IPL missed a trick in ’19 by letting MSD get away
As a teenager, I never lost at table tennis to my younger, significantly less athletic, brother. Then one day he was on the verge of beating me. I couldn’t handle it, so I smashed the ball. Rather than lose, my 15-year-old self preferred to ruin the game.
There was a shade of such tantrums in Rishabh Pant’s reaction to the no ball that wasn’t on Friday, when he seemed to motion to his batters to walk off the field. It was a human moment. Elite cricketers spend countless hours beating the humanity out of themselves, like a smith hammering the impurity out of metal. After all, it isn’t human to hit six consecutive sixes, like Rovman Powell threatened to do. But elite sport is also designed to reveal character, to show off what humanity is left. Most times, it’s beautiful. Sometimes, not so much.
When Pant sent assistant coach Pravin Amre onto the field, you could almost forgive him for responding like his mentor had in 2019. Pant’s and MS Dhoni’s reactions were occasions where their emotions got the better of them. What is startling though is the disparity in response. Dhoni was fined 50% of his match fee for walking onto the field and arguing with the umpires. Pant received a 100% fine, and Amre was banned for one match for doing pretty much what Dhoni did. This is not a good look for a beautiful tournament that is here to stay.
We’re in the 15th season of the biggest, most financially stable, most watched T20 tournament in the world. The IPL will outlast even the most prestigious of players. Yes, we live in an ecosystem driven by star power.
But no one is bigger than the game. This is why I believe the match officials missed a trick in 2019. Had Dhoni received a more severe penalty for an unprecedented infringement, Amre would not have dared to walk onto the field.
In this ecosystem, I feel a great deal of empathy for the umpires. While the top cricketers are all name-brands, the best umpires are anonymous. We only learn their names when something goes wrong. It takes a lot of heart to think clearly when the face of a franchise is fuming at you. But that is why the Spirit of Cricket has enshrined respect for the umpire’s decision as central to our game. Delhi Capitals assistant coach Shane Watson said as much after the match: “Whether it’s right or wrong, we have to accept it. Someone running onto the field, it’s not good enough.”
As it happened, the umpires had got it absolutely right. The IPL Playing Conditions allow a TV referral only if there is a dismissal. But just because the umpires followed the rules doesn’t mean the rules are right. Just as IPL needs to expect more from its players, it also needs to evolve and use technology better.
I’ve argued before in these pages that “DRS is employed too often where not needed and too little where it is.” Every decision can influence the outcome of a game, especially in the T20 format, which, like basketball, is designed to produce close finishes. Recency bias means we will all remember what happens in the last over, but a harsh wide in the ninth over can be just as critical in a game decided by a run. So, the use of DRS needs to be expanded, to both line calls and judgement calls.
What’s the difference? Line calls are run outs and stumpings, and all these should be called by on-field umpires, with players allowed to review them. This puts human judgement front and centre again with an option of a TV review to rule out human error, and will minimise the ‘safe side’ reviews that umpires resort to. Line calls that umpires do not have a clear view of, like bowling crease no balls, should continue to be watched by the TV umpire. Examples of judgement calls are wides and no balls on height. These should also be opened up for the players to review, something they cannot do now. A review will trigger a second judgement call, this time by the TV umpire, but with more information.
Systems evolve. Humans grow up. I hope a few years on, a more mature Pant will look back at this footage, shake his head, and laugh. And he will be thankful that if the exact same thing happens again, he can just review it.