UDRS: The resources are needed to reach its capability

[baggy_blogger]

In the final Test between The Proteas and England, Grame Smith was on strike, still short of fifty. He attempted a cut shot (if memory serves here) and it sounded like a definite edge against the bowling of Ryan Sidebottom which was taken by Matt Prior. England were convinced and celebrations began. Umpire Tony Hill wasn't interested. Smith stood his ground, chewed the cud unmoved and it seemed the Umpire had missed the loud snick. But England were convinced they had the big wicket so they called for a review. Upon review the sound was there in fact it was clearly there, but standard slow motion replays won't pick it up for you as there can sometimes be very little, if any deviation of the ball when a fine edge is picked up. But Daryl Harper didn't hear the sound and it seemed to be that he was in fact looking for that deviation of the edge. Deciding it was not conclusive it was wrapped up as Not Out, therefore standing by the Umpires decision. Smith went onto score a century.

The UDRS (Umpire Decision Review System) is a good system, but as I have written in a few articles it can only be implemented with the desired result if all the resources are in place. Without the resources the system will not be capable to present to the players and officials what it is meant to promote. Anyone else see this as pure logic?
By resources I am specifically referring to how the system worked in Australia's Test series' against the Windies and Pakistan.
Hot spot was in place, snicko was available and the system worked efficiently for the better duration of the Tests. The Umpires walked away with peace of mind and there was no controversy, thank goodness for that!
But it doesn't make sense to go into a relatively big series with The Proteas vs England and not have all the technological assistance in place to eradicate these potential issues.
After quite an uproar from England the ICC will now have an investigation into the matter to answer some questions, lawyers involved and all the controversial detective types. Was Harper's volume level at a sufficient level? Apparently not.
I am not sure what England hope to get out of this. The Proteas won the match and the result was they retained the Trophy. Cricket is a game supervised by Humans, who will make mistakes and in fact, believe it or not, cricket has always had controversy, there has always been human error sometimes resulting in unwanted occurences. But that's the game! Yet we have a decent system in place to fix these potential issues but instead series' are conducted without the system being properly in tact. This is in fact, bluntly put, a major stuff up!

I think the Umpires can breathe a sigh of relief with the review system. I am certain they can leave a ground not worrying to much about getting verbal abuse from some upset spectators or know they may be having to stand before a panel due to a big error in a decision. Some argue this system may knock an Umpires confidence in giving incorrect decisions. I'd like to think Umpires will have faith in the system and see it as a positive step just to give them that extra boost to stand by their decisions, but in return being more attentive to the on-field action. They have a tough job out there and I have always respected Umpires for the work they do in Governing the action of the game, which is ideally what it's all about for us. But as I have mentioned there are issues they face and mistakes they make, just like the players do. They have a thankless job and sure it may knock their confidence on a bad day where two or three decisions may be turned over, but it is there to help them and if all the resources are in place, the ICC will make the Umpires' job unquestionably easier!

The positives of the system in brief summation: It confirms decisions to ensure the decisions are correct for on-field action to proceed with the right result, it takes a massive burden off the Umpires shoulders and potential issues which could destroy an Umpires career, limits any controversy if utilised correctly, add's an exciting dynamic to the game and gives the Captains the option of a decision with a limited number of chances. A review could also be the defining moment of a series by ensuring the correct decision has been made!
The negatives of the system in brief summation: It can be lengthy but this is also a positive as it can ensure the correct decision is made, not all technological components may be entirely accurate like a human decision may be too, it could tamper with the Umpires' authority within the game, the sheer delight in picking up a wicket (especially a bowlers first wicket in Tests) can be quickly turned into an anti-climatic celebration, there is a risk the camera's may not have all the angles spot on for an entire review to be investigated.
Weighing up the pro's and the con's I do think the UDRS is a good system.
It has probably helped viewers at home understand the LBW law even better, but if it isn't managed correctly, if the resources are not present and the technology doesn't have the confidence blessing from the officials it will not work the way it should be working. Look at the negatives and see how the resouces in place could just make this innovative system more harmonious for the game of cricket.

[Gazza]

I think you've summed it up pretty much perfectly. It's a pretty sensitive area, if it isn't used properly it can really do more bad than good. We saw during that fourth test how easily it can go wrong, and how big the repercussions can be.

[aussie1st]

Originally Posted by baggy_blogger

Hot spot was in place, snicko was available and the system worked efficiently for the better duration of the Tests. The Umpires walked away with peace of mind and there was no controversy, thank goodness for that!

Snicko actually wasn't in use, I think it takes too long or they can't differentiate between the sounds. If its the latter then that is slack work as all they need to do is a days worth of testing to see what is what. By the Pakistan series we had hot spot 360 which helped out with the edges slightly although it seems hot spot doesn't pick up the very faint edges.

[baggy_blogger]

There was that one incident when Punter went out on 89, it just flicked the glove, but it was crazy how hotspot picked it up, it really was the faintest brush on the gloves.
It seems on the bat the faint ones aren't always picked up perfectly.
Yeah but they have snicko technology there though.

[Gazza]

The one problem with Snicko is that it can so easily be tampered with/changed , accidentally or on purpose.