THIRD UMPIRE – DECISION REVIEW SYSTEM
1. General
1.1. The Decision Review System (DRS) will be used in all matches.
Note: The DRS includes:
• The process for the referral by the on-field umpires of a decision to the third umpire and/or
the consultation process (between the on-field umpire(s) and the third umpire) initiated by
the on-field umpire(s) as set out in paragraph 2 below and which have been collectively
termed in these playing conditions as an “Umpire Review”; and
• The process initiated by the players for the review of an on-field umpire’s decision (by
means of a consultation between the on-field umpire(s) and the third umpire) as set out in
paragraph 3 below and which has been termed in these playing conditions as the “Player
Review”.
1.2. Save with the prior written consent of the Chief Executive Officer of the ICC, the Home Board
will ensure the live television broadcast of all Test matches played in its country.
1.3. Where consent has been granted for the matches not to be broadcast, the Home Board shall still
be required to ensure that the television camera specifications set out in Appendix 3 are
provided as a minimum requirement and only paragraph 2 (Umpire Review) of the DRS shall
apply.
1.4. In all other matches, the Home Board will be required to ensure that the television technology
specifications set out in Appendix 2 are provided.
1.5. In particular, the Home Board is to ensure that a separate room is provided for the third umpire
and that he has access to the television equipment and technology as specified in Appendix 2 so
as to be in the best position to facilitate the referral and/or consultation processes referred to in
paragraphs 2 (Umpire Review) and 3 (Player Review) below.
2. Umpire Review
In the circumstances detailed in paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 below, the on-field umpire has the
discretion whether to refer the decision to the third umpire or, in the case of 2.2.(a), to consult with
the third umpire before making the decision and should take a common sense approach.
Save for requesting the umpire to review his decision under paragraph 3 (Player Review) below,
players may not appeal to the umpire to use the Umpire Review - breach of this provision would
constitute dissent and the player could be liable for discipline under the ICC Code of Conduct.
The third umpire shall call for as many replays from any camera angle as is necessary to reach a
decision. As a guide, a decision should be made within 30 seconds whenever possible, but the third
umpire shall have the discretion to take more time.
2.1. Run Out, Stumping and Hit Wicket Decisions
a) The on-field umpire shall be entitled to refer an appeal for a run-out, stumping or hit wicket
to the third umpire.
b) An on-field umpire wishing to refer a decision to the third umpire shall signal to the third
umpire by making the shape of a TV screen with his hands.
c) In the case of a referral of a hit wicket or stumping decision, the third umpire shall first
check the fairness of the delivery (fair delivery – the feet or full toss above waist height). If
the delivery was not a fair delivery he shall indicate that the batsman is not out and advise
the on-field umpire to signal no ball.
d) If the third umpire decides the batsman is out a red light is displayed; a green light means
not-out. Should the third umpire be temporarily unable to respond, a white light (where
available) will remain illuminated throughout the period of interruption to signify to the onfield umpires that the TV replay system is temporarily unavailable, in which case the
decision will be taken by the on-field umpire. (As an alternative to the red/green light
system and where available, the big replay screen may be used for the purpose of
conveying the third umpire’s decision.)
e) When reviewing the TV replay(s), if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead
be out by any other mode of dismissal, beyond that initially consulted upon, he shall initiate
the process described in paragraph 3.3 below as if the batsman has been given not out. This
will not count as a Player Review for the purposes of paragraph 3.5.
2.2. Caught Decisions
In the event of an appeal for a caught decision:
a) Clean Catches
i Should the bowler’s end umpire be unable to decide whether or not a catch was taken
cleanly, he shall first consult with the square leg umpire.
ii Should both on-field umpires be unable to make a decision, they may consult by twoway radio with the third umpire. Following such consultation, the final decision will be
made and given by the bowler’s end umpire, who will take into account the on-field
umpires’ initial views and any other advice received from the third umpire.
iii The third umpire has to determine whether the batsman has been caught. However, in
reviewing the television replay(s), the third umpire shall first check the fairness of the
delivery (fair delivery – the feet or full toss above waist height) and whether the
batsman has hit the ball. If the delivery was not a fair delivery or if it is clear to the
third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball he shall indicate to the on-field
umpire that the batsman is not out caught, and in the case of an unfair delivery, advise
the on-field umpire to signal no ball.
