It is certainly a matter for concern that Steve Smith, during the second Test in Bangalore, looked up at the dressing room for guidance on whether to challenge his LBW decision in the second innings.
It is a matter for concern because such an action is definitely, indisputably, against the rules apparently, and the cricketing public has every right to be outraged that the Australian captain violated the rules in what can only be called a wilfully evil manner.
I do not condone rule-breaking, and it matters not what one thinks of the particular rule in question. If the signs say the speed limit is 80, I drive at 80, no matter how fast I think I should be going. If the government tells me I must vote on election day, I vote on election day, no matter how extreme my personal radical anarchist beliefs might be. And I don’t hunt native animals with a bow and arrow whether I want to or not.
So let’s be quite clear: Steve Smith was in the wrong here. That doesn’t exactly mean that Virat Kohli was in the right, because Virat Kohli is genetically constituted so as to be physically incapable of being in the right about anything. But let’s say that on this occasion, Kohli was slightly less in the wrong than usual.
That being said, I think it’s always worth examining a rule every now and then. And so I think it’s worth asking: exactly why aren’t players allowed to get help from the dressing room in their DRS decisions? What fundamental principle of cricket would the allowance of pavilion-based aid violate?
The time limit for deciding to review, remember, is fifteen seconds: it was fifteen seconds for Smith and there’s no reason why, if you removed the prohibition on dressing-room advice, it shouldn’t stay at fifteen seconds.
So although a batsman’s teammates and coaches might have a better idea about whether a review is justified or not, it’s not as if they’re going to have time to run ten different slow-mo angles to check their instincts.
It’s already accepted that when a batsman is given out and isn’t sure whether to review, the non-striker is obliged to give his opinion. This is a pretty heavy burden on the non-striker, who once upon a time was allowed to catch his breath and take in the scenery for a bit between runs.
A non-striker who causes his team to burn a review will be viewed darkly by management. A non-striker who tells his partner not to review when he wasn’t actually out will earn the sort of ire formerly reserved only for the man who bellows “Yes!” and then calmly turns his back as his haplessly charging colleague is run out.
It would relieve a little pressure on the man at the other end, if the off-field contingent were allowed to put their two cents in.
And really, why should the off-field team be any more forbidden than the non-striker to give their opinion? They’ve both had a view of the dismissal that the striker didn’t get, they’re both a resource helping the batsman make the right decision – why is a non-striker saying, “Nah mate, smashing middle” fair play while the coach giving you a thumbs-up is heinous cheating?
This applies to bowling reviews too, of course: it’s the captain who calls for reviews on the fielding team’s behalf, and he can consult the bowler, the keeper, the slips, the extra cover, everyone on the team, to make his decision, as long as he takes no more than fifteen seconds.
What is so contrary to the spirit of the game about the skipper turning to the stands and asking for a quick estimate of his chances?
Really, what it comes down to is the fundamental purpose of the DRS. Because the system as it exists involves each team being allowed two failed reviews, and because – no matter how often commentators mouth the insufferable phrase “it’s there to eliminate howlers” – DRS in practice represents a life preserver thrown to a drowning man, we have all seemingly come to the conclusion that the purpose of the DRS is to introduce a new tactical aspect to the game.
We speak of how “skilful” different teams are at using the DRS. Bowlers who do the hard work required to dismiss a batsman but fail to get the wicket are no longer seen as unlucky, if they foolishly failed to review the not-out decision.
A batsman triggered by an inept umpire deserves what he gets, if his team burnt their reviews earlier in the innings, leaving him no recourse. This is the way of the game now, and we all accept it.
So it might seem revolutionary when I float the idea that perhaps the purpose of the DRS is to get as many umpiring decisions as possible right.
Crazy, I know, but hear me out. What if the DRS is there to minimise error? What if – and I hate to be on the side of the howler-mentioners here – the reason we have a DRS is to try to make sure that as many mistakes as possible are corrected?
What if the aim of this marvellous technology is actually to dramatically decrease the likelihood of a batsman being wrongly given out, or a bowler unjustly denied a wicket?
What if the whole point of using replays, ball-tracking technology, sound detection and hotspots is to make a correct decision more probable than it would be without all that stuff?
Because if so, if we allow ourselves to imagine that the review system is directed toward an improvement in umpiring accuracy, then allowing players to get a second opinion from the dressing room can only assist in this aim.
A batsman who doesn’t realise he’s got a terrible LBW decision might walk off without taking his opportunity to challenge – if he got a wave from the fence telling him he should, the decision will be overturned and justice done.
