Cricket’s review system continues to puzzle
Columnist By Brett McKay, 30 Nov 2009 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert
Australia's Nathan Hauritz appeals unsuccessfully. AP Photo/Tom Hevezi
So the first cricket Test Match on Australian soil played under the now-adopted Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) has been wrapped up inside three days, and still the questions marks fly on how and when to use it.
If West Indian captain Chris Gayle is reading (and I can’t think why he wouldn’t be), I’d answer the “when” question by suggesting not when you get hit on the back-pad plumb in front to an in swinger, not offering a shot.
It’s just a thought, Chris, but you’re the captain and I’m sure you’ll work that out for yourself at some point.
The UDRS was fully adopted by the International Cricket Council (ICC) in a bid to significantly reduce the number of obviously wrong decisions being made in Tests.
Trialled for a period last year in series played in the Caribbean and South Africa, the system was found to be not without flaw, and there were plenty of cricket commentators, players, and fans – myself included – who wondered whether the trial would or should be adopted.
But the ICC is nothing if not determined – on this matter, at least – and the system was formally introduced into Test Cricket this month in series in New Zealand and Australia.
So with the UDRS now in place, the only thing left for fans to do is to get used to it, and for the players to work out when to use it. Or in Gayle’s case, when not to.
The First Test of the Australia-West Indies series, concluded on Saturday afternoon in Brisbane, has highlighted that the puzzle remains for both fans and players.
Despite radio and TV commentators going to length to explain how the system works, I’m still puzzled as to why its been determined that the ball tracker must show the middle of the ball hitting a stump when used for LBW referrals.
I mean, a batsman is still out bowled if the ball grazes the outside of off-stump, so why now must the middle of the ball be shown to be on target?
Now, I realise that in asking this question, I’ve contradicted an earlier opinion of mine where I was concerned the ball tracker would only need to show the slightest shadow of ball on stump for an LBW referral to be given out.
I understand the motivation, and even the logic, in deciding that the middle of the ball must be on target, but surely a quarter or a third of the ball would be enough? It would certainly be closer to what happens in real life, at the very least.
Either way, how much of the ball hitting the stumps is hardly going to be an issue while ever the players keep up their current practice of foolishly using the UDRS as some kind of vain cricketing get-out-of-jail-free card.
The way the UDRS was used in Brisbane proved to be ill-thought for several players, and confirmed that they too are puzzled on how to get the best out of this new system.
Gayle (twice), Shivnarine Chanderpaul, and even Mitchell Johnson were all shown up to have effectively wasted one of the two available referrals in their team’s innings.
In all four cases, the umpire’s original decision was upheld due to no contrary evidence to support the player’s own opinion that he couldn’t possibly have been out.
In Johnson’s case, he was probably a victim of the ‘Hotspot’ cameras showing nothing other than a front-on view, and as the outside edge of his bat could not be sighted by the infra-red camera, he couldn’t be seen to have definitely not hit the ball in his caught behind decision. With no certain opposing proof, the original decision had to stand.
Chanderpaul, and certainly Gayle, showed how to let selfishness get in the way of better judgement, by referring LBW decisions that they had to have known were plumb in front.
Gayle’s two referrals bordered on embarrassing, referring decisions for another look after he twice offered no shot to Ben Hilfenhaus in-swingers. Both deliveries hit him on the back pad directly in front of the stumps, and both referrals were almost immediately shown to have been a waste of the third umpire’s time.
In referring the decisions, Gayle took on the form of a modern-day WG Grace, standing there looking back at the umpire as if it was some kind of crime against cricket and humanity to have given him out.
Unsurprisingly, in the post-match press conference Gayle stated that he wasn’t a fan of the referral system, and that he still had doubts about the technology in use.
“Technology is part of the game; sometimes there are mistakes even with the technology, that’s why I’m not a big fan of it. Might as well just go out there with two umpires in the middle, they either get it wrong or right.” Gayle said.
