To DRS Or Not To DRS?

By Gaurang
November 21 2012

The stated purpose of the DRS system is to prevent patently incorrect decisions, i.e. "howlers" from marring the game. In this aspect DRS can be remarkably successful, with one caveat. If there are no appeals left for the team trying to overturn a howler the system does not work. This is the crux of the issue. And where a simple change in the rules can make the DRS system much more acceptable to teams around the world.

The BCCI and some Indian cricketers have been skeptics of the technology used in the DRS system, with the level of error in technology like Hotspot, Hawkeye, and Snicko. Their contention that these systems are run by independent third parties, not under the control of the ICC or any other cricketing authority, but could materially influence games, is a valid one, and needs to be addressed.

The unspoken skepticism of the Indian players, if not the BCCI, is that the system can be used by umpires who have a bias, to either intentionally or unintentionally game the system, so that while giving the appearance of fairness it actually institutionalizes bias.

Let me explain by giving a hypothetical example. Let's say umpire "X" has an inherent bias against Pakistan. In a match between India and Pakistan, he routinely gives decisions in favor of India. The obvious solution from the Pakistan perspective would be to appeal these decisions to DRS. Problem solved.

Not quite. Let me elaborate. As the system exists currently each team gets to make 2 unsuccessful appeals, and after that they lose their right to appeal a decision. If the umpire "X" were giving only clearly wrong decisions in favor of India the problem would indeed be solved, as his wrong decisions would be overturned. However consider what happens when he also gives marginal decisions, often called "umpire's call" decisions in favor of India. If Pakistan were to appeal such decisions they would use up their 2 unsucessful appeals quickly and after that the umpire could make decision after decision in favor of India whether they were close ones or howlers with no compunctions or ability to be reversed. See the dilema from the Pakistani perspective?

The simple solution to this dilema would be to not count unsuccessful appeals that are for "umpire's calls" against the limit of 2 unsuccessful appeals per innings that the current rules allow. This balances the need to prevent teams from appealing everything to DRS, with the problem of umpire bias in close cases, whether intentional or unintentional.

The further benefit of this system, would be that it would highlight any bias that an umpire may have, as the team being hurt by the bias, can continue appealing (though they would lose the appeals) for decision after decsion. I would bet the umpire in question would "self-correct" very quickly.

If the ultimate goal of the DRS system is to prevent howlers and not encourage or institutionalize intentional or unintentional bias, this one simple rule change could go a long way in doing so. Of course, the underlying issue of the reliability of the technology would still remain but the ICC could insist that the owners of Hawkeye, Hotspot, Snicko, etc. either share the technology with the ICC or at the very least allow an ICC official access to their technology and experts during a game. As for the cost of the system, series that are not money spinners like the current Sri Lanka v. New Zealand and Bangladesh v. West Indies series, could be covered by the ICC. In fact in the interest of fairness, maybe equipment for all series should be covered by the ICC. Afterall fair is fair.