The DRS - Deficient Review System

          The recently concluded first test match of the Ashes was just the perfect match for a cricket cognoscente. While we were still recovering from the hangover of the Champions Trophy, the first Ashes Test provided the perfect start for the cricketing summer. The marvelous innings by the debutant Aston Agar, the spell-bounding spells of Jimmy Anderson, a career-defining innings by Ian Bell and the “cutting-edge” no-walk style of Stuart Broad were some of the highlights of the match that was unarguably the best Test match in recent times. But perhaps, the match would be remembered the most for the use and the effectiveness of the Decision Review System (DRS). As many as 7 reviews yielded controversial decisions and thus was felt the need to “Review the Review System.” So here's my perspective...

          
          Foremost, the DRS was introduced to eliminate the 'howler' from cricket. A howler is an obvious mistake and hence DRS mustn't be judged from its verdicts in those close calls, it was never exactly meant for them. One must appreciate the fact that DRS has been instrumental in improving the umpiring accuracy considerably. But if it was meant to eliminate the howlers, does having only two unsuccessful reviews help that? It has been a trend to use the DRS when an important batsman is in question. Many times such calls are promptly reviewed even if the team isn't even remotely confident that the call could be overturned. And once reviews are spent this way, in vain, a Michael Clarke doesn't have the option to review a howler like the one of Stuart Broad. So yes, two-three unsuccessful reviews are sufficient only if one uses them prudently.

          
          Talking about the process of how a decision is reviewed, I find certain obvious flaws in the process. Foremost is the check for a no-ball. Apart from the check in DRS, in recent times we have frequently come across instances when the umpires check for a no-ball after a batsman is dismissed. What is the purpose of the on-field umpire if he has to review that too? This happened in the second Ashes Test when Jonny Bairstow got a reprieve off Peter Siddle for the deliver was a no-ball. Traditionally, a no-ball has to be checked in real-time and an ideal umpire should not review that. And yet if unsure of the legitimacy, he should review it every time he's doubtful and not just when a batsman could be out. An extra run and a ball and a free-hit that's awarded in the shorter formats may likewise change the outcome of a match.

          
          Then comes the Hawk-Eye technology, and in the words of its managing director Paul Hawkins, “Hawk-Eye isn't infallible but it's pretty damned close.” The Hawk-Eye is a widely used technology and according to Hawkins, Hawk-Eye's margin of error averages about 3.6 millimeters (0.14 inches) and that the system is around 99.9 percent accurate. But the way Hawk-Eye is put to use in LBW decisions is acutely questionable and sometimes even unreasonable, here's why...

The ICC Rules

With regard to the point of impact:

• If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the point of impact is between wicket and wicket (i.e. in line with the stumps), the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball at the moment of interception is in line within an area demarcated by a line drawn down the middle of the outer stumps. 
• If an ‘out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the point of impact is not between wicket and wicket (i.e. outside the line of the stumps), the evidence provided by technology should show that no part of the ball at the moment of interception is between wicket and wicket.

With regard to determining whether the ball was likely to have hit the stumps:

• If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is hitting the stumps, the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball would have hit the stumps within an area demarcated by a line drawn below the lower edge of the bails and down the middle of the outer stumps.                                    

However, where the evidence shows that the ball would have hit the stumps within the demarcated area as set out above but that:

1. The point of impact is 300 cm or more from the stumps; or 
2. The point of impact is more than 250 cm but less than 300 cm from the stumps and the distance between point of pitching and point of impact is less than 40 cm,

the original decision will stand (i.e. not out).

• If an ‘out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is missing the stumps, the evidence of the technology should show that no part of the ball would have made contact with any part of the stumps or bails.

Thus the way in which an LBW is analysed depends vastly on the on-field call and that may wrongly influence the final decision.

Controversial Calls

1) Three Reds, is OUT

Three Reds is an out, Shane Watson was ruled OUT just because of the on-field call unlike Steven Finn.

2)  The Distance To Impact

Looks plumb doesn't he? Ruled NOT OUT due to the on-field call else would have rightly been OUT

My Modifications

1) The on-field call should not influence the review and hence two reds must be ruled out.

2) Irrespective of the on-field call, the decision of whether the ball was hitting the stumps must be taken on the basis of Hawk-Eye

3) The centre of the ball should not be considered in the review rules at all, it is only logical that the bails are dislodged even if the ball brushes the stumps.

These modifications would eliminate the grey areas from the DRS and get rid of the ambiguities which currently exist

          The process of a significant revamp in the DRS is about to happen for the Third Ashes Test at Old Trafford. Dave Richardson, the ICC Chief Executive has revealed that from now on, the third umpire will have an array of television screens which would enable him an exclusive access to various normal and Hot Spot camera angles. This would prevent possible manipulation of the feed by the broadcasters or the unavailability of certain evidence as in the case of Johnathan Trott's dismissal in the First Ashes Test. Sports are continuously evolving thanks to the modern technologies and DRS is one of them. I am pretty confident that modernisation of the game is the right way to ensure fair-play and thus uphold the spirit of the game.

Tweet

Some related links:
                                                                                   
http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/38/rules-and-regulations

http://iccworld-cup2011.blogspot.in/2011/02/dhoni-infuriated-by-udrs-decision.html

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/

The Snowden Saga : Data Mining, Privacy, Transparency and Beyond...

