November 15, 2016

How India learnt to stop worrying and (sort of) love the DRS

A long-time opponent of the review system, the BCCI has come around to a partial acceptance of it following tests of its efficacy

Anil Kumble, now India's coach, was involved in bringing more clarity and order to DRS in his role as the head of the ICC's cricket committee © AFP

So the Rajkot Test, the Indian team's first, wary embrace of regular DRS has passed without what the police refer to as "untoward incidents". Cheteshwar Pujara will offer us his thoughts about DRS at a later date, no doubt - about his very smart referral in the first innings, which got him past a dream home Test century.

We must realise that Rajkot, of course, has not quite marked the beginning of a beautiful friendship: the DRS is on trial all through the series against England. We can only hope that by the time it is done, this prickly relationship will be free of the old hang-ups, and that the Indian team will join the rest of the cricket world in using the DRS as standard practice.

Virat Kohli's men belong to a generation younger to that of the DRS-scarred class of 2008. To be fair, even that lot would probably have given the DRS a shot outside of ICC events at some point had the system not found itself trapped in front with an identity crisis: What am I? What have I become? A broadcaster's add-on? A regulatory requirement? A political tool for the powerful in a sulk?

In 2016, things are clearer. The DRS is a regulatory requirement that is a few steps closer to being under the ICC's full control. The eventual intention is for it to be consistently applied in the international game. For the first time, Zimbabwe too used a version of the DRS in a home Test versus Sri Lanka last week. It was DRS lite - with ball-tracking, sans stump mic - but no one was complaining.

India's reservations over the DRS have been quelled for the moment due to several factors. Like improvements in the quality of the replay footage used by the Hawk-Eye tool - from 75 frames per second in 2011, we now have 340, which provides more data to predict the path of the ball.

Also, there has been the addition of Ultra Edge technology, which was introduced at the start of the year in the South Africa v England series. This combined sound-based edge detection with simultaneous camera frames to help pick up finer edges, added a new component to the information available to the umpires. Taken together, these made for a sustained push for the argument in favour of the DRS.

Going to MIT and getting DRS technologies tested independently was like asking an architect to check if the doors in a house already built would always shut correctly and that the roof wouldn't possibly collapse

What added an extra layer of persuasion was the decision to take the DRS out of the cricket broadcasting environment and into a neutral laboratory. Anil Kumble, the head of the ICC's cricket committee, and Geoff Allardice, the ICC's general manager, leaned on science to ask questions of the technology tools at hand and to set up new parameters for DRS technologies of the future.

Kumble, captain of India in that 2008 DRS-disaster series, tackled the project not as a cricketer who had a bone to pick with technology. It was studied as a mechanical-engineering problem that required a mechanical-engineering approach as a solution. Good thing Kumble, currently the India coach, has a degree in the subject.

The exercise began in September 2014 with a set of meetings between Kumble, Allardice and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) engineers in Boston. Sanjay Sarma, MIT professor of Mechanical Engineering says, "Accuracy is a key question that any engineering task asks about measurement technologies. How precise is it? How repeatable is it? Has this been characterised? Anil Kumble and Geoff Allardice came to us with these questions."

A cricket fan, Sarma had his own "mixed feelings" about the DRS. "On the one hand, I do believe in reviews, in technology, and in the visual benefits of DRS. On the other hand, I didn't know if and how DRS was being calibrated."

The DRS had more than an identity crisis; rather, it came with a built-in structural flaw. Given that analogies about parachutes and safety equipment have been used in the context of the DRS in the past, here is another. Let's compare it to a house constructed without a blueprint and assembled on the go with a variety of materials added on randomly. Going to MIT and getting DRS technologies tested independently was like asking an architect to check if the doors in a house already built would always shut correctly and that the roof wouldn't possibly collapse. What MIT did was invent the equipment that would answer those questions and also give the ICC clear technology parameters for the use of DRS in future.

Cheteshwar Pujara successfully reviewed a leg-before decision in the first innings in Rajkot, but didn't take advantage of the system in the second, when he was adjudged lbw to a ball that pitched outside leg stump © AFP

The September 2014 meetings marked the beginnings of a year-long project, which involved Sarma, Dr Jaco Pretorius of South Africa, and Stephen Ho, an American research scientist at MIT. While Sarma and Pretorius were from cricket-playing nations, Ho, like the students involved as consultants in the research, had no knowledge of the sport. Sarma says, "They all found the sport quaint, but over time have started playing 'gully cricket' in our lab retreats and in the hall at MIT."

