DRS in hot waters

DRS back under the scanner

Erratic decision making despite the use of Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) in Team India’s on-going tour of England and fatal error in the judgment from the HawkEye system in the recently concluded first Test match between Sri Lanka and Australia in Galle has reignited the debate on DRS which the ICC has been trying to diffuse even since the adoption of the system on trial basis.

The much debatable UDRS has come under limelight, all for wrong reasons, not once but thrice this season and the chief cricket governing body, ICC is considering evaluating the effectiveness and accuracy of the system with the available technology during its chief executive meeting in London in late September.

Though the ICC is yet to reveal the agenda of the meeting likely to take place on the sidelines of the ICC Awards in London on September 12, it is believed that with fatal mistakes surrounding the handling of DRS and questions being raised again on the consistency of the technology being implemented, DRS is very likely to be debated upon.

Questioning the reliability of the ball tracking technology as used in HawkEye under the DRS in the first Test match between Sri Lanka and Australia, senior Aussie umpire Simon Taufel has referred to Phil Hughes’ second innings leg before dismissal as a serious question mark. Taufel, along with the match officiating umpires Richard Kettleborough, Aleem Dar and Tony Hill have sent the footage of the relevant incident to the ICC’s cricket operations department, calling for appropriate reviews.

Joining hands, BCCI Chief Administrative Officer Prof. Ratnakar Shetty on Sunday voiced the board’s reservations against the errors by those handling the system.

Marais Erasmus adjudging Rahul Dravid caught behind in the rain-abandoned ODI against England at Chester-le-Street has not only brought the controversial DRS under scrutiny yet again, but has also given India, the only and the strongest detractor of the system, another lifeline to veto against its use.

Seeking answers from ICC, Shetty told Sunday Mid Day:

“What we (BCCI) want to know is what is ICC doing about goof-ups of umpires, third umpires? Are they being pulled up? It is important for ICC to answer these questions. Otherwise this will only continue. We feel the umpire must be given power instead of players reviewing decisions. As of now, ICC wants us to use DRS in the home series (against England and West Indies). However, Dravid’s shocking decisions on the England tour have only (reiterated) that DRS is not full-proof and need to be looked at again.”

Not only this, Indian skipper MS Dhoni too, in the post match press conference, openly questioned the DRS handling, referring to Dravid’s third unlucky dismissal on the tour.

DRS: Decision Review System or ‘Dravid Removal System’?

Rahul Dravid has been the unfortunate victim of the DRS thrice this tour, thus calling for mockery of the system as 'Dravid Removal System'

Luck and hard work has worked wonders for India’s ageing hero Rahul Dravid as he proved his critics wrong once again with consistent performances in the Caribbean tour, closely followed by the a successful individual stint in English conditions thus far. However, in the on-going series between England and India, the man-in-form Rahul Dravid has been thrice stumped by the technology used under DRS, or rather poor handling of the same.

While in the third of the four Test match series being played at Birmingham, the infamous shoelace incident did him in, the fourth match at The Oval saw a rather bizarre decision ruling him out without any clear evidence from HotSpot.

Batting on 18 in the second innings at Birmingham, Dravid was the only Indian hope to salvage pride and the match for India as well as help avoid England attaining an unassailable 3-0 lead in the series. However Dravid, unsure about edging a delivery as he himself admitted hearing a knick- ultimately traced by Snickometer to be produced as his shoelace struck the bat at about the same time as the ball went past the batsman- preferred not to opt for a review as the field umpire raised his finger in a split second.

In the following test match at The Oval, Dravid carried his bat through India’s first innings and went in straight to open the second innings as England enforced the follow-on on the visitors. Batting on 13, Dravid looked unsure as England reviewed a bat and pad appeal, turned down originally. To everybody’s surprise, after numerous replays and no certain evidence on HotSpot, third umpire Steve Davis overruled on-field umpire’s decision and stumped Dravid and audience alike.

These were however not the only occasions where the benefit of doubt should have been given to the batsman. Technology continued to trick Dravid as seen in the first of the five ODI series against England where, playing the comeback ODI since his last appearance in the 2009 edition of Champions Trophy in South Africa, Dravid was handed another controversial caught behind decision as England reviewed a not-out ruling, surprisingly reversed by third umpire Marais Erasmus despite no clear evidence from HotSpot.

What stunned the most was the fact that Snickometer, which eventually did provide some, albeit inconclusive evidence of an edge, is not an acceptable part of the DRS package being used in the current England-India series, and therefore the question remains that under what provisions of the law was Dravid given out? This incident again questions the credibility of the third umpire managing the DRS as Dhoni pointed out in the conference.

Unlucky Hughes

Equally baffling was Phil Hughes’ second innings dismissal in the recently concluded first Test match between Sri Lanka and Australia at Galle. While anybody would agree to the fact that an LBW dismissal is easily the most complicated ones in cricket, its combination with the DRS can prove rather fatal, as seen at Kandy. Hughes was originally adjudged out lbw in the second innings to Tillakaratne Dilshan and a confident batsman challenged the decision using DRS.

While the slow-motion replays suggested that the delivery, pitching on the mid-stump and turning away to miss the batsman’s off stump, would not have done any harm, the HawkEye replays played out in favor of the on-field umpire’s decision as the ball tracking technology confirmed the ball to straightaway strike the leg stump.

Hughes’ incident has again put question marks on the reliability, accuracy and consistency of the modern day technological aids introduced to the game for the sake of eliminating visible errors.

These instances in a very short gap has again put DRS in hot waters, with even former players-turned-commentators Ravi Shastri and Nasser Hussain nearly getting into a spat on LIVE television. On the other hand, senior umpires like Taufel have asked the ICC to test the authenticity of the available technologies like Hawk-Eye, HotSpot and Virtual Eye so as to achieve the ultimate aim of adopting this sophisticated technology- eliminating howlers.

While the ICC, on Sunday, admitted having detected “minute number of errors” in DRS by the world body monitoring the system, it would be interesting to observe what the ICC meeting finally reveals as it is likely to decide the fate of the use of this modern technology in the game of cricket.