This week the ICC made the DRS mandatory in all test and ODI cricket. But it’s not the DRS as we know it. Hotspot and stump mics will be used, but not Hawkeye, which is ‘only’ 97% accurate apparently – clearly not nearly accurate enough for India (the same India team which, incidentally have complained bitterly about poor umpiring in their ongoing test series against the Windies). There’s nothing like carving off your nose with a meat cleaver to spite your face, is there?
According to the new regulations, teams can still decide to use Hawkeye to refer LBWs at the start of series – if they both agree to its use – but India don’t trust the technology enough to use it against England. Consequently, in the upcoming series shocking LBW decisions can only be overruled for inside edges … even if Hawkeye suggests the ball was missing a second set of stumps.
Regular readers of The Full Toss will know that we’re pioneers in the ‘great idea, why didn’t anybody else think of that’ department. Remember our article about night-day cricket (so much better than the day-night equivalent … if you don’t have a job and are basically nocturnal)? Therefore we’ve thought of the perfect way to convince those stubborn Indians that they’re being as intransigent and nonsensical as Bob Crow on a bad day.
Basically, we reckon that England should be able to use Hawkeye in the forthcoming clash of the titans, but India can’t. The consequences should be highly satisfying. If Cook gets a stinker from Simon Awful, he’ll smugly call for a review and get reprieved. If Gambhir gets a shocker, it’s tough. He can walk back to the pavilion cursing his luck, but at least he’ll have stuck to his principles.
James Morgan
India’s logic is well… Whilst the ICC have been looking at this I think that they have shown that the umpires are less accurate than hawkeye, so worrying that there is a 3% error is perverse. Perhaps the Eng v Ind series should be run without umpires? Though I think I like your idea better James!
Didnt the ICC state that umpires make 93% correct decisions? However, that included counting to 6 for balls in the over so a 97% accuracy level looks quite good to me.
If this is just an India-bashing session, then feel free to ignore the rest of my comments.
However, if you believe in reasonable discussion, then here are my points:
1) India’s opposition hasn’t been about technology or UDRS in general… but about 1 tool – Hawkeye. And in particular, its predictive paths… an application which is unprecedented in sport. Remember, that in other sports like Tennis, technology only reviews actual and fully determinable events, i.e. line calls. There is no predictive judgment call involved. Shouldn’t cricket take extra precautions before inducting an unprecedented application?
2) Even in Tennis, Hawkeye is not used in most clay court events, including Roland Garros. Further, if both players agree, it can be switched off in matches on other surfaces. The point being, it is accepted in even Tennis that Hawkeye is not always more reliable than human judges.
3) How believable is ICC’s 97% accuracy for HawkEye? When just 3 days back, they admitted after the CEC meet (in their release) that independent scientific testing will be conducted to determine Hawkeye’s accuracy and reliability (and until then, it remains non-mandatory). Why was this independent scientific testing not commissioned BEFORE inducting Hawkeye for decision reviews? Why did the ICC jump the gun?
4) Finally, the suggestion from many in India is that Hawkeye tracking be used not for ball path projections, but like in Tennis, for line calls in Lbws… i.e. to review if the ball pitched in line with the stumps, and if the point of impact was also in line. And then leave the rest of the judgment call to an experienced “human” umpire. Surely this assistance would suffice to enable the umpires to make good lbw decisions, and eliminate howlers.
There are many other relevant points of discussion on the UDRS… from who should review (players or the 3rd umpire), to how many reviews, to how to supervise the UDRS technicians (so that match-fixers don’t target them in the future), etc.
So why is it “evil” to have reservations about the UDRS system, as it was being proposed? I know the BCCI are overbearing in many matters, but why ridicule and lambast Indian players who have genuine misgivings about a new decision system?
MHA here. The Full Toss is a broad church, and opinions vary within the editorial team. Personally, I have always and opposed the UDRS because I believe cricket should remain an organic sport played and judged by human beings, not computers. Their mistakes are part of the fabric and texure of the game – and it’s only a game, not an operating theatre or court, where mistakes have a serious consequence.
The Indian arguments against Hawkeye – unless they’re being disingenous – hold water, because it’s never really been demonstrated to the public exactly how and why Hawkeye’s predictive functions are so accurate. How does it read spin and dip when the ball has pitched very full, for example?
Thanks for your reply.
I know that 2 board personnel have sounded disingenous (with silly remarks like “it is not 100%” and “it costs $60K per day”).
