Reviews - improving or just causing controversy?

[Owzat]

There's been plenty of reflection on the review system, not least because the aussies don't seem happy with it and mistakes are STILL going uncorrected.

We had the near farcical situation of three aussies out, two reviewed and shouldn't have, while the one that should didn't. So what is the fundamental flaw in this system which should have just reassured everyone about decisions?


Firstly the decision to give two reviews per side per innings made the system "tactical". The temptation is great when a call is "close", but then you have the double edged sword of deciding not to review to preserve your reviews, or reviewing and risk losing one. If umpires can't get the call right, what chance the batsman or fielding side. England have refined their procedure for when and when not to use reviews, but still it is fundamentally flawed.

This leads to sides running out of reviews and still mistakes are then made. There is a little inconsistency in application, the umpires review run outs, stumpings, clean catches and every wicket is checked to see if it was a no ball without costing anyone a review.

Then there is the 'umpire factor' in conjuction with the way the system is applied. Whether an umpire gives a decision out or not out can be pivotal. As the hawkeye for LBWs too often gives "umpire's call" it means that is pivotal. Had a batsman been given not out then "umpire's call" stops the bowlers getting the decision and vice versa if given out and the batsman reviews it.

Isn't the point of technology to accurately decide where the ball was going? If hawkeye cannot or is made not to give a decision as to whether the ball pitched in line, hit outside off stump and was hitting or missing then frankly it shouldn't be used. Either it knows or doesn't, can tell or can't. This "umpire's call" nonsense is a smokescreen, a way of backing the umpire. I can full understand why the aussies are annoyed.

So on to the catches, these seem to now be decided by sound and spots of heat, even though some doubts are expressed by those involved with it as to its reliability. Apparently where hawkeye doesn't always make a call on hitting stumps, pitching in line etc, snick-o-meter and hotspot are given full credence in decisions, leaving batsmen fuming.

What happened to slow motion replays? We seem to have everything but, as if the naked eye wouldn't detect a very feint edge if slowed down. Perhaps replay technology is worse these days, or the clarity of picture, or eyesight is worse, because slow motion replays used to work fine, I never had any doubt that a slight nick would be picked up.

It's almost as if we're saying "technology is boss", relying on hawkeye, snick-o-meter and hotspot entirely, as if we've eliminated the 'human factor' - except "technology" is totally influenced by humans, judging sounds, spots and telling hawkeye what to cite as "umpire's call". In tennis we don't see a reply of line calls, we get a reconstruction to make an absolute call, an image that people don't dispute but might if they saw the replay in slow motion.

So those are some of the doubts about the review system, the principle of absolute evidence to overturn a decision yet setting hawkeye to "umpires call" rather than have it say hitting/missing, hitting in line/not hitting in line etc The system still covers up umpiring errors, so called "technology" is not being used fully and players can be sure they're not out, or a batsman is out, and technology says "we're sticking by the umpire because it is close and we don't wish to undermine them by making a decision contrary to it".

Is sticking by a wrong decision right simply because it wasn't an awful decision? While the review system may initially have seemed a wonderful idea and stats show it improves decisions, is its nature now destroying confidence in it and I suspect the aussies will feel like it is worth a couple of wickets an innings against them.

England will argue Agar was out, foot not clearly behind the line when stumped and should have been out. How many decisions other than that haven't gone the way of England? And I don't mean silly wasted reviews by Watson and others, I mean close calls decided by technology going England's way - and indeed decisions like the Broad wicket that wasn't that should have been.

"Umpire's call" probably flashes up in aussie nightmares, the mere fact that given the other way by said umpire being the difference between out and not out. While I feel wickets given out by sound and a hotspot alone give me grave concerns, the "umpire's call" factor and the impact it has on the game above all else has convinced me the system seriously needs a review.............................

