The hottest topic in Cricket
these days is the DRS or Decision Review System. It’s been talked about so
much, that it now resembles a scruffy street dog that everyone’s taken a kick
at. Instead of adding to the saturation, I decided to discuss it in a brief,
succinct manner with the recently concluded Pakistan versus Sri Lanka series as
my guide.
First of all, it’s important that
we clarify exactly what the DRS is. The DRS is a set of technologies, such as
Hawk Eye and Hot Spot, that are supposed to assist the umpires with the
decision making process. The detractors of the DRS claim, that it’s not 100%
foolproof. Hence, such a technology, with its imperfections, should not be
used. Whilst that may be true, we have to cast a practical eye on the claim.
Most technologies are not perfect. What about third umpire assisted run outs
and stumpings? How many times have we seen “it’s too close to call, so the
benefit of doubt goes to the batsman”? How about that one camera frame, which
fails to separate the exact moment the ball dislodges the bails? Or when the
umpire or a fielder somehow manages to come between the camera and the stumps?
Can we imagine an era without
third umpire assisted run outs and stumpings? Yet, when the concept of the third
umpire was first suggested, there was a similar set of people who wanted
nothing to do with it.
What do we expect from a DRS or
use of any technology for that matter? The intention is to make the decision
making process more accurate. The issue is that the critics of the DRS is
comparing it with perfection (as an ideology) and not with the current umpiring
circumstances. It short, we know that DRS or any such technology will probably
never be perfect, but it will improve the current state of affairs. Falling
back on my safety net, we saw how the umpires in the Test series between Sri
Lanka and Pakistan struggled to consistently make the correct decisions and
ended up making a considerable amount of mistakes. We even saw Simon Taufel,
one time number one umpire in the world, making a couple of real howlers in
quick succession. The DRS will prevent the obvious mistakes, like the third
umpire did to the run outs and stumpings some time ago. If the TV viewers are
in a better position to accurately judge the validity of an appeal than the
umpires, who are the official decision makers, then there is something
drastically wrong with the whole process.
 |
| No way forward for DRS? |
Let’s take a look at the DRS as a
law (or rule). In the broader sense, any law conforms to a certain set of
principles. We like to think of a law as being consistent and applicable to all
without any discrimination. Currently, this is exactly what the DRS, as a law,
is not! It is not consistent; as the form of DRS used is left at the hands of
the individual Cricket Boards (Hawkeye only, Hotspot only, Hawkeye and Hotspot,
or nothing at all). A law should, ideally, apply to all. Here again the DRS is
nothing more than an option, almost an afterthought, that the two countries
involved in a series can choose or discard. A law should not be left at the
discretion of individuals. It makes no sense to have laws that contract or
expand or even vanish according to the wishes of a group of people. This is not
grade or club level Cricket. We are talking about the highest levels of Cricket
and the most prestigious tournaments. The ICC should not take such a lukewarm
attitude towards the standards of the game.
The next claim critics make is that
the cost for these technologies are too high to bear, especially for developing
countries. It seems, Hot Spot alone costs around $100,000. If we look at the
series between Sri Lanka and Pakistan, there was no DRS, in any of its
manifestations, in a single game. Hence, apart from the obvious fact that, not
everything related to the DRS is India’s fault, we need to understand why the
DRS was not made available. The answer is simple; Sri Lanka Cricket is broke!
Whatever funds a country receives from the ICC and through the games they host,
in the form of advertising and TV rights, ideally should go to the development
of Cricket. During the last few years the administration of Sri Lanka Cricket has
usurped and squandered, in millions, of funds that should have gone towards the
betterment of Cricket in the country. The Cricket board hit rock bottom, some
time ago, as they were unable even to pay the salaries of the Sri Lankan Team,
which is ironical as the Cricketers are the very reason that the Cricket Board gets
funds. What better way to utilize money, allocated towards Cricket, than to
invest in a technology to ensure the highest standards in the highest format of
the game? At this rate, there might come a time, when Sri Lanka Cricket
declares that, they cannot afford a second set of stumps. What happens then? Do
we play without changing ends? Thus, given the background, we should not take
into consideration the financial statuses of such Cricket Boards when passing
laws; because no matter how inexpensive the technology, they will not be able
afford it in the future.
All is not however, lost as there
are still ways of improving umpiring without having to invest in millions upon
millions. There are very obvious aspects that every TV viewer can witness
regarding LBW decisions without the aid of the DRS. By just putting the “mat”
on the screen, the viewer can see where the ball pitched; hence can determine
whether the ball pitched outside the line of the leg stump and see whether the
ball hits the batsman in line with the stumps. Given a side angle, maybe even
make a pronouncement on whether the ball will go over the stumps or hit them.
The TV viewers can also see, without the aid of any DRS, those thick inside
edges on to the pads that are sometimes given out LBW. Hence, there are quite a
few practical ways of improving the standards of umpiring, without the ICC or
individual Cricket Boards having to incur huge expenses.
It’s clear that there should be
no debate regarding any technology that is used to improve the standards of the
game. Ultimately, the pugnacity and arrogance of a few individuals should not
govern the game. Also the standards of the game should not be compromised to
appease sponsors and financial resources. Hence, this DRS issue has been
festering, like a diabetic sore, for far too long without any treatment due to
the pathetic stance taken by the ICC. At the end of the day, the question that
remains is, does the ICC have the best interests of the game at heart?
