DRS has been in operation now for just over five years and I think most cricket fans would agree it has proved to be of intrinsic value.
Indeed, I feel it has far exceeded expectations of its worth, in that in addition to eliminating the howler, it has injected drama through the indecision and deliberations leading to a referral.
Shane Watson’s referrals in the 2013 Ashes spring to mind as intriguing new textures we now have thanks to DRS.
When Watson called to have those palpably plumb lbws reviewed, it was wonderful drama. Weighing upon him was his duty to the team to not waste a review, for if he got it wrong he knew it could cost his teammates. Moreover, weighing upon him was ridicule in the media for using DRS in a selfish act of desperation.
In then brazenly calling for reviews in those instances, and finding that Hawkeye went on to rule that the balls were taking his middle stump (and a foot under the bails), we learnt a lot about Watson.
For one, we defiantly know Watson has no idea where his stumps are: a fatal flaw for an international cricketer, I venture. And if he were to argue to the contrary, then we learnt that he is either deluded, in that he got it so wrong, or selfish, in that he gambles at his teammates’ expense.
We owe DRS for these insights into Watson. DRS lures the flawed player from his lair and exposes him for what he is. In Watson’s case, it exposed ineptitude, and if not that, a predisposition for gambling and narcissism. Further, it revealed a foolhardiness, in that he must have known he’d be braving the media’s blowtorch if these reviews proved reckless.
The wonder is that he survived the scorching.
But having made a case that DRS has distinguished itself thus far, I feel that he needs a recalibration all the same.
Two reviews per 80 overs is not quite right, for me. It creates too many situations where players feel licensed to roll the dice as the banked reviews approach expiration. Think of how many times fielding captains have reviewed appeals that are palpably not out late in a DRS stanza? Their mindset is understandably ‘What have I got to lose?’, but, of course, this prevails at the expense of a match’s progress.
I think a better approach would be to reduce the number of referrals. Indeed, I’d like to see it as two per match; and that’s batting and bowling over all four innings.
Now before you say that’s paltry, consider that in essence it’s a limitless amount so long as players keep getting it right.
When DRS was first conceptualised, I envisaged that it would only be called upon for howlers. I pictured mortified batsmen signaling for it beseechingly when given lbw to balls pitching a foot outside leg and horrified bowlers demanding it litigiously when spurned by half-deaf umpires who hadn’t detected chunky edges.
I recalled Sunil Gavaskar dragging Chetan Chauhan from the ‘G in 1981 and Michael Kasprowicz with his hand off the handle as the ball grazed his glove at Edgbaston. I saw incorrect decisions rectified and controversy extinguished.
But the howler hasn’t recurred at a rate that warranted two reviews per 80 overs for my money, and this has created a new time wasting scourge. Too often, reviews are borne from desperation and not exasperation, and the fruitless results from as much slow down the game.
It takes a great deal of time to build Snicko, Hawkeye and Hotspot for a review and we shouldn’t care to do so to humour something laughable… unless, of course, it’s a contested lbw by Watto.
Note: Further on DRS, and on a lighter note, I run a blog for a character named Viv Tufnell. He is a fictional Sheffield Shield cricketer crippled by mean-spiritedness and delusion. Here’s his twisted take on referrals.
Viv on DRS
“You know what? Test batsmen don’t know how good they’ve got it. I mean to be able to play under DRS would be a paradise, especially when you’re as hard done by as me.
I tell ya, umpires have got it in for me. They always have. That’s why it would be so sweet to challenge their ineptitude and corruption. It would have made such a difference to my career. In fact, it’s fair to say it’s cost me international selection. That and an Alan Border medal.
I, honest to god, my hand on my heart, swear on my parents’ untended graves, have never been lbw. Call it intuitiveness, or a feel for the angles and trajectories or whatever, but I’ve never been adjacent. I know it in my bones. That’s why it’s been so hard coming to terms with the 40 dodgy lbw decisions metered out to me (and how they continue to gnaw away).
