RR vs DC – IPL 2022 – Chahal-Warner – Sanjay Manjrekar

Former Indian rammer Sanjay Manjrekar he says bail is “superfluous” in today’s cricket and should be abolished because it “adds a lot of complications” to an already complex set of rules.
Discussion was launched in the first place after Yuzvendra Chahalu was denied an “obvious door” when he defeated David Warner in the air and off the field and hit a wicket. However, while the stumps were lit, bail did not fall, thus failing to meet the main requirement of the bowling law.

It is widely believed that bail was used in cricket in the pre-technology era to ensure the ball hit the wicket. Manjrekar, and many other experts, believe that with today’s technology bail can be lifted.

The LED pits currently in use light up the moment they lose contact with the rest of the aisle, which is also used as a case where the wicket is broken for the purpose of checking for dropouts and jams. If the guarantees were to be lifted, it should not be too difficult to have passages that will light up the moment he touches them.

“I’ve said this before, now it’s superfluous to have guarantees with LED stumps,” Manjrekar said on the T20 show Time: Out for ESPNcricinfo. “Today it would be a wicket credited to Chahal who did great bowling. It was a terrible blow to Warner and he didn’t get a wicket. Unless it adds aesthetic value, they should just get rid of guarantees because they are completely redundant with LED technology.”

“[The bails were used] just to make sure the ball hit the stumps they had these guarantees on top, because if the ball just kissed the stumps, you won’t know there were no guarantees, ”Manjrekar said.“ And the guarantees should have fallen off if the stumps were broken. But now that you have the sensor, you know the ball hit the stumps, so why are there guarantees? “

Manjrekar has always been in favor of technology playing a bigger role in cricket. In 2013, he called for technology to watch live bowling around the time the ICC began to crack down on suspicious activity. He cited several examples, as in the case of a startling appeal in which judges are forced to check at what point bail is removed from the field during a trial. He felt that this adds layers of complexity to decision-making and keeping the guarantee more “defies common sense”.

“If you have the technology, don’t have bail,” he said. “Another problem with bail is, when there’s a standstill, you wait for it to ignite and then talk about whether both bails are out of the slot and it’s just a lot of complication when you judge you’re stuck or just keep it simple.

“I know it’s not going to happen because we don’t like to change too many things. We change a few other rules, but certain very obvious things aren’t done. Getting rid of bail may sound scandalous to many people, but it defies common sense.”

Piyush Chawla, an Indian legspinner, supported Manjrekar’s theory and hoped that better reason would prevail. If LED technology was available and was believed to give “clear proof,” it should be taken.

“When you have clear evidence, why not?” then this. Maybe if they got a wicket there, it was a whole other story. There should be some rules according to which if the ball hits the stumps and the LED lights up, it should be given out. “

.

Leave a Comment