Third Umpire: Logos and playing conditions

India, given its enormous financial muscle in the world of cricket, has always felt it deserves a special ticket, not necessarily available to others. The fact that on the pretext that their IPL just finished a couple of weeks before the current World Cup, they were allowed to commence their current campaign much later than other teams. South Africa has already played two matches when they met indicates the extent to which that India muscle (off the pitch) can and has been used. One forgets that a number of players from other countries also played in the recently concluded IPL and perhaps those teams should also have been given a reprieve in the time table of the current tournament.

While the cricketing world put aside the scheduling issues and just wanted to get on with the game, the controversy over the logo on M S Dhoni's gloves emerged. Sporting a logo of one of the Indian Army regiments, of which he is an honorary Lt Colonel, caught the eye of ICC and he was told to remove the logo. The uproar in the Indian media and in general is unbelievable as they argue that its a sign of patriotism and not a political or religious message.

Well the ICC rules are very straight forward on this, both in terms of generally having such a logo displayed and also that the rules expressly state that wicket keeping gloves can only sport the brand logo of the manufacturer. The Indian camp should show some maturity and simply accept that rules are rules and they cannot stretch exceptions each time. One must not forget that recently Indian players in a match against Australia in Ranchi work military caps in support of the army and they were sanctioned by the ICC on that. So there is a recent precedent of the rules and clearly Dhoni and co should know that.

On a broader front other players from different teams have been asked to remove logos and even wrist bands with messages that violate the rules of the ICC. An exception to India will turn international cricket into an advertising board with each player professing a tribute to some cause or the other. At the end of the day the patriotism is well expressed, and allowed, by having the countries logo on various gear that is used.


On another note it would seem that ODI cricket has almost deliberately been shifted to favor batsmen. Yes the host nation always have the prerogative of preparing pitches to suit their own teams but with scores over 300 almost the norm one has to ask the ICC to rethink the game to bring back some balance between bat and ball. For instance in ODI cricket, where the white ball is used, there are two balls used, one from each end, on the pretext that the ball does not get too discolored. This has really resulted in fast bowlers losing the ability to have some effective bowling in the latter part of the game, largely because they are deprived of reverse swing.

If the sole reason for a two ball rule is to prevent discoloration, then when a ball is discolored it can be replaced just as a ball is replaced if it is hit far out of the ground. Why should the same not apply to a ball that is discolored?

I believe to make the game more entertaining and give some balance to the game it is important that a such rules should be changed. Seeing the recent West Indies match against Australia, one has to wonder if there is a third umpire there and he does look at the no ball on his monitor when a wicket falls, why cannot he point out if the umpire has missed a no ball. (as it happened when West Indies was batting). After all run outs, catches, boundary decisions (which are 50-50) are all referred to the third umpire, why then cannot he also look at the no balls?


I am all for the use of technology but it must be applied fairly to all playing conditions on the field, not just a selective process of referral. The game is getting more competitive and it needs all the necessary tools to administer the conditions of play on the field.