DRS in cricket: needed or not?

In History, the debate that emerges frequently is- What would have happened if the USSR had not disintegrated?
In Indian politics, the question is- was there a temple or a mosque at the disputed site in Ayodhya?

Likewise, a question that resurfaces regularly in International cricket is- Is the Umpire Decision Review System (DRS) required or not?

Many cricketing pundits, analysts, followers and aficionados have indeed been very vocal about their opinions on DRS. This often takes the form of a heated debate, and it inadvertently comes down to the same old dilemma- traditional vs modern, i.e, wisdom vs technology.

So, let us understand this issue by going into details regarding what exactly the DRS is, its history, the controversies, and finally, we shall look at the best solution to help implement it effectively.

HISTORY:- 

The Decision Review System was introduced in 2009, in the aftermath of the test series between India and Australia in 2007-08. The 4-match test series held in Australia was a closely contested one, where Australia ultimately defeated India 2-1.
However, this series is often remembered for the wrong reasons. One of them was the forgettable 'Monkeygate' scandal involving Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds. The other was the poor standard of umpiring right throughout the series, especially in the second test match held at Sydney Cricket Ground. Umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Bensen made a few glaring errors, which usually turned out to be against the visiting Indian team.

Thus emerged the need for a system to counter such harsh decisions (often called howlers) made by umpires. The technology was tried on an experimental basis in the India-Sri Lanka test series 2008 and it was officially implemented by the ICC in the year 2009, in a test match between New Zealand and Pakistan.

In ODIs, it came into force in 2011, and was also used in the World Cup that was held in the same year.
It began being implemented in T20Is in the year 2017, and began being used in the IPL from Season 11 (2018). Over the years, the rules have been amended regularly to suit the playing conditions.

WHAT DOES DRS EXACTLY DO?

• It allows batsmen and bowlers to review a decision taken by the umpire. The umpire needs to refer the decision to the third-umpire who uses technology like the Hot-Spot, Hawk-eye, ball-tracking and Snicko to identify whether the decision was legitimate or not. This is done in a systematic manner, starting with checking whether the bowler has bowled a legal delivery. After a thorough analysis, the third-umpire communicates his decision with the on-field umpire. 
• The decision given by the on-field umpire is called the soft-signal, and if the third umpire does not have conclusive evidence to overturn the decision, then the on-field umpire shall be asked to stick with the soft-signal.
• In Test Matches (after an amendment in 2017), teams have two reviews each before an innings starts. 
• In ODIs and T20s, only 1 review is provided per team. 

For more information, look up on the official website of ICC-  https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/cricket/rules-and-regulations/decision-review-system

CONTROVERSIES-

The DRS has had its fair share of controversies over the years. Many players, coaches, umpires and ex-cricketers have expressed their reservation with the usage of this technology. A few notable mentions are Dickie Bird, Ajay Jadeja and Ramnaresh Sarwan. 

Moreover, there have been many instances when malfunctioning of the DRS have changed the complexion of a game. Here are two instances-

• The dismissal of Nathan Lyon in the series between New Zealand and Australia in 2015 (when the Pink ball was used for the first time). Australia was tottering at around 120-8 in the second innings of the test match, when Nathan Lyon edged a ball bowled by Mitchell Santner to Kane Williamson. The soft-signal was not-out, and McCullum took a review. The Snicko-meter showed a clear edge as the ball passed the bat, but third umpire Nigel Llong perceived it to be a sound coming from somewhere else. Lyon was given not-out, and he went on to score 34 runs to take Australia to a competitive total of 224 runs. Australia just managed to edge past the Kiwis, winning by 3 wickets. This is arguably the most controversial decision involving DRS.
• Usman Khawaja being given out caught behind to a ball bowled by Graeme Swann in the Ashes series held in England. He immediately reviewed it, and replayed clearly showed that the ball was far away from the bat, as it went past the batsman. Unfortunately, the technology required wasn't available. The only available technology was 'slow-motion' replay. But, these replays too clearly showed how there wasn't any sound as the ball went past the bat. But, shockingly, third umpire Kumar Dharmasena gave it out, and the cricketing fraternity immediately went into a frenzy. 

Look at the distance between bat and ball!!!

We have looked at how the DRS has come under a lot of scrutiny over the last decade or so. 

So, let us look at both sides of the debate.

First of all, what are the main points being made by the critics of this technology?

• Umpire rules- When cricket began being played, the umpire was essentially an arbitrator, and ensured that the game remained bereft of any serious conflicts, and that decisions were taken with utmost jurisprudence. Umpires have always been neutral, and are considered extremely wise and experienced. Thus, umpires have gained a lot of respect over the years. Players have always accepted the decisions made by the umpire. Thus, the DRS, which aims to challenge an umpire's decision, may essentially demean their authority.
• The 'Benefit of doubt factor'- The game of cricket has its roots in Europe and its many colonies in the 16th and 17th centuries. Here, the elite classes would be the batsmen, while the hard work of bowling and fielding would be done by the servants and workers. Thus, the benefit of doubt always went to batsmen. This system continued being followed even in the Modern Age. Thus, even today, many believe that batsmen must be given benefit of doubt if any confusion arises. 
• Soft-signal- The second point leads to this one. With the advent of soft-signal, the benefit-of-doubt is given to umpires, which does not go well with admirers of the game as it was played before. 
• Technological errors- On many occasions, technology is challenged for not being fool-proof. The same applies for DRS as well. There are minor glitches which go unnoticed by technology. For eg:- In the 3rd ODI between India and Australia in Ranchi, Aaron Finch was given out LBW to a ball which had an impact that was clearly going over the stumps; but the Hawk-eye showed it to be pitching in line. 
• Used arbitrarily- This refers to players using the DRS according to their convenience. For instance, top order batsmen might use up reviews even when they almost certain that they would be out. This is not fair on a lower-order batsman who does not have a review at his disposal, when it might actually be needed. A second situation that often arises is when batsmen are given out Leg Before Wicket (LBW). You might have observed that the instant reaction of the batsman is to look towards the non-striker and seek his opinion. The point experts try to make is that non-strikers stand next to the umpire, and thus both of them would have approximately the same kind of judgment. Thus, it would be unfair on a batsman batting at the non-striker's end to take decisions for the batsman who takes strike.

So, let us try to counter each of these points effectively. 

• It is very true that with the introduction of DRS in cricket, people have begun to question the wisdom of umpires. But, isn't questioning the very root of any civilisation? Since the Renaissance came about in the 14th century, people have begun questioning beliefs, and critical thinking has only enhanced with the IT revolution. Thus, there is a need to understand that after all, umpires are also human, and might make mistakes. This is in no way doubting the extraordinary wisdom they possess. The technology's aim is to make the process of decision-making fairer. 
• Coming to the second and third points, we need to understand that there has been a gradual shift from a batsman-oriented game to a game that gives equal importance to both bowlers and batsman. In simpler words, we have moved from a so-called 'batriarchal' society to a society that preaches equality between batsmen and bowlers. One might counter this argument by saying that over four decades ago, the West Indian fast bowlers were more menacing than any other bowling attack today. But, it would be fair to say that in the 1980s, other than West Indies, only Australia had a very potent pace bowling attack. Today, nearly every team has good fast bowling reserves. Thus, DRS can also bring the batsmen and bowlers at par with each other. 
• As for technological glitches, well, these are found nearly in every field. Even in elections, the EVMs pose a few issues, but for that reason we can't question the whole electoral system. Similarly, if there are a few errors in DRS technology, we can't blame the whole technology itself. The idea should be to make the system more efficient and transparent.  Thus, the need of the hour is for IT professionals and experts to ensure that this system is made more authentic and reliable. 
• Let us now address the last complaint against DRS. This is essentially not a problem with the system, but a problem in human mindset. Technology is there for our beneficence, how we use it is completely our prerogative. Thus, players must take ownership for their mistakes and must be rational enough to decide whether there is a need to take a review. Blaming technology would perhaps be incorrect in such a situation.

CONCLUSION:- 

So, the question we need to ask ourselves is- are we ready to embrace technology as a part of this wonderful sport?

True, with the way things are going, we might see umpires losing their influence on the game. Perhaps, in a few decades from now, after artificial intelligence becomes ubiquitous, umpires may not even be required. Who knows, we might even have a robot taking the place of an umpire, or may have no umpires at all, thus implying that the role of the TV umpire and technology will gain even more importance.

And lastly, when we look at the controversies plaguing the system, we often forget about the many instances when DRS has actually saved teams from losing matches. One instance is that of the final test match between India and Australia in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy 2017 held at Dharamshala. The match was at a crucial juncture, as India was 248-6, trailing Australia by 52 runs. Pat Cummins got Ravindra Jadeja out off the very first ball of Day 3, as the umpire gave him out caught behind. Jadeja immediately reviewed, and it was found that the sound was not that of the bat touching the ball. That decision went on to decisively impact the game, as Jadeja went on to score 63 runs. India won the game, and also the series 2-1.

This shows you how things changed in ten years' time.

BF Skinner had famously quoted, "The real problem is not whether machines think, but whether men do."

So, do put your thinking caps on and think about your opinion on this issue. It really matters a lot for the future of international cricket and sport :)