I’m not quite sure which piece of technology made the mistake in showing that Gayle let the in-swinging deliveries hit his back pad in front of middle and off, but I’d suggest he might want to check the equipment between his ears.
Either way, you’d like to think players have learned the necessary lessons now.
I would imagine now that the referral of LBW decisions, for example, will be limited to only those where the batsman knows he’s got an inside edge, or where the fielding side knows he hasn’t.
Perhaps the ‘Gabba Test will prove to be the point where the penny dropped, and that players will be much smarter from now on in which decisions they refer up for a second opinion.
This would finally – thankfully – see the system used as the ICC intended, to correct obviously dud decisions, and not just by players looking for a selfish reprieve.
Recommend this story.
Follow Brett McKay on Twitter: @BMcSport
November 30th 2009 @ 7:42am
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Just let me gather my breath, that was another long journey…
“I mean, a batsman is still out bowled if the ball grazes the outside of off-stump, so why now must the middle of the ball be shown to be on target?” – Isn’t Hawkeye based on military technology? Don’t they use the same technology in tennis for exactly those mm decisions? If so then why aren’t they good enough for cricket?
Than again, most of us will recall occasions where the ball has hit the stumps and not dislodged the bails, rare as it may be the bails must be off for it to be a wicket, as such I’d recommend saying 50% of the ball has to hit a stump, that is going to be enough in 100% of cases to dislodge the bails.
“In Johnson’s case, he was probably a victim of the ‘Hotspot’ cameras showing nothing other than a front-on view” – Unfortunately I missed the match but isn’t this sort of; “well, duh…”. If hotspot didn’t pick anything up then he didn’t edge it? What’s the point of being able to refer it to use hotspot, the 3rd umpire saying “hotspot didn’t show any nick” and then still giving the guy out?
In all of the tutorials from the commentators, was it mentioned what the procedure is if an umpire’s decision is overturned? Is there subsequent action? If an umpire has two decisions overturned in one match, does he have to miss matches? Is he docked part of his wage?
This system is afterall only in place to check up on the umpires and make sure they are correct, it’s unfair in my opinion but on the same token, it would be contradictory if the administrators let umpires off scot-free when they’ve been proven to have been mistaken.
I honestly hope this goes the way of the Dodo. 3rd umpires for runouts were a huge improvement to the game, it really made concentrating on fielding and affecting runouts an important part of the game, this referral system is a step backwards, we are calling the umpires integrity into play every time and if Gayle is plumb in front then why should he be able to cast ANY doubt over the umpires decision, it’s not the umpire who has stuffed up, it’s Gayle but he gets to put the attention of the umpire?
What ever happened to the cricket gods evening things up?
November 30th 2009 @ 8:03am
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Hi Freud, I had a feeling you’d be making comment on the length after I read through this just before. There appears to be a difference in where I and the Eds put paragraph breaks, and that’s aded to the length today. Anyway, not a big issue.
Not sure what Hawkeye is based on, but I do know it’s better than it was, where once upon a time it had a happy knack of seemingly always hitting the stumps, despite being well wide to the naked eye.
For Johnson’s case, as soon as the appeal (and finger) went up he was shaking his head as if to say he didn’t hit it, and so referred it. Now because Hotspot is only front-on, we couldn’t actually see the outside edge of his bat on the infra-red, and so therefore couldn’t see if there was or wasn’t a mark on the edge. With no compelling evidence to override the decision, it had to remain. My point was that a square-on shot would have shown the outside edge, and then we would have know for sure. Ian Healy said tongue-in-cheek during the call that maybe players will have to start turning their bats to show the outside edge to Hotspot!!
Your question about remedial action for the umpires is a good one, very good actually, and I don’t know the answer. I’m not sure if it’s come up yet that umpire has proven to be wrong several times in a Test. You would like to think there is some kind of workshop for the Ump in question though.
