Dear Editor,
Every cricket team has about six good batsmen, of whom the first four are usually the best. In the first ODI against New Zealand, Shai Hope, one of West Indies top batsmen was given out controversially, even after a review by the third umpire. The decision was naturally painful to West Indian supporters because it was handed down after perhaps the first or second ball Hope had received, but it was acceptable on the grounds that umpires will occasionally err. When, however, Evin Lewis, perhaps the best batsman on the West Indies team was given out through avoidable umpire error, a different issue is raised. Lewis was denied the right to review the decision giving him out because the West Indies team had exhausted its opportunity for review which was limited to one in a fifty-over match, which this match was. So in the final analysis the West Indies lost two of its best four batsmen to umpiring error, one error of which was caused primarily by a stupid rule that limits reviews in a one-day match to one.
One must therefore ask the question why is there a rule limiting umpire reviews in one-day cricket to one. The ICC seems to think that the rationale for such a stupid rule need not be disclosed. The real reason, however, that the rationale for the rule is not disclosed is because it is so stupid and therefore indefensible by resort to reason.
Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt
