When the DRS was introduced into Test cricket, the general consensus was it was there to remove ‘the howler’.
The howler is a decision the umpire clearly gets wrong. Well that was it’s intent, but that is simply not how it is being used.
The problem with the DRS is the time available to use it. It’s being taken advantage of. At the moment for batsmen, we have the appeal, followed by the walk down the pitch, the ‘what do you think?’ to the non striker. This is followed by the ‘I think it’s out mate but challenge it just it case’, followed by the challenge, often followed by the LBW, then followed by the commentator saying ‘that was a waste of review’.
If a batsman thinks he is definitely not out, then he should be challenging within three seconds. Otherwise he is not sure, and thus should not be questioning the umpire. The very basics of sport is to accept the umpires decision, whether right or wrong. This is the essence of sport that has been lost somewhere along the way.
Shane Watson: never shy of being involved in a review. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
Now if we want to say ‘but it’s professional now, and people’s livelihoods are at stake’, then enter DRS, where the howler has been removed. If you got a big inside edge before it hit the pad on the LBW shout, then you only need three seconds to let the umpire know. The howler has been taken care of, and everyone can move on.
DRS is not there for the batsman’s small hope that he may be saved by technology. This is not the way cricket should work. However that is the way cricketers are using it. And its use is simply wrong.
As for the fielding team, they may need more time. The two players in the best position to see if a decision has been given not out when the umpire’s finger should have gone up, are the keeper and bowler. If the captain is at mid off, or at second slip, then to ask those two will take more time.
Once again however, removing the idea that the dismissal is based on hope, rather than justice, should be cricket’s aim. To do this the allocated time, 15 seconds, should come down to somewhere between five to ten seconds.
That’s enough time for the captain to ask keeper and bowler, and if they aren’t sure, then they aren’t sure. If they are definite there has been an error from an umpire, then they won’t need more than this amount of time that they are trying to right a wrong. If they are discussing it out of hope, then they are unsure, and should not be questioning an umpire’s decision.
Cricket at the moment is missing out on a very fundamental practice when it comes to sport, and that is respect for the umpire. Sometimes the umpire will not be right, and sport must accept this. If it doesn’t, it tries for the impossible, which is perfection. And sport isn’t perfect. There is no need to deceive oneself into making it what it is not.
The best way to fix cricketers guessing is to give them less time to question an umpire. If they know they are not out when batting, then say so, straight away, not after a chat. And if they know it’s out whilst fielding, tell the captain, and get on with your review.
Reviewing out of hope should not be the way the DRS is used in cricket.
El Loco
Roar Rookie
It would be wise for users to think hard before using the phrase "the premise of your article is flawed", fast becoming a Roar cliché. Apart from the unnecessary dismissiveness of the writer's work, in this case Paul you go on to agree entirely with the premise.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
Bang on Rysie, It is being used incorrectly because its set-up incorrectly. The author is right to point out that 15secs is way too long, but the simpler fix is make it 1 incorrect per innings. No resets at 80 overs either. That will change the mindset. One last point, the commentators irritate me when they start whingeing about its use, claiming it should be used to get every decision right. Ain't gonna happen boys, as has been proved in other sports. It's purpose should be clearly re-stated as to get rid of howlers, only. Respect the umpire's call after that.
Rysie
Guest
I think you can go further. Zooming out, DRS is being used for the wrong purpose. Designed to stop the 'howler', its is currently being used to get every umpiring decision correct (a near Sisyphean task). An umpiring howler shouldn't happen often, yet we allow teams 2 DRS challenges per innings in a test? If they cut the DRS challenge to 1 per innings, or possibly 1 per team per test, players would be forced to use them in the extreme cases. It would cut down on this post appeal 15 second period you address in the article, which I agree is a problem. Reviews of contentious LBWs etc would be significantly reduced. Speed of play would increase. We saw when the DRS count re-loaded at 80 overs captains calling for DRS on just about anything from the 70th onwards. ICC should take it a step further and I am confident we see this used only for the worst, most glaring umpiring errors.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
I'm not bothered by the time thing. Sure you can hope. You can do more than hope. There have been several instances of blokes not reviewing when they would have had lbws overturned due minute inside edges or balls going over or past the stumps on ball tracking. Yet the clanger still remains and is endorsed by the third ump. The soft signal out for catches is patently unhelpful as the third ump fells obliged to go with the on field ump. Last season Khawaja claimed a diving catch that became a contortionist, juggling shamoozle under his body, that for reasons best known to the umps on field, they gave out on the old soft signal. The replay showed neither the ball hitting the deck nor Khawaja completing the catch. It was extremely inconclusive for sure but also likely he regathered it from the grass. Yet the third ump, with no evidence contrary to the soft signal, gave it out. Most recently Joe Root knew instantly that Rahul had likely taken the ball on the bounce at slip yet the ump had given him out on the whacky soft signal. Despite the replay showing the bounce (it was close but clearly on grass before he got his fingers under it) the third up gave him out. Root then go whacked for expressing his disappointment!
Paul
Roar Guru
In the current England/India series I heard a stat from Nassar Hussein that 3 reviews for England have been successful out of 16 attempts. There's clearly a lot of hoping happening there! Isn't this approach to DRS, an extension of what happens when the review system is not in place? In years gone by, if a batsman got a crook decision, they might glare to the umpire, maybe stand their ground for a few seconds, then walk off. Nowadays, this is turned into a major production for some guys, including having a conversation with the other batsman, looking to the heavens, etc and it seems to take forever for them to leave the field. I completely agree the umpires decision has to be respected even when it goes against you. I can't remember the last time the opposition captain recalled a batsman who has been given out when it's clear they were not out. In other words, it cuts both ways.
AWin
Guest
Agree with most of the article, but one of the myths I think DRS has exposed is that wicketkeepers are best placed to know the right decision. From the moment it was brought in we've seen keepers confidently referring decisions left right & centre and proving to be flat wrong. Nothing wrong with being optimists, but I'd be telling every captain to discount his keepers advice by about 50% when deciding whether to review.
Beardan
Roar Guru
I just feel if the batsman isnt sure, then walk off. You shouldnt be questioning the umpire if you really dont know yourself.
Beardan
Roar Guru
My main point is you shouldnt be there having a big meeting if you really think its out. The DRS shouldnt be used as a hopeful thing, more as a 'correcting an obvious error' thing.
Ian
Guest
I agree with you to an extent, but for lbws that may be missing the stumps its hard from the perspective of the batsman to know if a mistake has been made. That's where the perspective of the non striker is needed, given their better view of events.
Paul
Roar Guru
I think the basic premise for your article os flawed, Bearden. You said the reason for the introduction of the DRS was to get rid of the howler for lbws or catches. That might have been the case say 6 or 8 years ago, but this is no longer the case. The first step in the process is to check the no-ball. This had to come in because umpires simply weren't checking or rarely calling obvious illegal deliveries. As soon as this step was brought in, this changed the focus of the review from making sure an obviously bad decision was corrected to "maybe I might get lucky, first with a possible no-ball and second with the actual onfield call". In saying all of that, it is ridiculous players take so long, especially those on the field. If a captain wants to make a review because he's hoping a batsman's out he only needs 10 seconds or less to decide that.