LBW rule with UDRS

The UDRS has been subject to so much controversy ever since it has been adopted. You want technology to help you minimize human error, but time and time again, be it technology or the rules framed to derive the decisions; there has been lack of consistency which has cost teams dearly. Two incidents from the England vs West Indies series clearly show that the rule governing the referral of LBW decisions is far from being perfect.

Jonathan Trott, early in his innings should have been ruled LBW to Darren Sammy. The umpire, Aleem Dar ruled him not out. When it was referred, the onfield umpires’ decision stood as Hawk Eye ruled that less than half the ball was deemed to be hitting leg stump. Trott nicked the ball to the keeper the next over, but no one including the umpire picked it up. West Indies had only one referral left which they decided not to use. Trott went on to score a 50 which may well be the difference in the final analysis.

West Indies was on the receiving end again when Shiv Chanderpaul, after a dogged innings of 91 was given out LBW. It was reviewed by Chanderpaul. The ball was clipping leg stump and the on field umpire’s decision was upheld. It was a potential match saving if not match winning innings and Chandepaul’s dismissal meant that the West Indies innings couldn’t reach a position where they could set a target of 250 plus for England to chase in the 4th innings.

One can blame the umpire for giving Trott not out and Chanderpaul out, but the bigger problem is in the rule itself. The logic behind adopting this rule wherein the on field umpire’s decision is not overruled if less than half the ball is hitting the stumps, is that Hawk Eye is not a foolproof ball tracking software. It just gives an indication of where the ball is heading. It sounds fair enough that it has been adopted to rule out blatant umpiring errors wherein an inside edge is missed or situations when the ball is hitting middle and the umpire thinks otherwise or conversely when the ball is missing the stumps by a mile and umpire rules the batsman out. But having good quality international umpires has meant that there have been few shockers. The marginal decisions are the ones which, due to lack of consistency in the rule framework is costing teams dearly.

Some amendments that the ICC can consider are:-

1) Have a uniform rule that is not dependent on the umpire’s decision. If, according to Hawk Eye, less than half the ball is clipping the stumps, rule the batsman Not out (or out) no matter what the umpire’s decision is.

2) If the on field umpire’s decision stands and the umpire has made a mistake, then the reviewing team should not be deprived of a review. In the case of West Indies, had they had the review in hand, they would have used it to review the ball that Trott nicked in Sammy’s next over.

The improved versions of Hawk Eye and Hot Spot should be leveraged if ICC wishes to go the technology way. Sitting on the fence, building complex rules around loopholes in technology is not helping them deliver decisions that are consistent.