The Umpire Decision Review System: Magic Bullet Or Useful Tool?

After nearly a full summer of using the controversial Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS), the International Cricket Council is so happy with its performance that they stand ready to fundamentally change the way the game is umpired.

Since 2001, all test matches have been officiated by a team of neutral umpires—the so-called ICC elite panel. As seemingly obvious as this system has been, it was a hard fought battle to get it instituted and eliminate the perception—and often the reality—of hometown bias.

Umpiring neutrality, however, is not a cure for all of the game's ills. While no one would doubt the complete absence of bias from the current panel, there are many who would doubt their competence.

Steve Bucknor, admittedly no longer part of the panel, was an umpire of immense stature but left his retirement too late and was responsible for some of the game's darkest moments over the past decade.

His performance in the 2008 SCG test between India and Australia almost precipitated a diplomatic incident between the two nations.

Bucknor was similarly part of a group of five umpires who, between them, couldn’t figure out how to resolve the weather-affected final to the dreadful 2007 World Cup.

The group of five included a West Indian, a South African, a Pakistani, and two New Zealanders (sounds like the start of a joke), so while there was no national bias, there was a staggering absence of common sense.

Add to that, the disturbing trend for umpires to become personalities. They should be seen and not heard—the game is about the players and a good umpire is one you don’t notice. Whether it’s Rudi Koertzen with his “slow death” or Billy Bowden twitching and carrying on like a Tourrette’s sufferer on speed, it’s an unnecessary intrusion.

Despite all of that, there is still a belief that a bad umpire is more palatable than a biased umpire—particularly for the visiting side. And that’s where the UDRS fits in.

According to ICC President, Dave Morgan, the UDRS (can we call it Udders? after all, it gives everyone the opportunity to make a tit of themselves), removes the opportunity for hometown bias. Morgan believes that the system is so good that we can move to appointing the best umpires to games, regardless of their nationality.

While the UDRS has corrected a number of ills in the game, there are significant downsides. Firstly, it seems to take an eternity to make a decision. The third umpire will review a decision from every conceivable angle, even when the first angle is conclusive.

It also affords the players a sanctioned opportunity to display dissent. While it is controlled, it is a bad look for a batsman to stand hands on hips and openly challenge the umpire’s decision.

The technology, too, is an issue. Quite apart from the fact that it is not uniformly applied— for example hotspot wasn’t available in South Africa—and the fact that it is quite expensive, it is technology that was developed to meet the needs of the broadcasters to increase the entertainment factor for television.

It is a long way from being a forensically accurate system.

While hotspot seems to be a revelation, it is useless if not available to all. It is also useless if not trusted. In the current Australia-Pakistan game, hotspot failed to show anything when Pakistan believed Michael Clarke had got a feather edge and so the referral was turned down and Clarke remained not out. The Pakistani players were furious.

Similarly, in the Adelaide test between the West Indies and Australia, two of umpire Mark Benson’s decisions, both involving Shivnarine Chanderpaul were referred for review. The first saw Benson’s decision upheld, much to an apoplectic Ponting’s annoyance.

The second saw Benson’s decision overturned, despite a complete lack of any hotspot evidence. Benson quit the test and returned home at the end of the day, citing illness as the reason but there is little doubt that he quit in disgust at the new system—despite what the ICC would have you believe.

The use of Hawkeye is similarly problematic. While we can be reasonably confident that it can correctly show us where the ball pitched and where it hit the batsman, there are some big question marks over its predictive powers.

It would not be unfair to label Hawkeye as an unashamed optimist. The system seems to have the ball hitting the stumps a lot more often than happens in reality and, as good as the system might be, can it really take into account the influence of spin and swing?

Anyone who has played the game for any length of time will have seen the ball do interesting things after it has passed the bat. The physics of these actions are well beyond even the cleverest of television motion capture systems.

Technology might eliminate some of the umpires who are less than sympathetic to the plight of visiting sides (some, Mike Gatting for example, might call them cheats), such as everyone’s favourite Shakoor Rana, but there are still many ways that an umpire can influence a game apart from by dismissals.

No-ball calls can’t be challenged, nor can wides, running on the pitch, decisions on excessive bouncers, ball tampering, decisions on a bowlers action etc. A biased umpire can make life hell for a visiting team without questionable decisions on dismissals.

Cast your mind back to when Darrell Hair called Murali for chucking. It would not have been able to be reviewed under the current rules, despite being labeled as a racially biased act.

On the flip side, neutral umpires did little to assuage the ill-feeling generated out of the India-Australia game in Sydney; but imagine the reaction if an Australian umpire had been standing.

The final dent in the argument for scrapping the neutral umpire scheme is this. The umpire on the field retains the ultimate authority and they do not have to accept the outcome of the review. Sure, it would be a foolish umpire who chooses that path, but it is a path that is still open to them.

The early days of the URDS had shown some real positives, but it’s a long way from perfect. When the ICC has managed to get the system fully implemented in every country and no mistakes are being made, then change can be considered.

Until then, let’s come to terms with the changes as they stand and fine-tune them before we rush, headlong, back to the future.