I’ll tell you what I’ve particularly enjoyed about the India v England series.
Not Alastair Cook’s imperious form, nor the resurgence of Monty Panesar, not even England’s stirring comeback since Ahmedabad – tremendous though all three have been.
No. What I’ve liked is this: no DRS.
And I’m aware that in holding this view I’m almost certainly in a very small minority, perhaps of one.
I’m saying this not as a great sage of the game, which I certainly don’t pretend to be, but as a paying punter.
How refreshing it’s been, during these last three tests, for ‘out’ to mean exactly that. No referral, no computer intervention, no caveats and overturnings, but simple good old-fashioned out. Which is the way it should be.
The raising of the umpire’s finger is one of cricket’s great sources of drama: emphatic, deadly, final. If you support the fielding side, your heart soars; if the batting side, it sinks. But under DRS it’s only the trigger for the ensuing mechanical process.
Almost every pundit has castigated India for their stubborness in vetoing DRS. It has discredited the series, they argue, because of the supposed ludicrousness of allowing erroneous decisions to stand when in all other test cricket the computers eradicate the mistakes.
But I’ve not actually heard many fans and supporters complain. And has the absence of DRS affected our enjoyment and appreciation of the series? Has it made the cricket less entertaining, interesting or satisfying?
No. The reverse, in fact. Play has moved more quickly and the fall of wickets has generated a greater degree of theatre.
As I’ve argued before, cricket is neither a science lab nor a law court. It’s a game, nothing more – the purpose of which is entertainment. As long as the contest is fair and the umpires impartial, it honestly does not matter if the occasional umpiring decision is inaccurate.
Cynics infer nefarious motives for India’s intransigence over DRS. The BCCI’s obstinacy must be connected, they suspect, with India’s power, wealth and seeming arrogance.
I see no evidence for that assumption. What’s unreasonable about taking the Indians’ objections at face value – and accepting that they oppose DRS for good cricketing reasons.
No one disputes the BCCI’s principal argument: ball-tracking systems are not one hundred per cent accurate. Just as validly – we only have their designers’ word go on that they’re even as accurate as they claim.
Computers are only as robust as the instructions of the humans who programmed them. Ball-tracking is susceptible to human error because it works to principles conceived by humans, who themselves have made subjective decisions about a cricket ball’s behaviour.
And if you accept that any system relies on people’s judgment and skill – well, you may as well have umpires.
So I’ll be sitting back and enjoying the fourth and final DRS-free test. Next summer will see our first home Ashes series with the system in place, and for me at least, it won’t feel quite the same.
I think I might agree with your proposition if we were still back in the old days where technology didn’t permit the use of high definition slow motion replays and the use of other technology that allows us, the TV viewer, to readily see whether the decision given was right or wrong. As you suggest, it is much preferable for the game to move on as it does without DRS but unless the use of the DRS equipment is forbidden to to the TV companies, I don’t see an alternative.
The other argument, of course is why would you want to continue with the present system when DRS has been shown to give about a 5% increase in the accuracy of decisions so that the margin for error is decreased from around 7% to 2%? Those in favour will say there is too much money at stake to permit that margin for error where the technology exists to correct that error.
The one area on which I remain skeptical is the predictive element of the ball-tracking which is, as you say and the word suggests is “predictive”. Because the batsmans’ leg gets in the way, it can only ever be “predictive” and I would like to see further work done in this area before I would be 100% happy over it’s use. In the meantime, the other elements of DRS are compelling if one accepts the quest for greater accuracy.
I kind of agree, harking back to a simpler age and all that.
But it’s 2013 and shocker’s aren’t acceptable anymore. Aleem Dar had a particularly poor time in this series, and it was almost as if he’d become exposed by the lack of his comfort blanket.
DRS isn’t perfect and I would make changes, but it has to stay.
But even without DRS for LBW decisions, umpires can still hold up play and check whether it was a 4 or 6, stop the drama of a wicket to check for front foot no-balls. To say that taking away DRS has allowed the game to move on in a more traditional way is rather selective sampling.
And there have been some shockers this series, especially at the expense at the poor lower order batsmen, whose tail-ender status seems to be more likely to cause a decision to trigger.
