Review system a success in Sri Lanka vs India series.

For once the ICC needs to be commended for their handling of the most recent technological development for the game of cricket. Cricket is one of the few sports where its long and hallowed history bears such prominence in the psyche of the people who watch, play, and administer the game. It is doubly commendable, then, that the suits at the ICC have allowed the review system to be tested between two top international test sides, televised and under the scrutiny of the public for all to see.

At the risk of oversimplifying how the system worked in this most recent test series, one can’t but hope that the review system becomes a fixture in the international test arena of the future. Allowing the players on the field to question the decisions of the on-field umpires certainly could be argued to further erode the credibility of these embattled umpires. However, in the case of a questioned LBW decision for example, the information provided to the umpires concerns only a) the legitimacy of the delivery in question, b) the spot where the ball pitched and, c) The trajectory of the delivery until it strikes the batsman. Crucially, the umpires do not make use of the predictive element of the hawk-eye system, meaning that despite the amount of evidence provided to them, the final decision relies on interpretation by an official.

The feelings of the players and officials involved in the recent Sri Lanka versus India test series seems to be that the system has been a resounding success. Owing to the fact that each captain has a finite amount of reviews in each innings, it has also added a further element of tension to the game—tests often culminate in a day five scrap to the finish only to have one side feel that they have either lost or been denied a crucial wicket. This review system is a way to avoid such controversial finishes. Arguing that controversy adds to the contest of a test series fails to take into account the ruined careers of the individual players who have lived and died at the hands of umpires. 

One can certainly understand the counter-argument that cricket is an unforgiving beast and that the vagaries of correct and incorrect decisions tend to even out over time—that the fallibility of the on-field umpires is simply part of the game and that their authority must be preserved. What? Who are these people that play the game in such a heightened state of enlightenment and karmic balance? Any player who has been in a crunch situation on-field and has felt the effect of an umpire’s incorrect decision raising their finger, iceberg-like and sinking the hopes of their team, will scoff at that notion. I simply can’t imagine any cricketer from club to international level feeling that they have received an incorrect decision and with nothing more than a muttered “Oh well, he’s only human, it’s for the good of the game,” and walking off the field. If such cricketing martyrs exist, I have yet to meet any.

So let’s hope the review system becomes as regular an umpire-aid as is the rings they use to test if the ball has retained its shape, or the scissors used to trim the ball’s seam if necessary. There must have been a time when such simple tools were considered revolutionary and, after being tested and implemented, found to be for the betterment of the game and for paying spectators alike. The review system is, after all, meant as an aid to the umpires in maximizing the amount of accurate decisions made. If it adds an extra dimension to the on-field action, it can only be for the enrichment of the game.