Much Improved DRS To Be Tested In India v. England Series
By Indian Cricket Fever
October 24 2016
After almost all the concerns that India had expressed about the DRS system in the past were satisfactorily addressed by the ICC, the BCCI is now ready to give the NEW and IMPROVED DRS system a try. India's stand against DRS was principled and not arbitrary as some in the Western media have alleged. It was based on the now famous Dhoni quote about "adultration of human decision making and technology".
If you look at it dispassionately Dhoni was RIGHT. The uncertainties in the system were such that human factors could impact the outcome of the DRS system to a much greater extent then commonly understood. If a particular official or operator of the system were so inclinded they could rig the system against one side or the other. In effect it was still a human error and bias prone system, just like regular umpiring, that gave the appearance of being much more authorative than it actually was in predicting the outcome of an appeal. India and Dhoni never had issues about using technology when the human factor was minimal such as for runouts, stumpings, no-balls, etc. their issue was with things like ball tracking and hot-spot, which in the past were much more dependent on human input and therefore subject to human error or bias.
The two counter arguments to this stand by India were that both sides were subject to the same uncertainties, and that DRS was much more about preventing "howlers" rather than adjudicating marginal or 50/50 type decisions, which now are known as "umpire's call" type decisions. Dhoni's counter to that was he was willing to accept umpiring mistakes instead of using technology that appeared to be less inaccurate, but in reality was almost as error prone. It should be noted that India suffered several times from umpire errors, some would say even "howlers", due to this stand during the time that it refused to accept DRS.
Now that the the providers of the technology have improved it tremendously, a nearly 300% improvement in the balls-per-frame rate for instance, then it is logical that India now feel it is good enough to be tried out again. The issue of bias in "umpire's call" type decisions has still not been eliminated. For that to occur a minor adjustment in the rules is needed. A new rule should say that any "umpire's call" type decision that is appealed and the appeal goes against the appealing side, should not be counted against the side appealing. The basic princple of fairness would dictate that if the "umpire is not sure, why should we hold the team appealing the umpire's decision to a higher standard?"
Of course, clearly correct decisions being appealed are to be discouraged and should incur the loss of the right to one of the two appeals allowed per 80 overs. The argument against this rule was that allowing such multiple appeals would significantly slow down the game. That argument however was never anything but a red-herring. Test cricket is played over 30 hours, a few delays of a minute or two each time is unlikely to significantly upset the flow of play. Heck the never ending on-field conferences, drinks breaks, glove and equipment breaks etc., not to mention malfunctioning sight screens, ignorant fans moving behind the bowler, etc. are much more time consuming.
If any definitive proof was needed that the rule change I suggest would not be disruptive it was provided by the recent England versus Bangladesh Test in Chitagong where just by chance nearly two dozen umpiring decisions over the course of the match were appealed. The game did not suffer a slow down at all... In fact, Bangladesh, with its spin friendly attack, bowled several overs over the minimum (and defacto maximum) 90 overs in a day. Fittingly the match ended on two DRS reviews by England. Who could say that multiple DRS appeals were slowing the game down?
Now here is the full BCCI's statement on their decision to use DRS on a trial basis:
The Board of Control for Cricket in India will deploy the Decision Review System, in toto, in the forthcoming series between India and England starting from the 9th of Nov 2016, on a trial basis to evaluate the improvements made to the system, over a period of time
In the meeting with the ICC and the Hawkeye officials, the improvements made to the system were further evaluated by the BCCI team, who were satisfied that most of the concerns and suggestions that were expressed by BCCI over a period of time, were addressed to a significant extent.
The significant changes, which have been effected, include:
·The introduction of ultra motion cameras will address issues with regard to calculating the predictive path which allows the ball tracking, to be more accurate.
·Manual intervention to set the impact point has been controlled by the introduction of the ‘Ultra edge’, which has been approved by MIT and will help in determining the frame of impact.
