Let's call stumps on the decision review system

There has been much written about the death of various forms of cricket in the wake of the rise of the Twenty20 game. However, in my view, Test cricket is alive and well. The series just gone between Australia and South Africa illustrated this perfectly.

We have witnessed some fantastic cricket and I wish it was a five-Test series.

But I digress.

The biggest challenge to Test cricket is not the boredom of a five-day game or the lack of excitement provided by the players.

No, it is the farcical Decision Review System (DRS) that the ICC has placed into the game that not only confuses most, but seems to get us all no closer to the reason for its existence in the first place – the right decision.

Cricket has been played for a long time and it seemed perfectly fine for over a hundred years to take the good with the bad in terms of umpiring decisions.

Like everything, it seems, in our modern world we want to stamp out the notion of ‘not fair’. So we have been given the review system.

At this point can I be clear I have no problem with the Umpire Review System, where the umpire checks his own decision, such as a run out, stumping or grounded catch.

It is the Player Review System that is the farce.

Like most things in sport (and life), if you give individuals an opportunity to exploit rules for their gain, they will do it. This system has now become a tactic at times and an annoyance at others.

Those in support of the DRS argue it was put in place to prevent the ‘howler’. (You know the one where the batsman smashes it into his pad and is still given out LBW). That is just a defence mechanism for a flawed system with no clear intent.

As it stands the on-field umpires may as well be hat stands – so little influence do they now have on the proceedings. The defining images for me of the current series are the sprays the on field umpires are copping from the players after a review is turned down.

How comical given the on field umpire hasn’t made the decision and neither he nor the players has been privy to the technological evidence the third umpire has used. Yet it creates tension, anger and confusion among all.

Now you will have to bear with me on this because it gets a little heavy but the only way to fully highlight how ridiculous this system is would be to analyse how it works for LBW decisions.

We know that for a player to be given out LBW the ball must first hit the pad/leg/shoulder (if you are Sachin Tendulkar) in line with the stumps and be going on to hit the stumps, if the player is playing a shot. If the player doesn’t offer a shot, he can also be given out LBW if the ball hits him outside the line of off stump and it is going on the hit the stumps.

However the ball cannot pitch outside leg stump and the player be given out LBW, ever. Pretty simple really.

So in terms of LBW there are three points to rule on: where the ball pitches, whether it hits the player in line with the stumps, and whether it will continue on and hit the stumps.

Under a review you would think it would be very easy to rule on these three things and come up with a decision, whether or not the player was out. Wrong. There are conditions attached to the final ruling under DRS for LBW and that is where the problem lies.

Let’s look at point of impact for example.

ICC laws state the following:

“If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the point of impact is between wicket and wicket (i.e. in line with the stumps), the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball at the moment of interception is in line within an area demarcated by a line drawn down the middle of the outer stumps.

If an ‘out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the point of impact is not between wicket and wicket (i.e. outside the line of the stumps), the evidence provided by technology should show that no part of the ball at the moment of interception is between wicket and wicket. “

Ah sorry what’s that? The interpretation of the decision depends on whether it was originally given out or not. Why? It is either out or not out. When you read this you start to see why players get confused and angry.

Success can depend upon whether it was given out and who actually challenged and that is not right. All that should matter is making the correct decision. If you think that was bad read on….

Again looking to the ICC laws, let’s analyse whether the ball was hitting the stumps:

“If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is hitting the stumps, the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball would have hit the stumps within an area demarcated by a line drawn below the lower edge of the bails and down the middle of the outer stumps.

However, where the evidence shows that the ball would have hit the stumps within the demarcated area as set out above but that:

• The point of impact is 300cm or more from the stumps; or

• The point of impact is more than 250cm but less than 300cm from the stumps and the distance between point of pitching and point of impact is less than 40cm, the original decision will stand (i.e. not out).

If an ‘out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is missing the stumps, the evidence of the technology should show that no part of the ball would have made contact with any part of the stumps or bails.”

I need to sit down because my head is spinning. Could you make something any more confusing? You know what I will settle for here – are the bails going to fall off? Done.

My final beef is that teams get a certain number of challenges per innings and these can erode, depending if they are successful or not. If the system is based on fairness for all, then I think it should work like this:

1. Players appeal or dismissal occurs;
2. The umpire refers to the third umpire after making his decision;
3. Third umpire checks for a no ball;
4. Third umpire rules on the decision;
5. Umpire conveys it;
6. If the evidence is inconclusive then it is not out. Batsmen always get benefit of doubt. There will be no ‘umpires call’ in cricket like in the NRL, despite the original decision;
7. Player either walks off the field given out or stays and keeps batting.

Easy. No challenges or reviews. This can be the system for every form of dismissal (there are 10 by the way). Now when the third umpire is reviewing the decision, he simply looks at the evidence and decides whether it was out or not. Forget all the complicated clauses. Just decide in line with the rules of the game.

For an LBW if any part of the ball hit in line with the stumps or will touch the bail, then that’s out. Bat dominates ball unless there is something in the pitch these days anyway, so let’s not make it even harder to get a batsman out.

Let technology rule automatically on every decision and we should get the right decision every time. Players will be made fully aware that reviews may be inconclusive, but they will accept this if the right decision is made.