UDRS: UMPIRE DECISION REVIEW SYSTEM

BCCI opposition for using the UDRS has created more controversy than the famous Sachin Tendulkar’s shoulder before wicket verdict at the Adelaide oval against Australia in 1999. At the time of the incident supporters and experts were livid that such as astonishing decision could have been given by umpire Daryl Harper. But had Hawk- Eye been around, it could well have suggested the ball had clipped the top of the stumps hence backing up umpire Harper’s decision.

This brings us to the debate of whether current UDRS is too technology-focused and ignores the human eye in cricketing judgement.  Decisions which should never have been given out the history of cricket are now being given out; i.e. Tendulkar’s wicket in Adelaide. What does this mean for the best umpires in the past era? Does Hawk-Eye suggest the likes of Dickie Bird or David Shepherd should have given more decisions in favour of the bowlers? What if a batsman is hit on the full around three meters outside the crease and the projected ball path shows it hitting middle stump. Can we give it out when such a decision should never be given. It’s a “Law of cricket” All these questions will remain ambiguous. One thing is for certain with the current application of UDRS:   it reduces the authority of an umpire on the field.

From a cricket perspective, UDRS is definitely beneficial, but the objective of UDRS is to assist umpires to make correct decisions. Over the years technology has assisted batsmen, bowlers, coaches etc and similarly UDRS is there for umpires use only.  Hence, it should only be at a request of the umpire that the technology should be used.

When the technology was first trialled in the 2002 Champions trophy in Sri Lanka, the principle of the trial was that only the umpires could review a decision. This allowed umpires to go on their own instinct and still have a respect for their own decision. Secondly, it meant, in theory, that each and every decision by an umpire could be reviewed, if doubted by the on field umpire himself. This method would eliminate any chance of the umpire making a “howler” of a decision.

The flaw in the current format of reviews used by the batsman and fielding captains is that it is still possible, once all reviews have been used, that an incorrect decision can still occur. The current format still exposes the umpires for incorrect decision and more importantly could still change the fortune of the match, as many believe.

During the World Cup only 12% of the umpiring decisions were overturned, reflecting that, on most occasions, umpires are making correct decisions. In the 12% of times, if the umpire was in doubt he needed further clarification.

Furthermore, ICC could also look into the trial by ensuring the Hawk- Eye technology will only be available to umpires only.  This means the projected path of the ball will not be seen by the television audience. It can be only used by umpires and not made available to the public. This will create less controversy as the public cannot openly criticise umpires. The public should gain confidence that the decision was based upon the use of technology and the expertise of an umpire. Although this option is extreme it could well be needed so umpires attain the respect they deserve.

Now to those who believe current UDRS is efficient, let me point out that current UDRS technology is not up to the task and it too has flaws, similar to the human eye. To ensure UDRS is a complete package it is essential all components of the technology need to be imbedded into UDRS. It makes no sense to have LBW covered by the Hawk-Eye projector while Hotspot and Snicko cannot be used.  It is imperative that Hotspot and Snicko are imbedded into the UDRS if it is to provide the accuracy required to make a correct verdict. 

It should be known to the public that, even with the current growing technology, the speed that a ball is delivered cannot be captured in each frame. In Tendulkar’s decision in the World Cup semi final against Pakistan the impact of the ball on the pad is projected and not the actual impact. Experts may argue it may be marginally off, but this could well make the difference if the ball is clipping the stumps. With Hotspot, the impact spot can be clearly identified, hence eliminating any error. This is why even the most complete batsman of our era is not against UDRS but he wants all the components added into it.

Current concerns with UDRS were exposed during at least two decisions during the World Cup both involving the UDRS antagonist Team India. Tendulkar’s non-dismissal in the semi-final reflects the inaccuracy and more importantly makes mockery of a good decision. Cast your mind back to the same ground with the same player against Australia twelve months ago, Tendulkar was rightly given out against Marcus North but later replays reveal the ball missing the leg. There was no way even the most patriotic supporter would have given Sachin “not out” for either ball.

Letting a batsman decide his own fate in the game of cricket makes further mockery of an umpire. Even if the umpire is in doubt, let the umpire decide for himself if he needs to review it. It should not come to the batsman to ask the umpire to correct his decision when the batsman is the one who has made the initial mistake.

At the end of the day the umpire’s decision, on or off the field, will always remain, so the players and public should rightfully respect it. 

From a supporter’s point of view, an incorrect decision could well change the fortune of a match but so can a missed opportunity. In the current age, even with technological assistance there are bound to be blunders. But isn’t sport about controversies, as well? One tends to forget that the controversies can be the start of conversations about individual players, teams and sports.

After all, cricket is supposed to be gentleman’s game and if this reputation is to continue then cricketers need to believe that the decision made by umpire and 3^rd umpire is correct. Take the decision on the chin and play the game like a gentleman.