ROMAIN PITT continues his focus on issues in Test cricket
      

Fidel Edwards

I doubt that there are many authentic students of the game of cricket who will take issue with the assertion that that the “Test” product needs improving. Urgently. Even before the advent of Twenty20, cricket in its oldest form was not so slowly becoming less and less attractive to the paying public. Unless and until something is done to burnish the image of the game’s oldest format, the active support for it is likely to continue to dwindle. Which is where we as West Indian supporters come in. Since the West Indies have been a dominant force in international cricket for so long, we should all be more active, perhaps even proactive in the debate to improve the “Test” product. I wish here to make a few suggestions.
Umpire Review Decision System: Much as I respect Joel Garner and Chris Gayle and their opinions, I take a different view on the review system.  I would recommend unlimited reviews with a run penalty for every decision upheld on review.  All demonstrably helpful technological aids should be used.
The statistics have already demonstrated that the system has produced a significant improvement in the percentage of correct decisions.  By itself, that circumstance should tilt the scale strongly in favour of its use.
What is more, on-the-field umpires will likely be much more careful in their decision making; and finally, once the third umpire is from a third country, it will become acceptable again to have local standing umpires, thereby increasing the number of umpires eligible for Tests.
With respect to the aids to be used, either in the first or second Test (Australia vs West Indies 2009), the dean of Australian broadcasters expressed his special love for the “Hot Spot”.  He gave the clear impression that he regarded it as the most reliable technology.  I heard, indeed no one heard any dissent from the all-Australian broadcasting crew.  When we got to the last morning of the Third Test at the WACA, Kemar Roach and Gavin Tonge were looking dangerous, if not threatening, in a last-wicket stand that seemed capable with a little luck of getting the 50-odd runs required for what would have been a remarkable victory.  In the review of the caught-at-the-wicket decision against Roach, the evidence of Hot Spot was disregarded;  there was not a murmur of dissent or disapproval from the same all-Australian crew. 
It is not the review system that fits Joel Garner’s apt description of gimmick; it is the use to which the system is put that can properly be so described.  Michael Holding has said as much.
Uniformity in penalties: Anyone used to watching football or hockey (high speed sport) would be familiar with the scenario in which the referee does not see the original infraction and then penalises the player who responds to the infraction, often with more force than was applied in the original infraction.
In the Benn vs Johnson and Haddin case, that was not the issue.  The unlawful initiating act was clearly visible; it was Brad Haddin’s threatening gesture with his bat.  The next unambiguous unlawful gesture was that of Mitchell Johnson pushing Sulieman Benn as a measure designed to defend or protect his teammate Haddin.  While television viewers do not normally hear the actual language in sledging, it was notable that the microphone was turned up loud enough for television viewers to hear Benn’s use of a “foul” word.  In giving some explanation for the disparity in penalties between Johnson and Haddin on the one hand and Benn on the other, the match referee left the impression that Benn’s language was part of the problem; since the microphone was turned up loud enough for viewers to hear Ben’s language, they would have known exactly what language the match referee meant.  I was disappointed that the West Indies did not appeal.  However, I am encouraged by the formal protest to the ICC since it must relate to the serious issue of possible bias.
Ball changes:  The ball change is in the nature of an “event,” to use David Lloyd’s description of each ball in a Twenty20 match.  By taking a new ball every 60, 65 or 70 overs rather than every 80 overs, the frequency of “events” is increased, as is the fan involvement.
Slow over rates: The penalty for bowling less than 30 overs in any one period should be more severe.  It should not be monetary but much more closely related to what is happening on the field.  My suggestion is that a team should be penalized with, say, two runs for each over less than 30. One might even countenance a sliding scale so that the penalty will be greater, the larger the number of overs a teams falls shy of the required target. For instance, a team that bowls only 24 overs in a two-hour session will cause not 12 but 15 runs to be added to the batting team’s total, 10 for the first five overs deducted and five for the sixth.
While those general remarks may become hopefully of some use, our immediate concern should be having all our players fit and ready for the next encounter. Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Chris Gayle are the latest pair to be sidelined by injury, to be added to the threesome of Fidel Edwards, Jerome Taylor and Benn.  We have heard nothing about the health of Edwards and Taylor for the longest while and we now know that in Taylor’s case there are some legal issues involved.  These players need support and that does not necessarily involve money.  Someone should be designated immediately to liaise with Taylor’s legal counsel with a view to helping with, among other things, potential immigration issues.