The benefit of the doubt (BOTD) is a principle exercised by umpires if they are uncertain about the batsman being out, in such a case the batsman is given favour.
This principle is not explicitly mentioned in the laws of cricket, however, it can be educed from MCC Laws. One such law is the MCC Law 31.6 which states: “(Consultation by umpires) each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his/her own jurisdiction.
If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he/she shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be not-out.”
The logic behind the law is simple: the batsman has only one chance in the game, whereas the bowler gets multiple shots trying to get the batsman out.
While the introduction of the Decision Review System (DRS) has helped the bowling and batting sides to overcome any obvious umpiring mistakes, the traditional approach of following the BOTD principle is hampering umpires’ abilities to reach a certain conclusion about the fate of the batsman.
This is where I believe that the contemporary technology involvement in the game necessitates umpires’ decision-making algorithm to upgrade and adapt o a more prudent approach rather merely following BOTD principle in ambiguous situations. The implementation of this upgraded version can be examined in case of the following scenarios:
Case 1: the bowler asks the umpire for a caught behind and the umpire is not 100 per cent sure. This might be because the umpire did not hear anything, or there was a chance that the ball might have brushed some body part, or bat hitting the ground at the same time as the ball passed the bat or any other possible case.
Now, in this case, an umpire traditionally follows the BOTD principle.
The upgraded algorithm in this case for the umpire could be to account for the number of reviews left with the batting side. If the batting side has a review left then the umpire’s inclination should be towards the bowler rather than the batsman, as the batter normally has knowledge of his hitting or missing of the bowl can always opt for the review, and ultimately justice will be served.
(Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
Case 2: there is an appeal for an LBW, the umpire is sure about the ball trajectory towards the wicket but unsure whether the ball has hit the bat first or the pad first. Again, if the batting side has a review left then the umpire should favour the bowling side and so on.
Nevertheless, in both of the above cases if the batting side does not have any reviews left then the umpire should use the traditional approach.
It might appear that in the above analysis the favour has been towards the bowler but, the recent introduction of batting power plays, fielding restrictions, free hits, flat pitches, small ground, shorter boundaries and bigger bats have all favoured the batter exorbitantly.
As a result, the game is becoming one-sided. For example, in World Cup 2019, 32 man-of-the-match awards were won by the batsman against 12 man-of-the-match awards won by the bowlers.
So, to keep a fair amount of balance between the batsman and the bowler it is essential to at least serve the bowler justice for his effort and amending of the traditional approaches like BOTD only serving the batters.
Saad Qaisar
Roar Rookie
thank you.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
We can only hope.
The Late News
Roar Rookie
Who knows? Maybe they are!
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Wouldn't it be great if ICC big wigs were roar readers.
Saad Qaisar
Roar Rookie
What I am suggesting is not about amending the law- yes if that can be done then it is the best, however what I have suggested in the article is regarding tweaking the practice of solely favouring the batters in every ambiguous situation. To summarize, it is a suggestion to umpires to upgrade their decision making criteria while all the constraints enforced by the rules and regulations are present.
The Late News
Roar Rookie
Cleverest thing EVER posted on the Roar!
