The soft signal debate rages on after a controversial week, but among the calls to remove it, none are yet to provide a valid alternative.
Video replay controversy is always just around the corner in international cricket, and it reared its head again this week in the T20 series between India and England. In Game 4, India’s Suryakumar Yadav swept Sam Curran aerially down to fine leg where Dawid Malan took what appeared to be a magnificent low-down catch.
In real-time, it appeared Malan had got his fingers beneath it the ball but, as is often the case, slow-motion replays told another story. One angle, in particular, showed the ball almost certainly touching the surface, and replays were unable to reveal whether Malan’s fingers were (adequately) underneath it.
To the naked eye, though, few watching their television would say it was out.
Equipped with inadequate replays and an affirmative soft signal, the third umpire deemed Suryakumar out, cueing an inevitable wave of online outrage.
“How can this be out?” VVS Laxman said.
“I think that was a stinking decision,” Graeme Swann added.
But neither umpire did anything inherently wrong.
The third umpire could not conclusively overturn the decision with the available replays, while the main umpire made a call from some 70 metres away. As a result, players and pundits alike began calling out the primary flaw in soft signals.
“The soft signal for boundary catches is nonsense, there’s no way the standing umpire can see that,” Mike Atherton said.
And he’s right.
It is nonsense to expect an umpire to adjudicate something so difficult from such a distance. Often, their decision is almost entirely based on the immediate reaction of the fielder in question.
From there, the discussion quickly turned to changing the soft signal ruling.
But notably, none provided a superior alternative to the current model.
Indian skipper Virat Kohli proposed that rather than being forced into an affirmative or negative call, the umpire should be able to simply shrug the shoulders.
“I don’t know why there cannot be a sort of ‘I don’t know’ call for the umpire as well,” Kohli said.
“Why does it have to be a conclusive one? Because then that [dictates] the whole decision completely.”
(Photo by Surjeet Yadav/Getty Images)
But we’ve been down this road before.
Prior to the introduction of the soft signal in 2016, umpires were able to send every line-ball catch upstairs. And in almost every instance, the batsman received the benefit of the doubt.
In fact, in one year all 30 catches sent to the third umpire were ruled in the batter’s favour. As a result, the soft signal was introduced as a way to redress the imbalance.
“We should encourage umpires to make decisions, and so that means the soft signal should remain,” former ICC umpires boss Simon Taufel said when this issue erupted in 2018 (incidentally, involving Kohli).
Taufel, who for some time was deemed the world’s best umpire, pointed out that the benefit-of-the-doubt system to a batsman was not working.
“The old system where it was sent upstairs without the umpire having a say, people didn’t like that…(umpires) are just going draw a box and say ‘over to the third umpire’ to say whether it is out or not.”
One of Kohli’s points in the last week was based on eliminating error in important fixtures.
“It’s a serious thing that needs to be considered because there’s a lot at stake in the future in big tournaments and you don’t want some grey areas to be the defining factor.”
This, to borrow Atherton’s phrase, is nonsense. The notion of what constitutes a catch in cricket is entirely grey.
Unlike a run-out or stumping where a ruling is largely black and white, what is considered a catch differs from one person to the other.
(Photo by Patrick Hamilton/AGP via Getty Images).
One glance at social media whenever a controversial catch is taken confirms this. Any search for a binary system is fanciful — just ask football how VAR is going.
The most sensible alternative to the soft signal ruling was raised by Atherton this week, and one endorsed by the MCC’s World Cricket Committee: that the umpire should only provide a soft signal if the catch is taken inside the inner 30-yard fielding ring.
A statement from the committee’s latest meeting read: “The committee felt that the soft-signal system worked well for catches within the 30-yard fielding circle, but that catches near the boundary often left the umpires unsighted. It was proposed that, for such catches, the on-field umpires could give an ‘unsighted’ instruction to the TV umpire, rather than the more explicit soft signal of ‘out’ or ‘not out’.”
But this, too, has its flaws. What line would be utilised in Test cricket, given it does not use a 30-yard ring?
How are 50/50 catches near the ring’s edge adjudicated?
It’s another layer of adjudication that cricket simply doesn’t need.
“This is a game of cricket — it is important that umpires make decisions. Umpires should be making decisions because that is what their job is,” Taufel said back in 2018.
And he’s right. This issue will never be ‘solved’ or satisfy every fan.
And at the moment, the current system is the best cricket can do.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Jump at shadows is a great way of putting it. Could also say, often in these catch referrals, the video umpires often get caught in the headlights like rabbits.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Have to disagree. The unsighted call for outfield catches makes a lot of sense. The reason too many batsmen were given not out is because the video umpires jump at shadows and tend to rely too much on slow motion. But catches like Malan’s should not be getting a soft signal out.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
That's cricketers for ya.
Who are they giving the "soft signal" to if they have no cameras and therefore no 3rd Ump!!!
Ravi
Roar Rookie
They whinge like hell coz every appeal was 'dead set out', (unless they're batting). Hello Joe Root, Bairstow, Broad, Shane Watson.
Paul
Roar Guru
How do they manage to do when there are no TV cameras at grounds?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
My detesting of umpires call for lbws is well known. I also don’t see a need for soft signals for fair catches when u have technology. If technology can’t prove it’s a fair catch then give it not out. At the level I umpire at, I have secret soft signals for doubtful catches because in my games, except for finals times, I do the bowlers end and the batting side provides the square leg. This being the case i cannot always rely on their impartiality, let alone competence, in fact some barely even watch the action. Some are genuinely excellent and would make pretty good badged umpires should they ever have an inclination to take it up.
Im with Kholi and many others on this one.......A simple "is it out or not?" should be asked and if the 3rd Ump cant prove its out then a simple not out will be fine.......As many have said how can the Ump see that far and make a call which favors one side?
Paul
Roar Guru
The main take from this piece for me are people trying to fit round pegs into square holes. David rightly points out it doesn't matter what system we use, there will still be plenty of occasions where benefit of the doubt has to exist. That being the case, how can we hope to impose a definitive set of rules that resolves not only catches, but lbws, run outs, etc? Cricket is a game played by humans and adjudicated by humans. There will always be a human element involved and that's something we simply have to accept. By all means, continue to tinker with technology to help with the decision making process, but don't expect a "one size fits all answer" as Kohli and others seem to be suggesting.
bazza200
Guest
Hi mate basically on DRS for LBW's It's we can't 100% trust the path of the ball after it hits the pad. Missiles behave much more predictable behaviour then a cricket ball. One question i'd like answered when DRS predicts the ball path how does it determine how much swing is it purely on path of the ball before it hits the pad and means consistent turn and swing. Which we know from experience is not always true hence the benifit of the doubt to the umpire with their experience. They also need something simple the fans can understand which is 50% of the ball everyone can think in these terms. Nobody knows what 10% of the ball looks like.
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
This is an interesting subject and I agree that soft signal should stay. If third umpire can not overturn on field decision that means he does not have conclusive evidence. In this scenario absence of soft signal means third umpire too will be delivering judgement on gut feeling. But I have problem with the umpire call on lbw. Fifty percent hitting missile theory does not make sense to me. I do not know how people feel here but I believe there should be straight forward decision making in lbw scenarios.