With cricket’s World Cup completed, the time is overdue for the ICC to address some obvious flaws their Decision Review System continues to struggle with.
Most of these flaws exist due to the initial reluctance of many parties around the cricketing world to embrace the use of technology and any process similar to the DRS.
It’s understandable that the ICC’s original system was conservative in its use of technology. What’s less acceptable is the lack of changes to the system as technology has improved and players, umpires and supporters have become more comfortable with reviewing important decisions.
The two biggest flaws the DRS has is that the small number of unsuccessful player referrals provided for each team means video replays often don’t get used to correct poor umpiring decisions. It also gives too much benefit of the doubt to the umpire’s original decisions.
Throughout the 2019 World Cup, there were many times when the DRS was exposed for its inadequacies. It’s almost a pity that the controversy surrounding Ben Stokes’ six runs off the bat in the last over of the final wasn’t a situation that embarrassingly exposed the DRS’s flaw. Something of this magnitude may have led to a more thorough review.
Tracking Jason Roy’s progress through the World Cup can provide a good case study of why the current DRS is failing the gentlemen’s game. An effective system should be helping provide a better product for the players, umpires and fans to enjoy, but Roy’s case shows a clear example of this not happening.
Roy received a huge let off from the Pakistani umpire Aleem Dar in England’s important pool game against India when he gloved a ball down leg-side on 20. India chose to save their review which enabled the English opener to blaze away hitting the next two balls for six and four.
He was eventually dismissed for 66 off 57 balls in an innings that set up England’s total of 337 and their 31-run victory.
Later in the tournament, Roy was dismissed in England’s semi-final against Australia for 85. Replays showed he clearly didn’t hit the ball but his opening partner Jonny Bairstow had already used up England’s review.
Roy stood his ground and verbally abused umpire Kumar Dharmasena who’d made the incorrect decision.
No one’s about to defend Roy’s behaviour (in fact, a lot of people thought he should have been banned for the final), but if there was an effective system that allowed for some umpire reviews or even third umpire intervention it’s likely both these situations involving Roy against India and Australia would have ended up with a more accurate result and happier players, fans and umpires.
Where Roy’s case becomes even more interesting is when we analyse the possible impact his semi-final controversy may have had on England’s World Cup final against New Zealand.
Trent Boult struck Roy on the pads on the first ball of England’s innings in what looked a fairly plumb LBW in real-time. South African umpire Marais Erasmus gave the delivery not out on the field.
How much this decision was influenced by him being the umpire who helped usher Roy off the field in the semi-final no one can know for sure. What we do know is the system that placed him in this situation didn’t help his decision-making at all.
He made his ultra-conservative call which then ended up remaining as the final decision once New Zealand had reviewed it because less than half the cricket ball (only by about a millimetre) was shown by the review system to be hitting the stumps.
Roy only went on to score 17, but those runs and the 20 balls he survived was enough to prevent New Zealand from getting some tremendous momentum as they defended their modest total of 241.
If the DRS gets a significant revamp, one of the changes most worth trying would be to give umpires more power to review decisions. Some countries played around with giving them more responsibility when technology like ball-tracking and snicko first became available.
Unfortunately, we haven’t had a period where the umpires have been given more ability to use the great tools available since technology has improved and all stakeholders of the game have become more comfortable with using video reviews.
One of the great benefits of giving more power to the umpires is they might feel more like they are working with technology. Players and fans might get that impression too; currently, that is not the case.
The current referral system seems to be set up with the intent of disputing umpiring mistakes and even denying that a mistake exists.
Most of us accept umpires will make mistakes as long as they are human so an effective system should help them minimise mistakes and the impact mistakes make on matches.
Another option, if the ICC is set on keeping referrals at just one per innings in one-day matches, is the player referral responsibility could go to the coach.
This would involve its own difficulties regarding the exact process, but at least the coach could ensure he had a great look at each decision in real-time and possibly even get time for one television replay if they extended the time restrictions on referrals out to 20 seconds.
