THE EDITOR, Sir:THE umpires have made some embarrassing decisions during the current season but the most damaging to cricket was their decision to abandon the first ODI against New Zealand at Sabina. The umpires claim that the minimum 25 overs (to achieve a run-rate result) could not be completed in the time left after the rains. That is highly debatable as the sun sets late at this time of year.
But even if fewer overs, say 20, were bowled, the reduced target for 25 overs could still have been achieved by the West Indies, alternatively, New Zealand could have taken the wickets in a rapid run chase. Either way, CRICKET and the cricket fans (mostly $1,800 per ticket, non-refundable at that stage) would have won, which I mistakenly thought was the purpose of these tours.
Key concern
Had this been a Test match the cricketers would have been out playing for at least two hours after the rains in an effort to get in 90 overs per day - whether a result was possible or not. The key concern of the ICC is that fans get value for money. This ICC principle is even more important for ODIs as fan pay more money and results are more likely. The 4th ODI in Trinidad against India was a clear example of a full house getting value for money after the rains.
If the umpires had claimed that the pitch was unfit or that the players might be at risk of injury, then I accept that as part of cricket. But what happened on Wednesday afternoon was JUST NOT CRICKET.
I am, etc.,
FITZROY HENRY (Dr.)
amoeba@cwjamaica.com
