Why blame Rod Tucker?

Yesterday, there was a One-Day international played between India and Bangladesh, in which an incident involving Shikhar Dhawan caused widespread consternation. What happened was that Dhawan nicked a ball behind at easy catchable height to the wicketkeeper. The keeper dived, got both hands to the catch, and it looked like the ball had gone into his gloves. But he had managed to drop the catch, with the ball landing on the ground exactly behind him. It was a clear nick, and everyone (Dhawan, the bowler and the umpire) all knew instantly it was a nick. So, the umpire IMMEDIATELY raised his finger, the bowler started celebrating and Dhawan started walking back without checking further. To anyone who was in front of the keeper (bowler, batsman, umpire, mid-off, mid-on etc), the drop was hidden from view because the ball had fallen behind the body of the keeper. 

The fielder at slip, had meanwhile seen that the catch had been dropped, and threw the stumps down with Dhawan out of his crease and already walking towards the pavilion. Even if the catch had been dropped, the fielding team now appealed for run out. But, the ball had become dead as soon as the umpire had (mistakenly) given it out for the catch, and the run out did not count. So, Dhawan remained not out after all this. Why was he not run out? Let me explain it.

Think of situations where a catch is taken anywhere in the outfield. The umpires do not need to raise their finger in these instances, and they don’t. The batsman starts walking back on his own as soon as he sees the catch has been taken, and if it turns out he wasn’t really out (whether because it is a no-ball or because the catch isn’t taken cleanly), he can’t be run out any more for leaving his crease. Also, sometimes after nicking a ball to the keeper, batsmen walk on their own without the umpire having given it out first. Here also, they cannot be run out for leaving the crease (even if the keeper has proceeded to drop the catch, and it was the batsman’s fault for leaving the crease before being given out by the umpire). In any situation, as soon as a batsman starts walking towards the pavilion under the impression that he is out, he can no longer be given run out for having left the crease.

From the point of view of the umpire: This situation begs the question as to why Rod Tucker (the umpire) was so hasty in giving Dhawan out caught behind by the keeper. So many people are blaming him for this reason, but it is easy to explain. The explanation is: The bowler appealed for caught behind (which he wouldn’t have done he known the catch had been dropped), and even Dhawan started walking immediately (which he wouldn’t have done he known the catch had been dropped). Having umpired a lot of matches in various forms of cricket, let me tell you that the primary issue in cases like these is not deciding whether the catch has been taken, but whether the batsman has nicked it or not. All your focus while umpiring is on detecting the nick. On most occasions, there is a very thin nick, which makes it difficult to 'see' if the ball has changed its direction. So, you have to concentrate extra hard on trying to 'hear' the nick. And there are times when you cannot determine if a nick is there or not, and have to study reactions of the batsman and fielders to conclude what has happened. You pray for these situations never to arise while you are umpiring. And, it’s a relief to you when the nick is clear and it’s easy to give the decision. Tucker was so relieved that he had detected the nick in this case that he wasted no time in giving it out. 

From the point of view of the cricketer: When you are a player (whether batsman or bowler), if the umpire takes a lot of time in giving decisions, it always infuriates you in my experience. If you are batting and you have not edged the ball yet the fielders are appealing, you want the umpire to dismiss the appeal quickly and ask the fielders why they are appealing. If you are the bowler and the batsman has nicked, you do not want the umpire to start contemplating about the decision. Arre bhai, if I know there is a nick and each of my fielders has detected the nick, what are you, as the umpire, doing? Give it out immediately. As the cricketer, you want decisions to come out fast from the umpire. If he taking time, it frustrates you. The umpires are always aware of this, and so want to give decisions as soon as possible to avoid frustration from creeping up amongst the players.

You cannot really blame Tucker for giving a fast decision for this kind of nick, can you?

Changes I would like in ODIs

The thing I dislike the most in cricket these days is mishits going for sixes. The job of a batsman is to hit the ball. But to see a shot played incorrectly giving maximum reward is wrong. Simply wrong. Doing your job properly but not getting the appropriate reward is something we have all experienced. A person not doing their job properly but still getting highest return makes the blood boil. In an ideal scenario, batsmen should feel lucky when a mishit somehow lands safely. Today, they feel unlucky when a mishit hasn’t gone for a boundary.