          "Edward Snowden is a free man, biding his time somewhere in the transit area between the arrival gates and passport control at the Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow, his arrival was totally unexpected", claims Vladimir Putin, the Russian President. Sure, why not! Mr. President, have we not yet been fooled enough by the so-called "Investigation" and "Security" agencies for you to claim an American security officer free from the hawkish Russian security agents? And even the rest may hardly be true!

          Snowden made headlines internationally after revealing details about the data-mining carried out by the USA and it's allies in Europe. Snowden's revelations include NSA's secret data-collection activities under the program code-named PRISM, NSA asking Verizon to hand over the call-logs of it's customers, electronically tapping into the embassies, etc. Ridiculously branded as a traitor by some, he believes in transparency and his allegiance to internet freedom is reflected in the stickers on his laptop: "I support Online Rights: Electronic Frontier Foundation," reads one. Another hails the online organisation offering anonymity, the Tor Project. His belief in communication privacy is evident from the fact that he has released only the documents related to the schemes that compromise public freedom while he could have easily had access to other confidential intelligence details. This is what separates him from Daniel Ellsberg or Bradley Manning and makes his revelations more appealing and relevant to each and everyone of us.

          Having worked for the NSA, he knows how wide their arms stretch and hence while in his hotel room at Hong Kong, he used to line the doors with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He also puts a large red hood over his head and laptop while entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them! These crude precautions taken by Snowden may sound paranoid but they testify that there is no web-security that cannot be breached by these mighty powerful agencies. Reportedly, India is fifth on the data-gathering radar of the NSA and thus internet freedom we seem to enjoy is nothing short of a joke. Snowden has endangered his life beyond imagination by unearthing these operations and it is the need of the hour to focus more on the issues raised rather than Snowden's fate. As Snowden himself states very clearly, "I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the US government is doing."

          Democratic governments empower its citizens with certain rights like internet privacy and freedom of expression. We people do comprehend the threats of terrorism and realise that there has to be secret collection of classified intelligence. If a government carries out programs like PRISM, it isn't unwarranted but it should at least be somewhat transparent to the peoples whilst doing so. This reminds me of Sidney Sheldon's portrayal of the NSA in his book, "The Rage of Angels" where the agency self-certifies it's actions to be directed towards the benefit of the government and its peoples. Prima facie we must remember that we live in a Democracy, where we are entitled to the vested rights of free will and not under any other form of governance where these rights become privileges. Snowden surely isn't a traitor, he is someone who believes in these fundamental rights, the richly paid 29-year old gave up a life in the heavenly Hawaii, now living as a fugitive seeking an asylum. Amidst allegations that he may have chosen Hong Kong to seek refuge and divulge more strategic information, the calm and candid Snowden answers, "The people and the government of Hong Kong are known to be independent and thus unlike in mainland China they do not have restrictions like internet filtering. Besides the two governments may have some conflicts but we are not enemies, the people of the nations are not hostile towards each other and we have the largest free trade amongst us". His understanding of the scenario and audacity is highly respectable.

        It isn't fair to brand Snowden as a whistle blower, he is rather the eleventh hour Samaritan who is willing to confront the most powerful government in the world. Quizzed on why he revealed his identity instead of leaking the data anonymously, he profoundly replies, "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong", Indeed the situation deemed credibility and not cowardice. It is a Herculean task to expose the truth and then incur the wrath of such cogent agencies and governments and by doing so, he has assured himself a life of utter vexation. Snowden is now seeking asylum to shield himself from prosecution, or shall we say persecution? A country may grant him one, but even then he soon may be extradited after pressure from the mighty US government. One way or the other, he will face extreme charges with minimal hopes of a free trial. 

          But Snowden isn't alone in his fate. The truth is that anyone who uses the Internet is also all in that brightly lit "transit area", the digital-transit. I'm afraid we are all in danger of becoming Edward Snowden now.

Snowden's Interview to The Guardian

Original report in The Guardian - Click here

Convicted US spy Christopher Boyce says, Snowden is Doomed - Click here

Tweet

Indian Cricket, The Way Forward...(cont'd)

Virender Sehwag

Age : 34 years 254 days

Quite often compared to the likes of Sir Viv Richards, the swashbuckling opener with his trademark cover drive has constructed quite an extraordinary career. With minimal footwork but maximum intent, he just stands and delivers. Named ICC Test Player of the Year in 2010, Sehwag has piled Test runs at a faster pace than anyone in the long history of the game. He is also an annihilative ODI batsman, his 219 being the highest individual score in ODIs. But recently, the prolific batsman has been drawing flak for his reckless batting. Sehwag's Achilles' heel is fending at the deliveries outside off quite early in his innings, evident from the infamous 'King Pair' at Edgbaston and it'd be nice to see him bat with controlled aggression. Fondly called The Nawab of Najafgarh, he has all the skills up his sleeve and his illustrious triple centuries epitomize his capabilities to build a long innings defend impeccably with the straightest of bats. Nearing 35, as an experienced campaigner, he would be eager to shoulder the responsibility of batting the in-transition Test team. After all, bowlers always fancy their chances against a batsman who plays so many strokes; it's just that Sehwag fancies his chances against them much more.


Verdict : With the inconsistency of Vijay, a recall in the Test squad is imminent for Sehwag. An ODI recall though is highly unlikely. It would be way nicer to see Viru grinning after a century rather than after after a joke with the umpire!

Tweet