iv. When reviewing the TV replay(s), if the third umpire believes that the batsman may
instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, beyond that initially consulted upon, he
shall initiate the process described in paragraph 3.3 below as if the batsman has been
given not out. This will not count as a Player Review for the purposes of paragraph 3.5.
b) Bump Ball
i Should the bowler’s end umpire be unable to decide whether a catch was taken from a
bump ball or not, he shall first consult with the square leg umpire.
ii Should both on-field umpires be unable to make a decision, the bowler’s end umpire
shall be entitled to refer the decision to the third umpire to review a TV replay(s) of the
batsman’s stroke as in paragraph 2.1 (b).
iii The third umpire has to determine whether the ball was a bump ball or not. However,
in reviewing the television replay(s), the third umpire shall first check the fairness of
the delivery (fair delivery – the feet) and whether the batsman has hit the ball. If the
delivery was not a fair delivery or if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did
not hit the ball he shall indicate that the batsman is not out and, in the case of an unfair
delivery, advise the on-field umpire to signal no ball.
iv The third umpire shall communicate his decision by the system as in paragraph 2.1 (d).
v When reviewing the TV replay(s), if the third umpire believes that the batsman may
instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, beyond that initially consulted upon, he
shall initiate the process described in paragraph 3.3 below as if the batsman has been
given not out. This will not count as a Player Review for the purposes of paragraph 3.5.
2.3. Boundary Decisions
a) The on-field umpire shall be entitled to refer to the third umpire for a decision about
whether the fieldsman had any part of his person in contact with the ball when he touched
the boundary or when he had any part of his person grounded beyond the boundary, or
whether a four or six had been scored. A decision is to be made immediately and cannot be
changed thereafter.
Note: If the television evidence is inconclusive as to whether or not a boundary has been
scored, the status quo will remain, and it shall be treated as runs scored by the batting side.
b) An on-field umpire wishing the assistance of the third umpire in this circumstance shall
communicate with the third umpire by use of a two-way radio and the third umpire will
convey his decision to the on-field umpire by this method.
c) The third umpire may initiate contact with the on-field umpire by two-way radio if TV
coverage shows a boundary line infringement or incident that appears not to have been
acted upon by the on-field umpires.
2.4. Batsmen Running to the Same End
a) In the event of both batsmen running to the same end and the umpires are uncertain over
which batsmen made his ground first, the on-field umpire may refer the decision to the
third umpire.
b) The procedure in paragraph 2.3 (b) shall apply.
3. Player Review
The following clauses shall operate in addition to and in conjunction with paragraph 2 (Umpire
Review).
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.
3.2. The manner of requesting the Player Review
a) The request should be made by the player making a ‘T’ sign with both forearms at head
height.
b) The total time elapsed between the ball becoming dead and the review request being made
should be no more than a few seconds. If the umpires believe that a request has not been
made sufficiently promptly, they may at their discretion decline to review the decision.
c) The captain may consult with the bowler and other fielders or the two batsmen may consult
with each other prior to deciding whether to request a Player Review. However in order to
meet the requirement of (b) above, such consultation will need to occur almost instantly
and be very brief. Under no circumstances is any player permitted to query an umpire
about any aspect of a decision before deciding on whether or not to request a Player
Review. If the umpires believe that the captain or batsman has received direct or indirect
input emanating other than from the players on the field, then they may at their discretion
decline the request for a Player Review. In particular, signals from the dressing room must
not be given.
d) No replays, either at normal speed or slow motion, should be shown on a big screen to
spectators until either the next delivery has been bowled or the players have left the field.
e) If either on-field umpire initiates an Umpire Review under paragraph 2, this does not
preclude a player seeking a Player Review of a separate incident from the same delivery.
The Player Review request may be made after the Umpire Review provided it is still within
the timescale described in (b) above. (See 3.8 (b) and 3.8 (c) below for the process for
addressing both an Umpire and Player Review)
f) A request for a Player Review may not be withdrawn once it has been made.
