The Decision Review System - A Boon or a Bane

One can't remain too far away from Cricket, can he? Especially when the world cup is on. Glad that the Indian juggernaut ran over Pakistan to enable the country to set-up a summit clash with a team that probably looks most suitable to lift the coveted trophy.Well, the beautiful game has taken all of us into its fold but when the euphoria does die down it is probably worthwhile taking a look at a new technology introduction which to some may have been the best thing that could happen to the game so far as transparency is concerned while to others it may seem as a move that has marred the aesthetics of this gentleman's game.Yes, it is the much discussed Decision Review System (DRS). It would be silly to dismiss something as innovative as this simply as a boon or a bane. But a few points of contemplation may be a good start to help appreciate or criticize this technological introduction.



Better Decision making: The single most important argument in support of the DRS is that it prevents, in so far as it is possible, incorrect decisions. A batsman who believes that he has incorrectly been handed over a leg before decision when his bat clearly hit the ball can now seek for a television intervention to overturn the decision by the technologically handicapped on-filed umpires. A welcome change indeed. One can't help to imagine the fate of the Indian today team had Tendulkar not sought a Decision review when he was handed over a leg before from the bowling of Saeed Ajmal. To be fair to the umpire he seemed gone for all money to the naked eye and I am sure most people in the country would have felt the same but the review proved otherwise and the referral ensured that no team got an undue advantage owing to a manual error. What the DRS also helps prevent are instances of dissent.Many a time in the past players have been reprimanded for displaying their dissatisfaction at decisions by on-filed umpires, a practice which to me was a little harsh on the players. Not only was the player at the receiving end of a seemingly incorrect decision , he was also not allowed to show as much as a sigh of disappointment - an action which is only natural under those circumstances. With the decision review though, he can just symbol it to the umpire that he needs the 3rd umpire to verify the decision. The 3rd umpire's decision is binding .Hence the player has no reason to feel disappointed

Number of reviews: At present every team is allowed a total of 2 unsuccessful reviews. Mind you the Reviews which are successful are not counted in.But if the DRS indeed ensures that the game is played fare and square why limit the number of appeals to 2? A restriction on the number of appeals means that after the appeal quota is exhausted one cannot seek tech help even when the decision may appear incorrect

Time taken for reviews:The time taken for the 3rd umpire to come to any real conclusion is squarely based on the complexity of the decision at hand. Yes ,match situations and player reputation do play a small part but none is as significant as really how close the decision is to being incorrect. With only 2 decision reviews allowed per team, this hasn't resulted in any serious issues w.r.t teams finishing their overs on time.But if the quota were to be enhanced then this may lead to a spilling over of the match into extra time.Not that we need any stretching of the already 7 hour long game :)

Scope of the reviews: At present Teams can go upstairs for almost any kind of decisions. While so far only LBW and caught behinds have really been reviewed, teams may in the future ask for a referral of a wide ball if the teams are neck and neck at any given time. Now for a wide delivery there are no clear cut answers. The ICC needs to be limit the scopre of these reviews so that decisions which would perhaps remain contentious even after a 3rd umpire intervention are best left to the on-filed umpires

Ian Bell got lucky with the 2.5 m rule

Clear demarcation of the role of the on-filed umpires: There were a couple of instances in the Cup's league matches when the umpires had differing views on LBW decisions being reviewed when the point of impact was more than 2.5m from the batter's stumps. While the decision was sustained in the case of an appeal against Ian Bell - a decision that cost India the match - it was overturned by another umpire in another game. The credibility of any new scheme depends on its consistency. Clearly the above incidents have shown that the ICC hasn't paid much attention to the consistency part of it

Umpires embarrassed: And it is with much pain that I write that it is not a pretty picture when one looks at the face of an on-field umpire when his decision is asked to be reviewed. It sometimes feels like they are the culprit in the dock and that their fate would be decided by TV umpires in 2 minutes. Much worse is the picture when they have to overturn the decision and to add some Indian spices to the wound, every spectator can see it on the giant screen. Imagine having to look at a David Shepherd correcting his decision . There is obviously nothing wrong in doing what is right but just that Cricket despite all its scandals has always been perceived as gentleman's game and much of this reputation has for years been kept intact because of the alomost infallible reputation that the on-filed umpires of yester years held. Not that that reputation has taken a beating in this cup - umpires have invariably got their decisions right - but there may be a little less infallibity quotient for the umpires going forward

What a spectator sees on screen

Spectator popularity- I think the DRS has been rather popular among spectators and television viewers. They feel a degree of connection when they see that a decision is up for a review and they can form their own opinion about it. There is also greater spectator participation when a decision is reviewed on the giant screen and if the game is indeed for the spectators, I am not sure if the sponsors will be too happy if the ICC decides to take back the DRS altogether.Though I was really young to have noticed it but I believe that the DRS is having the same effect on the viewers that the Run-out referrals to the 3rd umpires had in the early 1990s

Like I mentioned above, there are no clear cut answers and each person is bound to have his own view. To my mind though, there are more 'goods' than 'bads' in the new system. With a few tweaks, the system could be made agreeable to all