Two US engineering firms, Mide and Bell-Everman, constructed the equipment, the Swinging Arm that tests the Real Time Snicko/Ultra Edge, and the Frame, which studies the ball-tracker. Two sets of tests were conducted using these tools, the first in a closed environment, like at Loughborough University last year and the other in a real match environment. Ultra Edge for example was tested behind the scenes with no public notice during the September 2015 England v Australia ODI at Lord's.

RTS and HotSpot, which are owned by BBG Sports, one of two cricket technology providers along with Hawk Eye, went through their offline testing at a suburban ground in Melbourne in April 2016. This was two months after being observed at work during the New Zealand v Australia Test in Christchurch. HawkEye was put to the offline MIT-ICC tests in April 2016 in Winchester, UK and then observed a month later during the England v Sri Lanka Test in Durham. The only other ball tracking technology available to cricket, Virtual Eye of New Zealand will be tested in February 2017 towards the end of the southern-hemisphere season.

The equipment used to test the DRS now sits locked up in crates that are in the ICC's possession in Dubai. The MIT team, Sarma says, has recommended that the tools used in the DRS are "characterised/ qualified" periodically, i.e. tested to check if the parameters arrived at earlier still hold true. During the course of the project, the impact of physical conditions on the DRS tools, like wind on the speed of sound, for example, was also studied but found to be "small in relative terms", or easily tackled.

The ICC now owns a proper blueprint with which to build and add to their DRS house. The chief executives' meetings in February will possibly involve discussion about what could be the next series of issues to be tackled on the way to a consistently applied DRS, with mandatory tools like the ball tracker and sound-based edge-detection systems. Cost would definitely be one: a five-year-old estimate says a basic DRS system costs US$5000 per day; that figure would be higher today, with far more sophisticated technologies involved. Apart from the monies, the fact that the DRS package will be owned and controlled by the ICC raises even more questions.

If the ICC does take full control of the DRS from broadcasters, it has to decide in which matches the system is to be used. All formats? All formats across men's and women's cricket? How can the logistics involved be brought in sync with the current cricket calendar? Given that in every match that features the DRS, the ICC appoints its own DRS-trained third umpire along with the two on-field umpires, how many more ICC-approved third umpires would need to be DRS-trained and sent out to work matches? That is in the future and outside the ambit of the system's most reluctant followers.

For the Indian team, though, there is one element of the DRS that will prove challenging, but which cannot be fixed by machines or scientific tests. It is to do with how the technology is used by the players in the middle, and here the Indians will have to catch up quick.

In Rajkot, Pujara experienced all sides. After his inspired first-innings referral, in the second he walked off glumly, leg-before to one from Adil Rashid that pitched outside leg. At the other end, M Vijay had respectfully turned his back to the departure, without alerting his partner to the possibility of a review. It was, no doubt, an instinctive response, born of a DRS-free Test match habit. It led Sachin Tendulkar to say that the third umpire needs to intervene in such instances. Let's not get into that now or we will be here for another eight years.

Yes, the umpire's decision must be respected, but in the Indian Test team's new world, sometimes, the old rules don't apply.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Jim on November 21, 2016, 9:31 GMT

    @DextersLab. You adapt to what you have. The World, apart from India, has been using DRS for many years, and there are now almost no instances when teams can't review because there are none left. If you know there are only two you save them until you are really sure. What we've seen a few times in the recent game are "hopeful" or optimistic reviews that experienced teams usually avoid. Kohli needs a few games to learn who in his team to trust and who are prone to optimism. Judging by the players' reactions during the reviews many of them are still clueless about how the system works - like the need for 3 reds to overturn an lbw, not 2.

  • Dexters on November 21, 2016, 8:16 GMT

    Sachin is absolutely right. Lets say a team used up reviews in first 2 overs. They are technically playing without DRS next 80. Don't blame it on a team using it tactically because the other team is also going to use it tactically. Just by probability DRS is introducing same luck factor (or howlers) but in a different way (overs left, umpires call, score board, importance of player, time left). In my opinion the decisions are now more complicated based on the above factors. Instead it should be the same to a Number 1 ranked batsman and a Number 11 batsman. Rules of the game should be managed by the officials and not by players, now DRS is like a traffic signal in India - where red signal have different meaning depending on the situation, place and personnel. Don't understand how people can't get it.