The other obvious solution is giving teams more player reviews, but the ICC seems set on this not happening despite the number of matches where one unsuccessful referral clearly hasn’t allowed for the adequate use of technology.
Whatever happens, something needs to change because the DRS clearly didn’t achieve what it’s capable of the way it was used throughout the 2019 World Cup.
Neel
Roar Guru
100% there needs to be a review. The umpire’s call has to be looked into.
Nick
Roar Guru
Yeah, but what's a rank bad decision? When can the TV umpire intervene or not?
Gurlivleen Grewal
Roar Pro
The 2 pt gets on my nerve. But is it because the ball tracking process takes time? Common sense though seems not part of the system since it has been established to save the umpires rather than arriving at a correct decision. The first one - I don't mind expanding the role of coaching staff for a review and increase the delay for the review. Essentially 20 seconds per decision isn't going to cause any trouble. The coaching staff can be provided with numerous replays from cameras - directly from the production feed, thus eliminating the delay.
John Deaker
Roar Pro
Generally I was trying to explain how the flaws in the DRS in its current form placed all sorts of unnecessary pressure on Erasmus even before the final started. If we trusted the ball tracking technology's decision-making 100% it might make the odd mistake with whether a ball is clipping the stumps but it'd also be consistent by also making the odd mistake judging whether balls miss the stumps. Currently the huge margin of error given to the umpire actually brings an unnecessary big element of inconsistency in to the ball tracking system that does the players and umpires no favours.
Dart
Guest
There are two changes I would like to see. 1. The umpire, when not sure, should be able to refer lbw and fine edges to the third umpire (in the same way that they can refer run outs and stumping). This might occur five times (plus or minus a few) in a one day match, so it is not going to extend the match that long. 2. The ‘process’ for lbw needs to be made quicker. I am sick of watching several replays with snicko and hotspot, which can take a couple of minutes while they ‘rock and roll’ the replay when it is painfully obvious the ball pitched outside leg stump.
Peter Warrington
Guest
Bowled is bowled. You don’t get extra for hitting middle (maybe you should?!)
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Not quite clear why you think Roy’s decision vs Boult was a bad example of the DRS system. Because 45% of the ball was hitting the stumps? But imagine if the rule was that it’s out in a review if the tiniest fraction of the ball was making contact. Is the system really that accurate. Does a ball missing by 99% of the leg stump really deserve a wicket? We really need to look at this philosophically and pragmatically. It’s designed to remove really bad errors. There’s an element of luck if you’re given not out to a ball that would have hit a fraction of the stumps, just as there is when you play and miss and don’t get the edge. Getting it perfectly accurate is close to impossible and not really necessary. If anything should be changed, it should be to have more reviews per innings, eg 2 for ODIs and 3 for 80 overs in a Test. They don’t take up that much time compared to the length of the game.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
No way the coaches get a say. If they watch in real time and can judge, then so can the 3rd umpire and it become his responsibility to advise a colleague that it might be prudent to check a replay. The sooner more decisions are back in the umpires hands the better, even flawed umpires like Erasmus. Decision making in sports needs neutrality and if the technology is good enough then the umpiring fraternity has to come to terms with a colleague with a more favourable view second guessing him. I agree a WC allows an abbreviated timeframe of all teams playing to provide samples for review of all ICC purviews. The original purpose of the DRS was to correct howlers. A howler isn't a possible LBW missed or overturned because the cartoon algorithm isn't accurate enough, just because that's in a final. That was it or wasn't it, is the unpredictability of sport and that should still be the domain of the umpire. A clear adjudication however from a 3rd umpire intervening and saying - actually the rule states that overthrow is a five, not a six, is more appropriate.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Expert
I agree with Peter when he writes that a TV umpire should have the power to intervene when a rank bad decision is given by the on field umpire.
Peter Warrington
Guest
to be used by umps only, for LB matters of fact only i.e. where did it land, where did it hit the rest is prediction and I prefer the umpires to be empowered with predictive judgments