3.3. The process of consultation
a) On receipt of an eligible and timely request for a Player Review, the on-field umpire will
make the sign of a television with his hands in the normal way
b) He will initiate communication with the third umpire by confirming the decision that has
been made and that the player has requested a Player Review.
c) The third umpire must then work alone, independent of outside help or comment, other
than when consulting the on-field umpire.
d) A two-way consultation process should begin to investigate whether there is anything that
the third umpire can see or hear which would indicate that the on-field umpire should
change his decision.
e) This consultation should be on points of fact, where possible phrased in a manner leading
to yes or no answers. Questions requiring a single answer based on a series of judgements,
such as “do you think that was LBW?” are to be avoided.
f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision
making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpire’s
questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third umpire believes that the
batsman may instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, he shall advise the on-field
umpire accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in respect of
such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not
out.
g) The third umpire should initially check whether the delivery is fair under Law 24.5 (‘fair
delivery – the feet’) and under Clause 42.4.2(a) (‘full toss passing above waist height’),
where appropriate advising the on-field umpire accordingly.
h) If despite the available technology, the third umpire is unable to answer with a high degree
of confidence a particular question posed by the on-field umpire, then he should report that
the replays are ‘inconclusive’. The third umpire should not give answers conveying
likelihoods or probabilities.
i) Specifically when advising on LBW decisions, the requirement for a high degree of
confidence should be interpreted as follows:
i. With regard to determining the point of pitching the evidence provided by technology
should be regarded as definitive and the Laws as interpreted in clause 3.9 (a) below
should be strictly applied.
ii. With regard to the point of impact
- If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the point of impact
is between wicket and wicket (i.e. in line with the stumps), the evidence provided
by technology should show that the centre of the ball at the moment of interception
is between wicket and wicket.
- If an ‘out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the point of impact is
not between wicket and wicket (i.e. outside the line of the stumps), the evidence
provided by technology should show that no part of the ball at the moment of
interception is between wicket and wicket.
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.
- If an ‘out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is missing the
stumps, the evidence of the technology should show that no part of the ball would
have made contact with any part of the stumps or bails.
j) The on-field umpire must then make his decision based on those factual questions that were
answered by the third umpire, any other factual information offered by the third umpire and
his recollection and opinion of the original incident.
k) The on-field umpire will reverse his decision if the nature of the supplementary information
received from the third umpire leads him to conclude that his original decision was
incorrect.
3.4. The process for communicating the final decision
a) When the on-field umpire has reached a decision, he should advise the TV director (directly
or via the third umpire).
b) For Player Reviews concerning potential dismissals, he should then indicate “Out” by
raising his finger above his head in a normal yet prominent manner or indicate “Not Out”
by the call of ‘not out’ and by crossing his hands in a horizontal position side to side in
front and above his waist three times (as per a ‘safe’ decision in baseball). Where the
decision is a reversal of the on-field umpire’s previous decision, he should make the
‘revoke last signal’ indication immediately prior to the above.
c) If the mode of dismissal is not obvious or not the same as that on which the original
decision was based, then the umpire should advise the official scorers via the third umpire.
3.5. Number of Player Review requests permitted
a) Each team is allowed to make two unsuccessful Player Review requests per innings. If a
Player Review results in the umpire reversing his original decision, then the request has
been successful and does not count towards the innings limit. If the umpire’s decision is
unchanged, the Player Review is unsuccessful. After two unsuccessful requests by one
team, no further Player Review requests will be allowed by that team during the current
innings.
b) If following a Player Review, an umpire upholds a decision of ‘Out’, but for a different
mode of dismissal from that for which the original decision was given, then the request will
still be regarded as unsuccessful.
c) If a Player Review and an Umpire Review occur from the same delivery and the decision
from the Umpire Review renders the Player Review unnecessary (see 3.8 (b) and 3.8 (c)),
then the Player Review request will be ignored and not be counted as unsuccessful.
d) The third umpire shall be responsible for counting the number of unsuccessful Player
Reviews and advising the on-field umpires once either team has exhausted their allowance
for that innings.
e) The scoreboard shall display, for the innings in progress, the number of Player Reviews
remaining available to each team.
3.6. Dead ball
a) If following a Player Review request, an original decision of ‘Out’ is changed to ‘Not Out’,
then the ball is still deemed to have become dead when the original decision was made (as
per Law 23.1(a)(iii)). The batting side, while benefiting from the reversal of the dismissal,
will not benefit from any runs that may subsequently have accrued from the delivery had
the on-field umpire originally made a ‘Not Out’ decision, other than any No Balls penalty
that could arise under 3.3 (g) above.
b) If an original decision of ‘Not Out’ is changed to ‘Out’, the ball will retrospectively be
deemed to have become dead from the moment of the dismissal event. All subsequent
events, including any runs scored, are ignored.