Further, there have been 20 clear cut times that I have been ruled caught by a keeper when it clearly missed the bat. And yes, I know you’re going to say, ‘isn’t that every time you’ve been caught by a keeper?’. But it’s true. I honest to god, hand on my heart, swear on my parents’ untended graves, have never been out this way. Really!
And as for runouts and stumpings, well no one has suffered more howlers than I have… no one!
So how sweet it would have been to have challenged this ineptitude. How vindicating it would have been to have righted these wrongs. Truly, only the severely wronged like Nelson Mandela have empathy with me on this one.
Hmm, DRS? Test batsmen don’t know how good they’ve got it.”
Aransan
Guest
Michael, I agree that the field umpire got it wrong -- I think he was giving the batsman too much benefit of the doubt given that the batsman had the right of appeal. I gave the example of a number of simulations in an attempt to demonstrate that Hawkeye is not 100% accurate. I think the DRS should be improved, for the example you quote I think Hawkeye was more accurate than the tolerances allowed and if we had a better estimate of the likely error in the predicted trajectory then in fact Ali would have been ruled out. I regard the DRS as a work in progress but it is an improvement over the umpire having the sole decision. We must accept that we can never have certainty on a correct decision and there will always be an error margin in the predicted trajectory. The DRS could be improved if we had a better idea of the error margins -- the margin will vary depending on the particular situation and this is not properly taken into account at present.
Michael
Guest
Aransan we are not talking about 1000 simulations. We std talking about the one tracking outcome provided to the 3rd umpire. He gets one prediction, in this case that 35mm of the ball is hitting the stumps. The issue is what he is required to do with that prediction - he comes up with two different decisions depending on what the on field umpire says. Have s look at the Moeen Ali not out decision yesterday. Everybody watching thought that he was out, because that is shat Hawkeyes predicted. But no - because the o. Field umpire got it wrong on the field had is given not put. Plain dilly
Aransan
Guest
Michael, if you do 1000 simulations for one decision I can guarantee you will get inconsistency of outcomes for the simulations. We would all like perfection but I think the present system is very good and certainly better than what preceded it.
Michael
Guest
Hi CT I agree. The current system allows an umpire's "OUT" decision to be overturned if Hawkeye predicts it was going to miss by 1 millimetre but does not allow a "NOT OUT" decision to be overturned if Hawkeye predicts that 35mm ( a ball diameter being approx. 72mm) of the ball would have hit the stumps. Likewise if Hawkeye predicts that 35 mm of the ball is hitting the stumps and the umpire has given him OUT the heirs OUT and if the umpire has given him NOT OUT then he is NOT OUT. Peter and Arasand can talk all they like about what Hawkeye can and cannot do, all the variables predictions, the need to have umpires involved etc but in the end the inconsistency in outcome is illogical.
Aransan
Guest
Michael, you have more confidence in the accuracy of Hawkeye than the people responsible for operating it. The decision could be taken out of the hands of the umpire but then errors in the measurements for determining the trajectory should be taken into account. You have the velocity of the ball and displacement (the point where the ball hits the batsman) which need to be measured with components in three directions, the air resistance depending on temperature and humidity and you would need a good idea of the likely errors in all these measurements. Then you would need to do of the order of a 1000 simulations and determine how many out of the 1000 would actually hit or clip the stumps. I would suggest that only a small minority of occasions would you have the instance of all 1000 simulations giving you the same result. So, would you judge a batsman to be out if 950 simulations give him out? I believe there would be a significant number of occasions when Hawkeye wouldn't be accurate to a ball width in the current system. I like the present system and Hawkeye has been demonstrating just how good the test umpires are. In the past batsmen were at an advantage over the bowlers as they had to be given the benefit of the doubt, the present system reduces the advantage that batsmen have.
Michael
Guest
The system currently allows a batsman to be our or not out based on an educated guess by the centre umpire. It is a recipe for inconsistency. Again the same facts are presented to the 3rd umpire who when Hawkeye says 45% of the ball is hitting the stump (which is hardly 'clipping the stumps') asks "what did the centre umpire decide?." and the 3rd umpire must say that the centre umpire was right - and the side seeking a DRS review loses a review. The system is designed to protect the umpire and does not afford the batsman the benefit of the doubt ( a tradition in cricket not found in the rules of the game). In fact, arguably, umpires are more likely to give the batsman out and leave if up to them to seek a review - If they dare or can! Anyway ........
