ICC needs to rethink DRS, not banish it

The will we, won’t we saga surrounding the use of technology on the cricket field has been resolved by the International Cricket Council; the Decision Review System will no longer be mandatory, instead to be used as part of a ‘bilateral agreement’ between two cricket board’s prior to a series. Don’t expect to see it when India are playing.

Don't expect to see MS Dhoni, or any other Indian for that matter, performing this gesture any time soon

It is a disappointment since technology appeared to be making a difference. The only issues arose when the wrong decision was still reached after any referral. One sticking point was the use of Hot Spot, a technology I’ve never been entirely comfortable with.

During the Trent Bridge Test of India’s visit to England this summer, VVS Laxman appeared to edge James Anderson through to Matt Prior. England appealed, the umpire said no, the decision was referred. Snicko, a technology deemed too slow for inclusion in the decision making process, later showed an edge that Hot Spot did not.

If such technology is inaccurate then it should be discarded as a result of it not improving the ratio of correct decisions. I would say, however, that if an edge does show up on Hot Spot then there can be no doubt as to the contact between bat and ball. It still has a use in the game.

For this to be effective there would need to be a rethink of the implementation of the DRS. As the system has been deployed by the ICC any referral is at the behest of the players.

I would be in favour of the decision to use the DRS being at the behest of the umpire for certain parts of the decision making process. This was the system deployed for the ill-fated Stanford 20/20 for 20 ‘cricket tournament’ in Antigua in 2006. It was the only part of that rotten tournament that worked.

For example: if an umpire is sure, in the case of an lbw appeal, that the ball is hitting the stumps but is unsure that, for example, the ball has pitched outside the line of leg stump or whether the batsman has hit it, he should be able to confer with a colleague who has the benefit of different camera angles, different technologies and slow motion replays.

If a ball is hurtling down the wicket at 90mph at 1% of the ball pitches outside the line of leg, it is impossible to detect such a margin with the naked eye. The players know this and, importantly, the umpires know this; what harm in taking a closer look?

The umpire would lose no credibility for admitting that he needs a little assistance. If there are two sounds at match pace, it is far more honest to seek the correct decision rather than relying a bit of guess work or offering the ‘benefit of the doubt’ one way or the other. Surely this would work?

Given the absence of ball tracking technology in decision making due to India’s insistence that it’s inaccurate – and I don’t think that they’re 100% wrong on that – the umpire would need to be certain that the ball is hitting the stumps before asking for assistance. This is asking no more of the umpires than is asked at present.

The situation is the same for caught behind decisions. We have a look if we’re not sure the ball has carried to a fielder; let’s have a closer look for marginal edges. If it shows on Hot Spot, it’s out. If it doesn’t, let’s crack on.

I accept that this system is far from perfect. But is the current system any better? By further empowering the umpires the ICC could further remove the element of human error. Human error will always exist because some umpires, undoubtedly, will back their instincts and refuse to use the technology.

Rather than rid the game of referrals, can’t we just change the way they are used? It has to be worth a trial.

By Miles Reucroft