Well, I've been a bit wishy-washy on the topic of the UDRS, previously known as the Referral System. I was a quiet advocate at first, mainly because of the notorious Sydney Test match, but was very much for it being used only on marginal decisions. Before it was first implemented in South Africa and the West Indies in early 2009, I wrote a list of considerations, published on this blog for the very first time *drumroll, wild applause*:
- How it will affect umpires' decision-making
- How it will affect the role of umpires
- What improvements to technology use could there be
- The use of Hawkeye
- How it will affect umpire-player relations
- How it will affect the nature of appealing
- Whether it will improve (or not) the decision-making in the game
- The time it takes to make a decision
- The number of referrals a team can make
- Any anomalies that may surface
My thoughts are, so far, generally negative. The camera technology currently in use is too crude to base decisions on. One just has to look at the (non-referral) catch made by Andrew McDonald in the SCG Test - from one angle it looked out, the other not out. As I have stated elsewhere, I think it may encourage excessive appealing, lazy umpiring and a lack of accountability for on-field umpires, while at the same time undermining their authority (and getting under their skin). And while extra technology could improve it, it will also add more time to an already lengthy process.So far, it's been an interesting thing to follow. A good deal too much is made of it, admittedly - in other sports such as rugby league, rule changes and technology implementations happen with barely a blink of an eye. People just accept the new terms and move on. However, cricket has always been a game of tradition, and the followers are firmly divided between the camps of preservers and innovators.
The position the system was at during the aforementioned series was not satisfactory. Camera angles were causing issues, umpires were very shaky on the rules and marginal decisions were being overturned. I felt that the game had in no way been improved, but further delays had been introduced and at times incidents were becoming farcical. Especially when Daryl Harper was involved.
The new system (with the brand new acronym that could easily be one of the Sri Lankan players' initials or at least some of them) is far from perfect, but it is a move in the right direction. Hawkeye technology has been implemented remarkably intelligently (considering we're talking about the ICC) and I do like the leeway given to marginal decisions. In fact, I think the improvement to LBW decisions has been fantastic and something I didn't think really possible. I also agree with the reduction of three referrals per innings to two, as the time it takes with all the technology involved (especially when waiting for Hawkeye and Hotspot) is quite lengthy.
Hotspot is an issue though. It seems that currently the third umpire is not taking it as the final word on things, even when the portion of the bat under scrutiny is visible (which is not always and will become less as batsmen learn to hide their edges). Either it should be used as the definitive or it should not be used at all. I believe that better investment could be made into more super-slow-motion cameras which, while having issues with depth of field do show impact most of the time. Hotspot, if it doesn't work well enough, should not be used because cost would then far outweigh any benefits it brings.
Where my major rankle comes, however, is in the player behaviour toward the umpires. Despite the reviews, there seems to be increased disappointment when a decision is made against a team (whether referred or not). This was highlighted by Ponting and Bollinger's rather appalling, childish behaviour in the recent Adelaide Test against the West Indies, but has been evident elsewhere as well. It seems that the umpiring is under even more scrutiny and that players have now been granted license to visibly show disappointment and even obviously complain about a decision. Frustration is also created by the fact that none of the process is shown on-field and thus no-one is really sure why the secondary decision has been made. Even if this is shown after the fact, it should be shown. I believe the umpires in the middle, at least, deserve to see the factors behind the decision for themselves.
To this point (under the UDRS), I haven't seen much change in the decision-making of umpires (whether they're giving more or less wickets before review) but I am hoping to statistically track it at least by sample and provide initial results and findings sometime next year.
Posts
i actually think that the review system is a load of bollocks. the game has survived for so long without this. i prefer asking the umpire the question and then accepting his decision.
ReplyDeletethis part where you can now call his bluff is a bit rubbish, however, i do like the way that they keep marginal decisions marginal.
if you want to have this review thing, then don't do it half-arsed like in the SA vs Eng test last week. only having hawkeye and camera replays isn't enough. you need hotspot, snicko and a super slow-mo if you want the correct decision.
without all those, the referral might as well just be the third umpire flipping a coin.