The debate about using technology in cricket is not a new one, and on the face of it, should be pretty simple. Unlike sports like football, where a referee's view of an incident is purely subjective, cricket is more like tennis, where technology tells the umpire whether the ball was in, or out. Technology was first used to help umpires on run-outs and stumpings - issues of black or white, in or out, whether the batsman had got behind the line or not. There was no 'benefit of the doubt', margin for error or umpire's call. It was a pretty simple system, and it worked.
However, the Pandora's Box of technology was opened, and we've now arrived at a crossroads in cricket. The DRS system is in place in most international matches (you can take a seat for this bit, India) and was introduced in order to 'eliminate the howler', and to try and get every single decision correct. No longer could a player claim he was robbed by a poor umpire's decision, as he'd be able to make the T, go upstairs and have the decision overruled on irrefutable evidence. Sadly, that is not the case. If a bowler is sure he's made the batsman edge, he can go to the third umpire only to find that it's one of the up to 10% of hotspot decisions that don't show an edge. Or a batsman can be given out for a shady LBW that could have been missing, purely because the umpire put his finger up.
The weighting of the 'umpire's call' is totally wrong. The whole point of technology is to take the possibly wrong decision of the umpire out of the equation, and find if a batsman is out, or not out. We saw a situation today at Old Trafford where Steve Smith was given not out to an LBW from Swann, which when reviewed was shown to be hitting 49.999999% of leg stump. As the umpire had decided to not give it, his decision was upheld, but had Tony Hill put his finger up to the exact same ball, Smith would have been on his way. If cricket is a game of in, or out, how can the exact same ball be given two wildly different outcomes based on a fallible human decision which technology was designed to eradicate?
Saying that had been their final review, and the next ball the umpire missed another plumb leg before call, with replays showing middle stump being knocked out the ground, even though the correct decision would have been out, the batsman would have survived. How is that getting a larger proportion of decisions right? A lot was spoken after the first test that the main reason England won the tight game is because Alastair Cook used the review system a lot better than Michael Clarke. Surely that shows the balance is completely wrong, where using the system is more important than playing good cricket? Technology shouldn't be used to find which captain has the best restraint, or is the better gambler - it should be used to find if a batsman is in, or out.
Too much of the DRS is based on not hurting the umpire's feelings - far too much weight is put on not overturning their onfield decisions rather than making the simple call of in, or out. While opponents of the DRS claim that ignoring the umpire's decision on referrals reduces the men in the middle to bean counters whose jobs it is to solely count to six, if technology is going to be bought in, it should be all or nothing. Captains should be able to review every single ball if they so wish, with the third umpire's decision being the only one that matters and not influenced by whether the latest scapegoat in the middle put their finger up. Every ball should be scrutinised for to see if the bowler overstepped, rather than just wicket-taking ones - a system which is ludicrously unfair and in the batsman's favour. Or, nothing goes upstairs.
The only way the DRS can ever work successfully is if it is given total control of cricket, firing laser beams from the stands towards unfortunate batsmen and giving people out or not out in the post-apocalyptic world that cricket would become. Or, cricket could go back to how it was played for years before, where instead of blaming a bloke watching on telly for making a bad call, they'd blame a bloke standing in the middle holding the bowler's hat. I'm in favour of modernising cricket and making sure decisions are correct, but there can't be a halfway house with technology. In a cricketing all or nothing, I'm voting all. And let me be the first to say, I for one welcome our new technological overlords, and like to remind them that as a trusted cricket blogger I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground hotspot labs.
Showing posts with label UDRS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UDRS. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Friday, 3 February 2012
The DRS "Paranoia"
This series between Pakistan and England has seen the greatest amount of lbws in a three-test series in test history. Already 36 victims have been struck plumb in front, and have been forced to trudge back to the pavilion, with most batsmen and an increasing number of pundits blaming the rise of the DRS for the increased number of ell-bees.
