It seems to me therefore that the quickest, and most effective, way to move on is for the TV umpire to merely use one of five alternatives; 1) edge, 2) no edge pitched in line hit in line, 3) no edge pitched outside hit in line, 4) no edge pitched outside hit outside, 5) pitched outside leg. With alternatives 1 and 5, he is effectively taking a decision, with 3,4 and 5, he is providing a valuable input to the on-field umpire. Height, which is the other variable, has to be left completely to the on-field umpire. In addition he could check if there has been a clear edge in a catch decision for example, though the hot spot seems a better bet. If hot spot is obscured, I think we just need to move on and take it as one of those things. The simpler we keep it, the easier it will be for everyone and maybe we will have fewer outcries against the system.

Talking of outcries I hope I am not the only one bewildered by the extraordinary language used by a newspaper in New Zealand against the Indian manager. This column has not always agreed with the BCCI, or indeed with Niranjan Shah, but to call someone a “goon” is way beyond any definition of propriety. The dictionary on my laptop offers the following meanings for the word “goon”; thug, gangster, someone who beats up people or terrorises them, is uncouth or clumsy. I don’t think anyone was referring to the last meaning but to call anyone a thug or a gangster is not on. It reminds me of the words used by visiting journalists against Indian umpires from the days when there were no replays. It shouldn’t have been acceptable then and it cannot be acceptable now. Have we gone beyond disagreeing with people without calling them names?

... contd.