In Support of UDRS

“I am not going to buy a life jacket that doesn't come with a warranty,” said MS Dhoni about the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS). The (in)famous quote leaves the uninitiated baffled and the informed frustrated.

The UDRS has got a lot of flak after the notorious not-out decision that was given in favor of Ian Bell by Billy Bowden in the India vs. England World Cup encounter.
A couple of days later, it was again the subject of debate when in Sri Lanka’s match against Kenya, the umpire reversed his decision of “Out” after the review in similar circumstances. Since, in both these cases, the final verdict was “Not Out”, the lesser informed have developed an opinion that the rule stipulates that if the point of impact is more than 2.5m, it cannot be given out; leading many to argue that batsmen can avoid ever being LBW if they were to stand a foot outside the crease to bat.

The Indian Board and some senior players of India including MS Dhoni and Sachin Tendulkar have earlier argued that introduction of UDRS jeopardizes the authority and credibility of the umpires in the middle. What they probably don’t realize is that by disputing Billy Bowden’s decision, they are doing exactly that themselves, i.e., questioning the authority and judgment of the man in the middle.

The rulebook does not state that the batsman cannot be given out if the point of impact is more than 2.5m away from the stumps. All it says is that in such cases, the on-field umpire, armed with additional information from the review, will take the final decision based on his understanding.

Clause 3.2 (i) – iii:

With regard to determining whether the ball was likely to have hit the stumps:

–         If a “not out‟ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is hitting the stumps, the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball would have hit the stumps within an area demarcated by a line drawn below the lower edge of the bails and down the middle of the outer stumps.

However, in instances where the evidence shows that the ball would have hit the stumps within the demarcated area as set out above but that the point of impact is greater than 250 cm from the stumps, the third umpire shall notify the on-field umpire of:

a)     The distance from the wickets to the point of impact with the batsman

b)     The approximate distance from point of pitching to point of impact

c)      Where the ball is predicted to hit the stumps.

In such a case, the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision.

In India’s match, the umpire, Billy Bowden, upheld his decision because he had the “freedom” to do so, although in my opinion he should’ve given it out. In Sri Lanka’s match, the umpire, armed with the additional information from the 3^rd umpire that the ball had hit the batsmen more than 2.5m away from the stumps and that it was predicted to go a foot above the stumps, decided to overturn his decision.

The UDRS is there to avoid the absolute howlers. It does not undermine the authority or the judgment of the on-field umpires. It is only there to assist them. If one were to go through the rulebook, it clearly states that the UDRS will only overturn the decision of the on-field umpire when it can prove, as they say in the legal jargon, “beyond reasonable doubt” that the decision is incorrect. Whenever there is doubt, the decision of the on-field umpire stays.

The UDRS is a tool which is there to assist the umpires. The instances of bad umpiring decisions having a bearing on the match’s result had increased in the recent past making the need to improve the decision making even more critical. Agreed that the UDRS has limitations of its own and could perhaps never be 100% reliable, but when looked at as an aiding device that still depends on the judgment and understanding of humans to come to a conclusion, it is a pretty useful tool to have.