Once again, in the first Ashes Test of 2013, we have seen the deficiencies of the Domestic Review System. ICC needs to show leadership in the use of what should be an asset and an assistance to the umpires.
As the reason for including this technology in cricket is to improve decision-making, avoid howlers by umpires and give the players more confidence in the officials, the world's governing body must take control of this aspect of the game.
The players have adopted the system and are using it tactically for the benefit of their own team, which is perhaps inevitable in a professional game. There is general agreement that the third umpire should be included in the decision-making, but I believe that this official, along with the on-field umpires, and not the players, should decide when to employ the replays. Whether one, currently two or formerly three reviews are available to a team there is no guarantee that unsafe decisions will always be corrected. In this Test, the match ended with the use of DRS when England successfully questioned the not-out decision of the umpire, but, if the umpire had thought there was an edge and had given the batsman out, Australia could not have reviewed his decision, as they had already used up their two chances. Surely this might have been a travesty? As it happens, the umpire was wrong and the wronged team had a review, but that conceals the inequitable situation that could have arisen if the batsman had not touched the ball and had been given out.
I am not in favour of increasing the number of reviews available to a team and continuing with the present system. Instead, I believe that the decisions must be the responsibility of the umpires, as designated in Law 27. The Laws do not need to be changed drastically to include the possibility of the third umpire being consulted (Law 27.6) and I recommend that, in matches where DRS is employed, the third umpire should be encouraged to intervene whenever he believes that there may have been a wrong decision. Although this may lead to more delays in a game that has slowed over the last few decades, correct decisions are vitally important and must be the aim of all officials.
I hope that the DRS will be changed and the officials will be properly in charge of making decisions following an appeal. It has always struck many past players that a second appeal by the fielding team, when the hoped-for appeal has failed, is contrary to the Spirit of Cricket, where players are expected to accept the umpire's decision. There is perhaps more reason to allow a batsman to review a decision when there is doubt in his mind. Others have suggested that only 'out' decisions should be reviewed, but miscarriages of justice work both ways. Perhaps there will always be uncertainty, whether the on-field umpires are given sole responsibility for decision-making or whether technology is used increasingly as the systems become more accurate.
Another real problem with DRS was exposed in this match when the broadcaster was showing the nick down the leg-side, which saw the end of Joe Root, and therefore could not produce any hotshot film of the next ball when Jonathan Trott may or may not have edged the ball into his pad. This was a time when intervention by the third umpire with control of the technologies available should have brought about the correct decision. If the broadcaster's role is to bring live and replayed action to spectators as part of the entertainment, Sky TV was right to show the dismissal on several occasions. The job of the officials and the administrators is to do their best to ensure that correct decisions are made in real time. If ICC paid for its own cameras and other technological devices, there would be no conflict of interest. It would also be in a position to counter the claims of some countries that they cannot afford the DRS system. National Governing Bodies have certain requirements from their international grounds and the installation of all these technological aids should be mandatory.
In this Test Match spectators have seen the best and worst of the present system. The final decision was an example of the best, but it might not have been if circumstances had been different. Stuart Broad's decision not to walk off when he had clearly and, I suggest, knowingly hit the ball to a fielder was perhaps the worst. Australia had no review left, which was admittedly their captain's own fault, and there was no way that a wrong decision could be reversed There has been considerable debate in the media about the morality of 'walking' or 'standing' and waiting for an umpire's decision. The knowledge that there can be intervention by a third umpire might lead to more people 'walking', which ultimately makes for a more pleasant, but not necessarily any less competitive, atmosphere between players, who still get incensed by 'non-walkers'. It would certainly make the job of the umpires easier and would fit into the idealistic, but nonetheless desirable aspirations of the Spirit of Cricket no matter how much the protagonists of 'playing to the weaknesses of the umpire' and to the extremes of so-called professional attitudes may argue. I can see no greater aspects of morality for a player to try to get away with hitting the ball in the air to cover or mid-off and standing his ground (though it has happened in a Test Match in the past) than hitting the ball to slip and standing to wait for the outcome of an appeal.
