How do we solve a problem like the DRS? The current Ashes series has been marred by controversy, and there can be no doubt that it’s overshadowed some engrossing cricket during the first three Tests.
It can never be good for any game to be held up to constant ridicule in the way this marquee series has.
But is the problem with the technology, the implementation, or the public perception of what it’s there for?
As far as the technology goes, it’s currently all over the place.
The Hot Spot has proven fallible after the inventor admitted it may not pick up fine edges under every circumstance.
This was merely one of the ways the infamous Usman Khawaja dismissal should have been overturned, but third umpire Kumar Eyesarepaintedon was happy to remain unconvinced when nothing showed up on his bat.
Hawkeye tracks the ball out of the bowlers hand and offers a predicted line to the stumps if the ball is interrupted by the batsman’s pad. Barely an innings passes without throwing up a prediction that players or fans simply can’t believe.
The Snickometer is available to fans, but not the umpire, adding another layer of frustration to a process that has already lost the faith of many.
The implementation of DRS is unwieldy at best and fatally flawed at worst. Two referrals per team per innings is the current standard.
If used unwisely or selfishly while at the crease, as Shane Watson seems to have the patent on, it can cost a fellow batsman dearly further down the track.
If a team challenges a not out LBW shout while in the field, they can be in the position of being right, yet still lose a referral if not enough of the ball is deemed to be hitting the stumps.
We’ve seen Stuart Broad be the beneficiary of burnt Australian reviews, but is the game really better off with such a grievous umpire error unable to be overturned when it could have been before the bowler was back at the top of his mark?
Many have proposed taking the reviews out of the players hands, and into the complete control of the on-field umpires, which would no doubt create its own set of problems.
We already see too many wickets sent upstairs to be checked for a no-ball. The natural progression is that umpires, fearful of being made to look stupid, would look to refer any call with even a hint of doubt.
Can a happy medium be reached, whereby a Broad howler can be overturned even if a side has run out of challenges?
Should decisions of not out be unreviewable, with only the batting side having the power of calling a review?
Of course, in any sport, the bigger the public outcry, the more media coverage follows, and the larger the controversy, so what part do fans play in all of this?
Many seem to have a problem with the “umpire’s call” facet of Hawkeye. Personally, it’s one of my favourite aspects of the system.
Firstly, Hawkeye is only a predictor, so the fact is its outcomes aren’t set in stone. There has to be a margin for error built in. The standing umpire is duty bound to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, but once he’s made his decision, the DRS transfers that benefit of the doubt to the ump.
It’s quite a simple and worthy concept.
The other thing worth remembering about the “umpire’s call” is contained within the name itself. If there was no DRS, the decision would be the same so, at worst, it provides an outcome that is no different to those delivered in over 100 years of the sport.
The main problem with DRS, and indeed with all video review technology in sport, be it cricket, any of the football codes, horse racing, or whatever, is that people expect a clear and decisive, black and white outcome every time.
And while sometimes we do get a clear, unarguable result, with a thick edge onto a pad or a ball that’s cannoned into a goal post, more often we’re left with fifty shades of grey, except of the frustrating non-erotic kind.
Once school of thought suggests that when a review is handed over to the third umpire, the decision should be made from scratch, rather than looking to support the standing call. This would be based on a combination of evidence and balance of probabilities, even allowing for simply what “feels” right.
Would cricket fans be happy with this? Or would supporters feel victimised and rage against this too, if decisions didn’t go their way?
When discussing DRS, it seems there isn’t so much no right or wrong answer, but multiple right and wrong answers each time. Perhaps the BCCI are more astute than backwards, and the umpire’s decision should be good enough for all, as it always has been.
But when it comes to video review technology in sport, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and it isn’t going back. Simply put, you can’t unscramble an egg. All you can do is hope the taste is to your satisfaction.
AlanKC
Guest
It certainly is the endless focus of tv networks on anything seemingly in error that forced the introduction of DRS (and the resultant howls of indignation from supporters).
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Check out the lead story on The Roar at the moment. . .
Brett McKay
Expert
..it won't create a hot spot, exactly!
bigbaz
Guest
So if a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it and nobody hears it ...................
IndianCricketFan
Guest
On behalf of all Indians I can say the following: * You reap what you sow... * Garbage in, garbage out (as in all the precious hours and grey cells wasted in articles and opinion on DRS) Too bad the debate got polarised by the UK, Oz and cronies into a BCCI vs. the rest duel - in the process you guys got all dogmatic about it and now all the confounded discussions everywhere can't propose a scenario that objectively evaluates its exclusion. The ICC, ECB, CA, never once considered BCCI's opinion on its merits and now fate is acting out each one of BCCI's concerns. Such are the curious twists that life presents us with. Love it!!!
Simoc
Guest
DRS is great. People just love having a whinge and complaining about the referees, umpires. For journos its money in the bank. There are regularly 80000 experts at the MCG who all know far more than the umpires for a moment in time. In cricket the fools look at 20 slow motion replays and decide the umpire is blind. And it gives them something to pass the time by. Knowing that their is a blinder person in the world than themselves (in their mind), puts a spring in their step. Sad people.