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Let’s expand upon what I said yesterday … Equating umpiring decisions with chess moves, I am going to use the terminologies ‘inaccuracy’, ‘mistake’ and ‘blunder’, blunder meaning ‘howler’ or ‘shocker’. An example of an inaccuracy is, as I said in my previous comment if I as an umpire say not out to an lbw shout that eagle eye shows 100% of the ball hitting flush at the very top of leg, off or even middle stump. Another example of an inaccuracy is if there is clearly the sound of leather on willow and I say not out but replays using all the modern technology ascertain that the ball struck the pad or boot a split second before the bat, with all else never in doubt for an lbw dismissal. An example of a mistake is if I raise the finger to an lbw shout and eagle eye shows it passing the stumps halfway up but missing leg by a millimetre or bouncing over the bails by the same mere millimetre margin. Another example of a mistake is if I raise my finger to an lbw shout and there was bat first but it could only be heard 18 metres away and I am standing 21 metres down the pitch, approximately. What constitutes a blunder, howler or shocker should be obvious … all three categories (inaccuracy, mistake and howler) should be overturned where technology is available to do so. The problem with the author’s proposed ‘speculative umpiring’ is that it once again asks the players to not only be better umpires than the actual umpires, but also to be able to differentiate in every case between these three different categories. The only time it would work with anywhere near 100% accuracy is when the batting side have two reviews left with 2 wickets in hand, or one review left with the last pair at the crease – such as Headingly last year. Broad, 9th man out, didn’t waste a review, but would have been silly not to use it, as there is absolutely no benefit in having both reviews left with the last pair at the crease. If Broad had been 8th man out he would have been every bit as stupid to waste it as Paine was with the Leach incident. Hence, the only solution, for mine, is a cricket version of Soccer’s VAR.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
— COMMENT DELETED —
Saad Qaisar
Roar Rookie
I agree to your point of uniformity in a decision. Currently, the umpire's call is blatantly controversial. However, it is still being practiced.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
One of the difficulties of umpiring end to end as I do with the batting side providing square leg is a scenario such as the ball is invisible to me behind the batsman’s glove as it makes contact down the leg side on the way to the keeper, the contact so light that there is no abnormal deviation on it’s way to the keeper … batting side square leg umpires are of little benefit to assist here … with a fellow badged umpire, there can be a secret signal that nobody else is even aware of … Just an example. See also my reply to The Late News below.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I am also an umpire, and I think one of the many problematic aspects of DRS is the cliché ‘It’s to get rid of the howler’. Obviously, we don’t want howlers, but why shouldn’t a system like DRS be as much based on a concept of ‘Let’s get rid of the inaccuracy’? If you say not out to a ball that is hitting middle halfway up, or raise the finger to a ball that is missing leg by a foot, or bouncing over the bails by the same amount then that is a howler. Saying not out to a ball that is hitting flush right at the top of leg stump is an inaccuracy and the only real option for an umpire operating without any form of technological aid. The principle that the author is advocating should certainly have been employed in the Stokes affair at Headingly last year, but even better would be a cricket version of soccer’s VAR which I recently advocated here : https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/08/14/drs-needs-to-be-reviewed-heres-how-to-do-it/
Saad Qaisar
Roar Rookie
Thank you.
Saad Qaisar
Roar Rookie
Yes there is always uncertainty even with the use of technology like DRS. And in uncertain conditions the batsman has always been given advantage. However, recently the rules have changed quite drastically favouring the batters disproportionately, therefore requiring some change of practices and traditions like BOTD to keep the balance of the battle intact.
The Late News
Roar Rookie
Saad...as one of the few regulars on the Roar who has umpired quite a lot my initial reaction to your article is go easy. There is a lot going on on a cricket field! And the bowler's pace only adds to this. Perhaps people need to simply bear in mind that the umpires need to be certain of a dismissal (or frankly any other decision) and not swayed ( if possible!) by outside influences. The best umpires are of the "what you see is what you get" variety. But of course it is one person standing in one place...so they can't possibly see or hear everything. For very faint nicks...the breeze comes into it. Also general background noise etc. Anyway...a great article if it provides food for thought. Thanks.
Paul
Roar Guru
I think you need to be very careful when talking about Benefit Of the Doubt (BOTD), Saad. Having umpired more than a few games and having spoken with a number of first class umpires, when it comes to the sort of decisions you're talking about, they are unanimous in saying you can't guess. You must be confident all the aspects of an lbw have been met in order to make a decision, one way or another. Catches are obviously a little harder to judge, hence the Law you mentioned. I think the advent of DRS has almost forced umpires to become more likely to give guys out lbw, for example, than was the case in the earlier decades. It seemed then if the ball wasn't hitting middle stump half way up, the batsman was given not out. Now we're seeing a lot more decisions go in favour of bowlers where only a part of the ball is likely to hit the stumps and way more lbws with batsmen playing forward. Hope to see more articles from you. This was a nice start.