Golf is a better example to follow that most other sports in the way that the top professionals usually own up to small errors on their part, such as coming into contact when addressing the ball. Cricket, or rather cricketers, may never have been fully committed to playing with such values. However, the advent of close-up filming and the other technological advances has made it easier for players to play to the Spirit of the Game as promoted strongly within the Laws and throughout the game. It is up to administrators and the officials to persuade them, from the top of the game down to the grass roots, that a professional approach does not necessarily mean that sharp practice, deception, cynical exploitation of the weaknesses of an official or, in the occasional case of fielders claiming a catch on the half-volley, cheating is not in the best interest of the game or the individual. Whilst there are inadequacies and inconsistencies within the DRS system there is little incentive for players to adopt an approach of 'Fair Play', because they can benefit and they may not be exposed to the opprobrium that many would like to shower on them. There are, and have always been, differences of opinion on this aspect of cricket but, as a former member of the MCC Laws Working Party, I have never been convinced that the game of cricket is better for batsmen trying to deceive the umpire. Individuals may benefit, teams may prosper because of it, but the game of cricket loses some of its charm in being different from other team sports, where the official in charge has to make all decisions throughout the match. According to Law 27: "Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made."
Law 32 states unequivocally that "The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No Ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground." It is hard to justify any argument, without accepting that it is an attempt to deceive the umpire, for a batsman not leaving the wicket whether the ball is held by a fielder at mid-off or at slip. The wicket-keeper is also defined as a fielder, so there are potentially eleven fielders who might make a fair catch.
The Spirit of Cricket, the Preamble to the Laws, talks of 'Respect'. In my view players who try to deceive the umpires or who are prepared to stoop to low cunning to win matches do not show respect to either the officials or the opposition players. In professional matches, which are televised, there are additional technologies available and the officials must use them. In rugby it is possible for a player to be cited after the match, if he is seen to commit foul play, which was not spotted by the referee or one of the touch judges. In order to preserve the Spirit of Cricket and to encourage the players to play hard but fair, perhaps there should be a similar approach taken in cricket.
As the reason for including this technology in cricket is to improve decision-making, avoid howlers by umpires and give the players more confidence in the officials, the world's governing body must take control of this aspect of the game.
The players have adopted the system and are using it tactically for the benefit of their own team, which is perhaps inevitable in a professional game. There is general agreement that the third umpire should be included in the decision-making, but I believe that this official, along with the on-field umpires, and not the players, should decide when to employ the replays. Whether one, currently two or formerly three reviews are available to a team there is no guarantee that unsafe decisions will always be corrected. In this Test, the match ended with the use of DRS when England successfully questioned the not-out decision of the umpire, but, if the umpire had thought there was an edge and had given the batsman out, Australia could not have reviewed his decision, as they had already used up their two chances. Surely this might have been a travesty? As it happens, the umpire was wrong and the wronged team had a review, but that conceals the inequitable situation that could have arisen if the batsman had not touched the ball and had been given out.
I am not in favour of increasing the number of reviews available to a team and continuing with the present system. Instead, I believe that the decisions must be the responsibility of the umpires, as designated in Law 27. The Laws do not need to be changed drastically to include the possibility of the third umpire being consulted (Law 27.6) and I recommend that, in matches where DRS is employed, the third umpire should be encouraged to intervene whenever he believes that there may have been a wrong decision. Although this may lead to more delays in a game that has slowed over the last few decades, correct decisions are vitally important and must be the aim of all officials.
I hope that the DRS will be changed and the officials will be properly in charge of making decisions following an appeal. It has always struck many past players that a second appeal by the fielding team, when the hoped-for appeal has failed, is contrary to the Spirit of Cricket, where players are expected to accept the umpire's decision. There is perhaps more reason to allow a batsman to review a decision when there is doubt in his mind. Others have suggested that only 'out' decisions should be reviewed, but miscarriages of justice work both ways. Perhaps there will always be uncertainty, whether the on-field umpires are given sole responsibility for decision-making or whether technology is used increasingly as the systems become more accurate.
