Suggested Changes in Decision Review System

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 6, 2012: I thought to go over the best and the worst of the DRS.

Good parts of the DRS:

a)           Players aren't dissenting as often if they are given a terrible decision.

b)           If they think that they are not out, they can go for a review.

c)            Dissent is forcibly stopped because you have your 2 reviews per innings and that is it. If you used them poorly, then it is your own fault.

d)           Really horrible decisions are overturned, sometimes at least.

e)           It adds an extra dimension tactically to the game - when do you use it? Early in the innings when it is crucial, or save them until later? How sure do you have to be?

Bad parts of the DRS:

a)           If it is out, in order to be changed to not out for an LBW it has to be missing the entire stumps, but if it is not out, it needs to be hitting the entire stumps to be overturned. If in doubt it goes with the umpire. And that means that for those close ones, it is absolutely useless.

b)           If it is given out for a caught behind, and it is proven that he didn't hit it - it still stays out unless the bat was a long way from the ball - if it was close to the ball it stays out - even though it clearly isn't!

c)            Bowlers can have players out and then have it overturned because of a front foot no ball, even though it was missed by the umpire at the time.

d)           A team can lose their reviews even though they were right both times simply because they weren't right by enough to have it overturned.

e)           Umpires can choose to review even without a team calling for a review, thus giving a team a bonus review.

f)              My biggest issue with the DRS is the issue of "umpire's call". The benefit of the doubt should consistently go to batsmen, not umpires. Therefore, if we are not sure if it is out or not, the decision shouldn't go to the umpire - it should go to the batsman.

Suggested Changes in DRS

a)           If there is any doubt about a decision, once reviewed, and it is line ball, it should be NOT OUT regardless of whether it was originally out or not out. If we aren't sure if the batsman hit it or not, it is NOT OUT. If we aren't sure if it is hitting the wickets or not, NOT OUT.

b)           There should be no "umpire's call" area. There should be OUT and NOT OUT.

c)            With an LBW, most viewers agree that if it is shown to be hitting the stumps, it is OUT. If we aren't sure, make sure that, say, half of the ball has to be hitting the stumps.

d)           With a caught behind, most viewers agree that there must be one of an unexplained noise or a hot spot. If there is neither, it is NOT OUT. This should not be umpire's call because we are unsure. It should be NOT OUT.

e)           With an LBW that could be an inside edge, it should be NOT OUT if there is evidence on hot spot or snicko that they hit it.

f)              Umpires are paid to do their jobs. There is no need to stroke their egos by pretending that they are right when they are not. There are many examples when umpires get it wrong, it is proven wrong, it is reviewed, yet it stays wrong, wasting a referral, and not reversed, even though it should be! This is wrong, and it is frustrating. There needs to be consistency with DRS in order for the public to be happy with it.

In saying this, I like the idea of having the Decision Review System. It is better than the days before it. Being able to review close run-outs improved our faith in decisions, as did neutral umpires (though I think that the introduction of neutral umpires overall lowered the standards of umpiring). But DRS needs to be improved further. Remove the element of doubt. If in doubt, NOT OUT. Get rid of umpire's call!