Decision Review System
The Decision Review System (DRS), formerly known as the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS), is a technology-based system used in cricket to assist the match officials in their decision-making. On-field umpires may choose to consult with the third umpire (known as an Umpire Review), and players may request that the third umpire consider a decision of the on-field umpires (known as a Player Review).
The main elements that have been used are television replays, technology that tracks the path of the ball and predicts what it would have done, microphones to detect small sounds made as the ball hits the bat or pad, and infrared imaging to detect temperature changes as the ball hits the bat or pad.
History
DRS was preceded by a system to allow on-field umpires to refer some decisions to the third umpire to be decided using TV replays, in place since November 1992. DRS, which was adopted by the game of cricket, has also seen several other sports, such as high-profile International Soccer, Tennis, etc., incorporating this idea of Player Referral and goal-line technology into the game.
Components
The components of DRS are:
Video replays, including slow motion.
Hawk-Eye, or Virtual Eye (also known as Eagle Eye): ball-tracking technology that plots the trajectory of a bowling delivery that has been interrupted by the batter, often by the pad, and can predict whether it would have hit the stumps.
Real Time Snicko (RTS) or Ultra-Edge (Hawk-Eye Innovations): directional microphones to detect small sounds made as the ball hits the bat or pad. The use of the original Snickometer was superseded by Real Time Snicko in 2013. RTS is calibrated each morning without needing manual syncing during play. The third umpire interprets RTS/Ultra-Edge data by checking if an audio spike occurs on the frame before, on the frame, or on the frame after the ball passes the bat.
Hot Spot: Infra-red imaging system that shows where the ball has been in contact with the bat or pad. Improved cameras were introduced for the 2012 season. The system came under fire after the 2013 Ashes in England. It was claimed that using silicone tape prevented faint edges from being picked by Hot Spot, which was later confirmed by an MIT report.
System
Player reviews
A fielding team may use the system to dispute a "not out" decision, and a batting team may use it to dispute an "out" decision. The fielding team captain or the batter being dismissed invokes the challenge by signalling a "T" with the arms or arm and bat. A challenge is only used in situations that did or could result in a dismissal: for example, to determine if the ball is a legal catch (making contact with the batter's bat or glove and not touching the ground before being held by a fielder), or if a delivery made the criteria for an LBW dismissal.
Once the challenge is invoked, acknowledged, and agreed, the Third Umpire reviews the play.
Each team can initiate referrals until it reaches the limit of unsuccessful reviews. This limit is three unsuccessful review requests per innings during a Test match, and two unsuccessful review requests per innings during a One Day International or T20I (this limit was temporarily raised to three per innings for tests and two for one-day matches from July 2020 as a COVID-19-related rule change but has since become permanent). From 2013 until September 2017, the number of reviews available for a team in a Test innings was topped up to two after 80 overs. From October 2017, if the on-field decision remains unchanged because the DRS shows "umpire's call", the team will not lose its review.
Umpire reviews
In many cases, the event occurs in a fraction of a second. At their discretion, on-field umpires may request the Third Umpire review the following dismissal decisions:
Run out.
If the on-field umpires are unable to decide if the batsman is out, they may request the third umpire to ascertain whether the batsman has made it home. Also, the case where both batsmen have run to the same end and the on-field umpires are uncertain over which batsman made his ground first. An example of this was the Third Test between New Zealand and the West Indies in 2006.
Caught and Obstructing the field if both umpires are unsure.
In some cases, the fielder may catch the ball a few inches above ground level. If the umpire's vision is obscured or he is unsure if the ball bounced before the fielder caught the ball, he can refer the decision. The third umpire also checks whether the delivery was a no-ball and whether the batsman hit the ball.
Whether the delivery caused any dismissal was a no-ball.
Note that the on-field umpires may not request the Third Umpire review an LBW decision (apart from whether the delivery was a no-ball).
The on-field umpires may also request the Third Umpire to review the following:
Boundary calls (to see if a batter hit a four or a six).
In some cases, the ball may bounce just a foot inside the boundary rope, resulting in four runs. If the umpire needs to ascertain if it was a 4 or a 6, he may consult the third umpire. Near the boundary, often a fielder may dive to save the ball from travelling beyond the boundary. If the fielder makes any simultaneous contact with the boundary and the cricket ball, 4 runs are declared. A third umpire may also be consulted in such a case.
Whether the ball has hit cameras on or over the field of play.
Umpire Reviews are also available to the on-field umpires when there is a Third umpire but the full UDRS is not in use. In this case, the Third umpire uses television replays (only) to come to a decision, and not the additional technology such as ball-tracking.
Umpire's call
As DRS is designed to allow for clear errors to be corrected, the umpire's call is utilised in situations where there are doubts in the accuracy of the technology, or the decision is not a clear error. This is utilised when determining LBW.
