With the one-day Tri-Series now underway without DRS, but confirmation that DRS will be in use for the World Cup starting next month, yet more conversation popped up last week that gives some glimmer of hope about a worldwide acceptance of the use of umpiring technology.
There were two angles to the conversation, but there are some promising linkages, and I’ll come back to ORS – the Officiating Replay System – later.
It was actually confirmed back in November last year that DRS – one review per team per innings – would be used in the World Cup, but the topic came up again as more talk emanated about India’s position around the system.
The short of it is that India has an issue with the projection and predictive elements of the HawkEye and EagleEye, they’re not at all fond of the umpire’s call element to reviews, and they do not believe the reviews should sit in the hands of players at all.
“I have always said that a player should not have to beg for a review,” former Indian all-rounder and now team director Ravi Shastri told Peter Lalor in The Australian just before Christmas.
“The issue for us is the extent of technology used, by whom and when.”
This is certainly an improvement on their previous stances, which at one stage included issues with inconsistent use of the full suite of technology by different broadcasters in different countries – let’s just ignore that the India-led ICC voted against mandating, and paying for, whatever technology should be used. It’s also better than their original objection on the grounds that the technology wasn’t perfect, and which was generally interpreted as ‘because Sachin doesn’t like it’.
Despite the road they’ve taken to get to this point, I’m glad India has raised the topic of players holding the review powers as a sticking point.
I’ve long held and stated the opinion that players reviewing an umpire’s decision is tantamount to endorsed dissent, and though the ‘spirit of cricket’ is fictional and generally only quoted when convenient, player reviews certainly contradict what we were all told as junior cricketers: that the umpire’s decision is final, and must always be accepted.
By all means use the technology to get the decisions right – which ultimately was the whole reason for its introduction – but forget about reviews and just let the umpires make the decision with the aid of the technology as they see the requirement to use it.
India’s issue with the ball tracking technology is understandable too. There have been advances over the years of its use, and EagleEye was certainly an improvement on HawkEye, but regardless, while the tracking of where the ball pitches and where the batsman is hit is accurate, everything after that point is educated guesswork.
We also end up with situations where a batsman is given out because the outside of off or leg stump is shown as being possibly grazed on the projections, when the human eye would almost always give that same decision not out.
And this is another of India’s beefs: the notion of umpire’s call, and how the same decision can be overturned or allowed to stand, depending on the original decision made on the field. They also believe umpire’s call generally goes against them, a trivial pettiness that undoes the good points they make.
India would have the umpire’s call removed completely, and just have the decision made. In cases of LBW, this would also involve the removal of the projection of the ball’s trajectory after its impact with the batsman.
And I’m actually quite comfortable with this. Assuming the pitch and stump maps would stay and umpires could still use EagleEye or HawkEye to determine where the ball pitched and where the batsman was struck, I think this would be a complementary use of technology aiding the human decision.
So where this all might be heading is toward a new system the ICC has been working on the in background, and which was trialled in real-time in an ODI in late 2013. ORS is a system where the third umpire retains full control of the replays, rather than being dependent on the replays supplied by the broadcaster.
In a move that would completely eradicate the risk of funny business from parochial TV directors, the third umpire sits alongside a dedicated EagleEye or HawkEye engineer and has real-time vision of all angles in use. The ability to instantly replay an angle independent of the broadcast director will save time across the board.
Former top Australian umpire, and now ICC training and performance manager for umpires, Simon Taufel stated during the trials that boundary and no-ball checks could be done in a few seconds, as opposed to upwards of 40 seconds under the existing DRS protocols.
The same efficiency would greatly assist on-field decision making, regardless of whether the umpires call for it, or if the third umpire believes an incorrect decision has been made.
Player reviews should never have been part of the plan, in my humble opinion, and the efficiency of the ORS could quite easily remove the ability for players to call for decision reviews, something India want rectified. If the cost of India’s acceptance is the removal of the projection and prediction of ball trajectory after the point of impact, I’m all for that too.
I would much prefer there be no such thing as a review at all, and that the right decision is just made upfront. If the ORS allows replays to be made so swiftly, then I can’t really see why umpires can’t just ask for extra assistance, just as they do now with run-outs and stumpings.
That said, if the reviews remained, but in the sole possession of the third umpire – and India are comfortable with this – then finally we can remove this current farce where every Test nation bar one accepts the use of technology.
Either way, the game will be better for it.
Brett McKay
Expert
It's probably a point of semantics, Vissie. How do you eliminate howlers? By getting the decision right, one way or the other. Yes, getting rid of the howler was one of the motivations behind DRS, but ultimately, it was all about increasing the % of correct umpiring decisions - which it did do. And even then, as soon as players started using DRS strategically (and selfishly, in some cases), then the notion of eliminating the howlers became secondary, because some incorrect decisions still had to stand when all referrals had been used. Getting the decisions right should be the primary concern. And if the referrals are removed (or at least taken away from the players), then using the technology to do that upfront will naturally remove the howlers anyway..
Vissie
Guest
Brett, a quick point of clarification, I don't think he intention of DRS was to "get decisions right" as you claim. My understanding is that it was introduced to eliminate the "howlers". These are two very, very different things. And if I am correct, then I have some sympathy with India's position.
Rellum
Roar Guru
So when you say "the bowler walks back to his mark, confirmation would be had by the time he was ready to bowl the next ball." you mean for a spin bowler? The time allowed has to be the same for all, so the time it takes a spin bowler to get back to his mark would be the mark.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
Umpires have the ability to review decisions now. It isn't an issue. They can make the decision for themselves.
