Every cricket fan seems to have his/her own opinions on rules of the game of cricket.
We’ve all got suggestions to modify some prevailing rulings, get rid of of certain absurd rules or even bringing some new and refreshing ideas, all with the intention of bringing betterment to the game of cricket.
There are a number of aspects where the rules of the game need to be improved. My personal frustrations are with the DRS and how technology is being used particularly when you finally had decided to bring technology into the game.
DRS was introduced to get rid of the ‘howler’, i.e. the umpire mistake which was so obvious that it had a detrimental impact on the game. This was the sole reason to bring DRS into the game and it is something we have not achieved.
Firstly the current DRS is prone to exploitation, particularly with the new ‘review retention’ change when it is an umpire’s call decision.
It can potentially waste a lot of time during a game as the teams are free to review on every delivery as long as they are succeeding to retain the lifeline.
Secondly there has been an obvious absurdity since its introduction due to the umpire’s call rule.
Imagine a youngster from a non-cricketing nation newly introduced to cricket sees the ball hitting the stumps on hawk-eye but astonishingly batsman is given not out. That will clearly add to confusion and contradiction.
Lastly DRS had to eliminate each and every howler from the umpires – but it is not the case always. It is not uncommon when to see a big howler uncorrected because a teammate has already used up the available life line.
So the guy who needed justice big time gets sacrificed due to the selfishness of his own teammate who happened to have unproductively used up the review earlier in the match. This is where the original motto of introducing DRS gets compromised.
Solution 1
Relieve the on-field umpire from watching no balls. Let him concentrate on the other end only, there is an umpire who sits idle throughout the match in front of the TV, let him watch no balls.
You don’t need to stop the game, you can call a no ball after one more delivery perhaps, it should be affordable to play free hit balls slightly delayed as soon as a no ball is confirmed.
If the batsman gets out then obviously no ball will be checked there and then.
When a batsman is dismissed the third umpire needs to get busy. Batsmen should be made to walk slowly towards their dressing room as a rule.
Before he reaches the pavilion a third umpire checks the no ball, edges, ball tracking, impact etc and therefore if he finds a fault with the decision he can call the batsman back.
It is better if a batsman who doesn’t deserve to still be there plays few more balls before being removed than him playing a game-changing knock on his second life which is a real injustice to the bowler and the fielding team. I
Solution 2
This alternative is essentially supposed for decisions relating to batters only. I suggest providing every pro player in the world some sort of a wild card, a lifetime wild card with two lives, which he can use anywhere from domestic T20 leagues, international T20s, ODIs, first class cricket to Test match cricket.
It should be a non renewable card which means once you have used up both of your allotted life lines that’s it, they are spent for ever.
This will be useful against howlers especially when you were unable to correct howlers due to your teammates having had used up the available lifelines unnecessarily and carelessly.
IAP
Guest
Let's not over-complicate things. I reckon let the umpire decide - he can use it if he's not sure. Otherwise, get on with the game. The players will learn to accept the umpires decision, just like they used to. I don't trust DRS though. I think it predicts too many balls going over the stumps (particularly in Australia) that would have hit. The one in the first test that Lyon missed was a great example. I can't remember who the batman was, but it was a terrible attempt at padding up, and he deserved to be given out.
bazza200
Guest
Well there have been plenty of instances of nicks that have been reviewed by fielding team that were missed from umpire so both teams need them i'd like to review every out to make sure they are out.
bazza200
Guest
Every out should be reviewed and you get the 2 n 2 currently there. That way we get the correct call. Exception would be bowled if someone is bowled unless it is a no ball it's pretty obvious.
Stuckbetweenindopak
Roar Rookie
I agree more so because bowler is never 100℅ sure, he still is hoping for things but all in all there are two instances when a player is 100% sure that the decision is wrong 1. When a batsman is given lbw and he knows he has played that before hitting the leg. 2. When a batsman is given caught behind or close in fielders and he knows he didn't play it. In these two instances batsman should always be allowed to appeal irrespective of reviews left. But to avoid misuse of this facility every batsman should have only 2 lifelines for such appeal throughout his career...the wildcard I was talking about..if he is using it fairly he is retaining it.
