Watch Yourself Richard!

George Dobell at the Ageas Bowl

Richard Kettleborough, one of the on-field umpires in the ongoing second Test between England and Pakistan, has been spoken to by the ICC's anti-corruption unit (ACU) after taking to the field wearing a smartwatch.

Kettleborough was seen wearing the watch during the first session of the match. 

ESPNcricinfo understands he soon realised his error, took off the watch and reported the incident to the ACU. He has not been seen wearing it after lunch on the first day.

ESPNcricinfo further understands that the ACU consider the incident a minor violation of the regulations. They spoke to Kettleborough and reminded him of his obligations under the Player and Match Officials Area Regulations (PMOA). They are unlikely to take further action.

In an effort to combat corruption in cricket over the last few years, players and officials have been obliged to hand over their phones (and any other transmitting devices) to anti-corruption officials ahead of the start of play. They are then locked away and returned to them shortly after stumps. The ICC also has the power to confiscate devices and download all material from them in order to monitor recent activity, but have chosen not to do so on this occasion.

Kettleborough is not the first to make such an error. Pakistan's players were spoken to by officials after taking the field wearing smartwatches during the Lord's Test of 2018. While it was accepted the devices were disabled - they can be used, when disabled, to track fitness among other things - the players were reminded the regulations prohibited them being worn at all. Again, it was not considered anything more than a minor violation.

Earlier this year, the ECB tightened up its anti-corruption guidelines by banning players from wearing smartwatches on the field of play in all fixtures, on account of the growth of live-streaming services in county cricket.

The incident will cause some embarrassment for Kettleborough and the ACU. Usually such devices are surrendered to the anti-corruption manager upon arrival at the ground on match days, and it is not clear why that did not happen on this occasion.

TV umpire calling front-foot no-balls in Tests for first time.

PTG Editor.

Wednesday, 5 August 2020.

PTG 3215-15918.

Front-foot no-balls will be called by the TV umpire for the first time in Test cricket during the England-Pakistan series as the system is assessed with a view to further use in the future.  The technology has been used in fourteen 50-over and twenty-four 20-over internationals since 2016 (PTG 1917-9623, 6 September 2016), and all the necessary equipment is already in the UK for the recent England-Ireland One Day International series (PTG 3207-15875, 28 July 2020).  Under the system, all calling of front-foot no-balls is left to the TV umpire who then alerts the on-field officials of any overstepping within a matter of seconds.

Of late, there has been increasing scrutiny over the volume of no-balls not called by the on-field umpires in Test cricket (PTG 2948-14626, 23 November 2019).  On England's tour of Sri Lanka in 2018, broadcasters counted as many as 12 no-balls missed by the umpires during one five-over spell (PTG 2654-13281, 26 November 2018). In last year's Australia-Pakistan series, Channel 7 tallied up to 21 had been missed during two sessions on the second day in Brisbane (PTG 2948-14626, 23 November 2019). while there were further examples in the recently completed England-West Indies series.

The International Cricket Council announced the latest Test match level trial in a tweet sent only a few hours before the opening Test of the England-Pakistan got underway on Wednesday.

Ball disinfected after saliva uaed.

PTG Editor.

Monday, 20 July 2020.

PTG 3199-15834.

The International Cricket Council’s (ICC) new protocols governing the use of saliva on a ball had to be applied on day four of the second England-West Indies Test on Sunday, after an inadvertent transgression from England player Dom Sibley shortly before the lunch interval.  With Dom Bess at the top of his mark, preparing to bowl the penultimate over of the session, on-field umpires Michael Gough and Richard Illingworth came together to examine the ball after Sibley himself had admitted to the accidental use of saliva to polish it.

Gough took out a disinfectant wipe from his pocket, and rubbed down the shiny side of the ball prior to handing it back to Bess, who had claimed the only wicket to fall in the morning session.  According to the ICC's revised Playing Conditions for the series, which is being played in a biosecure environment due to the Covid-19 pandemic, only sweat may be used to shine the ball. Saliva is considered a potential carrier of the virus, and so all players have been obliged to retrain their ingrained instincts, honed over many years of fielding.

In acknowledgement of the unusual circumstances, the umpires have been encouraged to show initial leniency should they notice a team applying saliva on the ball, after which they will issue two official warnings before docking the offending team five runs (PTG 3154-15605, 10 June 2020).

It's time the DRS got a thorough overhaul.

Ian Chappell.

Cricinfo.

Sunday, 19 July 2020.

PTG 3199-15835.

There was a time when the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) distrusted the Decision Review System (DRS). I'm no longer in lock-step with the BCCI on this because I still don't have much faith in the DRS.  It struggles to achieve at least two of the ICC's prime objectives: arriving at the correct decision and eradicating the howler. So long as there are a finite number of reviews, it can never be guaranteed to achieve those goals. In its current form it's mostly used to review 50/50 decisions, is occasionally employed as a tactic, and is overused in the interests of self-preservation.  Umpiring decisions should never be part of cricket's tactical battles.

Fifty/fifty decisions always have been and always will be accepted by cricketers. Both batsmen and bowlers know that one day they go for you and on another day they go against you. The players accept those odds.  What does cause animosity between players is when a poor decision affects the result of a match. That's when words are exchanged, resulting in distrust and anger between players on opposing teams.

