One of the most frustrating things we have witnessed throughout the current Ashes series has been the abuse of the DRS by players and officials.
The technology was introduced with good intentions, but it has been ineffective in eliminating on-field controversies.
The use of slowed-down video footage by the third umpire has proven a huge success when judging run-outs and stumpings. In these cases the third umpire is granted the authority to make a decision.
But the DRS is a different beast and allows on-field decisions to be disputed by the players then reviewed by the third umpire and potentially reversed if the evidence is considered conclusive.
This all sounds fine until we realise the limitations of the DRS technology and the psychology at play.
Firstly, when using the hawke-eye, snicko and hot-spot technologies, there are 50-50 incidents where the DRS evidence is deemed too fuzzy and inconclusive.
In these cases the DRS will revert to an ‘umpires call’ which basically throws the decision back to the on-field umpire and provides no reassurance whatsoever.
Secondly, it is also important to recognise how the DRS influences the decisions of the on-field umpires.
Prior to the DRS, umpires took the consistent approach of giving batsmen the benefit of the doubt when judging a potential dismissal which meant that the number of lucky/unlucky 50-50 calls would tend to even out over the course of the game.
But with umpires coming under increased pressure, they are now more inclined to give a batsman out in the case of a 50-50 decision, which means that the ‘benefit of the doubt’ that once existed for batsmen has now swung in favour of the bowling side.
Surely the technology was meant to eliminate this doubt all together.
The LBW dismissal is classic example, where we are constantly seeing batsman given out for deliveries that would barely shave the top the leg stump, but not over-turned by the third umpire due to the original on-field umpires call.
The only solution is for the DRS to be fully utilised as an impartial umpire, meaning that it must be capable of making a decision, or else not used at all.
James Carson
Guest
Its interestng that in tennis, the technology makes the call.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Also, I believe the ICC was trailing something else with another umpire sitting in a trailer outside the ground with all the different technology at their disposal to see how quickly he could go about making a decision. I think this is where we'll eventually get to. If he can have hotspot, hawkeye, snicko (I know it's not currently used, but should be, it's no less reliable than hotspot and hawkeye and is just another form of evidence) plus all replay angles at his fingertips, then the onfield umpire just makes his decision, and while the appeal is happening the 3rd umpire is already reviewing technology, then he can very quickly get in the ear of the on field umpire to overrule the decision or at least say that he thinks it's worth checking, so hold things a moment while he does, then I think we can probably get more correct decisions, speed the game up (no 5 minute huddle to go with every unsuccessful appeal) and stop giving players the right to dispute with umpires.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
"Umpires call" is an interesting thing. It's understandable with the prediction of Hawkeye, because they know it's not 100%, but the part that tracks where the ball has been, not where it might have been, is seen as very accurate (tennis is happy to have it make a call based on fractions of a millimetre) and there should be no need for the "Umpires Call" option for these. Either it pitched in line or didn't, either it hit the pad in line or didn't. It is tough looking at Hawkeye giving a batsman not out based on Umpires Call even when the ball is shown smashing into leg stump (but the centre of the ball is 1mm pas the centre of the stump) while it will give a batsman out based on Umpires Call when it suggests the ball is just barely scraping leg stump. One possibility here is that until they can be certain is really high levels of accuracy in the prediction, only use Hawkeye for the pitching and hitting the pad parts, and hitting the stumps is purely down to the naked eye of viewing replays at different angles. To me the biggest issue though is when a batsman knows he didn't hit the ball, they don't find any evidence of an edge, but don't consider the lack of evidence of an edge to be enough to overturn the decision. Surely you have to take the view that to give a batsman out caught you have to have some positive evidence that he hit it, regardless of what the on-field decision was. Basically, the biggest issue isn't the technology, but the use of it. If we are able to pretty conclusively look at all the evidence that the third umpire looked at and everyone other than the umpire is unanimous that he made the wrong call, then that means something has to be done about the human element.