Cricket needs DRS but some changes required in the review system

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.