The contentious issue of ‘Umpire’s Call’
Let's now move to the graphic which shows what percent of the ball would hit the stumps and the one that makes all the difference between an ‘Out’ or an ‘Umpire’s Call’ decision.
51% of the ball hitting the stumps – OUT, 49% of the ball hitting the stumps – Umpire’s Call. For these Hawk-Eye graphics, there is a 2.2 mm error window. So all the close Hawk Eye calls where the ball is hitting or not hitting half the stumps by just a small margin, are basically within this error range.
How many of those do we get frequently where the ball up to 2.2 mm either way, that makes all the difference between decisions? Quite a lot!
And they are all in the error range. It’s astonishing how this information is kept hidden from the viewers who treat these lines as absolutely accurate.
This is why it cannot be stated hard enough that Hawk Eye’s implementation is flawed at the fundamental level itself. However, even if one were to ignore this error range, there are plenty of other issues with the Hawk-Eye that require urgent modification.
The biggest issue is with regard to the Umpire’s Call. The ICC needs to make up its mind on whether it wants correct calls made or almost correct calls made. Umpire’s Call is in place to allow room for reasonable human error. But why?
How is it any consolation to a bowler, whose LBW review was turned down on account of Umpire’s Call, that the umpire almost made the correct decision? There are plenty of LBW reviews from the bowling side where despite the ball hitting the stumps, the review is returned as Not-Out, just because it was the umpire’s call.
Just imagine if tennis adopted this strange method for ruling on line calls. The chair umpire rules a call OUT, and the aggrieved player reviews, and it’s found that the ball just (less than half the ball) clipped the line.
If tennis were to adopt cricket’s approach all these ‘just clipped the line’ reviews would result in Umpire’s Call and the ball would be ruled OUT.
In tennis, a ball is either IN or OUT, regardless of what the chair umpire ruled, and regardless of what portion of the ball is clipping the line. Similarly, in cricket, a ball is either hitting the stumps or it’s not, a ball has either struck the batsman in front of the stumps or it hasn’t.
Why is the ICC happy to deal in almosts and not go the full distance when it comes to trusting technology?
Umpire’s Call renders the whole review system meaningless, and that is why DRS needs urgent changes to be made to it. Being all for reviews is not enough, having a review system that works is equally important.
The BCCI seems to be the only cricket board in the world that wants both. Sadly, every other board and the ICC are happy with just the former and don’t really seem to care about having the latter.
The biggest issue with Umpire’s Call is that in the absence of two-way communication between the umpire who made the decision and the 3rd umpire reviewing the decision, any review that results in Umpire’s Call is essentially gibberish.
Here is why: An LBW review hinges (more often than not) on two aspects - 1) Whether the impact was in line of the stumps; and 2) Whether the ball was hitting the stumps.
Lets us consider an LBW appeal where the on-field umpire feels that the impact with the pads was outside the line of the stumps, but the ball would just (less than half the ball) clip leg stump.
The ball only partially hitting the leg stump is fine for the umpire and based on that alone, the umpire would rule the batsman Out. However since he feels the impact was outside the line of the stumps, he rules it as Not Out.
The fielding side reviews, and on review it’s found that the ball would just clip the leg stump like the umpire thought, but the umpire was wrong about impact with pads and that the impact was in line with the stumps and the umpire was wrong.
Now if the umpire knew this, he would rule it out. However, under the present review system, once the Hawk-Eye graphic shows the impact was in line with the stumps, the umpire will not even be asked if this was the ground on which he gave his decision.
Under the present system, it will be assumed that the on-field umpire knew that the impact was in line with the stumps, which is not the case at all. Further, under the present review system, it will be assumed that the umpire based his decision on the fact that he was unsure of whether the ball would hit the stumps or not, which was again not the case.
The umpire was sure that the ball would clip the stumps as it was shown to be doing, and it was not the basis of the original not out decision. However, since not enough of the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps, an Umpire’s Call will be returned, and the original Not-Out call will stand.
Here it’s clear that in the absence of communication between the on-field umpire and the reviewing umpire, a decision that should have been overturned on review is allowed to stand. There are potentially plenty of reviews that would fall under this category.
Sadly, despite the many grounds on which DRS fails, only BCCI wants something done about it. All other boards, in their ignorance, are happily promoting a faulty system, and ICC, the one who is to guard the guards, is happy to play the ostrich.
It’s clear that on a closer look the DRS is very clearly in need of changes urgently, but nobody except BCCI is doing anything.
