The Decision Review System

Dec 23, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The Decision Review System (DRS) was introduced by the International Cricket Council nine years ago. As with any new proposal, it had its detractors, both from the ranks of cricketers and umpires.

The greatest concern was about its potential impact on the credibility of umpires. If too many umpiring decisions are overturned, then it causes a loss of confidence in the system of umpiring used in cricket.

Previously, the umpire’s decision was final.  The use of video replays helped to expose many umpires to criticisms, especially when the technology available to commentators and television viewers contradicted an umpire’s decision.

The situation got much harder for umpires when infrared hot spot technology and ultra sound snickometer testing became available to cricket commentators and the public. This further exposed mistakes and miscalls by umpires.

The game of cricket has become highly professional. It has also become highly commercialized. There is wider international viewership. All of this means that umpires’ mistakes can bring the game into disrepute in the eyes of viewers. And these viewers are important sources of revenue for the game. They are responsible for the super earnings which are paid to international cricketers.

Mistakes by umpires became costly. One of the best umpires of cricket, Steven Bucknor was forced to retire in 2009 because of some decisions which he made which were highlighted by TV replays. His previous excellent record in which he had a higher than average rate of correct decisions went down the drain because of  a series of mistakes he made in a test series involving India and Australia in 2008.

Some players openly expressed their rage at some decisions given against them and this added to the pressures for the available technology to be used. Indeed, it was argued that if the technology was there for umpire reviews, why should it not be used?

Other sports were having similar debates. Some football leagues and some tournaments now utilize goal line technology. This was long after cricket led the way with the introduction of DRS.

In all forms of sport where technology has been introduced, there is a singular guiding principle which determines the degree to which the measures are introduced. That principle is one that seeks to balance a player’s right to review a decision given against his or her team and the need to ensure respect for the role of umpires.

You cannot have a situation in which a bowler or batsman reviews every decision given against them. That would make the umpire a rubberstamp. The umpire’s jobs would be reduced to referring decisions for video reviews.

It would also reduce actual playing time if every decision was allowed to be reviewed. The time spent undertaking these reviews would shorten the amount of overs bowled each day. It would become tedious for both players and for the spectators. Cricket would become farcical.

The umpire’s role in the game also had to be protected. Umpires could not be reduced to rubber stamps.  And so the rule became that in a test match a team can have a total of four unsuccessful reviews, two for the first 80 overs and two afterwards. The review system is being tweaked at the moment.

This DRS has worked. It has not ended bad decisions, but it has at least allowed for greater amount for fairness, by allowing players who would have felt that they were treated wrongly to review that decision, and there is a limit of four reviews per innings.

The DRS system may need some tweaking and should not be disused simply because one team exhausted all its reviews and therefore could not review a decision which turned out to be palpably wrong. There is no unfair advantage once both teams are playing to the same rules. There is no need to change anything. All teams know beforehand that they are allowed four reviews.

The DRS can correct some amount of umpire mistakes. But it does mean that there will be no such mistakes. In the present Ashes series, there was a controversy over the dismissal of Mark Stoneman, and it has led to criticisms of players’ reactions, but not of the system.

There is no need to remove the use of technology in cricket. The system has generally vindicated umpires. It has not led to a loss of confidence in umpires or for a call for umpires to be replaced by technology.

The DRS technology should however be made umpire-friendly, otherwise it will lead to a further loss of confidence in umpires. Instead of a third umpire reviewing a decision, the standing umpire should be allowed to review his own decision. That would allow for umpires to correct themselves rather than be corrected.

---

---