URS, the game changer at Adelaide

There was a dramatic shift in the way the game was played in Adelaide. I am not referring to England’s supremacy over a floundering Australia who had their first innings defeat inflicted upon them since 1993. I am in fact talking about the Umpire Referral System (URS) in which players can ask a third umpire to take another look at a decision. In particular two referrals on the last morning show how the game is changing.

Jimmy Anderson removed Brad Haddin with a classic seamers dismissal. Ryan Harris came to the wicket and shouldered arms to a straight ball that hits him straight in front of the stumps. He is stone dead out and the umpire gives it immediately. Harris and North (his partner for one ball) thinks he is out too. However, given the situation they refer it. It is out, but it is only just out. It clips the top of middle-and-off. An absolute stone dead LBW has been turned into an ‘only just’. Suddenly even simple LBWs are looking complicated.

Two balls later and Swann is bowling to Marcus North. It pitches in-line and straightens hitting North in-front of the stumps. Swann appeals and it is turned down. England refer and on reply the ball is seen to miss the edge of the bat and hits North in front. North sees it on the big screen and doesn’t even wait for the umpire to raise his finger. Simple then, the right decision has been made in the end … except when it is seen at full speed the ball is very near the edge of the bat. North is at full stretch going forward and so the impact point is at least eight feet from the stumps. Given the very close edge and the fact he went a long way forward the umpire would have had some doubts about giving North out. The ‘not out’ decision was correct – he gave the batsman the benefit of the doubt as umpires have always done. Of course the ‘out’ decision for the referral was also correct. This is not a contradiction, we are deciding the batsman’s fate based on two separate judgements: full speed from 22 yards OR in high definition slow motion with technological aids. When judging an umpire’s performance we should remember that.

My point is that cricket is changing because of the referral system. LBWs that seem obviously out are not always so clear cut. Other situations where the batsman has always received the benefit of the doubt may no longer hold. In the end Marcus North was out and so the correct choice was made. The interactive reply was also very exciting with the players and crowd watching and cheering. Pure drama. Referrals are a game changer; we have to make sure cricket changes into something we want to watch and cherish.

Referrals: a better system

I have a new system that the ICC could implement for umpire referrals: flip a coin – if it is heads the decision stands. This would have the following advantages:

1. It would be quicker, no more endless replays that show nothing conclusive
2. It could engage the crowd by having a slot machine on the big screen
3. Everyone would understand it
4. No need for arguments about technology
5. It wouldn’t undermine the umpire
6. It would be fairer than the current system

Six good reasons why a coin toss is better than the current system.

Referential Integrity

The umpire referral system has come under quite a bit of justifiable criticism. The two Test matches currently under way have been full of referral incidents – very few of which have showed the system in a good light. The players in interview seem to dislike the system and some commentators have called for it to be stopped. Personally I think the system in some form must stay. We need a system that will reverse obvious miscarriages: the LBW that pitches outside leg-stump, the LBW that has a big snick into the pad, the caught behind that clearly misses the bat or the bat-pad that misses the bat by some distance. How do we get from where we are now to a system that people are happy with?

Firstly a few observations about the current system:

• A batsman never thinks he is out. Batting is a difficult profession made more difficult by the fact that the innings can end on any delivery. Batsmen will try anything to avoid getting out, including using a referral when they are clearly out – as Pietersen showed on Friday.
• A bowler always thinks it is out. Graeme Smith’s first ball in the second innings was clearly not LBW. It hit him outside off stump and moved away – and yet Australia insisted on a referral. In Ryan Sidebottom’s first over today (Sunday) to Sarwan he appealed to a ball that clearly pitched outside leg stump. It was, of course, turned down so they asked for a referral. Same result.
• Darryl Harper is a poor third umpire. He gave Chanderpaul out on replay when it was fairly clear on all replays that it way too high. He also turned over the not-out decision in favour of Brendan Nash when there was no good reason to.
• The current system is not very well implemented because no one seems to know what is going on. There is scope for keeping the crowd informed (novel idea I know) and creating some drama. At present a referral seems to take an age with no one having a clue what is happening.

Some have suggested that it is the umpire that should instigate a referral at his discretion. While I think umpires should be able to refer to the third umpire there is a flaw in this as a general principle: if the umpire thinks it is out when an LBW pitches outside leg-stump then, as he has already made the mistake and he is not going to refer it. Umpires always want to make the correct judgement; if they think the decision is correct – they are not going to ask someone else.

A few recommendations:

1. Let the on-field umpires talk to the third umpire about anything – it’s ridiculous to prevent them from talking freely. There are rules about what the on-field umpire can or cannot ask the third umpire -- how daft is that?
   
2. Allow the third umpire to use any and all technology available. The fact that the third umpire cannot see a Hawkeye track – but I can see it - is silly. Umpires can be told to take the prediction with caution.
3. Give the third umpire lots of training. Umpires are used to making decisions on-field. Sitting in a room full of TV monitors is a different situation and umpires should receive lots of training in the differences – I am guessing they do not (from the mistakes they make)
4. Enshrine the principle that ‘The on-field umpires make the decision and they can only be over-ruled when a clear mistake has been made’. This has been followed ad-hoc.

Any other suggestions?