When determining LBW, the umpire must be sure of multiple factors. Where the ball "pitches" or lands on the pitch, where the ball impacts the player, if the player has hit the ball with their bat before it impacts the player, as well as if the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. This is usually split into three sections. "Pitching", "Impact", and "Wickets".
Umpire's call is not utilised for where the ball pitches, or if the player has hit the ball first.
For a decision to be umpire's call, the ball must either be judged to impact the player with less than 50% of the ball in line with the stumps, or less than 50% of the ball must be judged to be hitting the stumps, either horizontally or vertically.
In addition, due to issues with the technology available, any impact with the player 300 cm or more from the stumps, or less than 40 cm between the ball pitching and the impact on the player, is also judged to be an umpire's call.
If either impact or wickets is judged an umpire's call. The original umpire's decision is upheld, and the reviewing team retains their review.
The implementation of Umpire's Call has been noted in other sports, whereby similar issues have arisen in the case of highly-marginal decisions (i.e., not a "clear mistake) which are perceived to be unfairly decided by forensic and technical means.
On April 4, 2021, in the International Cricket Council committee meeting led by Anil Kumble, the height margin of the Wicket Zone was lifted to the top of the stumps to ensure the same Umpire's Call margin around the stumps for both height and width.
Final decision
The third umpire then looks at various TV replays from different angles, comes to a conclusion, and then reports to the on-field umpire whether their analysis supports the original call, contradicts the call, or is inconclusive. The on-field umpire then makes the final decision: either re-signalling a call that is standing or revoking a call that is being reversed and then making the corrected signal. Only clearly incorrect decisions are reversed; if the Third Umpire's analysis is within established margins of error or is otherwise inconclusive, the on-field umpire's original call stands.
Officiating replay system
In 2013, ICC tested a broadcaster-free replay system. Under the experiment, a non-match umpire sits in a separate room with a giant monitor and has discretion over which replays to see rather than relying on the broadcaster. The non-match umpire mirrors the role of the third umpire without having the duty of making adjudications. The system was first used in an Ashes Test (where Nigel Llong performed the duties of non-match umpire) and was repeated in a Pakistan-Sri Lanka ODI.
After The Ashes in 2013, the ICC started to take steps to give the third umpire access to instant replays. This is regardless of calls being referred to by on-field umpires. By doing so, ICC wants to make sure that any obvious mistakes are avoided in the future.
Reception
The Decision Review System has generally received a positive response from players and coaches since its launch. Because of its positive response, the ICC has attempted to apply uniform application of DRS in all cricket games around the world, but this has been difficult for some countries to implement. Some countries, especially the poorer ones, are unable to afford the technology and choose to use parts of it or not use it at all. The technology is often used by broadcasters to bring an even more vivid analysis of specific plays and games. It was designed to eradicate the errors of umpires, and it has done so in many games.
However, there have been some negative responses to the DRS technology as well. West Indies legend Joel Garner labelled the system a "gimmick". Another West Indian, Ramnaresh Sarwan, said that he was not a supporter of the experimental referral system. Former umpire Dickie Bird also criticised the system, saying it undermines the authority of on-field umpires. The BCCI has expressed a skeptical view on the adoption of the system if it is near perfect. Pakistani spinner Saeed Ajmal expressed dissatisfaction over the Decision Review System after a semi-final of the 2011 Cricket World Cup against India. He said that DRS showed the line of the ball deviating more than it actually did. Hawk-Eye officials admitted in December 2014 that their review technology made an error in a decision to give Pakistan opener Shan Masood out in the second Test against New Zealand in Dubai (17-21 November 2014). At a meeting held at the ICC office in Dubai two weeks later, Hawk-Eye is understood to have conceded to Pakistan captain Misbah-ul-Haq and team manager Moin Khan that the projection used by their technology for the Leg before wicket decision was incorrect. Also, a challenge can only be made by the captain within a 15-second window from when an initial decision is made, but it can be lengthened if no clear decision is made, especially if they are assumed not out if there is no reaction by the umpire.
During the 2012/2013 domestic season, Cricket Australia trialed a review system in the domestic one-day competition where the third umpire could intervene and review any out or not out decision. The review system was unpopular among players and critics, with the Australian International Twenty20 captain George Bailey calling the system "shocking and embarrassing". The review system was dropped by Cricket Australia after only two rounds of the competition.
During an ODI between Australia and South Africa in June 2016, Hawk-Eye's accuracy came under criticism after AB de Villiers was dismissed clean bowled by Josh Hazlewood, but the subsequent Hawk-Eye trajectory prediction of the same delivery showed that the ball would go over the stumps.
DRS: Necessary Evil or a Technological Overdrive?