·Ultraedge also ensures that post impact balls do not affect the predicted path or impact point and hence the accuracy has been improved.
·Earlier, there was a possibility that the operator would have missed a delivery and hence a LBW appeal could have been missed. Now, Hawkeye has developed the technology to record and save all images so that in case an operator fails to arm the tracking system, the images can be rewound and replayed.
·Basis the recommendation from BCCI, additional cameras have been installed so that there is redundancy and also provide 100% reliable spin vision for DRS.
Anurag Thakur, President of BCCI, who was present throughout the presentation stated, “ We are happy to note that Hawkeye has institutionalised all the recommendations made by BCCI, and we confirm that this improved version of DRS will be used on a trial basis during the forthcoming series against England and based on the performance of the system and the feedback that we will receive, further continuation in forthcoming series will be decided. We recognise the enhanced role of technology in sport and BCCI will lead such initiatives in coming days, and enrich the viewer experience.
Ajay Shirke, Hony. Secretary of BCCI said, “ With MIT endorsing the enhancements made in the system on the basis of recommendations made by the BCCI, we are convinced that such technology should be utilised in supporting correct decision making. While recognising that improvements in technology are ongoing, BCCI will continue to include any and all such path breaking interventions, to further the cause of the sport.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017:01:11:01:00:20 by Birbal.
The way Umpire's call decsions are treated under the current rules needs to be changed...
a SIMPLE change would be to not eliminate one of the two appeals allowed per 80 overs for a side losing an umpire's call decision. This one change if made would resolve any issues that India has with DRS...now that technology has improved so much...
Here is the text of the article from CI
[www.espncricinfo.com]
The 'umpire's call' is R Ashwin's big objection against DRS, but when asked if that was also the team and the team management's view, he didn't offer a comment. In an interview with ESPNcricinfo before the start of India's home season, Ashwin said he was happy to go with the team's decision, but didn't mind a DRS minus the predictive element either. Other players that ESPNcricinfo spoke to are not entirely averse to the idea of DRS but point to the possibility of manipulation of technology by host broadcasters, who pay for the DRS as the system stands now. However, they said they didn't know why the team leadership didn't accept DRS.
This series between India and South Africa will be yet another without DRS, while other series around the world continue to use technology to correct or vindicate umpires' decisions. India's refusal to adopt DRS even though their limited-overs captain and manager criticise umpires publicly has been matter of debate and intrigue because officially they have never gone beyond the stock phrase: "DRS is not 100%."
Ashwin is perhaps the first of the India players to present some solid views about DRS on the record. "Personally speaking, I don't agree with the concept of umpire's call," Ashwin told ESPNcricinfo. "If I have two reviews, and I take one of them, and you have already judged it not out, the odds of it being not out are 99%. Is DRS umpire protective or player protective?"
When suggested that if the replays return an umpire's call, it means the original decision wasn't a really bad one, Ashwin raised a more important point. "Cricketers are not rocket scientists," he said. "Let's keep it that simple. Do you think in 15 seconds the captain standing at mid-off will be able to say it is not umpire's call? If you want to make the game a better place, either trust the technology completely or don't."
Another player hinted at a deeper mistrust of the umpires when it came to the umpire's call. "I don't get this umpire's call," he told ESPNcricinfo in Australia, after India had been at the receiving end of a few rough ones in Adelaide. "They will invariably go against us. If you want to use technology, you have to take it out of the hands of the humans."
'If you want to make the game a better place, either trust the technology completely or don't' - Ashwin © AFP
This is consistent with India's general belief - which they don't express publicly - that umpires are biased against them when it comes to subjective calls. In Australia, one senior player felt the umpires were scrutinising no-balls by Indian bowlers more than the Australians. ESPNcricinfo hasn't been able to verify this independently, but the player said quite a few no-balls by Australian bowlers went unnoticed.
