A strike zone is needed for DRS

When cricketing experts express their views on the game, rest assured a multitude of differing opinions will sprout forth. That is what makes this complex game such a captivating one and although some isolated views may appear puzzling, the best will be thought provoking. An issue that is currently playing out on two continents is a perfect case in point and it has resulted in polarising opinions.

Day two of the fast-forward Cape Town test was a defining day in the implementation of the Decision Review System (DRS). On a frenetic afternoon a total of nine reviews were requested and explored. The final outcome was that five of them were overturned and the correct decisions were eventually made. The umpires had five reference points at their disposal; these being Hawk-Eye, Hotspot, slow-motion replays, ultra-motion replays, as well as audio assistance. Importantly, all the mechanics of DRS were used and not some crazy half-baked version that excluded some vital components.

Concurrently India are battling the West Indies in a series that appears to be a throwback to yesteryear. No DRS is being used and the broadcaster is not even showing ball-tracking replays or graphics to enhance viewing pleasure. It is bizarre that these two series are being played under starkly different playing conditions. That is a scenario that is far from ideal.

Surprisingly a handful of commentators are advocating that the game should be played in a basic simple form that is not complicated by technological assistance for adjudication purposes. While I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I do not concur.

How can some be content for the game to progress on the basis of what the umpire thought he saw rather than what actually did happen? That is the fundamental aspect of this argument. The use of the correct standards of technology when combined and synchronised results in accuracy, which is far more precise and reliable than human judgment. This modernised alternative should be embraced and adopted by all in my opinion.

Although I am a vocal supporter I do have one concern with DRS that should be corrected immediately. I have said for some time that being an ICC initiative, the umpire is being protected too much at times. He is the one who is actually being given the benefit of the doubt with the technological adjudication of the LBW law. This ‘umpire’s call’ business is complicating the process dramatically and I would like to propose a simple solution. Instead of working through the various steps to ascertain if the stumps were to be disturbed and by how much, while always taking into consideration the initial on-field decision, why not just implement a ‘strike zone’? This will eradicate the need for the confusing ‘umpire’s call’.

The ‘strike zone’ could be in the form of a predetermined solid red shaded area that is positioned inside the outer limits of the stumps during ball-tracking. A necessary built-in margin of error to be agreed upon will determine the exact size of that shaded area and how far from the perimeter of the stumps and bails it is placed. Any contact with that ‘strike zone’ by the ball tracking technology during a review will confirm the batsman’s dismissal providing all the previous check points are in the affirmative.

This will dramatically simplify that aspect of the LBW procedure and assist in promoting standardisation of the DRS process.