Angkrish Raghuvanshi Dismissal: How Long Can Umpiring Decisions Avoid Accountability?

Umpiring can be a tough job, and the leeway they get is understandable at times. But the decisions like Angkrish Raghuvanshi's last night raise questions about how much leeway should reasonably be allowed.

What's worse is a 20% match-fee fine and a demerit point for showing dissent at such cruel decisions.

Showing aggression for the most obvious call is the least expected response from a player in a tournament where pressure remains at its peak throughout. Emotions will flow, and rightly so. Robots have yet to replace real humans, on a cricket field at least.

So, process it: Angkrish Raghuvanshi was given out unfairly, with clear evidence; KKR was forced to bring in a new batter on a tricky deck; and later, the player himself was fined for no fault of his own. All he did was call out the wrong decision and seek clarity from those umpires. The frustration that led to hitting the boundary cushion while going back was clearly a reaction to being told that 'the umpire's decision is final'.

When he got out, or say was wrongly adjudged out, KKR were reduced to 27/3 in five overs. Angkrish Raghuvanshi had just started to get in and was looking to stabilise the innings on a slow deck, where every run was hard to come by. If that matters, he's also among the best KKR batters, and more importantly, in form in an otherwise struggling batting unit.

He will now also pay a fine and has to accept the sanctions. As for umpires, they will go unscathed despite making all the mess. No fines, no sanctions, no scrutiny, except from the fans, of course, which hardly matters.

At what stage do we question umpires for Angkrish Raghuvanshi-type decisions?

The leeway for on-field umpires is still right; they have a split second to make decisions with their naked eyes. But they don't keep any room for doubt and refer almost every non-basic decision to the TV umpire. The TV umpire, however, needs to be questioned more for making errors, particularly as basic as Angkrish Raghuvanshi's.

In modern cricket, the camera quality and coverage are extremely advanced, with multiple angles capturing every possible detail on the field. In IPL, as many as eight Hawk-Eye cameras are used for each game, which help the third umpire to check smart replays. Still, they make way too many errors at times.

It's not limited to Angkrish Raghuvanshi alone. Rewind to the reverse fixture between the same teams at Eden Gardens earlier this season. Finn Allen was given out off Digvesh Rathi's catch at the third man region, but the TV umpire didn't check closely and made a hasty decision to deem the batter out.

The replays confirmed Digvesh touching the cushion, which moved at the very end. It should have been a six. Similarly, Heinrich Klaasen's catch was slightly controversial in the opening game, as Phil Salt's back seemed to be in contact with the ropes. Instead, the third umpire gave it out, which obviously didn't please the batter, who had an animated chat with the fourth umpire.

If replays are clearly visible on TV with multiple high-quality angles, it naturally raises the expectation that the third umpire, with even better access, should get those decisions right. They can't escape with howlers like Angkrish Raghuvanshi one time and again. At some point, accountability has to extend to the officials, too, rather than players' concerns being dismissed or shut down every time.

It's like exploiting players for literally nothing, and eventually, they and their teams suffer. Meanwhile, the umpires walk away without accountability, as Rohan Pandit did last night. If players are expected not to show dissent towards officials, then officials must also be held to a standard where avoidable errors are kept to a minimum.

For more updates, follow CricXtasy on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube.