UDRS

As I wait for the Man U Vs Chelsea match to kick-off, I stumbled upon a program where the cricketing experts were discussing the merits and demerits of the Umpire Decision Review System. The Ian Bell referral incident has stirred quite a controversy. After following the discussion, I am fairly convinced that the UDRS is beneficial and has to become a permanent feature in the sport.

However, in its current form of implementation in the WC, the system is a joke. The turning down of the referral is no excuse for India tie-ing the match, but, MSD was totally right in saying, "I think the adulteration of the technology with the human thinking that was the reason why we didn't get that wicket. I hope next time it will be technology or human intentions". The biggest demerit of the system is that one does not know how much to trust its merits !!!

In the recent incident, the argument in favor of the decision is that, the hawk-eye is not accurate for distances greater than 2.5 m and hence cannot be relied upon. It seems fairly logical. But my question is this : How was Billy Bowden in a better position than the third umpire to make a sensible decision ? The third umpire has the slow motion videos, side wise camera angle (to judge the height of the impact and the distance from stump) to his advantage to make a sensible decision. All Billy had was an image in the mind to rely upon.

As such without the hot spot and the snicko, the UDRS is not potent. The complex rules makes it all the more confusing. It defies all common sense. The purpose of the review system is that the players are not convinced with the field umpires decision and want a new pair of eyes to look at it. Turning down the referral and asking the field umpire to make a decision is like asking an accused to be his own judge or an author to review his own work. We all know what the outcome is going to be.

It is surprising that the ICC did not think this through. Or maybe, was it intended to be a controversial thing? Bring in an clearly un-defined variable into the game, draft a set of complex rules, use it to confuse the players and stir up a controversy.

Going ahead the ICC has to take a clear stand. Either trust the decisions of on-field umpires and live with the minor errors that they can make. Or use technology that you are sure of.

"I know its good but am not sure if I can trust it" will not work., especially in the big stage like a World Cup.