I agree with the argument you've made. Rana, given the role Dube would have played in the remaining overs, was a like-to-like substitute.
The criteria of 'like-to-like' seems to be based on style and role as of now. Is it possible to incorporate the criteria of quality so that fewer cases are left to the discretion of match referee? Is it possible to list down the specifics of what's reasonable, basically?
Nothing wrong with that. I meant something in the form of an SOP. This might help in standardising the decision making. The way it is with DRS. There's a specific SOP every umpire follows.
Well written. People making decisions do so in a situation that is not perfect nor do they have the benefit of hindsight. To question them with a barely concealed attitude of “how stupid can this referee be”, or that “the referee is biased, obviously” or “Big Brother BCCI is at it”, etc., shows the questioner in bad light. (Eg. Michael Vaughan!).
That said, the match was in England’s grasp. Why they lost from that position is the more important issue they need to address.
True. ENG collected 3 wickets in an over twice in that innings. And still conceded 181. When a team loses 3 wickets in an over in a T20 PP the average 20 over score in 129.
To cut a long story short it’s called cheating.
I agree with the argument you've made. Rana, given the role Dube would have played in the remaining overs, was a like-to-like substitute.
The criteria of 'like-to-like' seems to be based on style and role as of now. Is it possible to incorporate the criteria of quality so that fewer cases are left to the discretion of match referee? Is it possible to list down the specifics of what's reasonable, basically?
Why is it a bad idea to leave something to the discretion of the referee? The referee is not chosen at random off the street.
Nothing wrong with that. I meant something in the form of an SOP. This might help in standardising the decision making. The way it is with DRS. There's a specific SOP every umpire follows.
Having said that, I am not really sure if there is already one. You know of it?
Well written. People making decisions do so in a situation that is not perfect nor do they have the benefit of hindsight. To question them with a barely concealed attitude of “how stupid can this referee be”, or that “the referee is biased, obviously” or “Big Brother BCCI is at it”, etc., shows the questioner in bad light. (Eg. Michael Vaughan!).
That said, the match was in England’s grasp. Why they lost from that position is the more important issue they need to address.
True. ENG collected 3 wickets in an over twice in that innings. And still conceded 181. When a team loses 3 wickets in an over in a T20 PP the average 20 over score in 129.