If the system had been subjected to a thorough examination before it was implemented, then there should have been a red flag next to players initiating reviews. When cricketers are playing for their living, self-preservation is often the number one priority. As former Australian prime minister Paul Keating remarked: "Always back self-interest because you know it's a goer."

When the system was first considered, one of the reasons put forward for its introduction was to protect a player's career from a poor decision. In my time as a player, I never saw a promising career curtailed by a poor decision.  Cricket administrators often fail in their duty to visualise where a Law or a Playing Condition will eventually lead.  In its original form, the DRS smacked of reaching a conclusion that "seemed like a good idea at the time". The three reviews per innings looked suspiciously like replicating the number used by tennis. The review system for tennis makes sense as all decisions are about a line. It's simple: is it in or out?

Cricket decision-making is more complicated, with dismissals like LBW and caught, and therefore is much trickier for everyone, technology included. When players are asked: "Would you like more technology?" and they answer emphatically in the affirmative, they aren't told there's a human hand involved in the process.

If I'm a player and there's going to be a human hand involved in the decision, I'd much prefer it was adjudicated on by the umpires in the middle. The look of disdain on the face of umpire Richard Kettleborough after three of his decisions were overturned early on day two of the first Test between England and West Indies (PTG 3193-15804, 13 July 2020), was ample proof of his feelings about the system at that moment. My sympathies were with Kettleborough, one of the better umpires on the international panel.

And with the return to a third review in the pandemic era, there are signs the system is being manipulated.  This brings us to another questionable part of the DRS. "The umpire is always right and you don't argue with his decision" used to be the first lesson a young cricketer was taught. This admirable exercise in discipline and self-control is now not applicable as the introduction of DRS is encouraging a form of player dissent.

Right from the outset the DRS should have been placed in the hands of the umpires; players shouldn't be part of the decision-making process. And the equipment and personnel involved in the DRS should be controlled and employed by the cricket authorities and not the television production company. The DRS - properly constituted - is an important ingredient in cricket decision-making; it's not part of the day's entertainment.

There have already been some cynical examples of DRS use in the series between England and West Indies that epitomise how far the system has been devalued. It's time the DRS was the subject of a thorough overhaul.

Referral numbers high in first ‘biosecure' Test.

PTG Editor.

Monday, 13 July 2020.

PTG 3193-15804.

Just under half, or 9 out of 22 reviews of decisions requested across the five days of the opening England-West Indies Test in Southampton were overturned by technology, the two on-field umpires, the Richards Illingworth and Kettleborough, having to revoke their judgements on 5 and 4 occasions respectively.  All except one decision revoked was in regard to LBW, seven being changed because technology suggested the ball would not have hit the stumps and an eighth because Kettleborough missed an overstep, while the ninth saw Illingworth giving a batsman out caught at slip only for replays to show the ball came off the batsman’s elbow.

All-up, the two umpires each had 11 reviews requested of their decisions, Kettleborough in addition to those he had to change also having 5 ‘Umpire’s Call’ and 2 ‘Struck Down', while Illingworth had a single ‘Umpires Call’ and 5 ‘Struck Down’.  England succeeded in changing the umpire’s original decision once each when batting and bowling, and the West Indies 4 and 3 times respectively.  Overall, requests for 9 of Kettleborough’s reviews came from the West Indies, as did 5 of Illingworth’s.  

Seven of the 22 reviews were requested by England, 2 when batting and 5 bowling, while their opponents chalked up a total of 15, 8 and 7 respectively.  Given that both were home or non-neutral umpires, the International Cricket Council (ICC) had increased the number of incorrect referrals available to each team per innings from the normal two to three (PTG 3127-15470, 19 May 2020).

Illingworth, this year’s ICC ‘Umpire of the Year’, had before the Test in Southampton last stood at that level on 2 December, and Kettleboorough, who held that title in 2013, 2014 and 2015, on 2 March.  Their last games at world level were in One Day Internationals played on 7 March and 17 January respectively.  The week before the first Test they both stood in a three-day England squad match at the same ground, their only warm-up fixture after a very long lay-off.

ICC urged to reconsider ‘Umpire’s Call’ rule.

Hindustan Times.

Sunday, 12 July 2020.

PTG 3193-15807.

Former India player Sachin Tendulkar has urged the International Cricket Council (ICC) to reconsider the ‘Umpire’s Call' rule whenever a team takes a Decision Review System (DRS) call in regards to an LBW appeal. Tendulkar said that it should not matter what percent of the ball is hitting the stumps, and if DRS shows that the wicket is getting clipped, it should be declared out.

Tendulkar said in a video: "The only reason [the batsman or the bowler] have gone upstairs is that they are unhappy with the on-field decision, so when the decision goes to the third umpire, let the technology take over, just like in tennis, it’s either in or out, there’s nothing in between”. Former English international umpire Ian Gould expressed a similar view three months ago, but only once a standard set of DRS technologies is available world-wide (PTG 3093-15305, 21 April 2020).

on a lighter note, enjoy this ...

http://academynorth1.buzzsprout.com/960703/4418045-brendan-taylor