Nine reasons why the Umpire Decision Review System is not as good as it thinks it is:
1. It goes against the Laws of Cricket. Part 5 of the Laws’ preamble clearly states: ‘it is against the Spirit of the Game to dispute an umpire’s decision by word, action or gesture.’ What is the T-sign if not a disputation of the umpire’s decision?
2. It has lessened the dramatic impact of the umpire’s upraised (or crooked) index finger. The signal every batsman dreads is now only an opportunity for further discussion. The celebration of the bowler and the joyous roar of the crowd must be tempered by the doubt that it may not be out after all. If Steve ‘Slow Death’ Bucknor were still around, he’d need a new nickname.
3. It has forced the batsmen to act as umpires. Surely they have enough to think about without checking to see if the bowler has overstepped or if the ball has pitched outside leg. Didn’t anyone else feel sorry for Umar Akmal when he got it in the neck during the first Test for not telling his partner Azhar Ali to refer an incorrect caught behind decision? Batsman aren’t umpires – they’re batsmen.
4. It’s not really trusted by the authorities. Either you use technology, or you don’t – there should be no half measures. Imagine a bowling side referring a LBW decision that they feel (unlike the umpire) would have hit the stumps. Now, even though HawkEye shows that the ball would have in fact hit the stumps, the umpire’s original decision can be upheld. Uh?
5. It can go wrong. The results are in from the investigation into the fourth Test of England’s tour to South Africa last winter, after which the England team lodged an official complaint about third umpire Daryl Harper’s decision-making. According to the ICC, ‘the enquiry concluded that it was most likely that the actual sound feed coming through to the third umpire's room was lost at the crucial time.’ Great.
6. It makes an already-slow overrate even slower. Things are admittedly better now that a time-limit of fifteen seconds has been imposed for a decision to be made on whether to ask for a review, but anything that makes play even slower cannot be good. Fifteen seconds + time for third umpire to watch the footage and come to a decision = less play for the spectator to watch.
7. It makes you feel sorry for the umpires. In this series, the officials have been brilliant, Tony Hill in particular, but no one’s perfect. I don’t blame them for wearing sunglasses most of the time – the pain in their eyes after HawkEye shows the ball to be hitting leg after all would be distressing to see. They look strong, but inside they must be hurting.
8. It makes no sense. If the umpire gives an LBW, and the batsman knows he’s snicked the ball, then there’s no problem – the decision is referred and the umpire is overruled. But what if the ball is shown to have pitched outside leg? How can the batsman possibly be more sure about where the ball pitched than the umpire?
9. It’s not the best way of getting most decisions correct. The best way can only be for the umpires to ask for the review, or for the man upstairs to communicate with his colleagues whenever he thinks necessary. Give the system over to the players and its use becomes a gimmick, a skill in itself. No one wants that, do they?
Interesting article and in general I agree but there have been some positive (or at the very least, interesting) side effects of UDRS. One that springs to mind is a reduction in SBS (Sulking Bowler Syndrome).
ReplyDeleteHow many times in the past have you seen bowlers have an LBW shout turned down and they look like they've just been told that their cat has been shot. This feeling that they've been hard done by leads to Warne-esque over appealing and intimidation.
When UDRS first came in the fielding side tended to refer LBW shouts on the insistence of the bowler, as every bowler feels that every LBW appeal is always out. These decisions usually remained not-out, the fielding side lost a referral and bowlers were forced to face the fact that the majority of their appeals were in fact not out all along.
Captains and bowlers very rarely refer not out LBW appeals and it has forced bowlers to show a bit of humility. Maybe a small thing in the grand scheme of things but good for the illusive 'spirit of cricket' none the less.
cricket was better without it, playing the umpire part of the game
ReplyDeleteI agree with both comments so far. There are undoubtedly some good things about the UDRS, such as
ReplyDelete1. More decisions are correct than before
2. As you say Richard, 'it has forced bowlers to show a bit of humility'
3. It's exciting seeing those replays on the big screen
4. er...
Cricket WAS better without it. I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying that 'playing the umpire' is part of the game, but you appeal and then it's up to the umpire to make the decision. As long as the umpire is not biased, then most of his decisions will be good, some will be bad, but it'll be the same for both teams.
And it gave us something extra to talk about when the game had finished.
i don't think cricket was any better. cricket in the motherland has always been more civil, but in the subconti, its always been fifteen appeals per delivery. so getting those to either put up a review, or STFU is good news.
ReplyDeletesecondly, it prevents incidents like sydney 08 or hobart 98 (Langer's caught behind v Pak) or countless others which still rankle. such decisions represent 0.001% of the total number of correct decisions umpires make, but they become huge controversies.
The UDRS in its current form has infinitely improved the game. Your points of objection are finicky to say the least. The most important thing is that the right decions are made, without it several wrong decisions, notably caught behinds would have been wrongly given, and the current series would have a totally - (and heres the key) - umpire mistake orientated shape. I rememeber watching a West Indies vs Australia test match a few yeras ago, three Windies batsman were given out incorrectly (2 lbw, 1 caught behind) in the space of three overs. The game was turned on its head and had nothing to do with the players.
