How Farcical is Umpire Decision Review System?

There would not be a second opinion that the world cup league match between India and England at Bangalore Chinnaswamy Stadium which ended up in a tie was one of the most intriguing one day matches ever. Though the Indians got to a mammoth total of 338 runs, thanks to the brilliant innings by Sachin Tendulkar, England was able to tie the match because of the great innings played by their skipper Andrew Strauss. Strauss was ably supported by Ian Bell who was lucky enough to survive a close LBW shout which was referred to the third umpire under the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) after on field umpire Billy Bowden gave it not out.

It is inarguable that the life that Ian Bell got was instrumental in the England equalling the score that India made. The decision taken by Billy Bowden after the opinion he got from the third umpire based on the UDRS has come under severe criticism from several quarters, not any less by the Indian captain MS Dhoni. The aggrieved Indian Captain called the incident ‘adulteration of technology’.

In the UDRS three main factors are considered for leg before wicket (LBW) decisions – whether the ball pitched in line, whether the impact of the ball hitting the batsman is in line and whether the ball is hitting the wicket. In the Ian Bell issue, the ball bowled by Yuvraj Singh pitched slightly outside the off stump, which is not an issue here as Yuvraj, a left arm bowler was bowling to a right handed batsman in Bell and the ball was not turning away but was going straight. The impact of the ball hitting the batsman was in line and the replays showed that the ball was going straight and hitting the stumps. On seeing the replay in the big screen in the ground all where convinced that the batsman was out. Even the batsman started walking when the on field umpire Billy Bowden gave the batsman not out and called the batsman back. Everyone was surprised including the batsman and there was chaos in the stadium as the spectators watched the replays in the big screen and thought the batsman was out.

Now the reason for giving it not out even after all three factors coming good in this incident was that when the ball hit the batsman he was more than 2.5 meters away from the wicket and hence the umpire gave the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. It is said that the technology is not sure about how the ball would behave if the distance between the point of impact and the wicket is more that 2.5 meters. (It is preposterous to believe that the ball would behave any differently in the last 2.5 metres it has to travel.) In the ICC rule on UDRS about LBW decisions the statement on the 2.5 metres factor is as follows,

In instances where the evidence shows that the ball would have hit the stumps within the demarcated area as set out above but that the point of impact is greater than 250 cm (2.5metres) from the stumps, the third umpire shall notify the on-field umpire of:

1. The distance from the wickets to the point of impact with the batsman
2. The approximate distance from point of pitching to point of impact
3. Where the ball is predicted to hit the stumps.

In such a case, the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision.

Of course it is true that many umpires are inclined to give not out if the ball hits the batsman on his pads when he is well forward as the umpire won’t be sure whether the ball will go ahead and hit the wicket. However the technology is used here to help umpires judge whether the ball will hit the stumps or not, which in this case was confirmed by the replay. When that is the case there is no reason not to give out in this case. There had been many occasions where umpires had given batsmen out when they were good distance down the ground but they were sure that the ball would hit the stumps. When India toured Sri Lanka last decade there had an occasion where umpire Dave Orchard of South Africa gave Sourav Ganguly out when he came down the track and padded away Muralitharan. The ball hit Ganguly when he was well down the pitch but the umpire was sure that the ball will go straight and hit the wicket. This is just one example and there were many such occasions in world cricket.

The argument is that if even this technology used in UDRS is inconclusive in determining whether the batsman is out or not then there is no need to use it. Here also we have used human judgement to arrive at a decision (in this case the judgement of umpire Billy Bowden). It was the case before the introduction of the UDRS – it was human judgement of the umpire that was used to arrive at a decision in LBW. While that is the case then why should we use technology if we are not able to rely completely on it and have to again count on human judgement in taking decisions?

It must be noted that the ICC is not well prepared with the UDRS. Even the players were not aware of the rules, which was evident from the comments made by Andrew Strauss, Ian Bell and MS Dhoni after the match. When the great Sachin Tendulkar made his reservations on the UDRS and said that it should not be used in matches, many people, including this writer, were highly critical of the man. However now all the reservations that Tendulkar made on UDRS appear to be true and now the cricketing fraternity should debate on whether to continue with the system. As of now it appears to be rather farcical to use the Umpire Decision Review System in such a big tournament as the ICC Cricket World Cup.