was a very timeous error that has now resulted in further sharp focusing on this aspect of a live broadcast. The day before Arun Lal had actually said a technology adjudicator needs to be in the production area to ensure the correctness of evidential presentation.

This headlining example in Barbados was an innocent error.

However, could it be that in the future a sinister element might influence umpiring technological assistance in cricket?

I shudder to imagine that an unscrupulous, dishonest and devious individual could stoop that low, but with human nature sadly being what it is sometimes today, it is not totally out of the realms of possibility.

We have been wrong in personality judgment before.

How sad.