Recurring DRS gaffes casting Indian umpires under the microscope

On 16th February, 2022, the India posted a relatively comfortable victory against the West Indies but the game, rather unwittingly, was dominated by another Decision Review System (DRS) sub-plot. It didn’t have much of an impact on where the match was headed but it, without doubt, made people question if DRS is being used as it should be.

On the 5th ball of the 8th over, Ravi Bishnoi darted a ball down the leg side. Roston Chase, who was on strike, was adjudged to have missed it, with the umpire K N Ananthapadmanabhan also signaling a wide. After consultation with Virat Kohli, though, Rohit Sharma opted for the review.

The catch (pun intended, of course), however, is that Jayaraman Madanagopal also wanted to check for the stumping. After a bit of back and forth with the Indian skipper, it was deemed that the umpire’s review (for stumping) would take precedence over the DRS Rohit had asked for.

In the process, India didn’t lose the review after Chase was conclusively adjudged to have not hit the ball, although it did highlight that the umpires had botched the DRS protocol completely.

Over the years, there haven’t been many occasions where the fielding team/batters and the umpires have asked for a review simultaneously. In the ICC’s Playing Conditions, though, there is a provision that sheds light on what should happen in such cases.

Section 3.9 talks about ‘Combining Umpire Review with Player Review’, wherein sub-section 3.9.2 mandates that an Umpire Review shall be carried out prior to a Player Review only if four conditions are satisfied.

3.9.2.1 The Player Review has been requested by the fielding side

3.9.2.2 The Umpire Review and the Player Review both relate to the dismissal of the same batsman

3.9.2.3 If the batsman is out, the number of runs scored from the delivery would be the same for both modes of dismissal

3.9.2.4 If the batsman is out, the batsman on strike for the next delivery would be the same for both modes of dismissal

In Chase’s scenario, the DRS was asked after the wide had been called by the umpire at the bowler’s end, meaning that if he were to be deemed out ‘caught behind’, the third condition would not be fulfilled.

So, in those circumstances, the Umpire Review should not have preceded the Player Review. Instead, the caught behind appeal should have been checked first before moving on to the stumping shout.

3.9.3 also states that if the Umpire Review, provided it has rightly taken precedence, leads to a decision of Not Out, the third umpire “shall make no public decision but shall proceed to address the request for a Player Review”.

Nothing of the sort happened in the 1st T20I. If anything, Madanagopal was heard telling Rohit that the former had already asked for an Umpire Review and that the Player Review (or DRS) wasn’t needed because everything would be checked anyway. Hence, India, despite not getting their DRS right, were allowed to keep their review.

A lot of umpiring decisions have been overturned by DRS in India

Under ordinary circumstances, this could be labelled a one-off incident, where the set of umpires perhaps bungled things a touch. Unfortunately, though, DRS and umpiring gaffes have become the norm during India’s home matches.

In the Test series against New Zealand, more than 15 decisions (at least) were overturned. Each overturned call brought with it dismay but it kept on going till the final ball was bowled in the 2nd Test at Mumbai. The rubber is mostly remembered for the manner in which Kohli was adjudged LBW at the Wankhede Stadium.

There were plenty of grey areas to address too. But interestingly enough, that was one of the few occasions during that series where the umpires, at least according to the DRS protocols, got it right.

The third umpire (Virender Sharma) had seen images of the bat and pad close together and could have easily changed the decision after Kohli intentioned to use the DRS, but a lack of conclusive evidence meant that he was, in sync with the protocols, given out.

A few months ago, there was similar uproar during the 2nd Test against England at Chennai. The batter in question was Ajinkya Rahane, with the ball looping up off some part of his body/glove towards short leg. England were adamant and opted for the DRS.

The third umpire (Anil Chaudhary), though, only saw a few glimpses before ruling in Rahane’s favour. The ball had clearly not hit the bat before making contact with the pad. But once the latter had happened, it grazed the glove and lobbed into Ollie Pope’s palms at short leg. The DRS, though, wasn’t utilized to correct the decision and England were deprived of an important scalp.

Thus, as things stand, it would be safe to admit that the umpiring standards of the Indian umpires is on a slight downward curve in international cricket. Apart from Ananthapadmanabhan and Nitin Menon, who have enjoyed sensational starts to their international career, none of the others have really covered themselves in glory.

There has been the odd excellent decision but those have dwarfed in comparison to the elementary errors they have made, irrespective of the vagaries attached to DRS.

At the moment, there has been no intimation from the ICC, suggesting that they will go back to neutral umpires. In the COVID-19 era, it is a logistical hassle that they are better served steering away from.

If that is to continue, it would mean that Indian umpires get more time in the sun – something that will put their decision-making and the usage of DRS under an even finer microscope.

India has had a culture of great umpires and the current lot has the potential to be a household feature in this field for years to come. However, evidence of that ilk (apart from Menon and to an extent, Ananthapadmanabhan’s performances) has unfortunately been in short supply.

Things can change. And quite quickly at that too. Umpiring, considering the scrutiny on each decision, remains an uncompromising gig, meaning that there is always a chance of mistakes creeping in.

But it would also be naïve to say that the Indian umpires, with their usage of the DRS and their decisions, have not attracted unnecessary attention. Ideally, it shouldn’t have been this way.