UDRS - Unnecessary, Dodgy and Regressive Scenario!

Another ICC meet (Chief Executives Committee (CEC)) has backed the mandatory usage of UDRS in all matches. This topic has been debated and discussed often, yet it hasn’t reached a point of convergence. The problem is not with the change but with the resolve to accept it. The BCCI’s reluctance toward its usage is doing no good to the betterment of the game. The most powerful board in the world should be leading the way rather than resisting change. It appears that the board conveniently chooses to listen to the players’ views whenever it comes to technical calls; firstly on the WADA issue and now the UDRS issue, while having its way otherwise. MS Dhoni was deeply miffed with the way Ian Bell was let off during a World Cup match after referring it to the TV umpire, but a couple of weeks later, Sachin Tendulkar was saved by the UDRS after he was adjudged out by the on-field umpire. The sensible question that should have been asked from the cited examples should be on the implementation of technology (rules) rather than pressing for it to be ousted from the UDRS completely.

The approach of the BCCI, which these days is the deciding factor for any decision by the ICC, is taking the game one step behind. Call it pressure or bulldozing but the ICC has allowed BCCI to have its way in taking the Hawk-eye or the Virtual-eye out of the mandatory UDRS. The reasoning for BCCIs reluctance to Hawk/Virtual-eye appears absurd viz. it is not 100% accurate. A simple counter argument to this hypothesis would be the accuracy of the run-out decisions that are inferred with the aid of the square cameras. The benefit of the doubt is always given to the batsman, as the cricketing laws suggest that a batsman should be adjudged out only if the umpire feels he should be out rather than could be out, but yet we have the 3rd umpire call on run-out/stumping decisions without much controversy.

Questions have been asked about the integrity of the people operating the predicting tool, and also regarding security and possible adulteration, which are not invalid. But we have to move forward trying to overcome these doubts, rather than waiting to implement it by repetitively questioning its accuracy. Another reason for the reluctance to the use of the ball tracking technique has been about its predicted ball path after it strikes the pad, which is a scientifically calculated path. To be honest with ourselves, even the umpires calculates/predicts the line the bowl will follow after striking and adjudges the batsman to be out only if they feels the ball might go on to hit the stumps.

Umpires in the elite panel have endorsed the assistance of technology to improve the percentages of correct decisions. The flip-side could be depletion in the quality of umpiring. Traditionally, umpires have been an integral part of the game, an entity which adds to the flavor of the game. The fear about the growing usage of technology is that 15-20 years down the line, we might end up with cricket without umpires, only technology to adjudge decisions. Technology was brought into the game to reduce errors by umpires, and hence technology should be used to overcome the limitations of umpires.

There is always room for improvement and same is the case with the ball tracking technology. The BCCI has suggested indirectly that the boards endorsing the Hawk-eye or the Virtual-eye have vested interests in those private companies. If the BCCI feels so, why can’t it appoint its own team to develop or research a similar or even different but better technology to compete with the existing methods? Even the ICC could think on similar lines. Another issue with the usage of technology is the rules/laws associated with it. By allowing only 2 unsuccessful reviews, all the eleven in your side won’t have the chance to review their dismissal. The controversial 2.5 metre rule could be revisited, and umpires could become a little more flexible with their interpretation of the evidence, keeping their egos aside. UDRS is a method to reduce incorrect decisions but teams have thus far used it as a tool to question what they feel are ‘iffy’ decisions, and hence very few challenges/reviews have been found to be correct. The players too need to understand the nuances of using UDRS rather than hyping it more than what is needed. Technology is the way forward, but to avoid controversies, every entity of the game should accept it flexibly and the shortcomings of the system should be removed in due course. Endorsing technology in no way implies disrespect for the umpires; the umpiring institution is, and should remain the highest authority on the cricket field.