In Gayle’s two referrals, Ian Gould came out of it with reputation in tact, and indeed both umpires had a good Test on that front. Gayle, however, came out of this Test looking like a monumental goose for the way he referred his two LBWs. No doubt he will have to start thinking about when to use the system better, and that’s why I suggested that I don’t think garden-variety LBWs will be referred for a look, unless they’re really bad.
On the whole, the system seems to be working well for mine, and once players use it a little better than currently, the intended purpose will be met..
November 30th 2009 @ 5:20pm
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
Well at least we know now when Gayle is walking back to the sheds shaking his head in disbelief to take it with a grain of salt.
Hawkeye at Wiki – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye – Some of the engineers have worked on military development before and from memory when this thing first came out, it’s initial purpose had been to track missiles.
On the Johnson one though,surely they had to give him not out, I mean, if he nicked it, it shows, if he didn’t then it doesn’t show, that must be definitive enough otherwise the technology isn’t definitive enough to be used in international cricket.
December 1st 2009 @ 7:27am
Brett McKay said | December 1st 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Freud, I think they got the Johnson one right actually. Forget about the on-field decision for a moment, because obviously the umpire had enough evidence to lift his finger.
Once Johnson referred it though, there had to be enough evidence to show he didn’t hit the ball. Now in this case, and as HotSpotInventor and I discussed last night, the problem wasn’t so much in the technology, but just that Johnson’s bat was on such an angle throughout his shot that the front-on Hotspot camera couldn’t see his outside edge. So that’s not to say that he did or didn’t hit it, just that it couldn’t be established from front-on. A side-on camera would have seen the outside edge, and then – and only then – would we have seen whether there was or wasn’t a hot spot on the edge.
Without this evidence though, the original decision had to stay..
November 30th 2009 @ 9:10am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
A thought-provoking post, Brett.
I support UDRS. I agree that it is not perfect at this stage but it will evolve in years to come till it is near perfect.
But why is the technology so clear-cut in tennis and so haphazard in cricket?
November 30th 2009 @ 12:48pm
Mark said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
I don’t watch a lot of tennis but isn’t it the case in tennis that the replies are used to show where the ball actually landed, rather than predicting where the ball may travel? Presumably a fixed camera down the line can pick up the point of impact pretty easily whereas predicting exactly where the ball may hit has to be less accurate.
November 30th 2009 @ 1:47pm
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Mark, your understanding of the referrals in tennis is pretty right, except that they use Hawkeye to track the ball and show its landing spot, rather than actual replays (presumably becuase they don’t have cameras quick enough to pick up the impact?)
And that’s where the criticism comes from – a fixed camera would be a lot better than trcking and prediction software, becuase you’re working with what actually happened, not what might have happened.
That’s exactly my main gripe about Hawkeye in cricket – by all means show the projection of the stumps behind the batsman, but why aren’t we using actual footage of where the ball pitched and hit, rather than the Hawkeye projection and prediction??
December 1st 2009 @ 8:04am
Chop said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Hawkeye in tennis is much better because you can see the exact spot it bounced, there is no prediction required and IIRC they have something like 8 cameras around a much smaller area to get the exact point of impact.
The technology suits tennis much more than it does cricket and that’s why it works better.
December 1st 2009 @ 8:21am
Brett McKay said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
so Chop, does that mean Tennis doesn’t use the tracking software any more, they’re only using the actual footage??
December 1st 2009 @ 9:07am
Chop said | December 1st 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
No they have specific cameras which are used to pin point the flight of the ball wherever it is on the court.
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/?page_id=1011
This link explains it well once you get rid of the sales BS….
December 1st 2009 @ 10:34am
Brett McKay said | December 1st 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
thanks for that Chop, that does explain it well. And you’re right about the sale BS too. The sooner we can use actual footage in LBW decisions, the more comfortable I’ll be about Hawkeye in general..
November 30th 2009 @ 9:18am
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Kersi, to be honest, I don’t know that it is so clear-cut in tennis, and the teething problems remain in some cases. Balls that appear well in on-camera still occasionally show up to be long on Hawkeye.
