Umpire's Call has to go

Every now and then in life a reality check is welcome. The ICC just had one during the recently concluded test series in the United Arab Emirates. Never before has the Decision Review System (DRS) taken such a lead role and dominated centre stage. Remarkably, throughout that series a record of 43 LBWs were given, with no small part played by the standing (and sitting) officials.

In Dubai and Abu Dhabi, the lower bounce was always going to be an advantage for the tweakers and we did witness the enchantment of quality spin bowling at its deceiving best, but the series was severely influenced by a flaw in the DRS.

There is no doubt that the better team won the series due to their impressive galvanised performance and I am sure that would not have changed, but it is feasible that the margins may have shifted sans technological adjudication. That being said, Pakistan can trumpet their spin success, revel in that rehabilitated glory and be extremely proud of the way they have bounced back from serious setbacks.

There is no doubt that the ICC need to revisit an aspect of their DRS process, particularly when it comes to LBW. As you know, I am fully supportive of its universal implementation for one reason only. Why should an official be asked to adjudicate on what he thought he saw in a split second when we can prove, through standardised technology, what actually did happen? The grouping of the words ‘universal implementation’ and ‘standardised technology’ are particularly pertinent.

One change that should be made immediately is to scrap the Umpire’s Call. Why that is a concluding element of the adjudication process I do not know. In fact, using that part of the process actually defeats the logic of using technology to make the correct calls, as raw human judgment is used as an eventual determining factor.

The Umpire’s Call confuses things and complicates the decision-making procedure. Surely upon review, if the ball hits the required target area or misses (and remember that already at times at least 50% of the ball needs to be striking the stumps inside the umpire’s zone), it is either out or not out irrespective of what the umpire decided at the moment of impact. Let him call it instantaneously upon appeal but then leave the final decision with the conclusive factual information that will be presented if reviewed. Note again the key word ‘conclusive’.

At the moment the ICC are looking after ‘their own’. There has been an unwritten law in the game for centuries that gives the batsman the benefit of the doubt. Not anymore! With the current DRS system, and the subsequent margins of error that are built into the equation, it is the umpires who are being protected and they are being given the benefit of any doubt through too much leeway. I suppose we should not be surprised. The ICC designed the procedure.

Tweaks and adjustments are always an ongoing progression when something innovative is implemented to enable reaching a point of satisfaction.

As things currently stand, with all the margins favouring the umpires, the ICC are protecting their guys at the expense of the game’s integrity.