UDRS - An umpire's best friend

When the ICC introduced the ‘Umpire Decision Review System’, the cricketing body not only achieved a milestone in the game but also gave the umpire a new found friend, contrary to popular belief.

The UDRS was first introduced in the year 2008 (Sri Lanka vs India series), the teams were given three opportunities each in each of the innings where they could request (popularly known word used is ‘Challenge’) the third umpire to review the original decision made in the middle by the on-field umpire. The TV umpire then looks into the replays, uses technology and his points in the checklist to reach a final decision which either overturns the on-field umpire’s original decision or upholds the original decision. Since its introduction, the number of challenges has now been reduced to two per innings instead of three. Also, new technologies are being introduced, such as ‘HotSpot’, to help the concerned umpire reach the perfect (or near perfect) decision.

There are critics who vehemently put forward their arguments against the UDRS citing it as an insult to the umpires, who are considered as the supreme power on the field, and that their decision should be final. Challenging their power in the game makes it a disgrace to the sport, as it is a challenge to the very authority of the man who controls the proceedings in the middle.

While it is true that an umpire is the most important man on the field and it certainly should remain that way, what people miss in the fight against DRS is that the final decision in cases of challenges is still taken by an umpire only. The requests (or ‘challenges’) by a team would be reviewed by another umpire and the technology, however inconclusive it may be at times, helps him arrive at the best decision, which is very much in the interest of the game.

That umpires feel embarrassed on seeing their decisions being overturned (which are, at the moment, too few and far in between) is a wrong notion to subscribe to, for the man in the middle is being put to run the game in a smooth and judicious and that is exactly what the technology does by providing him with the additional assistance. Umpires should in fact be relieved at the prospect that UDRS would help them most of the time if they make a mistake, which otherwise could be a decisive factor in determining the outcome of a game, thus preventing a public crucifixion in the media if something goes bad.

So what the UDRS does is give breathing space to umpires, whose decision-making is not without a margin for error for they are humans, without having much impact on the game being played. Also the system gives them the liberty to loosen up a bit and the much needed confidence to take decisions instinctively, knowing fully well that if they go wrong, the DRS will come to their rescue, as opposed to the old times when there was great pressure on umpires to be absolutely sure of every decision they took, thus leaving no margin for error.

On 30^th March 2011 when India beat Pakistan in the WC semi-final, I am sure that the person who was happier than the 121 million Indians was the on-field umpire, Ian Gould. Gould had adjudged Sachin LBW and when the maestro requested for a review, the decision was overturned, much to the relief of the fans (and the umpire alike, if not more). Had there been no UDRS in place, or worse had India gone on to lose that match, I cannot imagine what Gould’s situation would have been.

I am sure that fireballs would have been thrown at him by fanatical Indian fans, the media would have vilified him as a villain and everyone, ranging from Kapil Dev to a paan-wala, would have crucified him publicly. Who knows, even effigies might have been burnt and the umpire would have been stripped of his position from the elite panel, but I might be exaggerating. What would have surely happened was that a great debate would have exploded, calling upon the ICC to address the issue of such erroneous decisions hampering the fate of a nation in a tournament as major as the World Cup. Fortunately, the DRS was on hand to prevent all this drama that night, as Sachin went on to play a match winning innings after his appeal turned successful, and the rest we know is history, for Indian went on to win the final.

What is perplexing and ironical however is how, despite this major incident that proved the DRS is a boon, the BCCI is hell-bent upon scrapping the review system and has consistently opposed it. At the end of the day, we must realise that the umpires are also human beings and they too are entitled to commit some mistakes. This is where the concept of UDRS is useful and effective, thus making it a boon to cricket.

Some critics doubt the technology being used as it is not 100% conclusive always. The inability to detect an outside edge on two occasions, one each involving VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid in the recently concluded series against England, accelerated the debate further. No doubt the technology is not perfect, but it sure has helped the rate of inaccurate decision-making come down greatly, which is a progressive sign in itself. There will always be such instances, but they would be very few and far in between.

The one thing that the ICC should do in such cases is to standardise the decision-making process. In the event of such disparities, the original decision should be upheld and no room for any discrepancy be left. In the aforementioned two cases, the original decision was upheld in the Laxman incident while in the other incident, the decision was overturned. So a standardised practice would let the debate die down, although very slowly.

Despite its perceived negatives, the UDRS has come as a breath of fresh air for umpires, and no matter how many debates erupt due to it (the Nasser Hussain – Ravi Shastri debate takes the cake here), one thing is certain; the UDRS is here to stay! Do I see umpires already smiling reading this? Probably yes!

Edited by Zico