Using technology to aid umpire decision-making

• Were there less incorrect decisions?

• Did the system slow the pace of the game?

• Did it work placing the request to review a decision in the hands of the players?

• Was the process practical?

• Was the authority of the on-field umpires unduly compromised?

In brief the answers after three matches were: yes, not noticeably, yes, yes and no.

The headline result of the trial was incredibly positive with a correct decision percentage of 98.04% against the usual Test match average of around 94%.

Of the total 204 appeals during the series, 48 were referred by either the bastmen or the fielding captain and 25% of these referrals were successful. In simple terms, the review system ensured that in this particular series the number of correct decisions was 6% higher than it would have been without the referral system.

From a player and fan perspective, the trial eliminated all of the obvious howlers. Over the course of the three games there were no recorded incidents where the players failed to request a review in circumstances where a review would have resulted in a decision being changed.

Of course there were some teething issues in the implementation of the system but, in the second and third Tests, the average time taken to review a decision was two minutes and 17 seconds, meaning that with around three referrals a day, the daily impact was approximately seven minutes of playing time.

It was clear from the trial that further streamlining of the process and communications training will assist the umpires in reaching their decisions more quickly in the future.

The umpires themselves did not feel their authority was compromised and they shared the view that the brief embarrassment of having a decision overturned was far less stressful than having to live with the knowledge they have made obvious errors that had a material impact on the outcome of a match.

There are many factors to consider before any decision is taken on any follow-up to the trial and it would not be considered as a mandatory requirement in all international cricket without further refinement but, whatever happens next, it was certainly a successful experiment.

Reinforcing the Spirit of Cricket
The technology trial appeared to have a pleasing and positive additional benefit. The three matches were played in an excellent spirit.

While 12 days of cricket is not enough time to begin to draw firm conclusions, the signs were that in vesting the ability to refer a decision into the hands of the players, it reduced the tension on the field of play that can build up when there is an actual or perceived injustice as the result of an umpire’s decision.

There were no incidents of dissent or excessive appealing and there were signs that the system may discourage bowlers from trying to build pressure by vociferously appealing even when it is clear the batsman is not out.

This was because, for the fielding side, the captain was the only player permitted to request a review so he was always, to a large extent, reliant on the appeal and reaction of his bowler and close fielders.

Any bowler enthusiastically appealing for an lbw where the ball has obviously pitched outside leg stump or a catch when the ball has clearly come off the pad is going to quickly become unpopular with his captain if valuable referrals are used up in reviewing obviously correct decisions.