The decision review system in test cricket is flawed; illustrated by Daniel Vettori’s incorrect challenge in the fourth day of the second test against Australia.
The system as it stands allows each team two unsuccessful challenges in each innings of a test match.
When a batsman or the fielding captain challenges, the third umpire can only change the decision if he can conclusively prove that the on-field umpire’s decision was incorrect.
In many cases though this means that the batsman does not get the benefit of the doubt as the rules state he should.
International umpire Aleem Dar, who has umpired 59 test matches, believes that the system is a good one.
“I know some umpires don’t agree with this system but I think it will help reduce the chances of mistakes made on the field,” says Mr. Dar.
However, a slight tinkering to the system will mean that a higher percentage of correct decisions will be made.
If test cricket is going to put the investment of time during a match and money into a review system then they should let the technology decide whether there is doubt in a decision, not the on field umpires.
The Vettori decision from yesterday is an excellent example.
Vettori swept, he missed and the ball struck him on the pad, and the only doubt surrounding the LBW decision was whether it had struck him inline.
The umpire ignored this doubt and gave him out. Vettori immediately challenged. His challenge was turned down even though there was doubt that it had hit him within the line of the stumps.
An incorrect decision because Vettori was not given the benefit of the doubt.
For the system to be more effective, the third umpires needs to ignore the decision of the on-field umpire and only give the batsman out if he can find no doubt in the decision.
Jameswm
Guest
The rules do not sy the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt. Not to my knowledge anyway.
Wayno
Guest
The umpire obviously had no doubt in his mind else he would not have given Vettori out, the video replay was inconclusive therefore the umpires decision was correctly upheld. The system definately needs refining but I think the given example is not the best.
Ken
Guest
After being intially sceptical I actually think this system works pretty well. The goal was to eliminate shockers rather than create umpiring perfection and I think it has done that fairly well. I don't look on the implementation as removing the benefit of the doubt to the batsman as the umpire should have already given this his consideration on the original decision - it is about giving the umpire's decision the benefit of the doubt unless he is clearly shown to be wrong. If we take your logic to it's ultimate conclusion then we might as well do away with umpire's and just have the game officiated from the video box but I don't think this would be a service to cricket.