Sanest article on DRS : Playing with controversy

[Chandan]

Link Playing with controversy Greg Baum December 31, 2011 ANY contemplation of the role of the DRS in cricket must firstly be referred to the DSR: double standards review. On Boxing Day, the anguish could be heard from one shore to the other as Mike Hussey and Ed Cowan were given out by what appeared to be flawed but unappealable decisions. On days three and four, scarcely a peep was heard as Ricky Ponting and Hussey, twice, were given not out, but shown to be out by technology to which India - by its own choice - had no recourse. It is important to note that Hussey and Cowan reacted with admirable equanimity. Hussey, conscious of the attention of television cameras, howled to the heavens twice, but did not swear. Cowan contented himself with a general observation about the need for a universal system, a little self-recrimination for playing such a loose shot after such a long vigil, and the age-old philosophical certainty that it all evens out in the end. Enough wrongs eventually make a right. In cricket, everything is seen through prisms of parochialism. India's rejection of the decision review system is stubborn, even contrary, but it is not simply a reflex to the fact that almost every other country supports it. It is not India flexing its muscle for the sake of it. Four years ago, India - more than any other country - had cause to subscribe to the DRS. Its troubles on that tour began on the first day of the Sydney Test when Andrew Symonds was plainly caught behind from Ishant Sharma, but was given not out and went on to make a big century. There were many other aggravated matters in that notorious match instant retrospectivity might have eased. Or not. Simply, most in the Indian hierarchy distrust the DRS - with reason. It is not foolproof. Only on line decisions - run-outs, stumpings, no-balls - is it reasonably reliable. An adjacent camera should in most instances tell the story. But the more sophisticated technologies - ball-tracking, Hot Spot, the snickometer - still depend on degrees of electronic guesswork. Their several developers admit it. Hot Spot can be fooled when a batsman swings quickly, as Cowan did. It is also flaky when it comes to deflections from different parts of the glove. In some instances it has shown nothing when a batsman, knowing he has hit it, has walked. Ball-tracking is equally dubious. It ought not to be forgotten that it is a computer-generated graphic re-imagining the delivery, not replaying it. In a recent incident, ball-tracking and Hot Spot showed the same ball to be pitching in different places. What ball-tracking shows after the ball pitches is sometimes baffling to the instincts of all who have played or watched the game. In Sri Lanka in August, Phil Hughes was condemned by this dodgy evidence, prompting the umpires to make a report to the ICC. In Hobart last month, New Zealand's Jesse Ryder also was dudded. Seemingly, the quality - and therefore accuracy - of the DRS technology varies from telecaster to telecaster and country to country, depending on cost - an inequitable arrangement. In at least one early incarnation, an operator admitted that ball-tracking was programmed to make an educated guess about things it had failed to ''see''. Still the several current forms of the DRS have been shown often to be inconclusive, occasionally contradictory and sometimes incontrovertibly wrong. Yet in a short time, the DRS has come to be accepted as infallible. This fits a tendency in all walks of life to devolve responsibility, if possible, to inanimate devices. Fans dwell on it. For players, to walk or not to walk is no longer an ethical issue; the technology will decide. Umpires yield to technology, just to be safe. Two of the effects of the DRS are to show that umpires mostly are right and, at the same time, to shake their confidence. At the MCG, one referred a muted run-out appeal. A replay showed that the batsman was past not just the crease, but the stumps. The convention of the benefit of the doubt has been trashed. Sometimes, by the very length of the third umpire's deliberations, all know that there is doubt, yet on fourth, fifth and sixth inspection, the batsman is given out anyway. At other times, an out decision is re-referred to the standing umpire on the basis that it is too close for the third umpire to call, which puts the umpire in the invidious position of having to stand by his decision when all that has been established for certain is doubt. None of this is to assert that there is no place for the DRS in cricket. But it is to agree with India - to the extent that the world is owed a better explanation than it has been given about the veracity of the DRS technology, and that it needs to be standardised if it is to be fair. I would add that cricket needs to wean itself off an almost infantile dependence. When skilful sportsmen, experienced umpires and impassioned fans are reduced to dwelling on a computer's imperfect guesstimate about whether more or less than half the ball would have hit leg stump, cricket becomes a cartoon. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the most sensible article on this subject I've read till now and it has been supported by Hussey too who was a victim of a howler in the 1st inning of the 1st test. A victim of umpire's questionable call - but Hussey reveals sympathy for India's aversion to DRS None of the players are convinced by DRS and all of them would rather like a fool proof technology than the mumbo jumbo that we have right now. Why are we so confused? Why don't we let umpires decide what aids they need from technology rather than giving this power to players and media?

[jairamesh]

I think it's pretty clear the predicative bit of the DRS needs to be ditched, there is too many anomalies. People can tolerate errors from umpires but not a full-proof computer system. And all other tools should be handed to the umpires to also make calls regarding edges along with the usual run-outs, no-balls, clean catches.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Very sane article! I agree with jairamesh that we must ditch the predictive tech until they are fool-proof. Besides they are not necessary tools for us to revert howlers and that IMO is what the DRS is for.

