If you’ve been a sentient being in Australia over the last few weeks, you’ve likely heard a fair bit about the Decision Review System (DRS) that is used in test cricket.
Its use, or lack thereof in this current series against India, is more than a little controversial.
Like all polarising arguments, there have been many arguments for and against the TV/computer assisted review system all with varying levels of fact-based accuracy and logic.
Naturally, there are some utterly bizarre ones in there as well, but we won’t dwell on those.
But there was a moment, as I sat during the lunch break on day two of the Melbourne test, when something strange happened: I agreed with a Channel Nine commentator.
Ian Chappell, former Australian captain, put forward the argument that the current DRS system (in which each side is allowed two incorrect challenges against an umpires decision per innings) is against the spirit of the game and should be replaced with a review system that is controlled entirely by the four umpires (and yes, any international match as four umpires, not three).
His core point was that the DRS was no longer being used as a check and balance against horridly inaccurate umpiring decisions, but instead as a tactic by teams to try and gain a slight advantage by getting 50/50 calls overturned to their advantage.
To me, that makes perfect sense and the two tests against New Zealand highlighted that perfectly.
But it was during Chappell’s arguments that I had an epiphany.
Giving the players out on the field the opportunity to challenge the umpires call goes against a core principle of sportsmanship that we attempt to enshrine in every individual that takes to a sporting field; that you respect the decisions of the officials.
I remember in my (hardly glorious) sporting days as a youngster, you are always told to respect the umpires’ decisions and play to the whistle. It was one of the aspects of participating in sport that was always held in the highest regard.
So going against that and giving players the chance to essentially tell the umpire they think they’re wrong flies directly in the face of that. So how does this fit into the DRS debate?
Well, it’s quite simple. We change the way that decisions are referred to the third umpire. We should take away the challenges of the players and instead allow the umpires in the middle to refer any decision they themselves are not 100 per cent confident they can adjudicate on correctly.
This way, we remove the using of DRS for a team’s advantage and return running of the decision making of a match to where it belongs – with the match officials.
For as long as I can remember (in my short 26 years on this planet), it has always been the umpires that have referred close run-out decisions to the video replay and in recent times they have been able to do the same for no ball decisions.
It only makes sense than any ability to call upon technology to help improve the accuracy of decisions made out on the field is left in the hands of those responsible for making those decisions and not in the hands of those who will seek to use it for their own benefit.
That, for me, is the only way such a system should ever be implemented in test cricket in order to keep the spirit of respecting the umpires call but also allowing for their decisions to be reviewed and, if needed, corrected.
Noel Callow
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly with Ian Chappell Take the on field players out of the equation; accept that mistakes are part of the game and accept the umpires decisions. Imagine this:- the umpire watches the bowlers front foot land and accepts that it is a fair delivery. The batsman is bowled and after a review the camera shows that the bowler's foot was actually 2 mm over the line, so batsman gets a not-out. This sort of rubbish can happen.
Christian
Guest
The system as it stands is the fairest. Teams are limited to just two referrals and captains by and large want to ensure they save them to prevent a major clanger that could cost them the game. They're perhaps used a bit more frivolously towards the end of the game when there's nothing to lose, but so what? They can only do it twice. DRS is an excellent addition to the game. When it was first introduced I disliked the fact that the umpires' authority could be openly challenged, but ultimately everyone wants the same thing; for the right decisions to be made. Since DRS we've seen the howlers overturned and games get remembered for the cricket, not bad decision making. Just look at the India v. England series where the umpires' performances are getting constantly questioned, with mistake after mistake being replayed and scrutinized. Were there to have been a review system the clanger would have been rectified and the game moved on. It's for this reason that many umpires are in favour of DRS as it takes pressure off them. Finally, for those people out there who question the accuracy of the technology, remember DRS utilises slow motion video replays, Hawkeye, Hotspot and Snicko - the decision is looked at repeatedly from multiple angles and several different technologies to reach the right decision. An umpire has one crack at it in real-time. Which is more likely to eliminate mistakes - allowing the use of the technology or not? It's a no-brainer.
jash
Guest
i think DRS is just a waste we cant put it on the same page of run out decision by third umpire. Any kind of tech. at this stage of game should have no contradiction with the decision.sometimes it looks like a supporter of the field umpire. it discriminates with the opinion of viewers and another thing it doesnt consider the uneven bounce that we see in Indian subcontinent that becomes so much crucial in lbw decision like should be hit in the range of 2.5 mtr from the stumps. so it is the time to find better option or remain the game as it is. so much practical with the game like cricket is not gonna help.
Peter John Treacy
Guest
I wish to express my opinion regarding the controversy of the switch hitting of David Warner. I agree with the popular view that it is perfectly OK despite the opinion expreesed of a well known Australian cricketer. To me the somewhat unorthodox stroke is very similar to the "reverse sweep", which is also unorthodox but quite OK. So what is so wrong about the reverse hitting?