  • Jay on November 20, 2016, 2:54 GMT

    Sharda - Not so fast! Tendulkar is absolutely right in calling for greater authority for the third umpire to intervene & reverse incorrect decisions. A case in point: Just look at the ICC reviewing the footage of du Plessis for a possible "ball tampering" code breach, even after the SA vs Oz match had ended! That too brought to their attention by the vocal Oz media! The match officials were unaware the 18-hour window had elapsed for them to report. Nor was there any official complaint from CA. Still ICC took it upon itself to investigate a day after the match ended, with a stipulated 5 days to make a final call. Absurd!! Why not empower match referee to do the same during the course of the game? Is the Oz media (4th estate) more trustworthy? Look at American football: It's common for Replay officials to intervene in a questionable on-field call by announcing: "Previous play is under further review", then overturn or confirm it after review. Listen to Sachin, he's right, Sharda!!

  •   cricfan69564930 on November 16, 2016, 23:14 GMT

    the time may come when the current water absorbing leather clad ball is replaced by a non-absorbent material and at this time a tracking device can be used in the ball to accurately track it quickly and cheaply...and the laws of cricket don't state what the ball materials must be(i'm sure someone will correct me if i am wrong on this )...leather balls and dew do not mix well..go non-absorbing and we may be able to play in the rain too..

  • Muthuvel on November 16, 2016, 15:05 GMT

    Now that India has accepted DRS with some corrections, some fair critiquing will commence on it from other countries. Till now it was just India bashing, BCCI did not agree to DRS so it is god send and "BCCI/Indian team/indians have integrity issue" now since it is accepted in a better form, it will be "DRS is not good enough as it gives unfair advantage to India. BCCI/India/Indians have integrity issues. But let us improve DRS to be more fair"

  • Pelham on November 16, 2016, 14:20 GMT

    canterbury1990 on November 16, 2016, 1:43 GMT: The statement that reviews are topped up every 80 overs is often made by commentators, but is not correct. Reviews are topped up after 80 overs only, but there is (at least at present) no further topping up if an innings reaches 160 overs.

    Section 3.5a of the DRS playing conditions says that each team "is allowed to make a maximum of two unsuccessful player review requests in the first 80 overs of the innings, and a maximum of two unsuccessful player review requests after 80 overs for the remainder of the innings."

    The above is taken from the version that took effect from 22 September 2016, but that clause remained unchanged from the previous version.

  • Kalyanaraman on November 16, 2016, 11:01 GMT

    All the DRS love is England's influence to reduce the odds against them in this series. Why wasn't this adopted for example in the just concluded NZ Series? Surely there weren't too many days between the tests. India was absolutely right in opposing DRS when they did because we saw that hawkeye line predictions were not always that accurate. Hotspot missed edges where England bowlers even examined Dravid's bat in one series. What about Sachin's referral in the world cup semi final against Pakistan? These are something no DRS commentator is willing to acknowledge. Finally I am very much in favor of third umpire intervention anytime they see a howler. It is basic common sense.

  • Salil on November 16, 2016, 10:42 GMT

    cricmatters: "Take the referral out of player's hands and take responsibility of giving the right decision each and every time." -Couldn't agree with you more. Much ado about nothing is what DRS is, notwithstanding "experts" singing paeans for it.

  • rahul55490532 on November 16, 2016, 9:34 GMT

    Kohli will take India in the right direction by adopting DRS. Dhoni knew squat about DRS. Sachin was limited in his knowledge about DRS even though he was an okay batsman.

  • Bruce on November 16, 2016, 6:53 GMT

    @cricmatters: Say a batsment gets a feint edge before an LBW and is given out. The on field ump's don't know about the edge, otherwise they would not have given the LBW. So this means that the 3rd umpire must check each LBW appeal before the game can progress...and each caught behind appeal...and each bat pad appeal. You might as well add an extra day for 3rd umpire reviews and 2 days in the subcontinent, where every third ball is an appeal of some sort. In real time, the batsmen have the best clue to know when they have been wronged, not some guy sitting 90m away in a room watching a tv. Admittedly the bowlers have less of clue as they always feel wronged, but then the close fielders are there to keep them in check. Unless you want to stop the game every couple of balls, your suggestion is not practical. The DRS is great balance at the moment. The howlers are picked up and we are not playing the sport in a test tube with lab coats. We are playing as humans with minimal wrong decisions

  • No featured comments at the moment.