Brett McKay
Expert
this is my point above Alan. If the margin for error is that high, then surely half a ball can still graze the outside of off or leg stump and still knock a bail off.....
Hoy
Roar Guru
I came in late, but I don't recall having seen so many howlers/clangers so close together before the system was introduced.
Patrick Effeney
Editor
I think we've met now then Cam. I think the whole thing has to be boiled down to a "use everything available to us and see what the best decision we can make is based on all the evidence." Seems reasonable enough right?
chris
Guest
NFL, tennis and I believe field hockey has very similar systems in place. They've tried it in rugby here in South Africa, but it didn't quite work as unlike cricket, tennis and NFL there weren't convenient breaks between play's where decisions could be reviewed. I want games to be decided by players' actions. The way I see it the umpires are there to facilitate the contest, the game shouldn't be about them. Neither do I believe that there is anything disrespectful about disagreeing with an umpire's call. I'd much rather a player openly voicing their disagreement with an umpire, as long as there is cost involved, than walking back to changing room and throwing his bat through a door. In my mind at least the point of DRS is not to get every decision correct, but rather to maintain the legitimacy of the contest between the players. If Rogers was unsure about referring the out decision he can hardly feel hard done by when his lack of conviction comes back to bite him.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I'd be happy for them to trial a few options in ODI's.
Cameron Rose
Expert
It's certainly quandary, and maybe we've got the best of what there is. I'd like to see a few different versions trialled though for a series or two of ODI's, considering no-one really cares about the result anyway. Yes, I remember a bit of furore and disbelief around that one. It seems so obvious from the outside, yet it's so difficult to make happen. The rules need to be changed to err on the side of more test cricket, and evolve with the times.
AlanKC
Guest
P.S. If you're going to apply the 50% or more must be hitting then for heavens sake use the outside of the stump not the centre of it as the dividing line.
Cameron Rose
Expert
I see where you're coming from Chris, but it feels incredible to me that an on-field player can have any sort of jurisdiction over an umpire/referee/official's ruling. Is there another sport that allows this? A player is there to play, and that should be their sole focus, not wondering whether or not to appeal, or feeling worried about wasting one. It's also ludicrous that the strength of an appeal can have any bearing on the result too, but that's another matter.
AlanKC
Guest
I struggle to understand the rationale for using a different definition depending upon the onfield umpires original decision (for LBW's). That is if the umpire gives the batsman out and he reviews it Hawkeye must show that no part of the ball would have hit the stumps before the decision is overturned but the 50% rule comes into play if the original decision is not out and the fielding team reviews it... If there has to be a margin for error on one why isn't there on the other?
chris
Guest
should read - imagine there was NO drs
chris
Guest
The real issue is the inconsistency of the rules regarding height and width. Where height is at issue, half the ball must be hitting the bails. Where hawke eye has to decide whether the ball will hit leg stump, half the ball must hit inside half the stump. The margin for error is much larger on the sides of the stumps than the height and I can't think of a rational reason why this should be case.
chris
Guest
Can't disagree more. The reason people love sport is for the emotion of it all and teams who deal with pressure better should be rewarded. The system of limited reviews mean that the player who feels hard done by can sort it out right there and then, but there is a risk to challenging the umpire's call. This discussion also shows a cognitive bias of the commentators. I feel for Khawaja, but there are also cases where the system worked perfectly. Think back to the first test, imagine if there was DRS, Haddin would have been not out and could/would have steered Australia to undeserved victory. Could you imagine the controversy then?
Matt F
Roar Guru
I'm not 100% supportive of the player led review either but I have concerns that if its put in the hands of the umpires then we'll have them referring every decision which both makes the role of the umpire redundant and slows the game down even more as every single decision might be reviewed. I've come to the view that, like the DRS itself, the player-led review system isn't perfect, just a bit better than the alternative. I remember a game at the SCG, I think it was the Pakistan test in 2010, where the first session was rained out. This was frustrating in itself as the rain was as light as it could be. If they were currently playing then they would have kept playing but they're not allowed to start unless there's no rain at all (which is another issue entirely). The umpires decided to take an early lunch which, of course, was announced just after the rain stopped. Naturally , instead of saying "right, we've already lost 90+ minutes, so let's skip lunch and get out there" it was decided that the poor players must be desperately hungry and they'll take lunch anyway. Now obviously it's not the umpires fault, rather the rules, but it was a complete and utter farce. I like your idea about making sure that it goes for 2 hours. I've always wondered why they only allow an extra half hour before and/or after standard play. If we've lost a days play then we should try and get as much time back as possible. For example, there's no reason why play couldn't start at 10 or even 930am in Australia, if substantial time has been lost (assuming it's a fine, sunny day), likewise no reason why play can't be extended even later in England where the sun sets very late in summer (again assuming light and rain isn't an issue.)
Nick
Roar Guru
My mistake. :)