I would argue DRS hasn’t taken any of the drama away. I still feel a sense of anticipation at watching the ball tracker and seeing whether the indicators will all be red, in much the same way as waiting for the TV umpire’s decision for run outs is filled with tension.
Sure, without DRS, the spectacle has not been greatly affected. But by your reasoning, we should also remove the third umpire for run outs, stumping etc. The game would move even more quickly, but then there would be more incorrect decisions and surely that is not for the good of the game?
Thanks for all your interesting comments!
But I stand by my proposition. Third umpire referrals for line calls are fairly rare compared to DRS for LBW. Line calls don’t offend me in the same way because the decision is still based on a human being’s eyes and judgement – they just get the chance to watch it several times in slow motion. So do the TV audience, so we can see ourselves what happened.
Ball tracking is opaque and anonymous – you’re just told what a computer has imagined might happen, not what actually did happen.
Like I said, I honestly think the occasional incorrect decision does not harm cricket.
I don’t know if I agree. Last winter DRS made the series’ unwatchable, there was just too much of it and no matter how quick the TV replay is, it’s just a bit dull. Having said that, I hate seeing a ‘shocker’ as much as anyone. The answer, limit teams to one DRS appeal per innings. This would mean that it would be used more sparingly and not disrupt the flow (yes there is a flow in Test cricket) of the day’s play.
That is the answer. 1 per innings. Take away the tactical review.
I quite like DRS because I can’t stand injustices. I get really irritated when England are denied legitimate wickets, and when bad decisions go in our favour I feel our success is hollow; therefore I can’t win! I can see where Maxie is coming from though. I did initially find this series refreshing for lack of DRS, although after seeing some of the howlers I ultimately decided that I prefer technology to be in place.
Ps I would have more respect for India and the BCCI if they were against DRS for similar reasons to maxie ie flow of the game / human error is part of the drama etc, but their argument against DRS because ‘it’s not perfect and we don’t want to use it until it’s 100%’ is totally incongruous; the human eye (their preferred alternative) is far from 100%, and DRS proves that more correct decisions are made … So what’s the problem?!
I agree with Wrongunatlongon. DRS was introduced to eliminate the shocker – anyone remember Alec Stewart being given out LBW by BC Cooray to a ball that pitched a foot outside leg? – but it gets used tactically. Batsman who know they’ve got a fair decision go for a referral on the off-chance they may have been a quarter of an inch outside off. That’s not what it was intended for. It’s for when you’ve hit the skin off it and are given LBW, or it’s hit your arm and you’re given caught behind.
Another thing that would help would be to prohibit the batsman conferring with his partner. If you’ve been given a shocker, you don’t need to discuss it with the bloke at the other end to get an opinion.
The flow would be maintained a lot better, the umpires would get their importance back, and the shockers – which really do spoil the game – would be largely eliminated.
I will be pleased to see DRS back. The technology may not (yet) be 100% accurate but it’s still more accurate than the human eye. The umpire’s decision shouldn’t be final when it’s clearly incorrect and there’s technology which can show this.
There’s been the odd umpiring howler this series but not one which has been match-turning. If any of the Tests had been tight and a dodgy LBW call had swung it I think the DRS sceptics may be won over.
Oh, there has. Cook was plumb LBW on about 40 in the second Test. Hitting the middle of middle stump. Inexplicable. Was certainly match (and series) turning for the Indians.
In that case, all the more reason for India to embrace DRS! If matches, series and careers can turn on a bad call, it’s essential that we get decisions right – the delay it causes is a small price to pay.
[…] few days ago, over on The Full Toss, James Morgan expressed his thoughts on how enjoyable the India versus England series has been due to the fact that there is no DRS. He […]
This is about umpires – not the game, or the BCCI. The umpires (and their employer – the ICC) don’t like to look stupid. The accuracy, or otherwise, of umpires’ decsions is replayed ad nausem by TV coverage for all to decide, pick over, laugh at or despair at, regardless of wheter the DRS is used or not. So the ICC pushed fast and hard to give their umpires the opportunity to ask the TV umpire for help (best) or adjudicate if challenged under DRS (which may still make the umpire look silly but at least the decison is changed and quickly forgotten).
Given the BCCI stance against the DRS, and that the ICC is run by the BCCI, all I can think is that Indain politics is in the mix somewhere but don’t ask me how just yet – but we will see soon I am sure.