- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The Decision Review System is not preventing the howler.
There are several structural flaws. These structural flaws are:
a) As Steve Smith demonstrated, it can be manipulated by a surreptitious gaze in right direction.
b) It is used as a strategic vehicle. To sink momentum. To ride momentum. To flirt with luck. To test the bowler’s stride. To avoid wastage. Because we are naturally selfish creatures. Because of obeisance. Because why not use it? Who wants to commiserate in that dusty soggy shed?
c) The technology is not reliable. The trajectory of the ball on Hawk-eye is estimated by someone with a vindictive spirit, a relentless imagination and a talent for computer programming.
d) No aroma ambrosia or aphrodisiac brings me more joy than a Shane Watson DRS compilation. But, let’s be honest. We are asking egomaniacal bowlers and batsmen to pantomime as independent and wise counsel.
We are asking them to reckon with their own fate and rationalise their impending downfall.
That seems rather cruel.
d ½) We don’t criticise the umpire for not perfecting a cover drive. Where is the logical consistency in penalising a team for an errant review?
e) The interminable pause that follows a review is jarring. It interrupts the flow of the game and (almost) depressed Peter Siddle’s hat-trick in 2010.
So what happens next?
Like most philosophical issues challenging the modern person, we must look to the oeuvre of Brad Haddin.
“I personally think the umpires might as well use the reviews. I don’t think they need to be in the players’ hands, to be honest,” he said in 2013.
While I disagreed with his quadruple-step-charge-at-5-for-17 approach, I do agree with this smash-the-system proposal. Not with the fullness of my heart, but with a bit of my small intestine. However his call went through to the proverbial keeper, which is a shame because it deserved some abstract and inconsequential debate.
So, I unenthusiastically suggest the following.
1) Provide the umpires with – and encourage them to use – a limited (two to four) number of reviews.
2) Each team receives one review per innings.
This alternative system isn’t a panacea. It does nothing to correct some of the problems I have listed and the umpires are probably too bigheaded to send the marginal calls upstairs.
But, this model eases some of the burden that saddles the modern day player. It places more scrutiny on the umpire to, you know, umpire. It might eliminate some of the histrionics that accompany that weird T sign, and it could lead to a more judicious use of the technology.
All of these factors would increase the probability of the correct decision being made.
And, as the crème de la crème, we’d see less howlers.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.