Opinion has always been divided on the use of technology in sports, as the Puritans have been found frowning upon even the slightest change in the game they hold so dearly.
Gradually, the DRS has become a part of the modern game but the system comes with its loopholes. Impact outside the three-meter mark and umpire’s call continue to polarise views.
There were a couple of game-changing erroneous decisions under the DRS system in the last year’s Asia Cup. Steve Smith’s controversial dismissal in the Bangladesh Premier League also made headlines.
The DRS has turned tactical
The DRS was introduced to overturn the ‘howler’, as they say. It was there to take care of a decision which has gone utterly wrong and needs to be rectified in order to uphold fair play. However, with time, teams have reduced it to a tactical instrument.
For instance, if someone like a Virat Kohli or a Joe Root has been given out and if these top batsmen see even a little chance of it going their way or being the umpire’s call, they don’t think twice before making the ‘T’ gesture to the umpire.
Similarly, bowlers do not shy away from taking their chances against the best opposition batsmen. Even if they see half a chance of getting the prized wicket, they are in the ears of their captain to go for it.
Especially, as there is only one review/innings per team in the ODIs, it becomes all the more valuable. If one of your top batsmen has eaten up a review, the others are left on their own. It is inevitable that a human error (from the umpire) would occur later in the game.
Like in the first ODI between Australia and India at Sydney, reviews of both teams were used up by the fifth over of the second innings. Hence, in 45 overs out of the total 100, there was no review to be had. That’s almost half the match! Then, what is the point of having access to technology and still not being able to maximize it for the greater good of the game?
Get rid of the umpire’s call
It is the umpire’s call that has left some amused and many amazed over the years. The fundamental issue is that either you don’t bring in technology in the game or if you do, then let it have its complete say.
When the ball hits the wicket, the bails come off, no matter if it just brushes the outside part of the stumps. Just because an umpire, no matter how revered he or she is, has ruled a certain way, it should not have any bearing on the result. If it hits, it's out; if it misses, it’s not out – as simple as it gets. Umpire’s call is what we have made up to give the impression of upholding the sanctity of umpires, an old institution of the game, you see.
Make the 3rd umpire more powerful
If the end goal is to have the right decision made, a school of thought is also to entrust the DRS completely with the umpires. If, after a particular decision, the on-field umpires think that the decision can be touch and go and that the use of technology is warranted, they can send it upstairs.
The 3rd umpire can also take suo moto cognizance of a decision as he has all the technical tools at his disposal. He can use the slow motion, hotspot, ultra-edge, ball tracker, and all other available technologies and inform the on-field umpires of any blip. This way, the sanctity of the umpires will be maintained and the risk of umpires souring their equation with players would also be avoided.
The bottom line
Like it or not, technology will continue to increasingly become a part of cricket, all sports, and every walk of life, for that matter. Flashing stumps and LED bails started as an experiment in the Big Bash League, and it did not take the entire world much time to embrace it. The Drone Cam has also become a part of the short format of the game, despite there being repeated instances of either a catch or a boundary being missed because of it. Umpire GoPro cameras have also been introduced in various domestic T20 leagues across the world.
Perhaps, for the DRS as well, this is just a phase of evolution that will lead to a more bankable and trustworthy review system in the future.
DRS is accepted by all cricketing nations. Its present form seems closest to fulfilling its purpose to eliminate questionable decisions. There are more slip-ups in players opting for the review now instead of the actual umpiring decisions, which are corrected through this system. The DRS is spreading its wings. Once rejected by BCCI, it's now a part of their premier T20 competition - the IPL. Also, ICC is planning to delegate the duty of calling front-foot no-balls to the TV umpire.
It is a win-win situation for both sides while releasing the pressure from the umpires. Let’s face it, they are also humans. They can have bad days, like a batsman getting out for a duck, a bowler missing his yorker, or a fielder dropping a sitter. The onus is on the respective sides to value the reviews as a resource and use them in the best way possible.
Cricket umpiring technology has evolved significantly over the years, transforming the game into a more precise and fair sport.
Here's a look at its evolution:
Early Days (Pre-2000s): Umpiring decisions were entirely based on human judgment, often leading to controversial calls.
Introduction of Hawk-Eye (2001): This ball-tracking system revolutionized LBW decisions by predicting the ball's trajectory.
Decision Review System (DRS) (2008): Allowed players to challenge umpiring decisions using Hawk-Eye, UltraEdge, and Hot Spot.
UltraEdge & Snickometer: Enhanced edge detection using sound waves, improving caught-behind decisions.
LED Stumps & AI-Assisted Decisions (2020s): Smart stumps and AI-driven analysis have made run-out and stumping decisions more accurate.
These advancements have significantly reduced human error and made cricket more transparent.
No comments:
Post a Comment