THE NEW set of initials in cricket parlance, UDRS -- umpire decision review system -- will be heard more often as a result of the ICC's opinion that the referral experiment has been successful.
======STOP SUMMARY=====
After the two-day ICC cricket committee meeting had finished at Lord's today, it was announced a "phased roll-out" would be recommended, with a start in October this year. This followed scrutiny of trials over the previous nine months in the series Sri Lanka v India (August 2008), New Zealand v West Indies (December 2008), West Indies v England (February/March 2009) and South Africa v Australia (February/March 2009).
Players could request a review by the television umpire of a decision made by the on-field umpire they believed to be incorrect. The third official was able to view the available television pictures and relay information back to the umpire on the field, who then had to decide whether or not to reverse his original decision. In the first two of the four series involved in the trial each side was allowed a maximum of three unsuccessful appeals per innings. This was reduced to two per side, per innings for the remaining series that formed part of the trial.
The ICC considered the following questions and published the following answers:
Was the number of overall incorrect umpiring decisions reduced? Yes.
Was there an undue negative influence on the pace of the game? No.
What was the effect on the players and did the process of placing the responsibility on the players for deciding whether a decision should be reviewed work?
The committee concluded this was the most appropriate way of handling the review system; the past experience of the Johnnie Walker Super Series in 2005 when the umpires had the opportunity to call for reviews showed that path was not effective as it led to umpires doubting their own abilities and slowed the game down.
Was the process (request for review, consultation and the conveying of the final decision) practical?
Yes, although it was agreed it needed fine-tuning.
What was the effect on the umpires and was the authority of the on-field officials unduly compromised?
The committee concluded any possible negatives were far outweighed by the positive effect of ensuring more correct decisions were made.
Were there any other positives or negatives to be considered?
It was considered of vital importance that further training of the umpires in the processes was necessary ahead of any further use of the UDRS. This would be to ensure maximum levels of consistency in the implementation of the system. It was also noted that the use of the UDRS reduced examples of player dissent which may otherwise have occurred following incorrect decisions.
On the basis of its conclusions, the committee agreed to recommend that there should be a phased roll-out of the system from October 2009.
The ICC said that the months before the roll-out would allow time to factor in of lessons learnt from the trials, to issue documentation of minimum technical standards in technology and protocols, to confirma and implement minimum standards for the third umpire’s room, to give further training of umpires to implement the protocols and processes.
The committee’s recommendations will now go forward to the ICC chief executives’ committee and the ICC Board, both of them meeting at Lord’s during the ICC’s annual conference week on June 22-26.
ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat said: "I’m excited that the committee concluded that the umpire decision review system had a positive effect on the game. It reduced the number of incorrect decisions and also cut down on the instances of player dissent. The committee’s recommendation will now be taken forward to the ICC chief executives’ committee and the ICC Board and, if both those groups agree, then we will seek to roll out the system from October 2009."
The cricket committee agreed that the concept of day/night Test cricket should be explored, with the possibility of a trial match in 2010, provided key factors were established beforehand. These factors included successful tests of an appropriate colour ball, a clear indication that day/night Tests were what stakeholders wanted and successful trials at first class level.
The committee also agreed to recommend stricter penalties for players and captains guilty of failing to maintain an acceptable over-rate. Host boards, umpires and match referees should also take responsibility for ensuring that everything within their control was done to ensure over-rates remained as high as possible.
The committee was chaired for the first time by former West Indies captain and ICC Cricket World Cup winner Clive Lloyd, replacing ex-India captain Sunil Gavaskar. The committee comprised David Richardson, ICC general manager of cricket, Mark Taylor, Ian Bishop, Simon Taufel, Ranjan Madugalle, Mickey Arthur, Tim May, as chief executive of the Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations, and Clare Connor, the head of women’s cricket for the England and Wales Cricket Board.
CHARLIE SAYS: There were errors made by the television umpire in the West Indies, but as the ICC say extra training will be given this seems to be a right way forward. It is a pity that the referrals stopped short of using the electronic wizardry of Hawk-Eye -- right through -- Snickometer and Hot Spot. Serious analysis and testing should establish whether these commentating aids are as effective as they seem for the use of umpires.
