After the first one-day international between Australia and New Zealand on Sunday, Kane Williamson copped a lot of criticism for not using the decision review system after an LBW appeal from Trent Boult when Steve Smith was only on 14.
History shows it was a key moment of the match because Smith went on to score 164.
History also shows Williamson didn’t have a great game as captain. However, criticism of his leadership should be directed more at his confusing use of his bowlers more than his non-use of the DRS on Smith. The flawed system is much more to blame than Williamson is for what transpired.
The technology used by the DRS continues to get better and better but the system the ICC uses doesn’t get the best out of it. To only get one chance for an incorrect referral in one-dayers is ridiculous. It puts pressure on captains to be conservative in their referrals which often leads to the review system not being used at critical times when it should be.
The problem tracks right back to the philosophy the ICC obsessed over when it introduced the decision review system; the intention of DRS was, supposedly, to eliminate ‘howler’ decisions.
The ICC’s theory is that only giving teams one incorrect review in one-dayers prevents captains from stopping the game too often to review decisions.
The ICC’s philosophy overlooks a key point: for LBW decisions, batsmen and bowlers (and umpires too!) often don’t know whether a decision is a howler or not because it all happens so quickly.
Uncertainty around whether the ball has pitched outside leg stump or not is a common occurrence. That’s why technology has the ability to be so important when ruling on LBWs; to expect captains or batsmen to decide in real time whether they are sure (and they should be sure to confirm in their minds that the decision is a howler and worth risking their only appeal available) a ball is heading down leg side, has pitched outside leg stump, or received a bit of an inside edge is ridiculous.
Umpires would probably be the first people to defend Williamson for not using DRS when Smith was on 14. They have the best seat in the house yet over the years they’ve given many worse decisions than Mick Martell’s ‘not out’ call on Sunday.
The simplest answer to this problem would be for umpires to have an unlimited amount of their own reviews. You could also retain the one existing captain review under a revamped system, but umpires could use the video replays whenever they felt there was significant doubt.
If the ICC wanted, they could solely make the umpire reviews applicable for LBW decisions. However, that seems an unnecessary restriction because there are some general 50/50 calls (not howlers) which they could definitely use help with, particularly edges down the leg side and bat-pad decisions.
We’ve seen in the last few months India finally accepting the use of the DRS in their matches so the use of the system won’t be going away in a hurry. The time has now come to tweak the way we use it.
Bugs
Guest
Chris, Remember the uproar in the 2013 Ashes when Stuart Broad nicked one to a wide-ish 1st slip and was not given? There's a pretty good example of a "howler" decision that goes against the fielding team. The most ironic thing about referencing that incorrect decision in this thread is that Australia had stupidly used up there available referrals on strategic / hopeful calls, and were burnt by doing so. Which some Roarer's are suggesting Kane Williamson should have done. Your observation that this was NOT a howler is spot on. Umpires decision, move on.
Bugs
Guest
Spot on
Bugs
Guest
I strongly disagree. It was brought in for one reason, as the author points out - to eliminate the howlers. It should be 1 per innings in every format - no getting extra at the 80-over mark in tests. Only use it when you're 100% sure it was out, otherwise, play on. Mistakes happen, and getting hung up trying to eliminate every single one just makes matches nit-picky, legalistic and pedantic. Instead of fun, which should be the aim. The best teams find a way to deal with the adversity of a bad call. Simple. Teams need to harden up, not complain. (Not that I've heard NZ complain - this is a general comment only).
