It takes a calm head, a mature outlook, a steely eye, a long considered look, and yet that is still no guarantee that they will get the decision right in the DRS.
They are the umpires, the captains, the batsman, the bowler and the keeper.
They say in sales that buyers are liars. And in the land of the DRS, it might well be that everyone lies to some small degree.
Batsmen lie…”I didn’t hit it, sir!” or “I did hit it, sir” on LBWs.
Umpires lie. They put their finger up when they are not 100% certain. Benefit of the doubt sometimes goes out the window.
Captains generally are fairly circumspect, especially if they are fielding in slips where they often have no concrete idea about the decision. But they lie when telling tales about the DRS to the media…“Cripes, we get all the bad decisions with DRS! We’ve got no chance to win!”
Bowlers lie because they are flinging themselves at the crease, head jerking this way and that, and they yell out any appeal at any time and expect the decision to be theirs.
And keepers are kidding themselves if they say they know that an LBW is “plumb” or they know someone hit it, because there are bats, gloves, pads and other appendages in their line of sight.
So guess who is the only honest one in the whole bunch of them…
You guessed it, the camera and the audio. Not the computer imaging. Not the strip down the middle of the pitch. Not the laws pertaining to parts of the ball hitting the strip or the stumps. That all is subjective.
But Snicko never lies. The pictures tell a lot of stories. The guilt of a batsman. The hypocrisy of some bowlers, captains, keepers. The fallibility of umpires.
There is a certain calmness about the results of DRS in this series. There is no need to know whether someone has lied or tried to deceive an umpire. The players will be found out, but only if the technology is used.
One can afford to be smug about the result of a decision.
One doesn’t care what the decision is, in or out! As a spectator, as a lover of the game, as a writer, as a player, a coach, it simply has to be right!
If the three umpires deliberate on a close decision – any close decision – that is acceptable.
If they use any means available within the new laws of the ICC’s revised DRS (after this series), that is acceptable.
What is needed is for the umpires to take a minute and get the obviously disputed decision right. Because it is fair!
If batsmen or bowlers or the fielding team or the batting team are disadvantaged, then that is not fair!
And the only way to do that is for the three umpires to confer on any disputed appeal, view all the technology, make a decision and convey it clearly to all at the ground and on television at the same time.
After an appeal, captains can talk to umpires. Batsmen can talk to umpires. Bowlers can talk to umpires, but none of the players can decide the result of the DRS, or if the umpires want to (or don’t want to), have a DRS on a particular appeal.
The umpires will not be so egocentric or dogmatic about denying a DRS if they have any doubt whatsoever. They know that the media coverage will be very savage if they fail to use the DRS.
They can confer on the field. They can go to the video umpire. They can look at everything! That must be available to them!
When the umpires have taken their time and thought the matter through, they have 99.9% of the time got the decision right. And the batsmen or bowlers, whether they shake their head or not, know that the decision has at worst received 100% effort in getting to a fair conclusion.
Nathan Lyon wasn’t out LBW last night. Why? Because he didn’t refer!
Is that fair or right? Of course not!
The video umpire could easily have over-ruled. But he didn’t have to, under the current DRS laws.
That’s where the rules of the DRS are wrong. It can be fixed in a minute with an ounce of courage.
Forget the time. Time means nothing. Getting the decision right means everything, in all 3 forms of the game!
IndianCricketFan
Guest
Um, Here's what your own Umps have to say about DRS...enjoy... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ex-Oz umpires call for DRS scrapping as 'system making umpires lazy' ANI | Aug 10, 2013, 03.53 PM IST SYDNEY: Former Australian cricket umpires Ross Emerson and Dick French have joined the numerous voices calling for the removal of the controversial Decision Review System, saying that the system is making umpires 'lazy' and 'ruining their techniques'. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, DRS has been in the spotlight for the entire Ashes series, following repeated errors by the umpires, and the issue has further warmed up after Hot Spot's failure to miss several faint edges, with silicone tape allegedly being used to deceive it. The report further said that calls for the removal of DRS are getting louder, with former England skippers Andrew Flintoff and Michael Vaughan among those who have condemned it. Also expressing their concerns with the use of technology in cricket, French and Emerson felt that the DRS were eroding the standard of umpiring and undermining their confidence and authority, adding that instead of using the system, the ICC should invest money in training umpires. French, who officiated 19 Tests between 1977 and 1987, said he was never in favour of it, while Emerson said the system should be scrapped unless the ICC invested in its own, accurate technology. Stating that umpires used to operate with 95 per cent accuracy before the system was introduced, French also said that there was only a small margin for improvement from its use, adding that overturned decisions affected the umpires' confidence and a reliance on technology ruined their technique, thereby destroying the 'fabric' of the game. Both French and Emerson doubted Hawk-Eye's accuracy, which is backed up by the way it is used with more than half the ball needing to hit the stumps. Emerson also said that he is confused why the Snickometer, which uses a graph of sound waves in conjunction with video footage to help determine whether a batsman has hit the ball, is not a part of the DRS given that technology needed to be '100 per cent' accurate. According to Emerson, the ICC should be improving the standard of the on-field umpires, adding that the third umpire has the hardest job of the three officials because all the tough decisions were being referred as compared to the 1990s. ------------------------------------------------------------
Steven McBain
Guest
Great article. There is nothing wrong with the car, it's the people driving it! The technology works for sure but the system and how it is used is the issue. Problems exist because the players are the ones mainly in control of when it is used yet the umpires are the ones blamed when something is given wrongly. Having said that the players are in control in tennis and it seems to work well enough there but the process is so much simpler, in or out. Rugby is in the hands of the refs and that whilst not perfect seems to work ok too. Calls from Michael Vaughan last week to abandon the use of the technology made no sense to me whatosoever and would be a huge backward step. The TV coverage would keep using it regardless showing up the umpires and the reality is that DRS in the main works, it just needs to be used properly and by the right people, the umpires.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
Well argued, completely agree! 250 years ago the best decision making system available was two on field umpires, and that will always remain the fallback default. There have been significant advances in technology since umpires were first included in the laws of cricket and these advances in technology should be fully used to minimize any clearly detectable errors.