When a young person learns the game of cricket they are taught the fundamental skills of the game – batting, bowling and fielding.
Nowhere in the rule book does it say a player needs to be a good gambler too.
Yet that is what has become expected for captains at the elite level when it comes to DRS – 15 seconds to decide whether to use any remaining reviews, that may or may not be needed later in the innings.
To make matters worse, seconds after the decision, fans see the outcome of the review when nothing can be done about it except whinging and moaning.
In a lot of cases, it has just become a sideshow. There have been many examples where players have become selfish in using a team review just because it is there – others spark a batting collapse by not reviewing a decision that wasn’t out.
It’s clear the game’s authorities need to balance two sides: getting on-field decisions right, and also not wasting time and delaying the game’s flow and detracting viewers.
It can be a costly system too. Remember the 2019 Ashes in England when Ben Stokes was plumb LBW with just one wicket in hand? Australia should have won the third Test and retained the Ashes with a series win – but due to having no reviews left, four balls later England completed their greatest Test run chase and the series ended up being drawn.
Ultimately, what do we want from DRS? If the answer is to get decisions right, we need to look at taking away any guesswork or loopholes – employ some common sense and review everything possible – and yes, there is a way.
To make it clear, that doesn’t necessarily mean slowing the game down. In 2024, surely there is a way for each appeal to have the opportunity to be reviewed in an efficient manner behind the scenes without causing an unnecessary delay if the right processes are followed.
Currently, for an LBW shout in Australia, the players are given 15 seconds before the third umpire begins the system of looking at the front foot, slow motion vision, UltraEdge, HotSpot and if necessary a height check for a full toss before they get to the crucial ball tracking and it could mean that the three previous checks were pointless.
My proposal doesn’t mean there won’t be stoppages to check decisions, but rulings can be made more efficiently by pinpointing the balls and moments where there’s genuine doubt, as opposed to players just hoping for the best.
A review, non-review, or not having any remaining reviews should never cost a team the game.
Nathan Lyon. (Photo by Graham Denholm – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
Firstly, it’s important to note that not every ball will need to be reviewed. It still will need an appeal to trigger the DRS process, but like football, cricket could introduce smart watches for the umpires for LBW decisions.
The most crucial part of a leg before dismissal is the ‘three red lights’ system in ball tracking, meaning normally the ball pitching in line or outside off, hitting in line and hitting the wickets. If all three of these are red then the umpire’s watch will beep and vibrate.
That’s similar to what happens in elite European football competitions using the ball chip. Once it passes the goal line the referee gets notified immediately – if nothing happens it’s no goal – why can’t that happen in cricket to give the umpires more information instantly?
It will not automatically trigger a dismissal straight away unless the on-field umpire is certain, based on that information from the watch that it is out.
But if using human discretion an umpire thinks that it is close enough to the bat to create doubt, then they can launch a review, not the captain, to quickly check the other factors using UltraEdge (or Snicko) or Hotspot.
For those who doubt that this will be a quick process, a behind-the-scenes Fox Cricket segment illustrated the process of DRS and what we see on the broadcast is an animation of the ball tracking, which takes time to formulate.
The raw data is much more speedily available and all the umpire on the field needs to know is that the technology has found that the ‘three red lights’ are active and it may need a closer inspection.
This can be done quicker than the captain has to decide whether to review or not.
There will always need to be a front-foot check or making sure there’s no bat before pad – and players given out can still review a dismissal if they feel they have hit it – but as far as the crucial ball tracking the officials will already know the outcome, so that part won’t need to be checked.
Just look at tennis, the player reviews have been made obsolete in major tournaments through digital line calls that replaced human line judges. Players don’t need to use up time challenging because the review has already been done. The Hawk-Eye animation is just for the fans and entertainment on the broadcast.
The Fox Cricket segment also clarifies the argument that while the broadcasted animation looked as if the ball was hitting the wickets, the raw data shows it’s much closer, triggering Umpire’s Call as opposed to Out.
Despite this, as a side note, I do think that Umpire’s Call needs to go and it is either black or white – either hitting or not, and just live with the margin of error.
Mohammad Rizwan speaks with umpire Joel Wilson. (Photo by Morgan Hancock – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
Ultimately, giving the umpire instant knowledge of the three red lights and altering the process takes the guessing out of it from captains. Especially the bowling team, who are really just throwing at the dart board. How can any fielder really know with more certainty than the umpire standing at the other end to decide on the ball trajectory?
Caught behinds and edges also can be made more efficient. Whether it is bringing more people in to look at the review quicker – like front foot no balls – and alert the umpire to the doubt before the bowler gets to the top of their mark, or even giving more player reviews for caught behind only with only one thing allowed to be checked.
Both on-field umpires and third umpires could also be given earpieces with enhanced stump mic audio to better hear snicks and edges more clearly and quickly triggering reviews – where necessary.
The time between deliveries is not as short as many people think, I have managed toilet breaks and putting the kettle on in the middle of Mitchell Starc, Chris Woakes and Mohammed Siraj’s overs without missing anything.
This proposed idea is not a reinvention of the wheel, and there will be human error that still exists in the game. But if the technology is there why not take advantage of it at a point where something can be done about it, rather than the backlash in the media or social media to the detriment of the game?
It is not about bringing in rocket scientists to invent new technology; cricket actually has all the tools available to it that it needs.
There just needs to be a smarter process where teams are not gambling on DRS for results.
>Cricket News
%20(3).jpeg)
0 Comments