This is a blog post from
In the last over of the first day’s play of the ongoing 1st Test Match between New Zealand and Australia in Wellington, Kiwi fast bowler Doug Bracewell castled Adam Voges. However, since the Umpire (Richard Illingworth of England) had called a no-ball, the dismissal did not count and Voges survived the rest of the over to end the day undefeated. It later turned out the umpire's no-ball call was faulty.
ESPNCricinfo’s >Daniel Brettig reported that the ICC’s Cricket Committee has previously debated the question of whether erroneous no-ball calls could be reversed retrospectively and concluded that the delivery was illegal from the moment the umpire called it an illegal delivery, and that it was unreasonable to retrospectively tell the batsman that it was legal. Further, Brettig writes that “there is no recourse for players to ask that the on-field umpire's call be checked.”
The point of the umpire calling ‘no-ball’ — loudly and clearly, along with the arm signal — is to indicate to the batsman, while the ball is still in play, that it is a no-ball. Hence, the assumption that the batsman plays the ball as a no-ball is reasonable. But the idea that there is no recourse for players to ask that the on-field umpire’s call be checked is not strictly true.
The Decision Review System involves two kinds of reviews. The first is the ‘Umpire Review’, in which a review of a situation on the field is requested by the TV Umpire before a final ‘Out’ or ‘Not Out’ decision is made. The second is the ‘Player Review’, in which a player — usually the batsman or the fielding captain — can request a review of an on-field decision made by the one of the two on-field umpires. The crucial difference between the two is not the identity of the reviewer (player or umpire), but when the review is requested.
The ‘Umpire Review’ is requested before an on-field umpire makes his decision. The ‘Player Review’ is requested after an umpire decision has been made on the field.
The standard practice of umpires checking for no-balls after a player has been dismissed and is about to walk off the field is classified as an umpire review. It is formally initiated by the umpire. This is not always clear, as the vast majority of dismissals in cricket are self-evident (for example, bowled, caught in the in-field, caught on the boundary or being run out by a large distance). When an umpire is not sure if a bowler overstepped, it has become a common practice to ask the TV Umpire to review the front-foot no-ball if a dismissal has otherwise occurred.
It is true that New Zealand technically could not have asked the umpire to review the no-ball in the case of Voges. Or, had Voges been bowled and wanted the umpire to review the front-foot no-ball, he could not have formally requested such a review of the no-ball. Even though there have been instances of umpires being prompted by players to review front-foot no-balls, the umpire is not obliged to accept such a request. When umpires do, it is only because they also have doubts themselves, or think it is part of their ‘match-management’ function to provide players with extra assurance by requesting the review. In the case of a Player Review, the umpire is obliged to accept the review request provided it is made in time, no matter what his own opinion might be.
The Player Review is also explicitly a departure from the idea that the Umpire’s decision is final. It is in the context of this crucial departure that the ICC Cricket Committee’s point about the finality of the no-ball call can be challenged.
Even though New Zealand could not have reviewed the no-ball, they could have reviewed the not-out decision itself under >the rules of DRS . Section 3.1 of the DRS rules (Appendix 2 to the ICC’s Standard Test Match Playing Conditions for 2014-15) states the following:
3.1
Circumstances in which a Player Review may be requested:
- a) A player may request a review of any decision taken by the on-field umpires concerning whether or not a batsman is dismissed, with the exception of ‘Timed Out’ (Player Review).
- b) For the avoidance of doubt, no other decisions made by the umpires are eligible for a Player Review.
- c) Only the batsman involved in a dismissal may request a Player Review of an ‘Out’ decision and only the captain (or acting captain) of the fielding team may request a Player Review of a ‘Not Out’ decision.
- d) A decision concerning whether or not a batsman is dismissed that could have been the subject of a Umpire Review under paragraph 2 is eligible for a Player Review as soon as it is clear that the on-field umpire has chosen not to initiate the Umpire Review.
Players clearly cannot review the no-ball, but they can review the ‘Bowled’ dismissal under the rules. The fact that New Zealand failed to do so makes them partly responsible for the cumulative umpiring error. This is an aspect of the Decision Review System which is commonly misunderstood. How often have you heard the following words — “Technology should be used to minimise umpire mistakes. That’s why I support DRS.” To think this is to misunderstand DRS. DRS is a system of review designed to accommodate the limitations of technology. The idea that technology will take away the need for people to exercise judgment is generally flawed, and especially flawed when it comes to cricket and DRS.
The intention behind the Decision Review System was to involve players in decision-making by giving them the power to review on-field umpiring decisions. The expectation was that this would improve the overall quality of umpiring decisions by allowing umpires to correct obvious, clearly mistaken decisions. In fact, 3 out of 4 reviews initiated by players are unsuccessful. Further, it became clear very early in the history of DRS that players were going to use the review facility tactically. A team was far more likely to review a very marginal decision against, say, Alastair Cook or Kevin Pietersen, than they might against a tailender. In a bid to curb the tactical use of reviews, the ICC reduced the number of available unsuccessful reviews from 3 to 2 in a Test innings.
Recently, this rule was changed again to allow a reset after 80 overs. Teams get 2 unsuccessful reviews for the first 80 overs, and 2 more thereafter.
The idea that technology will take away the need for people to exercise judgment is generally flawed, and especially flawed when it comes to cricket and DRS.
While some of the authority for decision-making as far as dismissals are concerned has been shared with the players, none of the responsibility for mistakes gets shared with the players. This is one of the reasons why I oppose the involvement of players in the technical review process altogether. If the concept of the ‘Player Review’ had not existed, then it would be correct to say that Voges’ survival was entirely due to Richard Illingworth’s evidently mistaken no-ball call. But since the Player Review exists, New Zealand must share the blame.
You may think that New Zealand had no reason to suspect that Illingworth had made a mistake. The mistake was evident on replay almost immediately. Australia’s Josh Hazlewood later observed: "We were hoping it would not go up on the big screen too quickly." The rules governing Player Review specifically prohibit signals from the dressing room. Replays on the big screen are also prohibited until the prescribed 15 seconds have elapsed. But teams play hunches with reviews all the time. And teams have sought this responsibility for themselves. Given the history of DRS use in international cricket, New Zealand must share the blame along with Umpire Illingworth.
This is the essential, inescapable shift caused by DRS — one which its supporters are not keen to accept. Every time an umpire makes a mistake (evidence suggests that these mistakes are truly rare), there are calls for the adoption of DRS. DRS in its current form comes with all the consequences of the fact that decisions about dismissals are no longer purely the domain of umpires. Further, current evidence clearly shows that players are extremely poor at evaluating whether or not a decision on the field is correct (or, in the case of LBWs, a reasonable judgment). In the 2015 World Cup, players reviewed 84 out of 541 reviewable on-field umpiring decisions. Only 20 reviews were successful. During the 2015 Ashes, 4 out of 36 reviews were successful.
At some point, cricket will have to take this evidence into account.
But this reckoning is unlikely any time soon. Currently, the idea that the Player Review confers not just power, but also responsibility, of correct decision-making on the players is still new. This will have to change before DRS can develop into a better, wiser system.
