Technology has illuminated cricket for billions
India just won’t have our next object, no matter how hard the International Cricket Council or anyone else tries to persuade them to accept the Decision Review System (DRS). As we saw with object eighty-five, technology has illuminated cricket for billions of people with its Snickometer, Hotspot and Hawk-Eye. The culmination of all this innovation was the DRS, officially introduced into international cricket in November 2009 for the first Test between New Zealand and Pakistan in Dunedin.
The ICC had decided to embrace the technology in the belief it was better to do so than continue to allow broadcasters to replay umpiring decisions that undermined their authority by showing up their errors. ‘With the improvement of technology, umpires’ mistakes are exposed and scrutinised like never before,’ said Dave Richardson, the ICC general manager, in unveiling the DRS. ‘This system will help alleviate the problems created when mistakes, which appear obvious on replays, are made.’
The ICC had been thorough in creating a system that harnessed all of the technological resources available while minimising the time spent confirming decisions. ‘The system allows television technology to be used in a way that will not result in too many delays, will not de-skill the umpires and will take some pressure off the umpires,’ explained Richardson. ‘The fact is that trials showed that the system improved player behaviour and led to a significant reduction in the number of umpiring errors.’
Under the DRS each team is allowed two unsuccessful reviews per innings with the fielding side calling on the system to dispute a ‘not-out’ call and the batting side referring a dismissal to the third umpire if they believe the batsman was not out. Captains have fifteen seconds in which to decide whether to ask for a review. If they do the on-field umpire asks the third umpire to study a replay of the incident, using Hotspot, the Snickometer and Hawk-Eye, to judge whether the original decision was correct.
Like so much in cricket, DRS soon divided opinion in the cricket world. Aleem Dar, the ICC’s Umpire of the Year in 2009, was an enthusiastic backer, saying: ‘I support the introduction of this system… It’s a tough job out there nowadays, and the review system is helpful for the umpires.’
Technology has illuminated cricket for billions
Some batsmen soon came to loathe the DRS, none more so than England’s Kevin Pietersen. During England’s disastrous series against Pakistan in 2012 in the United Arab Emirates he managed just 67 runs in the three Test series and was given out lbw on three occasions. Each time the decision was referred to the DRS and twice he was given out when the ball-tracking technology showed the ball would just have clipped the stumps. ‘Because of the new DRS, there are definitely technical issues you have to look at in order to save yourself,’ explained Pietersen. ‘Batters are not getting the benefit of the doubt any more. Umpires are giving a lot more lbws. It just has to be clipping and you’re out. Two, three, four years ago you were never, ever out. I have had to change my game.’
Pietersen’s comments prompted cricket writer and broadcaster Simon Hughes to examine whether the DRS did favour bowlers, left-arm spinners in particular, who had become Pietersen’s bogeymen under the new review system. In an article in the Daily Telegraph in March 2012, Hughes’s findings did indeed back up the England batsman’s claims. In the three Test series between England and Pakistan, forty-three batsmen were given out lbw, representing 42 per cent of the total dismissals for the series. That, said Hughes, was about twice what it usually is in Test cricket.
Why was this? He didn’t believe it had anything to do with the quality (good or bad) of the bowling or batting. His conclusion was that umpires were becoming ‘trigger-happy’. He explained: ‘The introduction of Hawk-Eye to help adjudicate lbws has enabled, even persuaded umpires to give batsmen out when the ball was predicted to barely graze the top or outside of the stumps.’
Left-arm spinners had become Pietersen’s bogeymen under the DRS
Hughes said that because of Hawk-Eye the wicket had become higher and wider in the perception of umpires, increasing the bowler’s potential target area by an astonishing 70%. Good news for bowlers, bad news for batsmen. Of course, Hughes, a former bowler himself, didn’t have much sympathy for batsmen. In the days before the DRS the batsman got the benefit of the doubt; the bowler got annoyed at what he saw as legitimate lbw appeals turned down by umpires.
So while batsmen like Pietersen work on changing their technique, playing straighter and keeping their legs out of harm’s way, the debate over the DRS continues.
Nearly four years after the DRS was first introduced into international cricket it has not been universally applied, much to the chagrin of the ICC. They claim that tests carried out by Dr Ed Rosten in 2012 to test the accuracy and reliability of ball-tracking in Test matches had ‘concluded that the results were 100% in agreement with the outcomes produced from his assessments’.
But India didn’t care about the accuracy of the tests. ‘The BCCI continues to believe that the system is not foolproof,’ explained Sanjay Jagdale, the secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. ‘The board also sticks to its view that the decision on whether or not to use the DRS for a particular series should be left to the boards involved in that series.’
The Indians’ decision came back to haunt them a few months later when they played a series against England. On one day alone the umpires made six wrong calls, all of which could have been righted if the DRS had been available. At one point India captain M.S. Dhoni admonished one of the officials with an angry wag of the finger after another lbw appeal had been (incorrectly) turned down. He didn’t get much sympathy from the English. ‘There’s technology that can help in making split-second decisions so why wouldn’t you use it?’ asked wicketkeeper Matt Prior. ‘We’ve seen it in a number of series now where it’s worked very well. It’s not about trying to sneak wickets using technology. It’s about eradicating major errors that can happen.’