What goes round comes around
Kumar Sangakkara had a point when he mentioned that were the review system in place, Sri Lanka would have put up more of a fight than the 2-0 score line and the margin of their defeats suggest. Especially in the 3rd Test where they got a raw deal the innings defeat seemed unfair.
Dilshan was distinctly unlucky to be given out in both the innings and Rahul Dravid’s nick off Herath would be visible to the most visually challenged person. The fact that Dravid didn’t walk was overlooked by many.
Was this very different from Andrew Symmonds’s reluctance to walk in Sydney? It’s up to every one to judge and comment upon.
But given the way the referral system has been devised would all these referrals be adjudicated correctly? From what one has understood, in a contentious LBW decision the 3rd umpire feeds the on field umpire with 2 inputs; where the ball was pitched and whether the ball hit the pad in line with the stumps. He can’t give his opinion about whether the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps.
If we take the Dilshan decision in the second innings where he was not offering a shot, both the above mentioned inputs would be favouring Dilshan but Harper had adjudged him out because he thought the ball would be hitting the stumps. Would the decision have changed even if there was a referral in place?
One remembers Virender Sehwag being adjudged LBW in the 1st test at Colombo in 2008 where even the 3rd umpire failed to notice that the ball had initially hit Viru’s front pad outside the line of the leg stump and then hit his back pad in line. The Indians’ had enough reasons to feel hard done by the referral system then in the 2-1 series defeat.
The all too familiar cliché’ of ‘in the long term things even out’ can indeed be noticed from the evidence of this series.
Keeping this at the back of one’s mind; hearty congratulations are in order to team India for becoming the #1 Test Team in the world.