There has been a deep-seated mistrust - almost siege - for the DRS because it is eventually used by the same umpires. A player said he was led to believe the host broadcaster could manipulate the pictures and the technology to influence decisions. However, none of the players could speak on behalf of the leadership as to what the real reason for aversion to DRS was. ESPNcricinfo asked the player who suspected manipulations and lack of clarity if those were the reasons he was opposed to DRS. His response was, "I didn't say I am opposed to it."
Ashwin said he was happy with a DRS that didn't involve projections. A system that revisits only events that have happened and not predict what would have happened, which is where the umpire's call mostly comes in. Just look at where the ball pitched, where it hit the batsman, and whether it hit the bat before hitting the pad, don't use the predictive path. "That should be perfect," Ashwin said. However, there is a problem even in that system: it will help the batsman more. It can only be used when a batsman has been ruled out. When the original decision is not out, you never know why the on-field umpire ruled him not out, and can still stick with the original call to save his decision even if the replays of what happened fulfil all the criteria for an lbw.
When Ashwin was asked if the team discussed DRS after the gutting loss in Galle, he said: "Not been too many discussions on those lines. Maybe these Test matches could trigger the fact that we might look at DRS. You never know."
India's stand against DRS was not principled. They have terrorised, and forced into unemployment, any umpire that fairly adjudicates in any game involved them and any system that removes this competitive advantage will obviously be opposed by international cricket's biggest cheats i.e. India.
Quote:Birbal
R. Ashwin pointed out previously what I have been crying myself HOARSE about over the past HALF DECADE...
As with this message board, no one care about your opinion. Mainly as you're typically uninformed and belligerantly ignorant.
"New improved" DRS... please. Same old, same old, India's just realised it was wrong. Biggest advantage, to sides using DRS sensibly, is the number of front foot LBW spinners can get on referral. Does India have any spinners?
Apple: Ignoring Shilpa since 27/3/2012 and Birbal (temporarily replying to him since there's no one else here 26/10/2015) since 16/8/2012
Try and argue the facts instead of arrogantly stating your BIAS...
Do you dispute that the system has been improved tremendously...
Is it not better to have 300 frames per second, versus 60-70 as in the past? Is it not better to have the point of impact determined by technology rather than human input?
Anyway, both Australia and England should be prepared for wipeouts in India in the next few months...and the DRS will only help India not hurt them...
Series has produced some terrific cricket...
Meanwhile in Australia two Tests end in three days... Hobart only went to Day four because a whole day was rained out...no bellyaching about pitches....
Maybe because the real problem is Australian batting... just like it was in Sri Lanka and earlier in India... where they got their asses kicked.
On the other hand Australia would have been smarting after the ass kicking they suffered at home...so they had all to play for.
That much was sufficient to tilt the match Australia's way... that and the fact that SA had never played Test cricket under lights before.
Another thing to note... Australia had pretty much their best team... not sure how they could have improved on their XI... SA on the other hand surely would have been boosted if AB DeVelliers and Dale Styen were available...
By encouraging umpires to give "bold" lbw decision, which in the past may have been refused, but now umpires give because of DRS... India's spinners have become even more effective even on pitches that are not the spinning tracks of last year's series against South Africa.
If Bhajji and especially Kumble played under DRS...they would have got 100-150 more wickets each
This is what he wrote on cricinfo...
"Tough call
The idea of staying with the umpire's call on DRS is to discourage players from marginal reviews and to maintain the sanctity of the on-field umpire. To an extent, it's also an acknowledgment of technology not being 100% accurate. While this does make sense, one wonders why the team should be penalised for it. Mishra appealed for a leg-before against Moeen Ali and, while the ball hit the pads in front of the wicket, Hawk-Eye's projection showed that it would have just clipped leg stump instead of hitting it fully. Now, that can't be considered a bad review and therefore it is a little unfair to penalise India for it, as losing a review might mean an umpiring howler later in the innings going uncorrected."