[Lord]

Very sane article! I agree with jairamesh that we must ditch the predictive tech until they are fool-proof. Besides they are not necessary tools for us to revert howlers and that IMO is what the DRS is for.

even the non predictive path is not proof.in the Lyon decision in Hobart test v NZ.It showed it pitching outside leg wen it wasnt

[Vijay.Sharma]

even the non predictive path is not proof.in the Lyon decision in Hobart test v NZ.It showed it pitching outside leg wen it wasnt

How can it do that when it is not predicting? HawkEye or whatever Eye is an imaging software...it does not replay the delivery but re-images it From the above article itself -

Ball-tracking is equally dubious. It ought not to be forgotten that it is a computer-generated graphic re-imagining the delivery, not replaying it

Edit - In fact all we need is a replay with a mat displayed for the line of the wickets to negate such howlers. We dont even need xEye for it.

[bulbul]

Atleast with DRS cheating issue will be go away...unless we start to blame the broadcosters... It will be very difficult to create a foolproof system with Computer generated graphics and prediction... We have to find the best possible...say 95% susscess rate and waht tools contribute to this rather than just waiting for a foolproof method which may take 25 more years of whining by all sides

[Lord]

How can it do that when it is not predicting? HawkEye or whatever Eye is an imaging software...it does not replay the delivery but re-images it From the above article itself -

read this http://cricketwithballs.com/2011/12/13/do-you-believe-your-eyes-or-tony-greigs-250-camera-shots/

Edit - In fact all we need is a replay with a mat displayed for the line of the wickets to negate such howlers. We dont even need xEye for it.

agree,replays with pitch map is enough to negate howlers n thats what hawkeyes for

[Vijay.Sharma]

I think we can just work with simple replays and some small little tools (no need for any prediction, tracking, etc) that are available already. We dont need any high tech gadgets. All we need is for a DRS system that will correct howlers. And for this the current referral system needs changes - no limits on referrals, in fact even better would be to allow third ump to intervene if he sees a howler and allow the umps to refer to third ump too before giving a decision. The no limits on appeals made by teams can cause teams to start asking for everything but we can prevent that by penalizing them - say 5% (or whatever) of runs everytime a wrong referral happens. That way a team will not be helpless when a true howler has happened because they lost their chances to appeal. It will also force the teams to go for it only if they are convinced it is a howler

[bulbul]

I think we can just work with simple replays and some small little tools (no need for any prediction, tracking, etc) that are available already. We dont need any high tech gadgets. All we need is for a DRS system that will correct howlers. And for this the current referral system needs changes - no limits on referrals, in fact even better would be to allow third ump to intervene if he sees a howler and allow the umps to refer to third ump too before giving a decision. The no limits on appeals made by teams can cause teams to start asking for everything but we can prevent that by penalizing them - say 5% (or whatever) of runs everytime a wrong referral happens. That way a team will not be helpless when a true howler has happened because they lost their chances to appeal. It will also force the teams to go for it only if they are convinced it is a howler

we cant penalize Runs that kind of concept removed already for Over rates so going back is not solution.. Let them trail run the predictive methods for some more time and also based on feedbacks improve/make set of rules...

[Vijay.Sharma]

we cant penalize Runs that kind of concept removed already for Over rates so going back is not solution..

then introduce some other form of penalization which ensures that a howler no matter when it occurs gets corrected. In other words there should not be a situation where a howler happens and a team has no way of getting it corrected.

[peterparker]

i watching tennis game yesterday and DRS there is fool proof..reason- the level of pixel can be digged down to find that last image correction..DRS is more with image processing technique...in cricket, i think the noise also adds up due to which the fine images cannot be traced

[Lord]

i watching tennis game yesterday and DRS there is fool proof..reason- the level of pixel can be digged down to find that last image correction..DRS is more with image processing technique...in cricket' date=' i think the noise also adds up due to which the fine images cannot be traced[/quote'] line decisions were never a problem in cricket too

[Blue-no1]

^ In tennis Hawk-eye type system works because there is no predictive mode and with super slo-mo cameras one can get to the bottom of the line call. I heard Arun Lal state that in the Hawk eye type systems, the programmer manually (with a mouse of course) places the ball on the pad etc. A small change in position by a programmer having a bias to a certain country can change the path of the ball. I have a feeling, the BCCI knows some things that cannot be put in paper, like Hawk-eye, Hot spot progammers belonging to certain countries tweeking the system. Regarding hot spot, the Dravid removals in England shows that hair line edges can not be determined accurately by Hot spots. The best option is super slow motion cameras as DRS, for run outs, inside edges during LBW's, no balls, edges to Wkeepers etc and unbiased umpires operating the system not the Peter Refeils and Oxenfords of the world adjudging close decisions.