Another real problem with DRS was exposed in this match when the broadcaster was showing the nick down the leg-side, which saw the end of Joe Root, and therefore could not produce any hotshot film of the next ball when Jonathan Trott may or may not have edged the ball into his pad. This was a time when intervention by the third umpire with control of the technologies available should have brought about the correct decision. If the broadcaster's role is to bring live and replayed action to spectators as part of the entertainment, Sky TV was right to show the dismissal on several occasions. The job of the officials and the administrators is to do their best to ensure that correct decisions are made in real time. If ICC paid for its own cameras and other technological devices, there would be no conflict of interest. It would also be in a position to counter the claims of some countries that they cannot afford the DRS system. National Governing Bodies have certain requirements from their international grounds and the installation of all these technological aids should be mandatory.
In this Test Match spectators have seen the best and worst of the present system. The final decision was an example of the best, but it might not have been if circumstances had been different. Stuart Broad's decision not to walk off when he had clearly and, I suggest, knowingly hit the ball to a fielder was perhaps the worst. Australia had no review left, which was admittedly their captain's own fault, and there was no way that a wrong decision could be reversed There has been considerable debate in the media about the morality of 'walking' or 'standing' and waiting for an umpire's decision. The knowledge that there can be intervention by a third umpire might lead to more people 'walking', which ultimately makes for a more pleasant, but not necessarily any less competitive, atmosphere between players, who still get incensed by 'non-walkers'. It would certainly make the job of the umpires easier and would fit into the idealistic, but nonetheless desirable aspirations of the Spirit of Cricket no matter how much the protagonists of 'playing to the weaknesses of the umpire' and to the extremes of so-called professional attitudes may argue. I can see no greater aspects of morality for a player to try to get away with hitting the ball in the air to cover or mid-off and standing his ground (though it has happened in a Test Match in the past) than hitting the ball to slip and standing to wait for the outcome of an appeal.
Golf is a better example to follow that most other sports in the way that the top professionals usually own up to small errors on their part, such as coming into contact when addressing the ball. Cricket, or rather cricketers, may never have been fully committed to playing with such values. However, the advent of close-up filming and the other technological advances has made it easier for players to play to the Spirit of the Game as promoted strongly within the Laws and throughout the game. It is up to administrators and the officials to persuade them, from the top of the game down to the grass roots, that a professional approach does not necessarily mean that sharp practice, deception, cynical exploitation of the weaknesses of an official or, in the occasional case of fielders claiming a catch on the half-volley, cheating is not in the best interest of the game or the individual. Whilst there are inadequacies and inconsistencies within the DRS system there is little incentive for players to adopt an approach of 'Fair Play', because they can benefit and they may not be exposed to the opprobrium that many would like to shower on them. There are, and have always been, differences of opinion on this aspect of cricket but, as a former member of the MCC Laws Working Party, I have never been convinced that the game of cricket is better for batsmen trying to deceive the umpire. Individuals may benefit, teams may prosper because of it, but the game of cricket loses some of its charm in being different from other team sports, where the official in charge has to make all decisions throughout the match. According to Law 27: "Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made."
Law 32 states unequivocally that "The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No Ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground." It is hard to justify any argument, without accepting that it is an attempt to deceive the umpire, for a batsman not leaving the wicket whether the ball is held by a fielder at mid-off or at slip. The wicket-keeper is also defined as a fielder, so there are potentially eleven fielders who might make a fair catch.
The Spirit of Cricket, the Preamble to the Laws, talks of 'Respect'. In my view players who try to deceive the umpires or who are prepared to stoop to low cunning to win matches do not show respect to either the officials or the opposition players. In professional matches, which are televised, there are additional technologies available and the officials must use them. In rugby it is possible for a player to be cited after the match, if he is seen to commit foul play, which was not spotted by the referee or one of the touch judges. In order to preserve the Spirit of Cricket and to encourage the players to play hard but fair, perhaps there should be a similar approach taken in cricket.