The bowler who thinks he might have got a nick but just isn’t sure and they only have one review left and is it worth it… if he looks to the stands and sees the signal to go ahead and review, maybe he gets that wicket and nobody is left to wonder what might have been.
On the other hand, if the purpose of DRS is to manufacture drama and test players’ ability to do an umpire’s job, while providing them with a fun new way to embarrass themselves in public – we all had great fun with Shane Watson, didn’t we? – then sure, it’d be terrible to let anyone look off-field for guidance.
What it comes down to is, the only reason to change this rule is to make correct decisions more likely – but is that good enough reason to make a minor alteration with no negative consequences? Hard to say, I guess.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
"Virat Kohli is genetically constituted so as to be physically incapable of being in the right about anything. But let’s say that on this occasion, Kohli was slightly less in the wrong than usual." :) :) Brilliant!
El Loco
Roar Rookie
If we get to the point where the technology is fast enough for instant review then there won't be any need for DRS, the third umpire should just rule on everything.
Andy
Guest
Batsman hits it for a single, batsmans teams software sees that the bowler overstepped his line, batsmen reviews, no ball. Obviously not every single ball bowled will have something else happening around it but every single ball will be reviewed if it is easy and quick to review to it. When in history has new technology existed and not been used to gain an advantage in a sport?
Andy
Guest
I disagree, the technology is getting to the point where we can review every single delivery almost immediately. Are you saying that if we are able to review every single delivery, with no effort we wouldnt? Teams would gain an advantage for no loss and no effort. If the technology is there we will use it.
El Loco
Roar Rookie
To paraphrase Seinfeld, it wouldn't be like that at all. Batsman leaves it, taps a single, smacks a four, what suddenly everyone's going to think jeez boys looks like a boundary to me but let's just see if we mighta got him LB? You'd still have the fundamental rule of no appeal, no review, no decision. The cogent point you raise is fairness with technology, everyone should have access to the same tools, which won't happen.
Baz
Guest
the ppl on the field can listen to the commentry team who have the best live view of whats going on and be able to get that insight from them for obivous calls. As you cant stop the commentatots talking about thier take as its what the viewer wants amf they are paid to do. i will say the rule is bonkers and stupid :)
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I doubt it would be like that at all. Players would still be appealing to the Umpires and only after the umpire has made a decision would there be any query about making a review or not. And it's really a small percentage of balls where they might seek such input I'd think.
OJP
Guest
you should write said article Adrian given its you who appear to feel most strongly about it, what with your claims of defamation and all.
Andy
Guest
The problem with allowing this is is that every single delivery would be quickly reviewed by both teams, be it by eye or using a program that picks up hotspot or a whatever, hell there would probably be a giant light that every team has to say yes or no for every single delivery. This would mean that the correct decisions would be made 99% of the time but it would also mean that no one would bother appealing for anything as after every ball the bowling team would just look up to the dressing room and wait 5 seconds for the team to say yes or no, the umpires would do the same as why make a decision when you can just let both teams give you a sign after every ball. It would be the most boring game ever. And there will still be mistakes as drs has shown to be not perfect, mainly because of the human factor but also quite a few times when the ball swings, especially with reverse swing, the ball tracker makes it look like its going to do something it definitely isnt. Another concern is that the richer countries would have access to smarter and quicker software to review decisions in the dressing room which also seems unfair. If you want a game where players like Warne dont yell for lbw after every ball then allow the dressing room in on the drs, i prefer the game to remain fallible and perfect.
