Referrals Revisited

Two test matches on, we have seen about 25 referrals for catches and LBW's, the two modes of dismissal which invite reviews. In my previous post about referrals, I pointed out that player involvement seems unnecessary in order to achieve the goal of the referral system, which is to eliminate obvious umpiring error.

The other point I made, was that given the design of the system as it currently stands, the focus seems to be on the appearance of fairness, rather than on being accurate and correct.

The referrals that we have seen in at the Sinhalese Sports Club and at Galle have met been partially successful. In some cases, detectable errors with close catches have been corrected ( for eg. Tendulkar in the second innings at SSC), in others, some surprising LBW decisions have been reinforced by replay evidence (Samarweera in the 1st innings at Galle).

None of this is due to any inherent merit in the referral system in my view. This system basically enables the fielding captain or the batsman to require the on-field umpire to refer a decision he has made for review by the third Umpire who has access to various replays. Surprisingly, Hotspot, the most reliable technology in measuring close catches and bat-pad catches is not being used by the third umpire.

The TV Cameras too are those installed by the TV Broadcaster (based on the ICC's specifications) and are not customized to enable a good view of events at the wicket. It is also not clear whether the third umpire is able to request replays as and how he may want to see them, or whether this is decided by the TV producer.

The one area where the experience of Galle and SSC has shown the referral system to be a real positive, is with respect to LBW decisions. These decisions are still made by on-field umpires, and unless compelling evidence is presented which causes the umpire to reverse his decision, then the decision is not overturned.

A surprising number of LBW's have been reviewed, and in only one instance (Dravid, 2nd innings, Galle) was it not clear what the compelling evidence was that caused Umpire Doctrove to reverse his decision.

The review system could work really well for LBW's, for LBW's are by definition "in the opinion of the umpire". Therefore, it would seem reasonable to allow the players to ask the umpire to re-think his opinion, if they have enough reason to disagree with him.

It would probably help if the players, if they were allowed to ask the Umpire why he thought he gave a decision not-out (in the case of the fielding captain).

Thats where an LBW decision can become a point of debate, for a not-out LBW decision (unless the batsman has hit the ball) must necessarily be because the umpire think that it wouldn't have gone on to hit the stumps, or that he thinks it pitched outside leg-stump.

One modification to the review system in the case of LBW's could be to allow the fielding captain to ask the umpire why he's given a particular decision not out, and then have the review based on that. If at all a review is to be included in cricket in the long run, it should atleast serve the purpose of improving communication between the fielding side and the umpire.

So, for example, if an umpire gives a decision not-out and explains if asked by the fielding captain, that he thought the batsman got a good stride in, and that the ball had a long way to travel and hence it couldn't be established beyond reasonable doubt by the umpire that the ball would indeed have gone on to hit the stumps, a sensible fielding captain may decide to refrain from asking for a review. But if the Umpire says "I think he hit it" and the fielding side is reasonably sure that the batsman didn't, then a review might enable a correct decision.

Currently, whats happening is that the review has become a tactical tool of sorts. At 400/5, a captain is prone to seek a desperate review for a long shot LBW against the last recognized batsman, while at 100/2, a captain with one early unsuccessful review is less likely to use another review for a marginal decision. That in my view completely side-tracks the point of the review system.

In the case of catches, especially low ones, the law is hopeless, not because the technology doesn't exist to judge catches (which is what every commentator usually says), but because the law for catches as it stands is silly.

The only satisfactory solution to the problem is to revert back to the old law for a fair catch which said that if any part of the hand below the elbow (palm, fingers) is touching the turf when the ball lands in the hand and before the fielder gains complete control of the ball, the catch is not a fair catch.

Given that cricket is played on natural turf, with a grass cover on the outfield, it is almost inevitable that at least one grass will touch touch some part of the ball at the moment of impact which is bound the squeeze the fingers/palm into the ground when the low catch is completed.

No technology is ever going to satisfactorily establish a clean catch as the law stands today. Taking the word of the fielder is useless, because the fielder has absolutely no way of knowing whether or not any grass touched the ball when he was catching it. As it is, most times, the fielder is not looking at the ball as it lands in the hand when it's that low.

Given how infrequently these low catches come about, its probably best to disallow them altogether by reverting back to the old law.

If you leave aside the LBW, the referral system does not require the involvement of the players on the field at all. Once the fielding side makes an appeal, the system should automatically bring the third umpire into play, shadowing the on-field umpire's decision.

As a catch is made, the no-ball decision should be cross checked by the third umpire without any prompting from the field, whether or not a no-ball call has been made. This problem too could be mitigated by reverting back to the old backfoot no-ball rule, giving the umpire more time to concentrate on the batting end.

Why the ICC does not make this eminently reasonable choice is beyond me.

LBW's apart, the referral system is gratuitous, and given the poor technology (a point which most proponents of the use of the technology almost always miss, offering some airy fairy remark that the "technology will eventually be available"), does not provide any significant improvement in the conduct of the game given the long delays that we have seen for referrals.

Knowing the ICC though, it is entirely likely that they will come up with something crude like time limits for third umpires to review decisions and consult with on-field umpires.

The three reviews per innings limit has intrigued me. The simple criticism of this invariably is - what if a captain has used up three reviews and is then faced with a blatantly wrong decision which he's unable to get rectified. There is probably some statistical basis to the number three, but there is also probably some expectation, that eventually, as things settle down and the system matures, there will be fewer referrals - especially for marginal LBW decisions. Eventually, they probably expect to reach a situation where a honest captain will never run out of reviews.

In the perfect world, a system like this wouldn't be necessary. People would be willing to live with Umpiring errors, and players would not use silly, demonstrably nonsensical logic like "you get some bad decisions sometimes, why not stand when you nicked it and try and get some bad decisions in your favor".

When one puts it like that, its obvious why the logic is stupid. By not walking, the players are actually making it more likely that mistakes will happen, and not less likely. By not walking, they're also demonstrating a lack of trust in the umpire's competence (most players probably have a healthy disregard for this anyways).

In the perfect world, this wouldn't be the case. In the real world (ours), if a review is at all necessary, the involvement of the players (batsman, fielding captain), should be limited to LBW's, and even there, the main necessity for dialogue is between the fielding captain and the umpire. The fielding captain should have more than just a "not out" from the umpire on which to decide whether or not to request a review.

The rest of it is just window dressing - a spectacle for commentators, with no real improvement in decision making.