 

[sifter132]

I think you're right on. Let me add to what you're saying, with the main issues I have with DRS, and you've touched on at least a couple of them:
Firstly, having a system that can be used tactically is wrong. I'm aware it wasn't designed that way, only to be used for howlers, but that is moot now because it's obviously being used tactically. In response it seems there needs to be either a lot more reviews, or less (umpire controlled would come under this category). This mid-point of 2 reviews isn't working, it's still not enough to allow use when you think a decision is wrong, ie 50/50 calls are still being shrugged off to conserve reviews for a 'more wrong' decision, and yet howlers are still getting through and have to stand if the 2 reviews have been spent.

Second, at it's heart I think the problem with DRS is that it's too concerned with protecting umpires (both their decisions and their jobs) - by putting the blame largely onto players either for misusing the system or not reviewing correctly. 'Umpires call' is just another factor in umpire protection, siding with umpires more than the technology itself. And the current version of DRS protects the onfield umpires jobs, by not letting the 3rd umpire have more powers. eg. It can't be far away where a 3rd umpire can decide on an LBW within a matter of seconds (line at least, more times for edges obviously). That kind of advance ould make an onfield umpire almost extinct, particularly since most of them don't even seem to look at the front foot anymore - always checking it...

Third problem is what I posted a few days ago - worth repeating my opinion Should DRS usage be a skill that is rewarded? I say no. This 'skill' has very little to do with cricket itself and often about how good an umpire your wicket keeper is, how sensitive your batsmen are to nicks, or how calm your captain is. These aren't cricket skills, but skills that have been unfortunately emphasised by a system that is attempting to take the blame off umpires and put the responsibility on the players to keep the umpires honest. We saw this rebalance of responsibility illustrated last week where almost as much vitriol was directed at Australia's overzealous use of the DRS as there was to Aleem Dar's decision to reprieve Broad itself.

Fourth problem, is lack of clear guidelines and sufficient explanation for decisions This is seen frequently in outside edge decisions. For a decision to be overturned do we need just sound? Or Hotspot? Or both? What about if the decision is to be upheld? Less evidence required? We don't know for certain, and the ICC haven't said.
To help with this issue, I'd like to see the ICC show confidence in their 3rd officials. Hook them up to the TV/radio feed and have their communication with the onfield umpire be audible to viewers and listeners, like it is in rugby for example. At the moment we are relying on relatively clueless commentators to guess why a decision has been made and/or an ICC press release after the days play or even after the match is finished. That is far too late for an explanation.

I generally like the idea of DRS and want it to work, lets hope the ICC can refine it successfully!

 

[War]

cricinfo boss sambit bal wrote a good piece on this recently & he to mentioned where the best solution for the DRS.

Sambit Bal: How about demanding honesty from the players? | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

But there can be a common-sense approach. By letting technology rule only on what is visible - edges, the line of ball, and the point of impact - and removing from the equation the predictive part, the scope of the system can be narrowed to a more manageable level. The umpires, both the on-field ones and the man in the box, need to be empowered to use the system, which must lie under the direct control of the ICC. That would make for a system conducive to delivering more accurate decisions. It will still not be perfect, but it wouldn't be a case of justice for some.

If this is done i suspect this might help with the cost factor of the DRS which certain boards like WI, SRI, PAK, NZ can't afford. Plus the ICC also needs to take charge of the cost factor of the DRS.

If the BCCI wants to play dumb forever & don't use the DRS - the ICC should have a long time ago being assisting the other boards in bilateral series to pay the DRS cost to a degree. Because its an insult to sports statistics that we have a situation in which series are played under different rules basically.

One series has drs with some parts, others drs with all parts and india series with no drs. IGNORANCE!!

 

[Owzat]

yesterday just reinforces what I'm saying, the "umpires call" is not good for the system and its application.

Was it Smith who was hit in line, pitched in line but "umpires call" on whether the ball would have hit and so not given out LBW? If the umpire had called it out the chances are Smith wouldn't have reviewed, if he had he'd have been given out by the same system that gave him not out..................

I think the system was flawed anyway, to me it looked to be clearly hitting but the hawkeye graphic gave a late jerk which then claimed it was only "half hitting" which to me is wrong in itself, it is either hitting or not. If you go into a shop you either spend money or you don't, technology should not be used and then humans apply "doubt" to what it tells them.

