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...
With regard to the point of impact:
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/
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
- 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.
- The point of impact is 300 cm or more from the stumps; or
- 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,
- 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/
No comments:
Post a Comment