[FreakazoiD]

Very good article, and completely reflects my views on DRS. 1) Hawk-eye is totally prone to adulteration by broadcaster technicians (Channel 9 or whoever). It is not a technology that "neutral" umpires are capable of operating. 2) The DRS was always meant to eliminate howlers, but we see it used more often in really tight cases. If you needed rocket science to detect a howler, it's not really a howler. 3) The hot-spot is needless. Any big edge can be easily detected with a camera / stump mic. Yes, you can't detect really fine edges, but I thought that was the umpires' job anyway. 4) What will suffice: A (virtual) pitch mat, front and side-on replays, and stump mic 5) As in the case of close run-outs currently, a team should have the right to appeal to the umpire to go upstairs. But the final decision to refer should remain with the umpire and not with players. You don't want players acting umpires on the field (which always happens whenever the fielding captain has to make the call whether to challenge an lbw or not). I know the counterargument is going to be that teams will challenge all the time, leading to time wasting. I don't think this argument holds water - how many times have we seen teams challenge run-outs when the result is obvious? At the end of the day, its the players' reputation at stake, they don't want to look stupid by making ridiculous appeals just because it is available.

[Sachinism]

Yeh top article. Its like Ch. 9 commentators and others just choose to be ignorant. Very refreshing to see someone write about the other view

[ganeshran]

Very good article, and completely reflects my views on DRS. 1) Hawk-eye is totally prone to adulteration by broadcaster technicians (Channel 9 or whoever). It is not a technology that "neutral" umpires are capable of operating. 2) The DRS was always meant to eliminate howlers, but we see it used more often in really tight cases. If you needed rocket science to detect a howler, it's not really a howler. 3) The hot-spot is needless. Any big edge can be easily detected with a camera / stump mic. Yes, you can't detect really fine edges, but I thought that was the umpires' job anyway. 4) What will suffice: A (virtual) pitch mat, front and side-on replays, and stump mic 5) As in the case of close run-outs currently, a team should have the right to appeal to the umpire to go upstairs. But the final decision to refer should remain with the umpire and not with players. You don't want players acting umpires on the field (which always happens whenever the fielding captain has to make the call whether to challenge an lbw or not). I know the counterargument is going to be that teams will challenge all the time, leading to time wasting. I don't think this argument holds water - how many times have we seen teams challenge run-outs when the result is obvious? At the end of the day, its the players' reputation at stake, they don't want to look stupid by making ridiculous appeals just because it is available.

Agree with most of your post except the last point. DRS needs to be initiated by the players themselves, otherwise there will be another huge debate on whether the umpire should have gone upstairs and he didnt. With runouts the system works, because close run outs occur at a much lower percentage than lbw shouts, contentious caught behinds etc, and with runouts the protocol is almost always to refer to the third ump unless the result is blatantly obvious. With Leg before, we cannot take this liberty to decide beyond what threshold of doubt the decision should be sent upstairs. So the challenge arises on how to limit the number of reviews by players yet make sure all howlers are corrected. Someone threw the idea of penalizing the reviewing side by some runs so as to incentivize judicious usage of the system - IMO this again opens a can or worms for discussion if a few match results turn because of the penalized runs. Best way is to limit the number of reviews but a bit more than the current 2, maybe to a limit of 5.

[FreakazoiD]

Agree with most of your post except the last point. DRS needs to be initiated by the players themselves' date=' otherwise there will be another huge debate on whether the umpire should have gone upstairs and he didnt. With runouts the system works, because close run outs occur at a much lower percentage than lbw shouts, contentious caught behinds etc, and with runouts the protocol is almost always to refer to the third ump unless the result is blatantly obvious.[/quote'] I am advocating lbw decision challenges by the batsman alone (bowling side cannot challenge line decisions). Here the challenge could be on 2 grounds: 1) if he smashed it - I doubt batsmen will appeal if they didn't actually hit it. Will damage their reputation, without actually saving their wicket 2) if it pitched outside leg - rarely happens that the ball pitches outside leg and the bowler appeals. Don't think it happened even once at MCG. It could, but if it is obvious the umpire usually knows (assuming its a decent umpire). If the batsman is still convinced, he could still go up. In case the line is good but the umpire isn't sure if it pitched in line, he can consult the 3rd umpire to be sure. What you are saying may be true for caught behinds, but then again on so many occasions we have seen ooohs and aaahs from bowlers when they beat the bat, but no real appeal. More often than not, the bowler and keeper know when the batsman has nicked it, and that's when they go up together with conviction (exception: Hussey's wicket in the 1st innings, which is the sort of decision I expect to be taken upstairs) At the end of the day, no cricketer wants to come out looking a cheater on camera, and I expect the match referees in turn to do their job if certain players try and take advantage through excessive appealing. Finally, I think limiting appeals to 5 a side is unfair. I believe it should be 1 per batsman (for the batting side), and 1 per bowler (for the bowling side).