Needs a desperate shake up, even those who once had faith in it are losing faith, it does get decisions right but it doesn't get all decisions right and it isn't used in all decisions. Yesterday maybe more than in any other innings this series those decisions could prove crucial. This does look like a good batting track, not the ones talked up by the pundits when the evidence didn't support their sustained 'belief', so wickets are crucial.

And don't get me started again on snickers and Barrymore's hotspots, why are replays soc rap these days? Now we're heavily analysing dismissals and the goal of the decision being as right as it can be, and EVERYONE happy with it simply isn't happening.

 

[sifter132]

^I agree that umpires call and protecting the onfield umpires weakens the system A LOT.

As it stands, you can have this scenario under DRS...you are batting, you miss the ball, but there is a noise and the fielders claim a catch, you are given out on the field. At this point you are screwed - you should not even review! Since the 3rd umpire wants to uphold the onfield call, he doesn't care if there is no hotspot. As long as there is a suspicious noise, so you'll be given out on noise. Yet if the onfield umpire gives you not out, the 3rd umpire is looking for ways to uphold that call, so he'll probably want Hotspot to be convinced. This was perfectly illustrated yesterday by the caught behind appeals for Khawaja and Smith. Both had similar amounts of evidence, neither were actually out, but the Khawaja decision was upheld to protect the onfield umpire. Same for the Swann LBW review against Smith, hitting all of leg stump but to protect the onfield umpire it wasn't out. Stuff the onfield umpires, lets get the call right!

I'd be interested to see how the ICC reviews the umpires performances too. eg. that Swann to Smith LBW shout. Does umpire get a tick for that call because DRS upheld his decision? Or does umpire get a fail because hawkeye says it was hitting the stumps? I know the ICC uses hawkeye to review umpire performances, yet they don't trust it enough to make decisions in a game? I say that because of the error built in...ie. the middle of the ball has to hit the middle of the stump. Stuff the error, trust the technology, and go with what the graphic says - not the onfield umpire. Would make things a lot easier.

 

[vaibhavtewatia]

^^ Couldn't agree more. It seems a lot to do with the third umpiring decisions rather than simply criticizing the whole technology. We have to remember that the technology used forms a part of the DRS, but is an incomplete process without the intervention of the third umpire.

As for the ongoing series, there doesn't seem to be a standard set.
Earlier, was it always about protecting the on-field call?

Now what do you mean by inconclusive evidence? It looks, the third umpire seems to draw a conclusion as to why the umpire reached to a result, and if he doesn't find enough evidence as to how the umpire made a decision ( as in the case of Khawaja yesterday ), the on-field umpire's decision stands . Whereas, inconclusive evidence on TV for a decision the field umpire has made, should be turned down without a second thought!

 

[IanG]

It's not the technology it's those using it

 

[Owzat]

Come up with two alternatives to the current system :

- each PLAYER has one review a match, anyone can use one fielding but batsmen would probably use their own for batting.

- all wickets are reviewed, the umpire edges on giving out where it may be borderline. The fielding side has five challenges per innings, shouldn't need them if the system is applied half competently

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

that's one of the keys, people moan about disruption to the flow of the game but really, how long does it really take to see an edge or not, 20 seconds tops. the tv umpire should be watching anyway so you've already got the advantage of a second opinion (how often do the commentators correctly disagree with umpires in real time and they're not trained and have no umpiring experience?) then add on a couple of seconds to look at hot spot and the replay a coulpe of times.

all but the tightest decisions could be decided with a minute. I wonder if sometimes the TV replays are faster than the ones the third umpire gets because the TV station actually employs people competent working with recording equipment.

 

[sifter132]

^Problem right now is the umpire has to ask the TV station for replays, he can't see it 'live'. If he could line up the replays more quickly, then the interruptions would be shorter, which means more reviews could be offered. For LBWs, I hope for something like tennis where the review takes all of 5 seconds. If they check for the inside edge last instead of first, then that would save time too ie. If the ball was missing the stumps, then inside edge is irrelevant.