So is the reason for the disproportionate number of leg-befores due to the use of technology? It’s certainly been proved that since the implementation of the review system that a greater percentage of appeals have been given by umpires, especially to spinners, as replays have shown that a lot of the previously rejected shouts would have gone on to hit the stumps. This has been a boost for the likes of Swann and Ajmal, who have been given plenty of wickets over the past couple of years that they would simply not have been given in times gone past. Umpires have seen that even when batsmen take a big stride down the pitch that the ball will sometimes go on to hit the stumps, meaning that they’re far more willing to give batsmen out. So arguably, DRS has played a part in the dismissals.
For this series, however, the DRS is being blamed for the fact that ball is hitting the pad more often. David Lloyd has spoken about the “paranoia” that the DRS is causing, leading to batsmen’s techniques falling apart and being struck plumb in front. But can the DRS really be blamed? Surely if a batsman plays with a straight bat and actually hits the ball, no amount of replays or ball-tracking technology will give them out. Yes, there have been a lot of lbws this series, but how many of those have been due to poor technique (especially by English players playing spin), and the awareness of the bowlers to exploit this by bowling at the stumps?
The DRS is said to have closed the gap in the balance between bat and ball in test cricket, and that can only be a good thing. One of the arguments against the review system is that there are a lot more wickets given than in the past – but wickets are only given if a batsman is out. Which means that in the past, batsmen who should have been given out weren’t, and if that happens to favour the bowlers then so be it. Surely that’s a lot better than incorrect decisions costing teams games? If the DRS is causing a “paranoia” amongst batsmen about how to play certain shots, then shouldn’t they getting down the nets and working on their obviously shaky technique rather than bleating about the pros or cons of technology? Hawkeye or no Hawkeye, a batsman is asking for trouble if he keeps getting hit on the back pad when standing in front of middle stump, and if the DRS is helping the umpires to get those decisions right, then that can only be of benefit to test cricket.
The DRS does have its opponents, and some arguments against its usage, many of which are very relevant and should be looked at. However, the fact that it is leading to more correct decisions being made surely isn’t one of them. Instead of looking for excuses, the batsmen should be looking at themselves and working out how to avoid being hit on the pads, as until then, the bowlers are going to keep bowling at them.
So is the reason for the disproportionate number of leg-befores due to the use of technology? It’s certainly been proved that since the implementation of the review system that a greater percentage of appeals have been given by umpires, especially to spinners, as replays have shown that a lot of the previously rejected shouts would have gone on to hit the stumps. This has been a boost for the likes of Swann and Ajmal, who have been given plenty of wickets over the past couple of years that they would simply not have been given in times gone past. Umpires have seen that even when batsmen take a big stride down the pitch that the ball will sometimes go on to hit the stumps, meaning that they’re far more willing to give batsmen out. So arguably, DRS has played a part in the dismissals.
For this series, however, the DRS is being blamed for the fact that ball is hitting the pad more often. David Lloyd has spoken about the “paranoia” that the DRS is causing, leading to batsmen’s techniques falling apart and being struck plumb in front. But can the DRS really be blamed? Surely if a batsman plays with a straight bat and actually hits the ball, no amount of replays or ball-tracking technology will give them out. Yes, there have been a lot of lbws this series, but how many of those have been due to poor technique (especially by English players playing spin), and the awareness of the bowlers to exploit this by bowling at the stumps?
The DRS is said to have closed the gap in the balance between bat and ball in test cricket, and that can only be a good thing. One of the arguments against the review system is that there are a lot more wickets given than in the past – but wickets are only given if a batsman is out. Which means that in the past, batsmen who should have been given out weren’t, and if that happens to favour the bowlers then so be it. Surely that’s a lot better than incorrect decisions costing teams games? If the DRS is causing a “paranoia” amongst batsmen about how to play certain shots, then shouldn’t they getting down the nets and working on their obviously shaky technique rather than bleating about the pros or cons of technology? Hawkeye or no Hawkeye, a batsman is asking for trouble if he keeps getting hit on the back pad when standing in front of middle stump, and if the DRS is helping the umpires to get those decisions right, then that can only be of benefit to test cricket.
The DRS does have its opponents, and some arguments against its usage, many of which are very relevant and should be looked at. However, the fact that it is leading to more correct decisions being made surely isn’t one of them. Instead of looking for excuses, the batsmen should be looking at themselves and working out how to avoid being hit on the pads, as until then, the bowlers are going to keep bowling at them.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Podcast - Billy Bowden and the Half Hearted DRS
Subscribe to the Short Midwicket Podcast on iTunes!