As I said to Freud above, Hawkeye is certainly better than it was, and I’m still not completely comfortable with the prediction element of Hawkeye after the point of contact, becuase for mine, that’s where the margin for error increases. I can live with it being used for tracking where the ball pitches and the point of impact though.
No doubt thought Kersi, some teams are utilising the UDRS better than others…
November 30th 2009 @ 9:30am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 30th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Being a M*A*S*H fan, I prefer Hawkeye and Hotlips to hawkeye and hotspots! You know where you stand with Captain Benjamin Pearce and Major Margaret Hoolahun (spellings could be wrong). Captain Chris Gayle has to hone his surgical, nursing and appealing skills.
November 30th 2009 @ 11:39am
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Kersi, I can assure you I get way more enjoyment out of Alan Alda’s Hawkeye than I do out of Tony Greig’s….
November 30th 2009 @ 12:10pm
coops said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Interesting article Brett. The issue I took out of the first test was how long before the batsman/fielding skipper figures if he wastes a bit of time thinking about it, a signal (as simple as a player removing a cap or somehting equally as covert) can be passed from the dressing room (after watching a replay or two) so the batsman/skipper knows whether or not he should refer the appeal with a better idea of the outcome. Just quietly, I think Ricky has already cottoned on to this with his referral’s taking a longer period of ‘thought’ when he is in the field…
I don’t think I like it. Over a career I’m sure the bad decisions are probably evened out by ‘generous’ decisions (like the plumb LBW I survived on Saturday… gotta love 4th grade!)
November 30th 2009 @ 12:23pm
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Coops, this is something we’ve spoken about over a few quiet ales, and I think the specific example we came up with was a mic’d up Mike Young taking up his position beyond the rope, and either removing his cap, or suddenly standing to indicate to go ahead with the referral.
I think it could well happen, especially with teams having their own video analysts on staff now. If something looks suss live, a quick review on the laptop, tell Mike to take his cap off or stand up, Ricky gives the signal, and up we go.
It’s certainly more scientific and purposeful than padding up to an in-swinger and referring it because there’s no way I should be given out!!
November 30th 2009 @ 12:38pm
vinay verma said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Brett..this is as bad as a miked up Hansi Cronje recieving tactics from the coach. The Spirit of Cricket is a phrase people only pay lipservice to.
I would not have the UDDERS (UDRS) as it only holds up play and calls into question the Umpire’s integrity. The actual players at club and grade level will not be able to avail of this so it is only going to be at the Elite Level. I also question how much the Elite Sportsman is continually pandered to. Who is this meant to help? The viewer in the lounge room,who is loath to go out to the game? The sponsors and the advertisers who want maximum exposure for their buck? How is this going to affect the majority of park,school and club cricketers.
We should be looking to make the game better at the grassroots..these are the kids who will end up playing for their country. Anyone who has played cricket at a half decent level knows the good and bad even out. Central to the ethos of Cricket is to respect the Umpire’s decision. If people want to compromise their ideals in the interest of modernity than they are missing the point.
December 1st 2009 @ 8:08am
Chop said | December 1st 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
I don’t see how this calls the umpires integrity into question. The umpire presumably makes the best call he can in a split second.
If the technology is conclusive enough to show that the umpire is wrong, why not have the opportunity to correct it.
I think this system is much better than the previous replay system in that it’s aim is to eliminate the total stinker decisions (hence using the middle of the stump and ball) and even if the decision is proven wrong by the technology, if it was a reasonable decision by the umpire it stands.
I think it’s the perfect level of technological interference in cricket.
November 30th 2009 @ 1:02pm
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Vinay, everything you say here is quite true, and I’m sure you recognised my and Coops’ comments above as the hypothetical (but not unrealistic) scenarios they are.
Re your questions about the benefits to the garssroots from the UDRS, I’d suggest they’re exactly the same benefits the third umpire brought to the grassroots 15 (?) years ago – none. But the third umpire survived its initial teething problems, and even got better over time, and I would expect the same to occur with the review system.
