One of the major talking points from the Australia vs India, Border Gavaskar, series of 2020/21 was DRS (Decision Review System). There were contentious decisions as well as inconsistent application of the DRS itself, but they are topics for another day. Today I want to talk about the biggest problem I have with DRS as it’s currently implemented – “Umpire’s Call”.
Before we start, take a look at the picture below. It the ball hitting the stumps? Is that out?
Umpire’s Call
Umpire’s Call is reserved for Leg Before Wicket (LBW) reviews. Umpire’s Call was introduced as part of DRS as a way of saying that the Umpire’s decision was not a clear mistake and therefore the original on-field decision should stand. According to the playing conditions, DRS requires three pieces of information to give a batter out.
3.4.2 If the batsman is still eligible to be Out, the ball-tracking technology shall then present three pieces of
information to the third umpire relating to the path of the ball:
3.4.2.1 The point of pitching (where applicable) (PITCHING)
3.4.2.2 The position of the ball at the point of first interception (IMPACT)
3.4.2.3 Whether the ball would have hit the wicket (WICKET)3.4.3 This Decision Review System (DRS) and Third Umpire Protocol includes a category of Umpire’s Call, which shall be the conclusion reported where the technology indicates a marginal decision in respect of either the point of first interception or whether the ball would have hit the stumps.
Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions, Appendix D.
For a decision to be definitively out, the ball needs to pitch outside off stump or inline, the ball must impact inline (or outside off should not shot be offered) and hitting the wicket.
Of the three pieces of information, two are subject to Umpire’s Call, Impact and Wicket.
Impact
Umpire’s Call: Some part of the ball was inside the Impact Zone, but the centre of the ball was outside the Impact Zone, with the further sub-category of ‘Umpire’s Call (off side)’ where the centre of the ball was to the off side of the Impact Zone and the bowler’s end umpire communicates to the third umpire that no genuine attempt to play the ball was made by the batsman.
Wicket
Umpire’s Call: The ball was hitting the wicket, but the centre of the ball was not inside the Wicket Zone.
Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions, Appendix D.
That’s a lot of information to take in and it’s certainly not easy to explain to someone that’s either new to watching cricket or a casual observer.
The Issue with DRS
The issue I have with DRS and Umpire’s Call is that it takes something that should be a fairly simple out/not out and over complicates it to the point you need half an hour to explain it to a casual viewer of cricket. A ball will either go on to hit the stumps or it won’t.
A lot of casual cricket watchers have a general understanding of what LBW is. That is, if the ball hits a batter on the pads – not the bat – and the ball would have otherwise hit the stumps then the batter should be out. Simple enough.
DRS Example #1
So the bowler runs in, the ball hits the batter on the pads and it looks like it might be out. The fielding team appeal, the Umpire says not out. The fielding team review the decision.
After 2 minutes of replays and waiting around the image below pops up on the TV screen showing the ball hitting the top of leg stump. The ball is hitting the stumps – that’s out isn’t it?
Well in this case it’s not out. Why? Because the umpire didn’t raise his finger. Never mind the fact that the technology is showing the ball taking out leg stump, the standing umpire didn’t think the ball was going to hit the wicket. Ball tracking technology is reported to be accurate to within 5mm or 10mm in some scenarios. So now you’re left to explain why the batter is not out even though the technology has proven that the ball would have hit the stumps. It’s a tough case to make.
The above image is from early in the 2nd session on Day 5 of the 4th Test Australia vs India when Cheteshwar Pujara was caught on the pads early in his innings.
DRS Example #2
A couple of hours later Pujara was again caught on the crease, the ball hitting him in front of the stumps. This time the Umpire gives the batsman out. Pujara reviews. Again two minutes later the image below pops up on screen. This time the ball is found to be hitting the top of leg stump by the absolute barest of margins. This time though, because the standing Umpire had raised his finger the batsman is out and has to walk off the field.
Now try explaining to the casual viewer how this one – with a coat of varnish perhaps touching the stump – can be given Out, while the first example with half the ball hitting leg stump can be given Not Out. It doesn’t make sense, and that’s the problem!
For what it’s worth, Pujara went on to make 56 from 211 deliveries, absorbing 35 overs of pressure and anchoring the run chase for a huge part of day 5.
DRS Example #3
Another prime example of how crazy DRS and Umpire’s Call can be was on Day 5 of the 1st Test between England and India at Chennai, 2021. Rahane came to the crease after Jimmy Anderson sent Shubman Gill’s off stump cart wheeling out of the ground. In one of the better overs of Test Match bowling you’ll see Anderson’s first ball to Rahane had him trapped on the crease. Almost a carbon copy of the previous delivery that dismissed Gill. Some how, the Umpire turned down the appeal with England immediately sending the decision upstairs for review.
Ball tracking comes up on screen to show that the ball was going to cannon in to middle and off stump. However, as the impact was deemed ‘Umpire’s Call’ – it could only have been outside the line by the barest of margins – so the decision remain ‘Not Out’.
How can a ball shown to be hitting middle and off stump a third of the way up be given not out?
Bottom line, there’s really no way to explain to someone how technology can find that the ball is going to hit the stumps within a 5-10mm margin of error yet the a ‘Not Out’ decision can be upheld.
None of this to say that the technology is fool proof. There’s still room for human error, like not lining up the ball tracking over lay correctly for example. Fortunately in the example, Steve Smith was found not out with the technology showing the ball missing the mysterious 4th stump.
‘Umpire’s Call’ needs to go. It just doesn’t make sense. A ball is either going to hit the stumps, or it’s not going to hit the stumps. If the technology can show the ball hitting the stumps that should be given out, not matter what the standing umpire had decided. Otherwise it makes as much sense as the old Chewbacca defense…
The Chewbacca defense
I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case!
It does not make sense! Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a major record company, and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
“Chef Aid“, South Park, 1998.