Or, download this via Podbean
The 2000th test was played, and it was a fitting test. England won, and had some quality performances, whilst India lost despite some valiant stuff with both bat and ball. Will talks about the resurgence of Stuart Broad as a test bowler (whilst taking credit for this return to form) as well as KP and Prior's runs. Sachin is sung about, but Will hails Dravid, and ponders what would happen if Sachin didn't exist. There's some thoughts on the use of the DRS, and musings on the health of test cricket. All of this, and a preview of the Trent Bridge test. What a great way to spend twenty four minutes and ten seconds!
Or, download this via Podbean
The 2000th test was played, and it was a fitting test. England won, and had some quality performances, whilst India lost despite some valiant stuff with both bat and ball. Will talks about the resurgence of Stuart Broad as a test bowler (whilst taking credit for this return to form) as well as KP and Prior's runs. Sachin is sung about, but Will hails Dravid, and ponders what would happen if Sachin didn't exist. There's some thoughts on the use of the DRS, and musings on the health of test cricket. All of this, and a preview of the Trent Bridge test. What a great way to spend twenty four minutes and ten seconds!
Friday, 12 March 2010
Tea Time Thoughts (Bangladesh v England 1st Test)
Despite my best intentions to get up early and watch the cricket from the bitter beginning, I didn't. A week's worth of fatigue (plus a bad case of man flu) meant I didn't awake to watch Steven Finn and Michael Carberry being given their test caps, or Cook passing 50. However, having got up for 6.30 (ready to start my day) I did see Jonathan Trott being given out by an absolute shocker. Yesterday, the ICC said that the UDRS was "here to stay". However, with no such technology being used in this series, Trott was given out - and he was looking like maintaining his good form and making a big score - a score which could guarentee his place in the team when Andrew Strauss returns. While the umpire's decision was poor (and ultimately just wrong, as proved by TV replays), this is a prime example as to why the UDRS should be implemented across the board.
While Trott was looking good before getting out, by all accounts captaincy debutant Alastair Cook was even better. Amazingly hitting two sixes (which probably says more about the bowling then anything else), Cook reached his century just before the tea interval. Having never reached 200 in professional cricket (his best being 195 v Northants in 2005), Cook must fancy his chances of making what his batting mentor Graham Gooch would call a "daddy". While the bowlers have hardly been Warne, Laker or Holding, Cook has shown good mental fortitude and technique to keep scoring at a good rate.
In other news, Kevin Pietersen has astounded critics by making double figures - when most pundits were of the impression that his switch hit was actually confusion as to whether he was left or right handed. KP seemed to have a new technique against those left handed spinners which had so plagued him; getting his front foot well out of the way - taking LBW well out of the equation. Hopefully KP can go on and make a 'gritty' century - something he has not always done in England colours.
England are firmly in the box seat at 243-2, and with Cook's century comes the inevitable century from Ian Bell (he can only make them when someone else has done it first). I predicted an English victory within three days, and if they can keep up the scoring rate, it could well be quicker.
While Trott was looking good before getting out, by all accounts captaincy debutant Alastair Cook was even better. Amazingly hitting two sixes (which probably says more about the bowling then anything else), Cook reached his century just before the tea interval. Having never reached 200 in professional cricket (his best being 195 v Northants in 2005), Cook must fancy his chances of making what his batting mentor Graham Gooch would call a "daddy". While the bowlers have hardly been Warne, Laker or Holding, Cook has shown good mental fortitude and technique to keep scoring at a good rate.
In other news, Kevin Pietersen has astounded critics by making double figures - when most pundits were of the impression that his switch hit was actually confusion as to whether he was left or right handed. KP seemed to have a new technique against those left handed spinners which had so plagued him; getting his front foot well out of the way - taking LBW well out of the equation. Hopefully KP can go on and make a 'gritty' century - something he has not always done in England colours.
England are firmly in the box seat at 243-2, and with Cook's century comes the inevitable century from Ian Bell (he can only make them when someone else has done it first). I predicted an English victory within three days, and if they can keep up the scoring rate, it could well be quicker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)