Showing Dissent Can Prolong Your Career

Umpires make mistakes. The only acceptable thing for a batsman to do after being given out, no matter how poor the decision, is to walk back to the pavilion without showing any dissent. Those who show dissent risk being fined, but is this really a deterrent? The fine is always restricted to a percentage of the match fee and as all top sportsmen rely on sponsorship as their main source of income, the fine is easily paid. The negative publicity could cause them a problem, but the PR men can market notoriety just as easily as fame.

Three poor decisions from the recent Ashes series stick in my mind. The LBW decisions that went against Martyn and Katich at Trent Bridge and the LBW decision that ended Collingwood's 1st innings at the Oval. Both Martyn and Collingwood walked off the field without a mumur of dissent, Katich did not; and it is that decision which most people remember. The first reaction of the commentator was that it was a reasonable shout, but as soon as they saw Katich's reaction they started questioning the decision by first suggesting he may have hit it. It was only after examining the slow motion replay, aided by Hawkeye, that they discerned the truth. It pitched outside leg and was going over. Commentators have a duty to publicise all bad decisions equally and not in any way encourage batsmen to show dissent by being swayed by their reaction.

Both Martyn and Katich had a disappointing series. But it was Martyn who was dropped.