We absolutely should be looking after the grassrots, but we have to remember that it’s the top level that funds the grassroots, and therefore any enhancement will always be done from the top down. We’ve all been on the receiving end of decisions in Grade or District cricket that we’d love another look at, but we all accept that we can only make do with what we’ve got. We’re happy to have two appointed umpirs currently, never mind being able to refer it upstairs.
I’m not a massive fan of the UDRS either Vinay, but I know there’s more chance of me getting a seat on the ICC Board than there is of it being abandoned now that it’s been fully adopted. It’s just something we have to get used to at the top level, as much as we might not like it.
November 30th 2009 @ 5:24pm
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
Cricket won’t ever be a sport that is played the same at the highest level as it is at its grassroots and we shouldn’t force grassroots cricketers into using powerplays and third umpires for the sake of synergy.
The third umpire was a huge boost with runouts, look at the standard of fielding now compared to say 25 years ago, remember the summers of Johnty Rhodes and Ponting or Symonds ripping down the stumps from square of the wicket, often they were close calls and would previously have been given not out but I’m very happy with the 3rd ump, it’s not 100% but it’s accurate enough for me to accept.
November 30th 2009 @ 6:11pm
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
completely agree Freud, and that’s exactly what the attitude needs to be in relation to UDRS. As Greg says above/below (where am I here?) this will never get us to 100% accuracy, but it will get us pretty bloody close. Iron out what little bugs crop up, and benefits will pay for themselves.
November 30th 2009 @ 12:53pm
coops said | November 30th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
vinay… hear hear!!! Call me a luddite, but I couldn’t agree more, however and to the detriment of the game at all levels and society in general, such beliefs seem to be dying a slow death.
November 30th 2009 @ 1:52pm
Kersi Meher-Homji said | November 30th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
If technology is there why not use it? Not that an umpire’s integrity is questioned. We are all humans and we all make mistakes and umpires are humans.
Batting is the only aspect of a sport, any sport, in which there is no second chance in that innings. If you are out for a low score, you are out. Perhaps from the next match. Perhaps forever or for a long time. Ask Phillip Hughes.
You may bowl two full tosses and a half volley and conceed 18 runs in three balls but you have got other three balls to take a wicket. The captain may give you another over or more even if you give away runs without taking a wicket.
You may drop a sitter but you are still on the field to take a screamer.
You may serve a series of double faults and are 0-5 in tennis. But you are not out of the match. You can still win 4-6, 6-1, 6-3, 6-3.
In soccer you may miss shooting an easy goal but you are not off the field.
In batting when you are out, you are out in that innings. OUT! If you are not an all-rounder, your career can be terminated by just one BAD decision.
That’s why I am all for a UDRS for a batsman. If bowlers and fielders can appeal, why can’t a batsman? But only against what he considers a shocking decision.
November 30th 2009 @ 3:13pm
vinay verma said | November 30th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Kersi,with the utmost respect I beg to differ. I have a microwave but I dont use it to cook. Referals only at the discretion of the umpire and that too only for runouts and stumpings. Batsmen have too many advantages already. Bigger bats,helmets,pads,smaller grounds,only one bouncer…But I come back to the central premise. The Umpire’s decision is final. No argument. That is what cricket was meant to be. What is the point of preserving Test Cricket if we destroy one of the basic tenets. The Spirit of Cricket flows from this.
Cricket should take a lesson from another old game..Golf..Players actually call a penalty on themselves.
And cricket is a team game. If one batsman is out there are ten others. It is rare that all ten are out to bad decisions. I though very hard how I could possibly agree with you but I cant on any of your points.
November 30th 2009 @ 5:26pm
Freud of Football said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
“Batting is the only aspect of a sport, any sport, in which there is no second chance in that innings” – Do bowlers get to call decisions into doubt?
November 30th 2009 @ 6:12pm
Brett McKay said | November 30th 2009 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
Freud, they do now at least have avenue to refer…