3.7. Use of technology
a) The following technology may be used by the third umpire.
- Slow motion replays from all available cameras
- Super slow motion replays from all available cameras
- Ultra motion camera replays from all available cameras
- Sound from the stump microphones with the replays at normal speed and slow motion
- Approved ball tracking technology
- The mat, generated by the provider of ball tracking technology, not by the broadcaster
- Hot Spot cameras
- In addition, other forms of technology may be used subject to ICC being satisfied that
the required standards of accuracy and time efficiency can be met.
b) Where practical usage or further testing indicates that any of the above forms of technology
cannot reliably provide accurate and timely information, then it may be removed prior to or
during a match. The final decision regarding the technology to be used in a given match
will be taken by the Match Referee in consultation with ICC Management and the
competing teams’ governing bodies.
3.8. Combining Umpire Reviews with Player Reviews
a) If an Umpire Review (under Clause 2) and a Player Review request are made following the
same delivery but relating to separate modes of dismissal, the following procedure shall
apply.
b) The Umpire Review should be carried out prior to the Player Review if all of the following
conditions apply:
i. The Player Review has been requested by the fielding side
ii. The Umpire Review and the Player Review both relate to the dismissal of the same
batsman
iii. If the batsman is out, the number of runs scored from the delivery would be the same
for both modes of dismissal
iv. If the batsman is out, the batsman on strike for the next delivery would be the same for
both modes of dismissal.
c) If the Umpire Review leads the third umpire to make a decision of ‘Out’, then this will be
displayed in the usual manner and the Player Review will not be performed. If the Umpire
Review results in a not out decision, then the third umpire will make no public decision but
proceed to address the Player Review request.
For illustration, following an unsuccessful lbw appeal, the striker sets off for a run, is sent
back and there is an appeal for his run out. The players request that the lbw decision is
reviewed and the umpires request that the run out be reviewed. The four criteria above are
satisfied, so the run out referral is determined first. Should the appeal for run out be ‘Out’,
then there is no requirement for the lbw review to take place.
d) In all other circumstances, the two incidents shall be addressed in chronological order. If
the conclusion from the first incident is that a batsman is dismissed, then the ball would be
deemed to have become dead at that point, rendering investigation of the second incident
unnecessary.
3.9. Interpretation of Laws
a) When using technology to determine where the ball pitched (as per Law 36.1(b)), the third
umpire should refer to the “point” (or centre) of the ball. Therefore if at least 50% of the
ball pitches outside the line of leg stump, then no LBW dismissal is possible.
b) When using a replay to determine the moment at which the wicket has been put down (as
per Law 28.1), the third umpire should deem this to be the first frame in which one of the
bails is shown (or can be deduced) to have lost all contact with the top of the stumps and
subsequent frames show the bail permanently removed from the top of the stumps.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
How to Review
There are two types of review in the system, umpire review and player review.
1. Umpire Review In cases of run outs, stumpings, hit-wicket, bump balls, boundary decisions and cases of batsmen running to the same end, the umpire has the discretion to refer the decision to the third umpire or, in the case of clean catches, to consult with the third umpire before making the decision himself.
This is the referral system already in existence and is mostly used for line calls and boundary decisions.
2. Player Review: A player may request a review of any decision taken by the on-field umpires concerning whether a batsman is dismissed. No other decisions made by the umpires (such as wides, leg-byes etc) are eligible for a player review. It is not a referral system because the final decision remains with the on-field umpire – the decision is reviewed by, not referred to, the third umpire.
a. Who can ask for a player review? Only the dismissed batsman in an ‘out’ decision or the fielding captain (or acting captain) in a ‘not out’ decision.
b. How should they do it? The player should make a ‘T’ sign with one hand and one forearm and he should do so without undue delay. If the umpire feels the review was not requested promptly, he may decline to conduct the review. A player review may not be withdrawn once it has been requested.
c. Then what happens? Once a valid player review has been requested, the on-field umpire will initiate contact with the third umpire confirming that a review should take place. A full exchange of factual information should then take place between the third umpire and his on-field colleague to establish if there is any reason why the original decision should be changed.
