The Decision Review System (DRS) at the ongoing Duleep Trophy became a talking point when India cricketer R. Ashwin pointed out how the setup will help in improving batters’ technique.
Ashwin referred to Ricky Bhui’s dismissal who was trapped leg before wicket off Manav Suthar on the second day of the first round match between India C and India D. The umpire judged the Bhui not out but the call was reversed upon a review by India C.
“DRS for domestic cricket is not just for the right decisions to be made. Ricky Bhui’s dismissal last evening against Manav Suthar is a classic case of a batter who will get away with this technique 10/10 times in FC cricket. Back in the day batters were given not out just because they managed to get on the front foot. Now, keeping your bat behind the pad can be fatal,” Ashwin wrote on his X handle.
Explaining the decision from the umpire’s perspective, B.K. Ravi, who has previously stood in Ranji Trophy games, said the prevalent practice to side with the batter in such cases comes due to the margin of error in DRS.
“When we started, we were told, because the ball has to travel another four feet, if the batter is on the front foot the ball has to travel another eight feet, so, there is every possibility of [the ball] missing the stumps. That was at least earlier.
“The hawk eye shows the trajectory right from the release point. However, many times, the ball appears to be virtually hitting the stumps, but hawk eye shows it to be missing. Now, when the batter is on the front foot, the possibility of missing is slightly higher. Whenever there is a fifty-fifty call, the benefit goes to the batter. Hence, when a batter is on the front foot, we do not give out due to the possibility of missing,” Ravi said.
The use of DRS, however, has been lauded by the players who advocated its use on a full-time basis in other domestic competitions as well.
“It is a great initiative. I have been playing domestic cricket since the last 10 years and there have been a lot of instances where I have been given out wrongly. As a batter, it is hard. You get one chance and then you get given out by a wrong decision. Technique wise, it does not change anything. But yes, we have an added advantage. Both teams, in fact. And it is sort of fair play, we are using technology for the betterment of the game,” Bhui said.
Suthar, who claimed a seven-wicket haul in the second innings, said the technology gives something more for the bowlers to play with. Suthar reviewed the umpire’s decisions on two occasions, against Devdutt Padikkal and Ricky Bhui, and was successful in overturning the call both times.
“On the Padikkal wicket, I was not very sure. But the wicketkeeper Abishek Porel was certain there was glove involved. We were able to convince our captain and we ended up getting the wicket. So, in those kinds of situations it helps,” Suthar said.
During India C’s match against India D, the DRS was put to use 13 times, with the decisions being overturned only three times. In the game in Bengaluru, between India A and India B, the system was put to use 15 times and it proved correct only twice.
Also read | Axar Patel’s growth as assured batter adds further stock for Indian starting berth
In particular, the use of the no-ball tracking system, in control of the third umpire, brought forth the frequent overstepping by bowlers in both games. Akash Deep of India A and Saransh Jain of India D were caught overstepping repeatedly in the two games. The India A versus India B match saw as many as 19 no balls over the four innings.
Umpire Ravi agreed that the third umpire checking for the no-ball removes the scope of human error.
“Sometimes, we miss it as well. Wherever it is touch and go, we give it in favour of the bowler. If the batter is dismissed they can always go back and check it. But if I call a no-ball, and it turns out to be a legal delivery, that would be unfair because the bowler does not have an option to check that. That’s why it is better to wait for it [third umpire’s call].
“The other is, what everyone sees is the side on angle. It is easier to see from that angle. The umpire stands roughly 10 feet away from the crease. You can miss it from that angle at times,” Ravi said.
The use of full-time DRS has been requested by teams and coaches in the past too. The technology was first brought to domestic games during the 2019/20 season, though, it’s use has been mostly restricted to televised, big-ticket games.
Madhya Pradesh coach Chandrakant Pandit last season had expressed displeasure over limited DRS being used during his side’s Ranji Trophy semifinal against Vidarbha when a full setup was available for the second semifinal in Mumbai.
Also read | Patience, lessons from opponents and pace variations – Suthar reveals secrets behind seven-wicket haul
“I’m sure the BCCI should look into this matter. It’s only the BCCI that can decide. It is not the association which can. I think fair opportunities should be given, and if you’re playing in a big tournament, it is unfair that one team has DRS and the other does not,” Pandit had told Sportstar in March.
The heavy financial investment and infrastructure required in setting up the equipment has meant the technology has not reached the domestic set up on a regular basis.
“Definitely, it will be good from the umpires’ and players’ point of view. In many cases, the umpire’s decisions have been overturned. But earlier, players used to complain throughout the match, pinning the blame on the umpire. These things can affect the judgement of an umpire in the back of the mind. DRS provides clarity. But it’s pretty expensive which means not a lot of grounds can set it up,” Ravi said.
Comments
SHARE