Right, I’m into the ground. And can report that the hessian is currently on the pitch. It is barely drizzling, but it might mean a slightly delayed start. We’ll see.
Robert Wilson weighing in on my topic of choice this morning. “Listen, Grasshopper,” uh oh. “From those who love you, who cherish and value all your smiles and tears, your dark days and bright, take a piece of advice. Please DON’T write about the use of technology for overturning on-field decisions. A subject dull enough to make raisins of your testicles, too many fine, brave young souls have been lost in those arse-grinding, deadly quicksands.”
Okay. I understand this isn’t riveting. Bit I do think it is getting less clear by the year.
“Mind you, if you do write about it. And you actually make it interesting then you’re James Effing Joyce and Don Rickles rolled into one. Anyway, Neil Hannon has sucked all the whimsical heft out of cricket arcana with The Duckworth Lewis Method. There’s nothing left for the rest of us.”
Okay, okay. I will wrap this up with a final couple of emails before play does resume.
Felix Wood has his say: “The problem with anything involving ‘benefit of the doubt’ is that there is always doubt on catches because of foreshortening (I have no idea what this means but if I say it with authority people nod). So it would be another thing in the batsman’s favour.” Yes! BATSMAN’S GAME.
Johnny Starbuck, too: “First, do away with using technology for judging doubtful catches. It is nowhere near good enough to be sufficiently convincing, so go back to the on-field umpires’ judgment. If a batsman is willing to accept a fielder’s word, then that’s up to him; otherwise, the benefit of the doubt still goes to the batsman. Second, use the technology and third umpire to spot no-balls and relay this immediately to the stumps umpire. It will take practice, but practice will improve performance, as we’ve seen in tennis. Third, get Hotspot and…