The reason this phenomenon started is because administrators felt fans wanted to see more boundary-hitting (higher entertainment value), and thus, boundaries were brought in at almost every ground. Combined with the fact that bats have become wider and the impact of Twenty20, a deluge of runs has out broken over the past decade or so. Only one of either boundaries coming in or bats becoming wider would have been enough for raising the entertainment value. Both combined have brought bowlers to ruin.

I don’t know what can be done about the bats. While there are regulations about how wide the edges can be, there is no rule limiting the depth of the bats. If we ever make such a rule, there will be issues with its implementation. Or maybe bat manufacturers will find some other method of making bats powerful. Maybe a better material will be found to make bats with. There might be problems we can’t anticipate yet with regards to bat power. But we can surely do something tangible with regard to the boundaries.

The boundaries have to be taken back to their original marks. A minimum limit should be set for the distance to the rope on all sides. I would suggest 75 metres. Where the stadiums are so small that the rope can’t be 75 metres, there nothing can be done and the boundaries have to be the furthest they can be. But at big grounds, they have to be 75 metres. You hit the ball well enough, it will go for six. You mistime the ball means you haven’t done your job properly, and you shouldn’t expect six.

Although I would like to see this in Twenty20s as well, but I realize most such tournaments like IPL, Ram Slam, BBL, CPL are domestic and aimed at generating revenue and garnering new fans. In these tournaments, it is okay in my opinion to have short boundaries. You don’t expect housewives or new spectators at IPL/BBL games to understand the nuances of a game when a bowler is trying to outthink the batsman. They want visible and difficult-to-miss popcorn entertainment. Shrunk boundaries are okay.

The second thing I dislike is the ear-splitting music that is played in between overs during most matches. I love Andy Zaltzman, I love his columns, and I couldn’t agree more with him when he says that this is a shame. It prevents you from thinking. It prevents you from taking stock of the situation during an innings. If this is nauseating to me while I’m in the stands, imagine how the players, especially the batsmen and the fielding captain would be feeling in the field. Again, I don’t have a problem with this happening at IPL games. People go to an IPL game instead of a movie, and you would expect them to do some dancing in the aisles during those 3 hours. But please, not in ODIs which last 7 hours. 90% of the guys who go to ODIs are cricket purists and don’t need the music to feel entertained. The cricket itself is enough.

The commentators are annoying. Well, most commentators are annoying most of the time. I will list a few of them, and explain what I find irritating about them. 

Ravi Shastri keeps shouting (well, that has become common knowledge). 

Rameez Raja finds ways of praising Pakistan whenever he commentates. Even when Pakistan is losing badly.

Mpulelo Mbangwa never shuts up. I don’t understand why some people are so uncomfortable letting silence take over for a few moments. Why do they feel they have to break silences when no one is saying anything? A song called “Conquest of Paradise” by Vangelis plays before the national anthems of countries during every ICC event. It’s a beautiful thing and during the recent World Cup in Australia-NZ, I was trying so hard to listen to it every time it played. But on most occasions, Mbangwa’s voice would break upon my eardrums saying such mundane things like “And the teams come out of the tunnel. They take the hands of the little kids and march out for the national anthems.” Dude, we are not on radio. We are watching the television, and we can make out that the teams are walking out. No need to point out such obvious stuff. 

Sanjay Manjrekar also keeps talking all the time. And, he is slowly turning into an Indian version of Rameez Raja i.e. these days, he’s always finding a way to praise India or Indian players. That one time, I remember, there was a match between South Africa and Sri Lanka. There was a talk about AB de Villiers, Amla, Sangakkara and Jayawardena and to how they are world class batsmen. All of a sudden, Sanjay says something like, “Even Virat Kohli has proved to be one of the most consistent batsmen the world over during the last two years”. Arre bhai, how the hell does Kohli come into the picture during this particular situation? It’s a SA vs SL match, and why the hell are you bringing Kohli into it? Nobody is discussing him, or saying he is a lesser player (in which case you might consider defending him). So now, the other commentators are forced into saying stuff like, “Yeah, AB and Kohli have been the outstanding batsmen in limited overs cricket over the past few years.” And they totally go off topic to what they had intended to say (a comparision between AB and Sanga). 