13th Man
Roar Pro
Yeah agree. The umps will review every close decision not just a couple an innings. You could lose 5 to 10 overs a day if every single close lbw shout and catch behind is reviewed considering some take a few minutes to be reviewed. I like the current system, two reviews means players have to think before they review. If its obviously out, off you go. Its not perfect but DRS is the best we have. India need to suck it up and fall in line or not play international cricket. Simple as that.
the real news
Guest
From comments made a few years ago by Dave Richardson it sounds as though the ICC desperately want India to embrace DRS so they can get a large international sponsorship deal for a branded universal DRS which would cover the cost for all countries and also for more R&D. Without Indian broadcast they can't get a big enough deal to make it happen so the cost falls on local boards and broadcasters.
Conor Matthews
Roar Rookie
Reviews handled by the 3rd umpire was trailed in 2012 in domestic cricket, the players disliked it immensely and it turned into a bit of a farce.
Craig Watson
Guest
With you AC. DRS was brought in to get rid of "howlers". It apparently is not working as the "howlers' are still happening. They happened in the last Ashes series and in the Indian test series. The problem, as I see it, is if you leave the decision to review purely to the on field umpire, how many of them will. This was played out in the first test when they were two clear LBW 'howlers' and neither was referred. Why? If there is the slightest doubt over a decision, particularly with a vociferous appeal from every one of the close in fielding side, then it is common sense to review them as it saves the umpire getting egg all over his face. If the on field umpire does not review a "howler" and the third umpire fails to intervene, then there should be a rule whereby the captain should be allowed to demand a review. This in turn should not be seen as dissent. So it remains within the spirit of the game.
Aransan
Guest
The point is that there can be no accuracy in terms of a single flight path and perhaps the human brain has an advantage here in taking into account the uncertainties. We could use simulation to come up with a range of flight paths taking into account the measurement errors and other factors that can only be predicted statistically, perhaps only then will we be in advance of the umpire.
spruce moose
Guest
Gave Rahane out to Watson in Sydney, but everyone's allowed a howler.
jameswm
Guest
There's also the issue of whether it hit in line - similar to checking where it pitched.
jameswm
Guest
Yeah there would certainluy be instances where the ump would like to be able to check. Yours and the LBW ones I mentioned. One other thing we've found is how tough their job is. How often do you have to watch several times - or use snicko and hot spot - or check for the hot spot from a bunch of different angles - before deciding? And the ump has to do this on the spot, with no technology.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
"while he tracking of where the ball pitches and where the batsman is hit is accurate, everything after that point is educated guesswork". Isn't that also exactly true for the on field umpire? I would think that a computer could mathematically predict the path of the ball after it has hit the batsman far more accurately than the human brain.
JimmyB
Guest
Cheers.
Brett McKay
Expert
And that's essentially India's position too, Kim. By all means, use the pitch map to see whether it pitched in line, and then track the ball up to the point of impact with the pad (or bat), and from there, let that information assist the umpire in deciding whether the ball would've hit the stumps..
Brett McKay
Expert
From memory Jimmy, the improvements were in terms of definition, resolution, and frames per second to create the virtual paths (the ball tracking, as we see it), which all combined led to a smaller margin for error..
Paul Giles
Guest
Spot on. Totally agree with you Dom. When there is no DRS, I hate watching bowling teams continually try to harass the umpire into giving the batsmen out. I have no problem with players calling for a review and if they waste them like James Pattinson did in the 2013 Ashes test when Broad was given not out, then bad luck, I do not feel sorry for the bowling team in that instance when in the previous over, the ball would have missed the 3rd set of stumps and Pattinson foolishly asked for the last review. The umpire's call is a good thing. It is only out when the ball is shown clipping the stumps when the umpire has already given the decision out meaning that it was not a horrible decision.
ES
Guest
I'm with Dom on this one. An umpire who fails to refer an incorrect decision is going to be at a much greater risk of demotion, so they'll pretty quickly refer everything, which removes the drama from the game. Cricket is better with drama. I don't see the idea of player referrals as dissent; cricket has a lot of line-ball and shade-of-grey decisions, that's part of the nature of the game. A couple of potential improvements (in my opinion) - keep the umpire's decision assessment, but in those events the appealing team doesn't lose its referral. Outside of referrals, any display of dissent should be managed with a very heavy hand. If a team loses all its referrals, its pretty fair to argue that they've displayed their judgement on what is and isn't out is lacking. I think the improvements in assessment timeframes and objectivity through the ORS are beyond due and a great step. Rejecting the ball trajectory modelling seems hard to defend for mine, yeah its not going to be perfect (especially given the ICC and the big three's reluctance to spend money on R&D - I heard the other day that less than $2 million has been spent on developing a ball for day-night tests, which is crazy given the potential returns for the member nations, and that CA is on a $590M TV deal, BCCI in the billions for their current deal - I'm going off track here...), but is certainly more reliable than Billy Bowden. There's too much money in the game for all test and ODI games being played amongst member nations not to have that technology present.
JimmyB
Guest
Out of curiosity Brett, why is Eagle eye superior to Hawk eye?
Kimbeth
Roar Rookie
Hi all. First post. Ever sense its conception, the LBW law has been based on umpire discretion. There is always going to be an element of uncertainty with the projection of the ball. I think a more balanced approach to LBW reviews is to just use for the pitch of the ball- a simple yes or no, does it strike the pad adjacent to stumps and does hot spot / slow mo show any contact with bat. Scrap the umpires call and Eagle eye projection technology.