If the third umpire, having reviewed the available technology, cannot answer a particular question posed by the on-field umpire with a high degree of confidence then he should report it to be ‘inconclusive’. He should not give answers conveying likelihoods or probabilities. Remember, the system is designed to eliminate obvious errors and it will not be possible to remove all doubt in all cases. In all cases of review, if the replays are inconclusive, the on-field umpire’s original decision, whether ‘out’ or ‘not out’, will stand.
d. What does ‘high degree of confidence’ mean specifically when viewing LBW decisions? When advising on LBW decisions, the requirement for a high degree of confidence should be interpreted as follows:
PITCHED – if the technology shows that the centre of the ball pitched outside leg stump then the decision will be NOT OUT.
IMPACT – if the technology shows that the centre of the ball was between wicket and wicket at the point of impact then it’s OUT (all other factors being in place of course). If the technology shows that no part of the ball was between wicket and wicket at the point of impact (and the batter was playing a stroke) then it’s NOT OUT. Otherwise, the on-field umpire’s original decision should not be changed.
WICKETS – if the technology shows 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 then it’s OUT (subject to the proviso below and all other factors being in place of course). If the technology shows that no part of the ball would have made contact with any part of the stumps or bails then it’s NOT OUT. Otherwise, the on-field umpire’s original decision stands.
Proviso: if the point of impact is greater than 250cm from the stumps, the third umpire will inform his on-field colleague of the exact distance, the approximate distance from the point of pitching to the point of impact and where the ball is predicted to hit the stumps. The on-field umpire will then apply the normal cricketing principles concerning levels of certainty in making his final decision.
e) What will the third umpire see? The following graphic is a compilation freeze frame of what the umpire will see when viewing the ball-tracking technology. It shows all three aspects of where the ball pitched (PITCHED), where it hit the batsman (IMPACT) and whether it is predicted to have hit or missed the stumps (WICKETS).
The decision
The on-field umpire will reverse his original decision if the information received from the third umpire leads him to conclude that it was incorrect. As such, the final decision will remain with the on-field umpire.
Number of Reviews
Each team is allowed to make two unsuccessful player review requests per innings. If the original decision of ‘out’ is upheld but for a different method of dismissal than the on-field umpire originally intended, then the review will still be regarded as being unsuccessful.
Umpiring review system will improve cricket: ICC
The International Cricket Council (ICC) said Tuesday that the trial run of the umpire’s decision review system during the upcoming India-Sri Lanka Test series is an effort to improve the game at the international level. “The ICC is extremely grateful to both Sri Lanka and India for agreeing to take part in this trial. We want to see if we can enhance the game by reducing or removing the few clearly incorrect ones,” ICC’s acting chief executive officer David Richardson said in a statement.
The India-Sri Lanka series starts July 23 in Colombo.
“The fact that each side is allowed only three unsuccessful requests to review in each innings should mean that players will not make frivolous challenges and, instead, only seek a referral of those decisions which are highly likely to be incorrect,” he added.
Richardson also said that the review system could help the ICC remove a source of tension and frustration among players and spectators as well as any resultant pressure on umpires.
“At the same time we have sought to ensure the continued primacy of the on-field umpire. The man on the field’s role is to consult with his colleague, not to refer the decision away, and he still decides whether or not to change his original decision,” he said.
The trial will be reviewed after the three-Test series gets over in August to assess whether it was successful and worth persevering with.
ODI debut for umpire review system
Players will be able to challenge umpiring decisions in one-day cricket for the first time this Sunday, as Australia and England trial the decision review system in the lead-up to the World Cup.
Despite the Board of Control for Cricket in India's continued opposition to the UDRS, it will be used for the duration of the World Cup, which starts on the subcontinent on February 19.
Hot Spot is likely to only be available for the final stages, as there are not enough Hot Spot cameras to be sent to all the pool matches.
Until now, the UDRS has only been used in Test cricket, but it relies on the boards of both countries agreeing, and only four of the past ten Test series have featured umpire reviews.
However, the ICC is keen to see the system implemented in as many series as possible, and has encouraged countries to test it in bilateral ODI series before the World Cup.
