The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

India could push DRS to where it always should have been

18th January, 2015
Advertisement
What will the Boxing Day pitch have in store? (Photo: AAP)
Expert
18th January, 2015
71
1659 Reads

With the one-day Tri-Series now underway without DRS, but confirmation that DRS will be in use for the World Cup starting next month, yet more conversation popped up last week that gives some glimmer of hope about a worldwide acceptance of the use of umpiring technology.

There were two angles to the conversation, but there are some promising linkages, and I’ll come back to ORS – the Officiating Replay System – later.

It was actually confirmed back in November last year that DRS – one review per team per innings – would be used in the World Cup, but the topic came up again as more talk emanated about India’s position around the system.

The short of it is that India has an issue with the projection and predictive elements of the HawkEye and EagleEye, they’re not at all fond of the umpire’s call element to reviews, and they do not believe the reviews should sit in the hands of players at all.

“I have always said that a player should not have to beg for a review,” former Indian all-rounder and now team director Ravi Shastri told Peter Lalor in The Australian just before Christmas.

“The issue for us is the extent of technology used, by whom and when.”

This is certainly an improvement on their previous stances, which at one stage included issues with inconsistent use of the full suite of technology by different broadcasters in different countries – let’s just ignore that the India-led ICC voted against mandating, and paying for, whatever technology should be used. It’s also better than their original objection on the grounds that the technology wasn’t perfect, and which was generally interpreted as ‘because Sachin doesn’t like it’.

Despite the road they’ve taken to get to this point, I’m glad India has raised the topic of players holding the review powers as a sticking point.

Advertisement

I’ve long held and stated the opinion that players reviewing an umpire’s decision is tantamount to endorsed dissent, and though the ‘spirit of cricket’ is fictional and generally only quoted when convenient, player reviews certainly contradict what we were all told as junior cricketers: that the umpire’s decision is final, and must always be accepted.

By all means use the technology to get the decisions right – which ultimately was the whole reason for its introduction – but forget about reviews and just let the umpires make the decision with the aid of the technology as they see the requirement to use it.

India’s issue with the ball tracking technology is understandable too. There have been advances over the years of its use, and EagleEye was certainly an improvement on HawkEye, but regardless, while the tracking of where the ball pitches and where the batsman is hit is accurate, everything after that point is educated guesswork.

We also end up with situations where a batsman is given out because the outside of off or leg stump is shown as being possibly grazed on the projections, when the human eye would almost always give that same decision not out.

And this is another of India’s beefs: the notion of umpire’s call, and how the same decision can be overturned or allowed to stand, depending on the original decision made on the field. They also believe umpire’s call generally goes against them, a trivial pettiness that undoes the good points they make.

India would have the umpire’s call removed completely, and just have the decision made. In cases of LBW, this would also involve the removal of the projection of the ball’s trajectory after its impact with the batsman.

And I’m actually quite comfortable with this. Assuming the pitch and stump maps would stay and umpires could still use EagleEye or HawkEye to determine where the ball pitched and where the batsman was struck, I think this would be a complementary use of technology aiding the human decision.

Advertisement

So where this all might be heading is toward a new system the ICC has been working on the in background, and which was trialled in real-time in an ODI in late 2013. ORS is a system where the third umpire retains full control of the replays, rather than being dependent on the replays supplied by the broadcaster.

In a move that would completely eradicate the risk of funny business from parochial TV directors, the third umpire sits alongside a dedicated EagleEye or HawkEye engineer and has real-time vision of all angles in use. The ability to instantly replay an angle independent of the broadcast director will save time across the board.

Former top Australian umpire, and now ICC training and performance manager for umpires, Simon Taufel stated during the trials that boundary and no-ball checks could be done in a few seconds, as opposed to upwards of 40 seconds under the existing DRS protocols.

The same efficiency would greatly assist on-field decision making, regardless of whether the umpires call for it, or if the third umpire believes an incorrect decision has been made.

Player reviews should never have been part of the plan, in my humble opinion, and the efficiency of the ORS could quite easily remove the ability for players to call for decision reviews, something India want rectified. If the cost of India’s acceptance is the removal of the projection and prediction of ball trajectory after the point of impact, I’m all for that too.

I would much prefer there be no such thing as a review at all, and that the right decision is just made upfront. If the ORS allows replays to be made so swiftly, then I can’t really see why umpires can’t just ask for extra assistance, just as they do now with run-outs and stumpings.

That said, if the reviews remained, but in the sole possession of the third umpire – and India are comfortable with this – then finally we can remove this current farce where every Test nation bar one accepts the use of technology.

Advertisement

Either way, the game will be better for it.

close