The reviews in this test, particularly the Khawaja one took a long time probably 2-3 minutes of Dharmasena looking at all the angles, speeds etc. (and he still stuffed it up...) I wonder how long Snicko takes to get right, because if that had been available, then he would have known the noise didn't match up. I know snicko is quicker than it used to be.

I also wonder whether the ICC could put another man in with the 3rd umpire, either the match referee, the 4th umpire, a tech expert, or an ex-player just to give him another set of eyes and ensure the right call is made. They do this in rugby league in Australia now. 1 video umpire, 1 ex-player in the review box.

 

[Owzat]

I think mr smug, nomark Nicholas, got something right yesterday when he said he doesn't know if something is out anymore.

Too much "technology", too many ifs and buts. The "umpires call" bs aside, the edges being given or not given is just getting silly now. We seem way too reliant on hotspot and snickerometer, seems to be no move towards using something visual.

If there is an edge you should be able to zoom and see it, a lack of space between the bat and ball. I know the theory is if there's a sound and it is at the same point as the ball passes bat, odds are it is an edge. But since we're not giving decisions showing by dorkeye as hitting as "umpire's call" because we can't be sure, how can we be sure on barely detectable noises and dots of white?!?!?

I think the number of different ways of deciding there is contact just makes it overcomplicated, if we banned the use of hotspot and the snickerometer then would anyone complain if an edge was not visible? I guess the fielders might argue "we heard a noise", but I'd want a bit more evidence than that. If it hit, you should have little doubt.

Was it Starc none too happy his question of it he'd hit the ball into the ground wasn't checked? I sympathise, we get checks for it if there is a question of clean catch so why not "humour him" ?

The review system and use of technology in decisions, big and small, seems rather hit and miss. Wouldn't KP have been given out if the aussies had reviewed around when he'd scored 60? Not exactly a clanger, but a crucial decision that would have been overturned and the application of the system is now getting so much to the aussies they're scared to use it for fear of "wasting" a review.

So now it is more or less a lottery, say you only could play it twice ever and your numbers came a week you didn't play. You'd then play it every week because you would not want to miss out on a jackpot, although you might not play those same numbers. Difference is the players don't have unlimited chances, seems very unfair and stupid considering the umpires can't even get it right and that's what they're paid for.

Not sure it takes any pressure off the umpires either.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

^ true, there was ball by, by Lyon I think, in the first innings, it pitched in-line, hit the batsman in-line then hawkeye showed it going on to clip the top of leg stump by a fraction. It was a bad umpiring decision, though certainly the type that was very marginal, a review wouldn't have earned the wicket because the contact with the leg stump was so marginal.

DRS, supposedly to increase the number of correct decisions, would have damaged the bowling team had they reviewed and we don't know now if we'd consider that a good call by the umpire as technology would have backed him up, or it's bad call because he was simply wrong. used to be simply the latter but now I'm not so sure.

it's made marginal decisions into this horrible grey area.

 

[Skater]

I don't think the reviews should be for the umpires to go to only. They'd end up reviewing everything they do.

 

[sifter132]

If you don't lose a review on a marginal call/umpire's call, I think that would make the system a bit better. As it stands a perfectly good ball hitting leg stump can be not out, and you lose a review, see Swann vs Smith and Harris vs Trott is this Test. Shouldn't be losing a review for a matter of millimetres like that.

And they could establish a rule for edges too. If there's no Hotspot, but a faint sound then that's a marginal call as well, so it shouldn't cost a review. eg. Pietersen last night. He didn't feel the faint edge, Hotspot didn't see it either. I think he was out and the decision was rightly upheld, but it's not fair on him to be pinged a review for a marginal call.

 

[angryangy]

I don't see how the argument against 'tactical' reviewing meshes with the argument that teams should retain reviews where the verdict is umpire's call. Clearly, this would encourage teams to take more punts, not less.