But the Indian players and Indian journalists / cricket watchers and fans (like me) have genuine concerns about Hawkeye predictions. Perhaps because we suffered in its debut series. (And now even Hawkeye and Virtual eye have admitted that mistakes were made in equipment alignment, etc. in their early days)
That’s why the demand for a more stringent assessment before its final induction.
Also, just because India have not opted for the DRS in the West Indies, does that mean any sort of mediocre umpiring and tech support should be silently tolerated?
Did England not show anger on the field when Harper ruled in favour of Graeme Smith last year… due to feed volume issues? Weren’t the English press carping in their reportage?
In the Jamaica Test, Harper made 6 poor decisions… all against India, and 4 in 1 session of play, including missing a no-ball from a spinner. This in a low-scoring Test match. So ask yourself… was Dhoni’s remark truly over the top? (Now in the current Test, the broadcasters messed up a TV replay and gave Dhoni out… but he has assumed the blame for a poor stroke, rather than condemn the broadcaster.) And that’s only part of the story… the officiating in the ODI series by 2 of the local umpires was amateurishly bad… in all types of decisions, including the non-referral of a clear run-out (despite an Indian appeal).
And are English scribes being fair in reporting that India are “hounding Harper out of the game”? Was it not his own record that was leading to his dismissal from the elite panel? And after his poor, and one-sided, performance in the 1st Test, wouldn’t it have been prudent if the ICC had withdrawn him from this series, and assigned him another Test match as a farewell? Isn’t that fairer to both parties?
Yes, umpires have a tough job. But surely certain minimum standards of competence and consistency have to expected at the international level.
So why are India the only team that constantly objects to hawkeye? Do they have a monopoly on common sense? Umpiring is a tough job. They need all the help they can get. Hawkeye isn’t perfect, but several cameras are more accurate than the human eye. That IS common sense. India, like England in the past, hold all the political power in cricket. And like England in the past, it has gone too their heads. They haven’t had the rub of the green with Drs decisions, so they refuse to see the benefits. If they did suddenly come around to technology, it would make their previous complaints look foolish – and their administrators look weak. It’s a typical political dilemma. Sticking to their guns, rather than looking at technology objectively, is deemed the lesser evil at the bcci
I was never defending the BCCI or its administrators. I was presenting the views of many, not all, Indians (journalists, fans, players) on Hawkeye’s predictive path application, which is unprecedented in sport… and so should be stringently examined before induction. So don’t jump the gun, or disregard alternatives.
Until that independent scientific analysis is done, you’ll know that that many Indians suggest an alternative, which I’ve stated: ” …Hawkeye tracking be used not for ball path projections, but like in Tennis, for line calls in Lbws… i.e. to review if the ball pitched in line with the stumps, and if the point of impact was also in line. And then leave the rest of the judgment call to an experienced “human” umpire. Surely this assistance would suffice to enable the umpires to make good lbw decisions, and eliminate howlers.”
Wouldn’t the above + other UDRS tools would help eliminate howlers? And if / when Hawkeye predictive paths prove their claimed accuracy in the independent tests, then the ICC can go ahead and induct that too… based on hard data and analysis, which can’t be faulted by anyone.
As for other teams, you should know that Mickey Arthur and SA also expressed initial skepticism about Hawkeye rulings in the England series last year. But eventually they accepted the error margins of the system.
Yes, Indian players are more skeptical. But isn’t it natural for the ones who’ve had adverse experiences to be so? The ICC made them take part in Hawkeye’s debut Test series in 2008; and both Hawkeye and VirtualEye / EageEye admit that greater errors were made in their earlier years. (Btw, Hawkeye was pointing out the other vendor’s errors as recently as late last year… in SMH)
I fully agree that technology can help. But let’s just follow a stringent enough process (independent scientific testing for accuracy & reliability) before inducting unprecedented applications in sport.
It’s fair and sensible to explore alternatives, but hawkeye is better than the human eye as it is. I agree it should be used to see if the ball pitched outside leg etc, but that can be done with simple replays and the redzone. Even when it comes to predicting the flight of the ball after impact, several cameras are still better than a human being who sees the incident just once and has to make a split decision. I’m afraid I simply cannot understand indias problem. There is more than rational understanding in play
Here we are in 2014 end and India still suffering from howlers more then there opponents. I believe its more of some old people stubborn and selfish behavior to not to go for DRS. Million of People watching 5 day test match at home in hope to see a fair and competitive game, In the end we can only remember the bad umpiring. When all the nations are agreeing to DRS what the hack of a problem for BCCI to opt it. It is not about hawkeye’s, its about now HOW CAN I. SHAME..