Tim Paine says its variances and vagaries frustrate him, and Kane Williamson says all the players know the technology will never be 100 per cent accurate.
The players want it used in the Big Bash League and everyone seems to agree it’s just a matter of when. Cricket Australia say that ‘when’ won’t be this season.
The Decision Review System and all the associated technology behind it is never far from discussions and debate, despite the fact it has definitely improved the accuracy of umpiring since it was introduced just over a decade ago.
Since then, camera definition and screen resolution has improved, more angles are available, and significantly more frames per second allow more detailed inspection in still-motion. There’s no doubt the technology in use now is way better than what was first adopted.
Yet the concerns about the system remain, and I don’t think it’s too big a stretch to suggest that it’s never really been in the past – and still isn’t now – completely trusted by players, commentators and fans alike. And maybe even umpires, for all we know.
Tim Paine of Australia. (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
Generally speaking, DRS has removed most of the so-called ‘howlers’ that prompted its introduction. But you’ll never even get rid of them all because of two major factors.
The first one being that almost immediately, use of DRS become more about strategy and hope than it did about accuracy of decisions. Australia’s use of DRS got so bad during The Ashes series in England that a Federal Government specialist in control systems from Canberra got in touch with Justin Langer to show how he could improve the team’s use of DRS.
And Langer was so impressed that he invited Dr Obaid Rehman – quickly dubbed the ‘DRS Doctor’ – to address the team while they were in Canberra back in early November. And with due respect, Dr Rehman’s advice to the Australian team was pretty bloody obvious.
Forget the emotional thoughts around whether a ball was out or not out, he said, and instead ask why it wasn’t given out. Players being trained on how to read trajectory is pretty involved, but the idea that slip fielders shouldn’t be involved in discussions around LBW decision is just common sense.
“But nobody was using that common sense,” Dr Rehman told News Limited’s Ben Horne back before Christmas.
And in fairness, the Australians do seem to be using the review system much better this summer. But the frustrations remain.
Jhye Richardson (centre) of Australia appeals (AAP Image/Darren England)
“I’ve got a few doubts – no doubt about that,” Paine told ABC Grandstand during the Boxing Day Test.
“I won’t go into it too far because I’ll get in trouble. I’m just seeing time and time again what I see to the naked eye, or watching it on television in real time, and then what it comes up as, is sometimes a little bit off the mark.”
Paine said post-match he wasn’t too interested in taking up the offer of the company behind the ball-tracking software to check it out and learn more about it, which is an interesting position for the Australian Captain to take, especially after hearing former opener Ed Cowan explain in a Test review podcast for the ABC that spending 90 minutes in the truck during a Test he wasn’t playing in several years ago was the main reason he is comfortable with the way the technology works.
And especially after poor use of DRS led to burning reviews too early too often during The Ashes, which in turn is why some genuine howlers – none more so than Nathan Lyon trapping Ben Stokes plumb in front at Headingley – had to be left to stand.
The other major factor is the human element. Aleem Dar managed to turn a regulation caught behind appeal off Mitchell Santner in Melbourne into a howler when he either couldn’t or didn’t see what in the end was fairly obvious contact with the wristband on the Black Caps spinner’s glove on the way through to Paine.
Thankfully, DRS was able to overturn what was a terrible LBW decision against Tom Blundell, a delivery which stuck the Black Fern on Blundell’s trouser pocket, and which the ball-tracking generously suggested was clearing the bails by only four inches. I still don’t know what Nigel Llong thought he saw.
Players this season have again called for DRS to be used in the BBL, and though Cricket Australia were quick to knock that on its head, it still feels like an inevitable inclusion.
But here’s a challenge for the powers that be.
If Cricket Australia really wanted to be innovative about bringing the technology into the BBL, then maybe they should get serious about trialling something that I know I’m not alone in long calling for: putting the technology in the hands of the umpires.
That is, no decision reviews by the players; simply, the two umpires on-field working with the third umpire to reach the right decision at the point of appeal.
If we truly want to be innovative and make the game better, how about letting the technology work for the positive, rather than allow players the opportunity to prove umpires wrong?
Five years we were told about an ICC trial of a real-time Officiating Replay System (ORS), a system that streamlined the decision process using technology, yet nothing more has come of it. So it maybe it’s time to see if the existing technology can be used to make the game better.
I’m as convinced as ever that it would.
It wouldn’t stop the human error that allowed Mitchell Santner’s reprieve, that’s certainly true. And it would unfortunately put ‘Dr DRS’ out of work, because all players will need to know what to do is appeal.
But it would absolutely eradicate scenarios like the Stokes LBW at Headingley and so many others like it that have to remain simply because a team has no reviews left. Deliveries that clearly produce a wicket should be credited with that wicket.
In its current form, and used the way it’s currently laid out, I’m not sure DRS can get any better than it is now.
But improvements in umpiring could still be found by simply handing the technology back to the umpires, who really should’ve just had it to begin with.
Chris
Guest
I think that having a technological review of every appeal will actually speed up the game, as batsmen knowing that there is no hiding will walk more often, while fielding sides will stop the speculative appeals as they know they'll just waste their over rate. (incidentally we also need bigger penalties for slow over rate and frivolous appeals should be counted as play time)
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Fair enough.
elvis
Roar Rookie
You had me going for a minute, I thought I missed the first day!
Slapsy
Roar Rookie
Exactly,the players appeal,and the umpire makes a decision,based on whatever means are at his disposal. It does not need to be shown on TV,but the stations will show it at some time after the event anyway,meaning less disruption to the game. The present process should never have been given to the players. All it is doing is giving the benefit of the doubt to the umpires,when any doubt should still be for the player.