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
You only have to look at run out's and stumpings to know what's going to happen if Umpires can call on DRS at any point to check a decision. They regularly refer clear run out decisions "just in case". It's actually quite rare to have a run-out or stumping given out or not-out directly on the field. Also. People keep referring to "howlers". But as far as I can tell, the only time you can ever truly refer a howler is when the batsman refers one where they are given out, because they know they've hit the cover off it and been given out LBW or the like. The umpire is generally in the best position to make a decision. So how can something that isn't clearly out to them be such a howler that it's absolutely obvious to fielders. Sometimes you have ones that are really clear from behind but hard to see from in front. But not that common. I've been umpiring and had the fielding side absolutely convinced something was clearly out and I'd made a howler, or were even cheating on a caught behind decision when there was clear daylight between bat and ball. Remove the idea of howlers and just call it "ones where you think the umpire may have made a wrong call" and then that might change your thought on how many referral's they should have. As far as the Smith one is concerned. Prior to recent changes to DRS rules it would have come back as Umpires Call, and as it was the ball tracking was still only a few millimeters away from being an umpires call even with current rules. So hardly a "howler", or an "obvious" one to refer. Definitely tactically it's worth using the review then when it's Steve Smith's wicket at stake and getting him would put Australia in a lot of trouble.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
The LBW has been the most controversial and contentious part of the game for ever. Before this technology you'd see batsmen walking off steaming believing the umpire had got it wrong. And guess what, umpires get LBW wrong almost every single match and it is costing teams games. Enough is enough!!!!!! At the elite level, simply take the LBW out of the on field umpires hands. If it's even remotely close, send it up for DRS. But acknowledging there most certainly is an error in ball tracking after a pad strike, ensure that more than 50% of the ball is hitting a stump at all times. Then take away a review down to one per team. If this was brought in you would see tests and whole series go by without referrals by captains and bats. It would all but end the speculation around umpiring decisions costing teams games which it has done on so many occasions.
Jacko
Guest
The DRS system has become a big joke. The idea that the decision can be correct and incorrect all at the same time is baffling to say the least. Way to many decisions are 50/50 and the umpires call at the time can show just as much "home bias" as has ever been the case and it is now the onus of the captain to do the umpiring. WHY does the original decision influence the final decision? Surely if the original decision is questioned then the facts are what should decide a ruling. From a fans perspective I am finding this part of the game is ruining the sport and is far worse than it would be if they took a few mins to get the decisions right and surely the system is good enough to have an auto review of every ball bowled within a second of it happening meaning an alert could come up almost instantly, prompting a longer review for close decisions. Asking a Captian to umpire on top of everything else they do is rediculas
Jacko
Guest
Ok Andy how is Williams supposed to review a decision from fielding in the position he was? He has to rely on his bowler and Wicket keeper to be more accurate than the umpire, who is doing nothing other than looking for this exact thing. A system where the facts are changed depending on the original decision is a bad system. We have DRS to eliminate the wrong decisions and it is not doing that so fix the fix. I dont understand why it is the Captains job to get the umpiring decisions correct when the ump doesnt.
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
John, I cant agree. If I was an umpire with unlimited use of DRS I would be using it every time I was slightly unsure. If I didn't use it and TV later showed I missed an LBW I would be back on the B-tour of umpiring pretty quick. Much the same as we have seen in the NRL, it will be the norm to review, instead of the exception. It's already a fairly slow game, lets not slow it down even further.
Bobbo7
Guest
You only get one review. You at least have to believe it might be out. One of the fielders said they heard two noises too. This was only a poor call in hindsight. Williamson's decision to bowl in the second game was a poor call.
Republican
Guest
......all the more reason to rid ourselves of the technology and return to the bespoke days human error.
Train Without A Terminus
Guest
@ 4-92 and Australia struggling to get off the canvas the chance to send Smith back to the sheds was too good to pass up and therefore wasn't a high risk, speculative call. @ 0-92 it would have been a high risk, speculative call to have asked for a review of that decision. Williamson at the moment lacks a bit of game awareness as Captain.
Maggie
Guest
I agree, I'm not convinced the DRS ball-tracking prediction got it right. Williamson certainly didn't stuff up - it would have been a high risk, speculative call to have asked for a review of that decision.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
"It puts pressure on captains to be conservative in their referrals which often leads to the review system not being used at critical times when it should be." Incorrect. As has been explained many times, the DRS is supposed to deal with the 'howler' - a decision that is obviously wrong. The Smith (non) decision was not one of these. I could be wrong, but I don't think there have been too many LBW-related decisions that have been howlers. It's really nicks/non-nicks that is where DRS comes into its own. On balance I think the introduction of DRS been an improvement.
bobbo7
Guest
I don't think Williamson stuffed up to be honest. In real time it looked not out - I was a little surprised (and I will say doubtful) that it was shown to be hitting the stumps.
Andy
Guest
This is a terrible idea. It would be bad enough for the current umpires who back themselves to get the decision right but for the newer umpires they would review every single delivery that hit the pads because they would be able to and honestly probably should if they have unlimited reviews. The game would become like NFL umpiring with the reviewing of every single decision from every single angle. Williamson is a new captain who stuffed up, thats all that happened, itll happen again to him and to others and we deal with it.