Andy
Guest
Like all the articles about Lehmann calling Broad a cheat? Also, and much more importantly the batsman is not allowed to get help from the dressing room, Smith obviously was trying to get advice from the dressing room, that is cheating, the non striker gave him the advice to look to the dressing room, there is the systematic cheating. Claiming that they didnt know they were not allowed to get advice from the dressing room is a pathetic excuse at international level. I dont think its a massive deal and i doubt it will happen again but to claim that Kohli was wrong to call us cheats on the facts is wrong. He arguably shouldnt have done it for the game but on the facts he was allowed to do so. Plus its a great way for him to get India more fired up for the rest of the series.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Can't really argue with any of this. If the real point of DRS is to get more correct decisions, then surely any useful input to help get correct decisions on whether to review or not should actually be welcomed. At the moment they even have a rule that the umpire can't even comment on any reasons behind their decision before the decision has been made to review. That's crazy. Can't even ask if the umpire thought it was too high, or pitching outside leg, or the bat hit the ground or anything like that. They have to keep silent until the decision is made to review. If the true purpose of the DRS was indeed to get more decisions right, then if you are going to leave it in the players hands to review, surely it's better to give them better information to make the decision. If there's an appeal for LBW that is given not-out then it might change the reasonableness of a review if the umpire gave it not-out because he believed the batsman got an edge on it, compared to if he just thought it was too high or pitching outside leg. Then you could have less bad reviews taken, and surely having less bad reviews is a good thing!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
As I've said plenty of times, the big issue with the whole "howler" argument is that, apart from the one where the batsman is given out LBW having hit the cover off the ball, the players are rarely in the perfect position to identify an absolute howler for certain. A batsman can be given out LBW to one that was comfortably missing leg, but really isn't in a position to be certain of that, yet the fact ball tracking showed it missing leg comfortably really does make it a pretty bad umpiring decision. Yet the batsman reviewing that would likely be taking a punt, not calling out an obvious howler. And if there is an appeal for caught behind and the fielders are all certain but the Umpire, who's in the perfect position, gives it not-out, even if the umpire is wrong, how can you guarantee as a fielding side that it really is such a howler if the umpire somehow missed it despite being in the best position compared to all your fieldsmen. If there is going to be a significant change in DRS then I think it has to be putting the power straight in the hands of the third umpire, and third umpires are specially trained for that position, not just alternative central umpires. Things are reviewed on the fly all the time, and if they suspect there's a chance a decision could be wrong they make a call to hold preceedings while they do a quick review. Or something like that.
Joe McGrath
Roar Rookie
Pretty spot on for mine Ben. In fact I'd love to see the DRS used more. We've got 5 days and a fair percentage of Tests aren't going the distance now anyway - why not use a bit more time to get more accurate decisions? I'd like to see umpires be able to use DRS too, maybe have them still make a call (out or not out) but let them ask to check a particular aspect of the dismissal. In Rugby League the on-field referee makes a try/no-try call then asks the video referee to check a particular piece of the play eg. grounding. The Umpire could raise the finger and then ask to send it upstairs to double-check where a ball pitched for example. I realise the arguments against this are the umps could call for review every 4 balls and the fielding team would be pressuring them to do so, but i tend to back the very very few blokes who get to umpire at this level to stand their ground and not be bullied. For mine I'd sacrifice a bit of the speed of what is a reasonably slow game anyway to make sure we're getting the right calls.
Rob
Guest
The batsmen and his mate at the other end are more than enough.
Bretto
Guest
Let's have a single person in the stand that is nominated as the official DRS advisor. They can't view any replays or other technical information. And they can't be replaced to go to the toilet. Come on down Watto.
Jacob Astill
Roar Rookie
I really like the tongue in cheek take on the actual point of DRS. The system in its current form really does not work and adds that tactical aspect that really shouldn't surround an umpires decision. The right to review should be with the umpires and third umpires only
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
I must admit that I had no idea that players weren't allowed to consult with the players box before they decide to review, but, for me, it's completely against the point of DRS. As you mention a couple of times, it IS supposed to be there to remove the howler, and nothing more. I know that is not how it is implemented these days, but, that was supposed to be the purpose. I personally think that there needs to be a few changes to the DRS. Firstly, give every batsman one challenge per Test. Give every bowler one challenge per Test (even if you're a part-timer). When you review, you must review straight away (none of this 15 seconds to think about it garbage). And you must be specific in your challenge i.e. if you're given out LBW but you think you hit it, that is your review. If a batsman is given not out, the bowler can ask the umpire for the reason. If the umpire says it was not going to hit the stumps, then you can choose to review that. If hawkeye says it was, you win the challenge. It just irks me watching the batsmen have a discussion and um and ah about it for ten seconds before shrugging his shoulders and giving the signal to review. Then we sit back and watch 12 different angles for a minute or two until it is confirmed, yes he is out. What a waste of time? DRS should not be a tactical thing, it should purely be for challenging terrible calls. It should be a way of giving at least some power to the person getting or losing the wicket...
Daniel Jeffrey
Editor
Sorry for that Peter - the article should be displaying in full now
Adrian
Guest
I am still waiting for the one sensible article highlighting just how bad it was for Virat Kohli to call Australia systematic cheaters. While this one wasn't as awful as the previous one, it is still very much missing the point.
Peter Z
Guest
I'd like to read the rest of this piece ... stops after 3 paragraphs?