Cricket needs DRS but some changes required in the review system

DRS is a necessity

Had South Africa lost the first Test in the just concluded series, BCCI’s detractors would have come out in full force and would have slammed them for their refusal to use the Decision Review System.

Kallis was given out despite inside edging the ball on to his pad. Similarly, on the final day of the second Test Kohli was given out caught behind despite his bat not touching the ball. Both these decisions would have been turned over had the DRS been in place. That is the sole purpose of the DRS. It is supposed to remove the howlers which at times can change the entire outcome of the match.

The BCCI’s decision to not use DRS for the bilateral series involving India was welcomed with jeers from all quarters. But some controversial decisions over the last few months including the ones that marred the Ashes in England highlighted some of the issues surrounding the system.

India’s Trial with DRS

Of all the teams in International Cricket, India has been on the receiving end of the decisions involving DRS and most of them have been controversial. India was the first team to use DRS alongside Sri Lanka in the Test series in 2008 and immediately they decided not to use it in the future after some controversial decisions.

Mendis alongside the DRS tormented India in the 2008 Test series in Sri Lanka.

In 2011, the ICC made it mandatory for all teams to use the DRS and India had to start using it again during the disastrous English tour in 2011. Once again, there were questionable calls and at one point of time, DRS was referred to as ‘Dravid Removal System’ by the media since the Indian batsman was at the receiving end on most of the occasions. This prompted the Indian board to boycott DRS once again and till now it hasn’t been used in a bilateral series featuring Team India.

The BCCI has constantly maintained that the DRS is not 100% foolproof and would have the on field umpires make the mistakes rather than technology. Indian Captain MS Dhoni and Sachin Tendulkar have expressed their concerns regarding the system, but on the other hand, Rahul Dravid and Virender Sehwag had lent their support to the DRS.

Controversial Decisions

Dravid was already involved in some controversial decisions in the 2008 Test series in Sri Lanka and again during the 2011 Test series in England, but the biggest controversy was when he was given out in the first ODI of that English tour. He was given not out initially for a caught behind appeal which was challenged by the English players. Despite no mark being present on the hot spot, he was given out which caused a furore.

During India’s disastrous 2011 tour to England, the DRS was famously called the ‘Dravid Removal System’.

Jonathan Trott’s dismissal in the first Test of the Investec Ashes series made England seek clarity from the ICC. After been given not out for an lbw appeal, the decision was overturned by the third umpire despite Trott hitting the ball on to his pad. Apart from Trott, Kevin Pietersen and Usman Khawaja suffered due to dodgy DRS decisions in the series and the latest victim was Joe Root in the return Ashes in Australia.

LBW rule

If there is an area which needs some tweaking, it’s definitely the one concerning the LBW decisions. What’s tough to understand is how can there be two different decisions for the same delivery?

Scenario 1 – The ball hits the batsman in line and is given out by the umpire. The batsman reviews it and replays show that the ball is just clipping the stumps. Since it was originally given out, the decision stays as OUT.

Scenario 2 – Same as Scenario 1, but on this occasion the batsman is given not out and the fielding team asks for a review. The ball is just clipping the stumps and so the umpire’s call stands which means on this occasion the decision is NOT OUT.

Just consider these two scenarios and you will know that the delivery and the impact are the same, but still there are two different decisions which largely revolve around the umpire’s original decision.

Teams get confused with the uncertainty that prevails with the DRS when it comes to LBW decisions.

ICC needs to realize that teams can get frustrated because of this rule as the rub of the green may go anyway. That is why you need to take a stance on the benefit of the doubt that is given to the batsman. If the ball is just clipping the stumps, irrespective of what the umpire gave initially, when the decision is reviewed, it should either be OUT or NOT OUT.

Usage of Hot Spot and Real time Snicko

Hot spot in the past has been criticized for it’s failure to detect edges. But researchers are confident that the improved version is foolproof alongside Real time Snickometer. But the interesting thing here is, not all teams can afford this technology since it costs a lot.

So justice won’t be served if it’s used in one country but not in the other one. And here again, a line needs to be drawn regarding the benefit of the doubt that’s usually given to a batsman. We have seen instances where the batsman has been given out during the review despite not having any marks on the hot spot. These decisions are purely given on the basis of the noise that is generated when the ball passes the bat.

People talk about having enough evidence to overturn an on field umpire’s decision, but making the correct decision is more important than trying not too much to challenge an umpire’s original decision. That is supposed to be the purpose of the DRS, the reason technology is brought to the game is because people believe it can help in eradicating the wrong decisions.

Umpires and the number of reviews

Any discussion about DRS is incomplete if we don’t mention the role the two gentlemen play in the middle of the ground. Technology has obviously put more pressure on them to hand out the right decisions every time since they are scrutinized heavily for every wrong decision they make.

Always under scrutiny.

It’s understandable that the ICC doesn’t want their roles to be limited. That is probably one of the reasons why the ICC clearly states that there should be enough evidence in order to overturn an on field umpire’s call. But at the same time, you get a feeling that the umpires have put pressure on themselves by making some wrong decisions during the reviews.

Some of the decisions taken by the third umpires during the time of review have completely baffled the spectators and analysts. ICC’s former elite Umpire, Simon Taufel recently spoke about how tough it has become for the umpires these days with the inclusion of DRS as people criticize them easily after watching many replays that are available with the modern technology.

The other issue is the number of reviews per innings. The recent move to allot two reviews for the first 80 overs of an innings sounds good as opposed to the previous one. But it’s time the ICC starts looking at the number of reviews present in the 50 over format as well.

Teams get to use two reviews per every 80 overs in an innings from now on which is a good sign.

Having just one review per innings in a fast paced game which lasts for 50 overs doesn’t seem right. When a team uses an unsuccessful review within the first 5 overs then there are no more reviews for the next 45. Also this will prompt teams not to take the review even if they are confident with their appeal as the fear of losing a review in the early stages of an innings exists.

Having two reviews per innings in the 50 over format and one review per innings in the T20 format would be right thing to do.

Conclusion

The game needs DRS, but not in its current form. The one that’s present one has been helpful in eradicating howlers but at the same time has brought in new problems to deal with. It’s going to take some convincing for the BCCI to start using the DRS again.

Technology keeps evolving. Keeping that in mind alongside the affordability of all Test playing nations, the ICC needs to take a stance on the DRS which can be agreed by all parties.