CK
Guest
Why on earth would an umpire refer their decision to the third umpire. If they're not confident about being able to make decisions, they should not be umpiring in the first place. They should scrap the DRS. Sometimes people get decisions wrong. The players should accept this and get on with the game.
langou
Roar Guru
Disagree. The reason you use a system in which player’s challenge is so it limits the amount of decisions that end up getting reviewed. Look at run-outs for example. When was the last time an umpire stuck his finger up during a run-out? Players can be metre out and the umpire will still go to the third umpire just to make sure. Bring in an umpire initiated review system and every time a player gets hit on the pads and there is the slightest chance it could be out, it will be reviewed. After all, the last thing the umpires want is to make a wrong decision when they had the technology available. In the Hobart test, Hughes nicked one, was given not out yet the kiwis didn’t challenge. Most commentators at the time declared it a mistake by the kiwi captain rather than a mistake from the umpires. The umps have a tough enough job already and the player challenging system takes some of the pressure away from them. An umpire initiated review would make the pressure and scrutiny so much worse as not referring a decision would feel like a sackable offence rather than just a bad decision.
AdamS
Guest
Ask Warnie. Was it against SL that happened?
Brett McKay
Expert
Chris, you know that an umpire can't actually give a batsman out unless there's been an appeal??
Deeks
Guest
To some of the people thinking that appealing should be banned. I am totaly against what you are saying. Being a player of the game for many years. If you took that aspect of the game out. ie appealing for an LBW decision it would turn it into a very stale game. Also on that note if you question an umpires decision when they have said no. You should be penalised. The umpire has the last decision. On the topic of the DRS. I myself think it's a load of rubbish. If an umpire cannot make a competent decision with out the aid of the technology around. They should not be umpiring. Everyone is human and we all make mistakes. What about junior and club cricket. What sort of example are we setting if we allow the game to get too dependant on technology to make our decisions for us.
Titus
Guest
In Football FIFA opposes the use of technology because it wants the game to be the same at every level and anywhere in the world. I agree with this view, in relying so heavily on the use of technology you are fundamentally changing the game. By giving players the right to challenge a certain number of decisions you are making it part of the game. I can see a case for the umpire using the technology at his discretion when it is available but I think we should be cautious on how far we take this technology. What you are doing, as is the case with Rugby League and NFL, is turning the game into a television product. If games of lower grade cricket and junior cricket can still be played as it has for over a century, why is it so important that Test matches are so heavily scrutinised. People seem to forget that it is just a game and the fate of the worlds starving children doesn't rest on whether Hussey actually edged the ball or not. The purpose of the game is to represent your country and to show skill, courage, sportsmanship and superior tactics. I am also curious as to who owns this technology, who makes money from this technology and how much influence they have in the running of the game. I understand I could be on my own here as apparently all that matters these days is getting people who don't like Test cricket involved in the game, but my opinion is that we need to be careful about selling crickets soul to the TV companies. Football and AFL don't use technology, some wrong calls get made but it hasn't affected the popularity of those sports.
AdamS
Guest
The problem with leaving it up to the umpires is that you will soon see nearly any decision that is not 100% clear cut and unambiguous being refered, which will slow the game down. Additionally, you will still get the howlers as there will be times when the Umpire is both 100% certain AND completely wrong. I mean if he wasn't sure he wouldn't give it out in the first place would he? Having the match umpire overrule from the box is also not feasible as there would be never ending periods of uncertaintly in play where everyone is _waiting_ for an override that may never come.
Homer
Guest
From the ICC's Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel Level 1 offense:- 2.1.5 Excessive appealing during an International Match. Note: For the purposes of Article 2.1.5, ‘excessive’ shall include: (a) repeated appealing of the same decision/appeal; (b) repeated appealing of different decisions/appeals when the bowler/fielder knows the batter is not out with the intention of placing the Umpire under pressure; or (c) celebrating a dismissal before the decision has been given. It is not intended to prevent loud or enthusiastic appealing. Cheers,
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Chris said "Then we should also ban appealing. That’s intimidation of an umpire, and as such is against the spirit of the game.Ban excessive appealing ?" Absolutely. If the umpire thinks you're trying to intimidate him, he should have the power to request your captain replaces you with the 12th man, similarly to how a bowler can be asked to not bowl. Similarly, for cases where an appeal was clearly an attempt to cheat, the Umpire should be able to award runs to the batting team. But yes, if the umpire wants some help to get a decision right, they should be able to ask for it. A player dissent from the umpire's decision and demand they get it right ... not so much. "Because you only get two unsuccessful attempts per innings, teams are forced to use them wisely" Wisely, in this case, means not using them for obvious howlers on bunnies. It means saving them for match-turning decisions.
Chris
Guest
Then we should also ban appealing. That's intimidation of an umpire, and as such is against the spirit of the game. Also, using your theory, the Hussey, Cowan and Haddin decisions would not have been reversed as the umpire was certain he was making the correct decision (otherwise he should not have made the decisions he did). I actually think the way in which the DRS is used by teams other than India is a good way to go. Because you only get two unsuccessful attempts per innings, teams are forced to use them wisely. The Indians need to be pulled into line by the ICC.
Patrick Gilmore
Guest
I like the DRS, and I like putting the onus on the players to review. There is a "put up or shut up" aspect to it, which tempers some of the over the top appealing which has been a blight on cricket. Does anything make a team look more foolish than a huge united pleading appeal, followed by looks of disappointment and incredulity when it is turned down, followed by a decision NOT to review it (because when push comes to shove, the players/captain were far from sure it was out - they were just trying to pressure the umpires)? Early on in the use of DRS, Ricky Ponting would review lots of LBW "not-out" appeals because his whole team went up and they were all "sure" it was out - I think he soon realised that was just what his team did regardless.
PAUL
Guest
Not a bad article: Bernie TB's arrogant mistake is to assume that all sentient beings give a s--t about cricket