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
Nope. I would likely have said ..."that was tight ... but out"!
Sinclair Whitbourne
Roar Rookie
Agree with your second para re being tracked etc. without our express agreement but not in terms of choosing when to use technology. Understand your view about just taking the good with the bad but very few people maintain that equilibrium when things don't go their way and for me, I like to see the best decision possible. Here's to a great game at the SCG today!
Chris Love
Roar Guru
LBW is the most contentious part of the game and where 95% of the reviews come in. If a sped up LBW process is put in the hands of the straight umpire then a single review is all that’s needed to account for the nicked/grassed catches etc. umpires can go back to policing the no ball and looking for the edges.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
I say send it up as if it’s a not out every time. Until the technology is far more accurate the batsmen should have the benefit of the doubt.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
It won’t take forever. It doesn’t have to stay the same system when the umpire asks for the tech. It can be shortened to take a total of 15 or so seconds.
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Roar Rookie
I think you are right - they had already celebrated retaining the Ashes after the 4th test and didn't have their heads screwed on for the fifth test. It was a pretty disappointing end to a pretty strong performance up until then.
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
Absolutely true. Generally speaking always bat first. If you are trying to close out a series absolutely bat first! I think the team by that last test was mentally shot. They climbed the mountain the previous test.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
Unusually for one of your articles Brett, I strongly disagree. One thing that DRS has done is to subtely but noticeably change the relationship between players and umpires at the test level. When deciding whether to review decisions or not, the players have to put themselves in the position of the umpire, and most have found it's a more difficult position than they imagined. The upshot is that players show far greater levels of respect to the umpires than they did previously, and the game is better for it.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Happy NY Brett, the replay I had recorded as Dar was deliberating live showed the ball thudding into the bottom of arm guard and a slight gap. I couldn’t see the supposed movement of the wrist band, let alone ball hitting the wrist band, on the video on the Roar site, though could see perhaps why some thought it might have happened. Prepared to agree to disagree and move on, but am left with the conclusion there was enough ambiguity in enough people’s eyes not to condemn Dar for this one. The worst decision of the match that I saw was long giving one of the Kiwis out when it was going six inches over the stumps. Thank god for DRS on that one. My general feeling is that the public and some of the commentators get a bit too hung up on fine margins as to what exactly happened, without reflecting that it’s in part a game of luck where there are so many balls that just miss the edge or unlucky strangles down the leg side.
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
I wasn't aware Timmy was a batsman, I thought 1-6 were the batsmen, followed by the keeper and bowlers. And yes I did not mention Tim because I was referring to the SPECIALIST batsmen who are picked in that role. The fact that two bowlers and a keeper averaged higher or equal to 4 of those specialists is ok with you. Yes Paine has made some DRS failures, but I have seen him ask the bowlers on many occasions and they have indicated it is worthwhile to use the DRS. Do you really think if one of our bowlers said not to appeal, he would just do it for the sake of it.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
A couple of decent innings from Tim Paine wouldn't have hurt either.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
It's inadequate because concessions have been made to cover an algorithm which isn't accurate enough to determine the surface area of the stumps as laid out in the rules. Starc's last wicket at the G wouldn't have been out if the umpire had been asked to make an lbw decision and he'd given the doubt to the batsman. It grazed the stump and even confused Starc until told he bowled him. It was conclusive though because it hit the stump and dislodged the bail. If technology can't replicate that with certainty then the rules makers have reduced the surface area of the stumps for lbws because the tech supposed to assist is inadequate.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
I am not laughing but I am smiling that you chose to leave Tim Paine's name out of the listing of batsmen that averaged less then Siddle recently in England. A batsman takes the responsibility when at the crease to the use the DRS. But seriously, a bowler can not overrule a captain on the field in deciding to use the DRS. The captain has the final say after weighing up the match situation & the advice of fieldsmen & bowlers. The captain takes that responsibility.
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Roar Rookie
OK - maybe a bit over the top. I was just so angry when we'd won the toss on a sunny day with not much green in the wicket and decide to put England in. Why? You give the Poms nothing. I found it very hard to watch the match after that knowing we had given away that advantage. The further we fell behind in the game the angrier I became. It was just so unnecessary. It was a sign of arrogance and hubris which I can't stand. England didn't deserve to even the series at 2-2. We gave them some respect they didn't deserve. And Yes Punter's decision to ask England to bat with an injured McGrath in 2005 was dumb and arrogant and a stain on his captaincy. Steve Waugh's decision to enforce the follow on I can understand given how far in front we were at the time. India were on the ropes. I don't think anyone expected the VVS Laxman heroics. Waugh certainly didn't do it again and at least learnt from it. And I very much doubt if Tim Paine will insert the opposition again - unless it is a greentop minefield with heavy overcast conditions - and even then you would seriously think about batting.
matth
Roar Guru
A stain that will tarnish his legacy? Wow. I prefer thinking of him as the first captain in 18 years to retain the Ashes away, and a captain who has taken us from 5th/6th in the ranking to 2. But I’m a glass half full kind of guy. Did Steve Waugh’s decision t enforce the follow on in 2001 tarnish his legacy? What about Punter’s decision to bowl in 2005? Gilchrist’s decision to declare in 2001 (I think it was)?
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
That's the point. We don't need a human being to review. It's dead easy to automate the process so that Snicko (or whatever it is called now) says, there was/wasn't an edge; Hotspot says edge/no edge and Balltracker says pitching in line, hitting in line, hitting (or not). Run them all at the same time you can have your decision inside 5 seconds or as long as it takes to queue up the systems. If you get contradictory evidence from any systems then you get an umpire to review.