Sunil Gavaskar is perhaps the best commentator out of all the people I have a complaint against. But he has one trait that really annoys. Many times, he begins sentences with: “Look at how….. “. And I lose it whenever I hear anything that starts with this phrase. Examples are: Look at how he twisted his bat at the last moment to find the gap at square leg rather than find the fielder at midwicket. Or, Look at how he ran his fingers over the ball so that the pace was taken off. This implies that we lot weren’t looking and didn’t notice that the bowler had run his fingers over the ball while delivering a slower ball. But we did notice, Mr. Gavaskar, we did notice. And, Sunny doesn’t use the phrase “Look at how…“ once in a blue moon; when he uses it, he uses it 3-4 times in 3-4 consecutive sentences. “Look at how he opened up his stance. Look at how he just swung through the line of the ball. Look at how he didn’t even attempt to keep it down.” Kill me, please.

Danny Morrison keeps saying idiotic stuff. But, in his defence, he says it in ways which also make him hilarious. So even if I have a complaint, I’m too busy laughing at his idiocy rather than getting irritated.

I have no complaints against others like Harsha, Dravid, Nicholas, Chappell et al.

My TV Series Guide # 3

This is a compilation of all the TV series I have watched till date, and where i rate them. Note that the ratings are absolute and remain the same when comparing across genres i.e. something in 'Drama' that has 8.5 is better than something in 'Suspense' that has 8.4.

Action

Band of Brothers : 9.8

The Pacific : 9.7

24 : 8.7

Heroes : 8.4

The Walking Dead : 8.2

Man vs Wild : 8.0

Spartacus : 7.6

Alias : 7.2

Misfits : 7.0

Suspense

Prison Break : 9.8

Sherlock : 9.5

Dexter : 9.1

Homeland : 8.9

House MD : 7.7

Supernatural : 6.9

Lost : 6.5

Comedy

Arrested Development : 9.4

The Big Bang Theory : 9.2

Entourage : 9.1

Two And a Half Men : 9.0

Friends : 8.8

Modern Family :8.7

Malcolm in the Middle : 8.6

How I Met Your Mother : 8.0

Seinfeld : 7.9

Coupling : 7.7

Chuck : 7.8

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia :  7.5

Outsourced : 6.5

Crime

True Detective : 8.8

Hustle : 8.3

White Collar : 8.1

Criminal Minds : 7.9

The Mentalist : 7.3

Drama

Game of Thrones : 9.6

House of Cards : 9.5

The West Wing : 9.4

The Newsroom : 9.4

Gotham : 9.1

Better Call Saul : 8.8

Suits : 8.6

Grey’s Anatomy : 8.5

Kyle XY : 8.5

Breaking Bad : 8.4

Revenge : 8.3

Mad Men : 8.3

The OC : 8.3

Firefly : 8.2

The Sopranos : 7.9

Parenthood : 7.9

Shameless :  7.4

Glee : 7.2

The Vampire Diaries : 7.2

These are my ratings, and stuff that I have liked more have a higher score. Please don't take it as an insult if your favorite TV Series has a low rating. And note that some TV Series start as very good but become a bit bad in the latter seasons. These ratings here reflect their performance in the initial seasons. Those TV Series are: 

• Mad Men (becomes horribly repetitive around and after Season 4, and doesn't improve thereafter)
• The West Wing (reduction in quality in Season 5 and early Season 6, but improves after that)
• How I Met Your Mother (bad in Seasons 5-7 but picks up again towards the last two seasons)
• Entourage (a dip around the 6th season but bounces back again to very high level)
• Criminal Minds (becomes stale and repetitive from Season 4 onwards, and doesn't bounce back)
• Two and a Half Men (changes from season 9 onwards)