The perils of technology
Paul Collingwood looked a bit irate on being given out after the giant screen showed that he was out of his ground (and after the third umpire had initially not been called). But Paul (and the English team, including Pietersen who was present at the ground and also seemed to disputing the umpire's decision) must realize the following: that if the decision pertaining to Pietersen's caught-behind in the tests could be reversed after an umpire noticed the big-screen replay, then surely, this decision could be reversed as well? (After all, its not like the Indians hadn't appealed). Sauce for geese and gander, and all that?
posted by Samir Chopra at 6:48 AM
2 Comments:
And doesn't Collingwood's irritation qualify as dissent ?
Sfx: Yup, I think technically it would. But I think umpires are a little more understanding when they sense some sort of confusion caused by the use of technology (I think Dravid for example might have questioned the umpires after the Pietersen dismissal, though, he was not irate in the way that Collingwood and Pietersen both were).
Post a Comment
<< Home