ReplyDeleteIve not seen anything in this series to suggest that the spirit of the game has been any worse. In fact the players and umpires now understand it and seem to be happy using it. Everyone knows umpires have an impossible job, and that technology is needed for a higher degree of accuracy. The added responsibilty of using it also adds a greater degree of acumen needed to succeed as a test captain, 'maybe a skill in itself" - but so what! the skill is based around understanding the game of cricket! The drama (especially now they show the replays in the ground) adds to the spectacle. It also allows a greater insight into the players - for example it is amusing to note that the some what confident Stuart Broad would ask for a referral even if his middle stump was out the ground.
Fortunately, i think luddites like Will, (and Atherton and Agnew) are slowly acknowledging they are wrong. Long live the UDRS!
Thanks for the comment karachikhatmal. Surely though it won't necessarily prevent 'incidents like sydney 08 or hobart 98 (Langer's caught behind v Pak) or countless others which still rankle'. What happens if the teams have already used up their two reviews? The incorrect decisions would have to stand. In the first England Pakistan Test this summer, Azhar Ali was given out caught behind, he walked, but he was nowhere near hitting the ball!
ReplyDeleteTimothy - I am absolutely not saying that technology should not be used to improve decision-making. I actually think it has a vital role to play in the future of the game. My problem is with the implementation of this particular system. There's a really good piece by Kevin Mitchell on this very subject in the new Wisden Cricketer - you can read it here http://bit.ly/cACf44
ReplyDelete1) Amend it then. Who cares.
ReplyDelete2) Again, I don't really mind this, and I don't think the majority of cricket fans would care either, if it meant that they avoided suffering the misfortune of a blatantly incorrect decision. Just smacks of a case of people groping around to find something to complain about. And as already has been noted, it's exciting waiting for the evidence on the big screen.
3)Again, I really don't think Batsmen will mind that much if it gives them an opportunity to retain their wicket for longer...
4) Agreed. A particularly glaring inconsistency in the current rules is that if the umpire gives a batsman out, and hawkeye shows the ball to be missing by even a fraction of a millimeter, then the decision is overturned, but if he gives it not out and 2/3rds of the ball is shown to be smashing into leg stump then the decision stands. The rules should be adjusted so that if it's hitting it's out, if it's missing it's not. Not that I think such a system would ever be put in place.
5) It may still go wrong occasionally, but it's not the system's fault, it's just another case of human error which (hopefully) would occur significantly less frequently than those by the umpires on the field.
6)I'd need to do some research on this, but I can't imagine there'd be more than an average of 3 reviews a day, with an average of no more than 2 to 3 minutes per review. Given that sides have an extra half an hour daily to complete their overs, it's still their own fault if they fail to complete their full 90 on time.
7) I disagree about this. People are already scrutinising every decision that umpires make with a fine-toothed comb. The review system, by allowing mistakes to be corrected, is more likely to make people react less angrily to poor decisions. It's easier to forgive and forget if there aren't any lasting consequences to a mistake.
8)Batsmen are in just as good a position to adjudge the pitching of the ball as the umpire is - afterall, they're the ones who have to play the thing. In fact, given that in almost all cases they'll be considerably closer to the ball at the point of pitching, and that they should be well accustomed to knowing where their stumps are, one could argue that batsman are better placed to adjudge on the position of the ball than the umpires are.
9)Agreed, to a certain extent. Umpires should really have control over any decision making, but people will always shy away from this due to nostalgic reasons. However, letting players review comes with a couple of added bonuses as well. For instance, it can help to ensure an unbiased approach to decision making, thereby allowing umpires to adjudicate on home test matches. This would cut out a lot of the wear and tear that drives ageing but still proficient umpires (think Rudi) out of the game and may well affect the quality of their decision making in extreme cases (how well positioned would you be to make umpiring decisions, when you're still adjusting to the jet lag and time zone shift from travelling around the world?). This would also help relieve pressure on a system currently stretched to breaking point.
On the whole, the review system is far from perfect, but it's a definite step in the right direction. With time, and some tinkering I reckon it could really help to revolutionise test cricket for the better. And given the amount of moaning from fans and commentators about the absence of a review system in ODI's, I reckon if it was taken away now, then most would demand its return.
How is it far from Perfect? It is kore or less spot on right now. Point 9) is the most ridiculous of all the arguments made against the review system. What would leaving it in the hands of the umpires achieve? The primary objective of the system is to avoid instances of caught behind/lbw where the batsmen is given out despite clearly having missed/hit the ball. If the umpire is sure enough to have given them out in the first place, he will feel no need to review. The alternative would be constant reviews from umpires terrified to have their instinctive judgement proved wrong later on. Truly remarkable that people can't see that. Cricket has nailed this better than any other sport by far.
ReplyDeleteMy main problem with referrals relate to LBW decisions. I heard that Hawkeye was an estimation of how the ball would travel had it not hit the batsman. All of a sudden, it is the device used to reverse LBW decisions and so, is presumably considered to be 100% accurate. That is nonsense to me and there is no certainty that Hawkeye's prediction is exactly what would have happened,surely. Yet the commentators now regard Hawkeye as absolutely reliable by their comments on LBW decisions.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment Benedict. I agree with some of your points, disagree vehemently with others. I definitely think you skate over point 1 far too quickly - for me, this is the one that is most important. It's not just about getting decisions correct - it's also about the spirit of the game.
ReplyDelete