The Australia-England matches will be the first one-day games to include reviews, with teams expected to be allowed two incorrect referrals per innings as in Test matches.
The third-umpire duties for the seven-match series will be shared between Billy Bowden, Tony Hill, Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus - all members of the ICC's elite panel who will then go on to the World Cup.
The UDRS has been used in Tests since 2008, and the ICC cricket committee will evaluate its long-term viability after the World Cup.
The UDRS was introduced in an effort to remove umpiring howlers from the game, and it has taken players some time to work out how best to use the system without wasting their chances.
During the recent Ashes series, Australia and England each asked for 20 referrals, with England having eight decisions overturned and Australia seven.
By the end of the series, the players were much less hasty with their reviews, and the Sydney Test featured only one referral by each team.
At the Gabba and the Adelaide Oval, the teams requested a combined 11 reviews, and the number peaked at 12 during Australia's victory in the third Test at the WACA.
However, the use of the system was not without incident.
Australia's captain Ricky Ponting was fined for a prolonged debate with the umpires at the MCG (pictured), where he felt that Hot Spot had showed Kevin Pietersen edged the ball, but the third official did not interpret the vision the same way.
Umpire review system in 'crisis'
The controversial umpire referral system is in crisis and will not be in place for England's Test series in South Africa, BBC Sport has learned.
An updated version of the TV referral system which was trialled during England's Test tour of the West Indies has been approved for use in all Tests.
It was set to be available to India and Sri Lanka in their current Test series.
But it is believed a stand-off has now emerged between cricket's stakeholders over who will fund the equipment.
BBC cricket correspondent Jonathan Agnew explained that while the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) were always against the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was initially in favour of the review system.
But the Indian board has reportedly changed its mind after their players raised concerns, and Agnew believes Cricket South Africa is likely to follow suit.
The International Cricket Council announced in June that, following trials at domestic and international level, the UDRS would come into use from October.
Under the updated rules, each side would be allowed two unsuccessful challenges per innings in a system similar to that used in American football and tennis.
"Despite serious reservations from many quarters, the ICC's cricket committee approved the use of technology - including, controversially, the predictive element of Hawk-Eye - starting with the series between India and Sri Lanka," Agnew told BBC Radio 5 live.
"But there's now a stand-off between the boards, the host television companies and the ICC about who will fund the very expensive equipment.
"The Indian board has now rejected the scheme and, as things stand, Cricket South Africa will do the same. The referral system won't be used for the Test series against England.
"The ECB was the only board to vote against the use of technology, which has been pushed through by the ICC despite failing spectacularly in the West Indies earlier this year.
"The view of the cricket boards is if the ICC want it they must pay for it, while the majority of the players, it seems, would rather do without it."
ECB chairman Giles Clarke added: "We weren't keen on the referral system so we voted against it.
"We lost the ICC vote, comprehensively, but we run a democratic world in cricket so we accepted the decision.
"Then the question came of who is going to pay for it. We're not going to. Cricket South Africa don't want to pay and I quite understand why.
"It seems the broadcaster does not want to pay. I don't think the ICC is going to step in but I may be wrong. If no one's going to pay, you can't use it."
The UDRS was designed to let players request that umpire's decisions are reviewed by a third official using TV pictures.
Either the dismissed batsman or the fielding captain can call for a review by making a "T" symbol with his forearms.
Despite an unsuccessful experiment in English county cricket's Friends Provident Trophy in 2007, the review system was first trialled during a series between Sri Lanka and India in the summer of 2008 - with Sri Lanka's Tillakaratne Dilshan becoming the first player to successfully appeal against a decision.
The experiment was also used in several other series - although for the West Indies versus England series in 2009, the number of unsuccessful challenges permitted was reduced from three to two.
"I'm excited that the committee concluded the Umpire Decision Review System had a positive effect on the game," ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat said in June.
"It reduced the number of incorrect decisions and also cut down on instances of player dissent."
Hawk-Eye (measuring the trajectory of the ball until the point of impact with bat, pad or batsman), ultra-slow motion cameras and "Hot Spot" were among the expensive devices experimented with during the ICC's trials - although the predictive element of Hawk-Eye has not yet been used in Tests.