Stuckbetweenindopak
Roar Rookie
My point and my main concern is for instance a batsman who was clearly given a reprieve and is still on the crease undeservingly, now the whole world including the batsman himself, commentators, players, fans, umpires, refrees, and even ICC is aware that he shouldn't be there, why do all of us have to be so helpless in such a situation. Why should we be unable to give justice in this situation, only because 1 more ball has been bowled so we cant go back...why not?? why don't they change this rule...is it a holy Scripture?? . ICC can make a simple rule to help in this situation. Similarly when a batsman is given out wrongly and umpire has made a big error unanimously agreed upon by every party, he should be allowed to play again later or even be called back immediately.
Stuckbetweenindopak
Roar Rookie
On hawk-eye thing fair enough. I don't think third umpire's work can get so efficient and at the same accurate when he is compelled to approve a delivery just before the next delivery and doing it in a loop throughout the day is going to be tedious, although it can be made practical by creating few more jobs in the TV room who can assist TV umpires as soon as the ball is bowled. I agree and I wish ICC can make such a technology as you mentioned
sittingbison
Roar Pro
Maybe only have DRS for the batting team? If the batter thinks it's a howler (didn't stick it, above the knee roll, bat then pad LBW etc) then they review it. If it's not out, they keep the review. If it's out, they lose it. The bowling team don't get a review, coz the batsman is meant to have the benefit of the doubt.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Why is that a problem, though? It's not about the decision being right, it's about it not being clearly wrong. DRS is only intended to supplement (not replace) the umpires. There is also a margin of error that has to be accounted for. I'd be pretty ticked off as a batsman if the umpire gave me not out LBW and the decision was overturned on review because hawkeye's prediction showed the ball brushing leg stump. Hawkeye isn't all-knowing. It can only estimate to within a few cm where the ball would have gone.
slurpy
Roar Rookie
I get where you're coming from, I do, and I also commend you on putting an article up...but for me part of the enjoyment of sport (both as a player and consumer) was also playing the whistle. Sure it sucked when i was batting playing 4ths and it was about time for tea so the umpire was giving out anything that hit the pads, but also if we were in the field that's when i wanted to bowl. The decisions more or less even out after time, and if you get a life from the umpire make it count. For my money, sport never had to be perfectly adjudicated at all times, just fairly adjudicated. I never felt in unfair to cop a bad decision from an ump. I actually quite like the current system - if you know you're not out review it - if not walk. if you waste a review and your team gets shortchanged later on then that's not the umpires fault. We don't want cricket going the way of league in the late 2000s where the video ref was checking everything. NRL learned it's lesson and now the video ref can only look at what happens in the in goal - the rest of the game is left to the refs.
Jacko
Guest
I just can't support a system like DRS that can be both right and wrong at the same time.....The stats say DRS gets it right 90% of the time....What they don't tell you is that 60% of the so called "right" decisions would have also been "right" if the Ump had ruled the opposite!
JamesH
Roar Guru
Not sure about the second option(!) but I do agree, at least in part, with the first option. I've always felt that the third umpire should have control of DRS. If he's looking at a decision he can turn on a light near the gate to let the batsman know he should wait at the edge of the field for the final verdict. I really don't like the roulette players play with reviews. So many decisions get reviewed on a hunch or a prayer where the batsmen don't actually believe it was a howler. I don't think there would be any need to delay no ball calls. If you have an umpire dedicated to checking no balls then there should be enough time in between deliveries (at least, for pacemen) to check the replay and call it before the next delivery is bowled. I'd also like to think the ICC could advance the technology to a point where ball-tracking, hostpot and/or snicko could be called up basically straight away for a decision review, in order to minimise any disruption to play. As a side note, I don't think it's confusing that the batsman can be given not out if hawkeye shows the ball clipping the stump. There is a margin of error because the ball tracking technology is predictive, not perfect. No one can conclusively say that the ball would have hit the stumps if hawkeye shows only a fraction of it clipping.
Stuckbetweenindopak
Roar Rookie
Apologies for typo errors