Vale Jane McGrath

By now you would all have heard the very sad news that Jane McGrath, Glenn’s wife has passed away after a long, on and off battle with cancer.

As you know, I’m pretty strict about dongles editorial content being cricket only. However, I think it is appropriate that dongles should join the Australian, and wider cricket community in acknowledging such a sad event. Jane McGrath was the woman behind one of Australia’s greatest cricketers of the modern era and as evidenced by the tributes, was a remarkable person in her own right.

I don’t see the need to pen an obituary here – there are many in the print and electronic media that are worth reading.

I saw the interview when Glenn and Jane McGrath appeared on Andrew Denton’s program “Enough Rope”. It was a wonderful piece of television and well worth watching. So on a day of exceptions, I will promote an commercial product of questionable value, and point you to this web site where you can view Part 2 of the Denton interview.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23908102-5001021,00.html

Please be sensitive to the needs to your employer. (Don’t watch this at work and get yourself or dongles into trouble)

Rest in peace, Jane. Our thoughts and prayers are with your family.

Get it right the first time that’s the main thing

It’s old news now: Australia has won the third test against the West Indies on the fifth day, with plenty of time and runs in hand. They won the series 2-0. Best for the Aussies in the series were Brett Lee (18 wickets at 23.72 and 103 runs at 34.22) and Simon Katich (319 runs at 63.8). Clark and Clarke were also good. For the West Indies, and both teams, it was Chanderpaul. Chiv stood tall. Well, as tall as can be expected. From the 1000 balls he faced, he scored 442 runs at 147.33, making two centuries and three fifties. In the 2nd and 3rd Tests, he batted for 18 hours, being dismissed only on the final day of the series.

Now we shall move on to some interesting matters of cricket law and order. The first is that the Test series between India and Sri Lanka next month will see an umpire challenge system trialed. This will be similar to the concept used in tennis. I’ll let Dave Richardson explain:

“The system will see the fielding and batting side allowed three unsuccessful appeals to the umpire per innings to change a decision if it is perceived to have been incorrect,” the ICC said in a press release. “These appeals can be made only by the batsman in receipt of the umpire’s original decision or the captain of the fielding side, in both cases by the player making a ‘T’ sign with both forearms at shoulder height.”

“The on-field umpire will consult with the third umpire, who will review available television coverage of the incident before relaying fact-based information back to his colleague. The on-field umpire will then deliver his decision either by raising his finger to indicate “out” or by crossing his hands in a horizontal position side to side in front and above his waist three times – as per a “safe” decision by an official in baseball.”

Now dongles will have his say:

I am fundamentally opposed to the system of challenging umpires. My opinion is that playing sport is partly about learning character. That process is aided by accepting good and bad circumstances with grace. Remember, we are talking about a game here – people aren’t being put to death or going to gaol when mistakes are made. I don’t feel that the focus on the importance of “getting it right for the good of the game” is justified. For cricket to survive and prosper, it is not, in fact, essential for all decisions to be correct.

That being said, there are many tensions in the real world in which we live and that includes the world of cricket. I’m prepared to go along with the flow and accept that the overpaid, immature players would rather have the decisions correct. So let’s have our trial.

Looking at the upside, it adds an element of tactics to a match. When should teams use their appeals? Should they be saved or used? It has been interesting to watch the same dilemmas played out in tennis, where the players get 2 unsuccessful challenges per set.

I have a question: Is three challenges per innings too many? Tennis players get 2 per set and there are scores of line calls each set. In any cricket match, we can expect a minimum of 24 appeals against decisions – that’s if all happen to be unsuccessful – and we know they won’t be.

On the downside, let’s say an umpire is having a bad day – like Tiffen did in the recent second Test. He’ll spend the day being questioned and over-ruled. His confidence will be shattered. He will feel redundant. Keep in mind that we are talking of the fielding side appealing negative decisions as well as batsmen appealing unfair dismissals. Remember that the umpire will remain in control. He will consult the third umpire for more information but ultimately may choose to ignore it. Will Russ be tempted to say “Oh dear, that’s three in an hour. Bugger it. You’re out anyway.”?

And a couple of comments on the implementation. Why do we need the silly symbol to ask for a third umpire referral? It’s unnatural. I’d prefer an extension of the usual behaviour. For the fielding side, the captain will rush in from mid-wicket or slips and grab the umpire but the elbow or shoulders, remonstrate with wild hand gestures while maintaining a desperate and pleading expression. Batsmen will be required to throw their bats down the pitch or towards square leg and stand with hands on hips.

And delivery of the decision. I have no complaints about the finger being raised for out. But crossing the arms like a baseball “safe” signal. Oh please!! Like baseball! Gag. Whatever is wrong with the umpire saying “not out”. If the ICC is worried about the fans not knowing what is going on, they have no need to fear. If play continues without the batsman departing, the fans will realise that he was not out. I also think that the umpire should be allowed to say “up yours” should his original decision be confirmed.

The second item of law is that Kevin Pietersen will be allowed to keep switching hitting. He recently hit two sixes having changed stance (and grip) from right-handed to left-handed as the bowler made his approach. Spectacular action and quite an achievement, I’d say. There were some questions about whether it is legal. This surprises me a little as guys have been reverse sweeping forever but I guess the “switch” is less palpable with that stroke. At any rate, the MCC has said it’s above board. However, it might fine-tune some of the rules for clarity. For example, if KP is struck on the pads, are there some complications for the umpire? If the ball pitched outside the line of off stump (relative to his stance as a right hinder), does that mean he can’t be out lbw because the ball has pitched outside the line of leg stump of KP, the left-hander? Similar issues exist for judging wides. The ICC may need to define which is the off side – whether it relates to the batsman’s stance when the bowler started to run in, or the stance when playing the shot.

Next issue we will have a look at the future of Australian cricket, and specifically the future of some of the players (such as that under-achiever, Johnson).