What is Umpire Decision Review System
| Other names | Review system, Referral system |
|---|---|
| Classification | Technology used to eliminate umpiring errors from Test Cricket |
| Manufacturer | International Cricket Council |
The Umpire Decision Review System (abbreviated as UDRS or DRS) is a new technology based system currently being used on an experimental basis in the sport of cricket. The system was first introduced in Test Cricket for the sole purpose of reviewing the controversial decisions made by the on-field umpires in the case of a batsman being dismissed or not. The new review system was officially launched by International Cricket Council on 24 November 2009 during the first Test between New Zealand and Pakistan at the University Oval in Dunedin.[1][2] It was first used in ODIs in January 2011, in England's series against Australia.[3]
Contents[hide] |
[edit]System
During a Test match, each team is given two challenges per innings. A fielding team may use the system to dispute a "not out" call and a batting team may do so to dispute an "out" call. The fielding team captain or the batsman being dismissed invokes the challenge by signalling a "T" with the arms. Once the challenge is invoked, acknowledged, and agreed, the Third Umpire reviews the play. While umpires may request the Third Umpire for certain close calls such as line calls (to determine run outs and stumpings) and boundary calls, a challenge may be used in situations that may result in a dismissal: for example, to determine if the ball is a legal catch (making contact with the batsman's bat or glove and not touching the ground before being held by a fielder) or if a delivery made the criteria for a leg before wicketdismissal (hitting the ground in line or on the off side and hitting the batsman in line with a path that would have hit the wicket). The Third Umpire then reports to the on-field umpire whether his analysis supports the original call, contradicts the call, or is inconclusive. The on-field umpire then makes the final decision: either re-signalling a call that is standing or revoking a call that is being reversed and then making the corrected signal. If a team's challenge results in a reversed call, the team keep that challenge; they can continue to challenge throughout the innings until they make two failed challenges.
[edit]Response
The system has generally received positive response from players and coaches since its launching, however there has been some criticism as well. West Indies legend Joel Garner labelled the system a 'gimmick'.[4] Another West Indian Ramnaresh Sarwan said that he was not a supporter of the experimental referral system.[5] Former umpire Dickie Bird also criticised the system, saying it undermines the authority of on-field umpires.[6] The cricketing board of India, (BCCI) is not in favour of using the system.[7]
Umpire review system agreed for 2011 Cricket World Cup
The International Cricket Council (ICC) has agreed in principle to use the umpire Decision Review System (DRS) at the 2011 World Cup.
The ICC must first strike a deal with broadcasters ESPN Star Sports to work out whether sufficient technology is available to use at a global event.
The DRS has been plagued by various financial and execution problems.
The ICC would like the technology to be used in all 49 World Cup matches in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
A cricket committee, led by former West Indies captain Clive Lloyd, recommended that DRS should be used in all Test matches in May.
And the ICC's board, made up of the 10 chairman from the Test-playing nations, approved 13 recommendations relating to the use of the technology in Test matches and the 2011 World Cup at its annual meeting in Singapore on Thursday.
"We have all seen the benefits of using DRS to assist umpires in Test cricket and we are now keen to use DRS in the World Cup," said ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat.
"We also acknowledge and we are grateful for the support provided by broadcasters and technology suppliers around the world during the development phase of DRS."
The DRS allows each side two referrals per innings and was first trialled in a Test match in June 2008.
If a decision is challenged correctly, the referrals remain. However, if an incorrect referral is made by either side, they lose one of their opportunities to challenge the decision of the on-field umpire.
The cost of technology has been the overriding factor in the delay of rolling out DRS, with home cricket boards reluctant to cover the expensive costs of hiring the necessary equipment, while host broadcasters insist they are under no obligation to provide the service for free.
The various trials of the system, including England's winter tours to West Indies in 2009 and South Africa in 2009/10, have provided several controversial incidents, the most noteworthy of which occurred in the fourth Test in Johannesburg in January.
On that occasion, Daryl Harper failed to hear anything on the replays following Ryan Sidebottom's caught behind appeal against Graeme Smith, an incident that sparked dismay among the England players.
The ICC ordered an investigation, led by Lloyd and lawyer Brent Lockie, to iron out the system's various inconsistencies.
The findings from the report concluded that a "technology failure at the time adversely impacted on the information received by the third umpire Daryl Harper while making his decision".
As a result, the ICC and the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) agreed Australian Harper was "entirely blameless" because of the technical fault.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)