Aransan
Guest
A good explanation Peter.
Peter Zitterschlager
Guest
Hi Michael, We don't accept that it's 100% accurate in either scenario. The system is calibrated to value the umpires decision if the technology is not conclusive and clipping the stumps isn't compelling enough to overturn a decision either way. I feel that is perfectly logical, in that it allows for a margin of error. When Hawkeye says it's missing the stumps entirely or hitting the stumps flush, that is conclusive and we can be confident the margins of error aren't a factor. The system is fine mate.
Peter Zitterschlager
Guest
Ha ha, Luke. And would love a Welsh Test Team. Keep up your super magnifico work at the Almanac!
Luke Reynolds
Roar Rookie
I'm with Viv, would love to have had the DRS at my lowly level of cricket! Test cricketers don't know how good they've got it. Watto will know soon, he may not be a Test cricketer for much longer....
Michael
Guest
I understand that the tracking system is not accurate. So why do we accept it as bring "accurate" when the ball is tracked to miss the wicket.? And what happens in that situation is the umpire's decision is overturned (when the player is given out but the DRS says it was missing the wicket.) To say that it is an inaccurate tool as a reason for not overturning the decision by the umpire when the umpire says not out and DRS says tracking to hit the stumps but it is accurate when DRS says the ball is missing the stumps is illogical. Again, based on the one set of data you get two different outcomes based on what the umpire thought might happen and that is illogical. Your argument might be more consistent if you gave batsmen out where DRS says it was missing by half a ball or less. But that would lead to silly outcomes.
Peter Zitterschlager
Guest
Well said Aransan ... Hawkeye is not 100%. If Hawkeye simulates that the ball is only clipping the stumps, you wouldn't want that overturning a not out decision. I reckon they have that part of the system spot on.
Aransan
Guest
Michael, the implied accuracy of the ball tracking is an illusion. It is based on measurements subject to error so the tracking itself is subject to error. Perhaps the probability that the ball would hit the stumps could be calculated and if you insist on certainty for a batsman to be given out then very few decisions would be given against batsmen. So, will we give a batsman out if we are 95% or 99% certain that they are out? The present system is very good and it shows that the umpires in test matches are generally outstanding, the margin required to overturn an umpire's decision takes into account that the ball tracking cannot be perfect.
Michael
Guest
DRS when looking at LBWs should not consider the on field umpire's decision. We accept the tracking if it says the ball would have missed the stumps. Why not accept it when it says it would have hit the wicket? As it stands, on the same facts, (ie ball tracking to hit the stumps by half a ball or less) you get a different decision based on what the umpire thought might happen. Strip out the rubbish - if it is tracking to hit the stumps then it's out - full stop.
Peter Zitterschlager
Guest
Harish, your nationalism is bemusing. Good luck with it.
Harish
Guest
Thank you all the other Cricketing nations for being the laboratory rats to test the DRS for India.
Peter Zitterschlager
Guest
Hey mate, Yeah that would minimize gambles on DRS. But, again, my way would minimize it even more. Having a number of reviews that last an entire match (and carry forward from batting to bowling to batting to bowling (or vice versa) minimizes gambles to the 4th innings of a match. I think it's fair to say that the boffins who designed DRS never envisaged that players would use it in desperation ... the idea was to empower their exasperation. Eliminating desperation from the equation should be what we're after, as it slows down the game.
Dan
Guest
Definitely. It shows the worth of the review and should not be taken away.
Phantom
Roar Rookie
The third umpire should automatically take over the ruling of no balls leaving the umpires to focus on the rest. 1 unsuccessful review every 50 overs that can accumulate so if none are used then in the last session a team may have 4 or 5 to press for victory.
Sylvester
Guest
I preferred two reviews for the whole innings. Because you didn't know how long that would be, you were less likely to gamble.