England in India

Calm down, England (and broadcasters). The impact of an umpiring error in T20s is insignificant

By adding DRS to the mix, and allowing players to challenge umpiring decisions, the sport has gone from player vs player to player vs umpire.

England bottled up a simple enough chase of 145 runs in the second Twenty20 International against India in Nagpur on Sunday. Instead of focusing on the obvious cricketing reasons as to why they lost from a “commanding position”, as their skipper Eoin Morgan put it, England –players and broadcasters (Sky Sports and BBC Sport) alike – have led a chorus for the inclusion of the Decision Review System in T20s and have placed the blame for defeat squarely at umpiring errors.

With England needing just eight runs in six balls, Joe Root was adjudged out LBW on the first ball of the 20th over. Video replays indicated an inside edge that umpire C Shamshuddin had missed. The in-studio experts at Sky Sports devoted an entire segment after the match to discuss the merits of the umpires and the need for the use of DRS technology in T20s. DRS is currently used only in cricket’s other formats, Tests and One-Day Internationals.

After the match, Morgan said, “[Root’s dismissal] shifted momentum – first ball of the 20th over, losing a batsman who’s faced [almost] 40 balls on a wicket that’s not that easy to time. It is quite a hammer blow. It’s proved very costly all things considered.”

Let’s evaluate the merits of that statement.

False claim

Ben Stokes, who batted at the fall of Morgan’s wicket, and Jos Buttler, who replaced Stokes, both scored at a strike rate in excess of 140. Stokes’s 38 runs were made in 27 deliveries and Buttler thrashed 15 in just 10 balls. So, Morgan’s claim that it wasn’t easy to time is evidently false.

What, though, is true is that Root scored just 38 runs in 38 deliveries. In trying to clear boundaries, he repeatedly skied balls that fell in no man’s land. It wasn’t just that Root was struggling to score but he was struggling to get himself out too, to make way for Buttler and others.

Morgan isn’t free of blame either, having scored only 17 runs in the 23 deliveries he faced, with just one hit to the ropes. In what should have been a comfortable chase, Morgan and Root twiddled around for too long, which opened the door for India in the final throes of the match.

In a game that is so abbreviated, and batsmen needing to take risks constantly to find boundaries, the impact of an umpiring error in a T20 game is insignificant compared to the number of times the batsmen themselves play shots that would invariably, and inevitably, get them out. Root’s innings was exhibit No. 1 in defence of it.

Eoin Morgan (left) has called for DRS to be introduced in T20s after an incorrect umpring decision to adjudge Joe Root out (Image credit: Reuters)
Eoin Morgan (left) has called for DRS to be introduced in T20s after an incorrect umpring decision to adjudge Joe Root out (Image credit: Reuters)

Strategic tool

Even if DRS was available and each team had one review, like in ODIs, it is quite possible that Root may not have had that review to correct Shamshuddin’s error. In the 17th over, Stokes was dismissed LBW off a slower delivery from Ashish Nehra. Considering the hitting form the Stokes was in, and the general tendency of players to gamble with the DRS review, it was more than probable that the review would have been used on that decision.

That’s the other irritating aspect of players’ calls for DRS. While all and sundry proclaim the need for DRS to correct obvious umpiring errors, in the hands of the players it becomes a strategic tool, to challenge umpiring decisions not because they think the umpire has made an error, but they think technology might just overrule a perfectly reasonable decision.

Instead of putting the blame for the defeat on his own sputtering knock and that of Root’s, Morgan reportedly raised the issue of Root’s LBW decision to the match referee. Morgan even had the temerity to question umpire Shamshuddin’s experience, who by the way is in the ICC Emirates International Panel of Umpires and has stood in 21 ODIs, 11 T20Is, and countless other domestic matches.

Charles Dagnall of BBC Sport interviewed Moeen Ali ahead of the third match of this T20I series in Bangalore and posed the question of the need for DRS in the format. Ali said that “it was time to have at least one review” in T20s, as is the practice in ODIs. The second question from Dagnall to Ali was insidious in that he asked whether there was need for neutral umpires in T20Is as well, since Tests involve two neutral umpires and ODIs have one. It implies, at best, that Dagnall believes Shamshuddin is incompetent, and at worst that he is biased.

Inept broadcasters

The introduction of technology to challenge umpiring decisions mainly originated from the broadcasting booth with ex-players regularly questioning umpiring decisions and stoking feelings of injustice in their home audiences, if their side was at the wrong end of any decision. In an essay for The Cricket Monthly, Kartikeya Date had argued about the replacing of expert judgment of umpires with a check list of technologies, and consequently the consistent erosion of umpire’s authority in the conduct of the game.

Dagnall did not do any favours to Shamshuddin or disabuse any thoughts of umpiring biases in his viewers and listeners by posing that question to Ali. Because it is the most obvious thing to do for a broadcaster – to blame the one impartial party on the field, instead of actually digging in to the game to find the real reasons to why a team lost. That would take effort on their part, and commentators, with very few rare exceptions, are wont to take the easy way out, as long as it shores up the numbers watching and listening to them.

In a match played between two teams, the umpire is the unbiased adjudicator. By adding DRS to the mix, and allowing players to challenge umpiring decisions, the sport has gone from player vs player to player vs umpire. To Ali’s credit, and Root’s as well, they chose not to blame umpire Shamshuddin for the mistakes, or support Dagnall’s idea of neutral umpires even in T20s. Morgan, Dagnall and other such could do very well to take cues from Ali and Root.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.

Play

In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.

Play

Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.

Play

The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.

Play

The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.