Umpire Decision Review System

DRS was preceded by a system to allow on-field umpires to refer some decisions to the third umpire to be decided using TV replays, in place since November 1992.

The addition of Player Reviews and additional technology to this system was first introduced in Test cricket for the sole purpose of reviewing controversial decisions made by the on-field umpires as to whether or not a batsman/batswoman had been dismissed. The system is based on the concept of player-referral conceived by Senaka Weeraratna (Sri Lankan lawyer). He was the first to suggest a Player Referral System for Cricket in a letter published in the ‘Australian’ national newspaper on 25 March 1997. Until he drew public attention to the benefit of such a player referral system, there was no such system or mechanism in any other sport. The Player Referral system was first tested in an India v. Sri Lanka match in 2008,[1] and was officially launched by the International Cricket Council (ICC) on 24 November 2009, during the first Test between New Zealand and Pakistan at the University Oval in Dunedin.[2][3] It was first used in One Day Internationals (ODI) in January 2011 during England's tour of Australia.[4] The ICC initially made the UDRS mandatory in all international matches,[5] but later made its use optional, so that the system would only be used if both teams agree. The ICC has agreed to continue to work on the technology and will try to incorporate its use into all ICC events.[6]

In October 2012, the ICC made amendments on lbw protocols, increasing the margin of uncertainty when the ball hits the batsman's pad.[7] In July 2016, the rules were amended once again, reducing the margin of uncertainty.[8][9] The updated rules were first used in the ODI match between Ireland and South Africa in September 2016.[10]

In September 2013, the ICC announced that for a trial period starting in October 2013, a team's referrals would be reset to two after 80 overs in an innings in Test matches. Previously each team had a maximum of two unsuccessful reviews per innings.[11]

Starting in November 2014 from Australia's ODI series versus South Africa, the field umpires' communications have also been broadcast to the viewers. Whenever a decision is reviewed by the TV umpire, the umpire's communication with the field umpire and the reply in charge can be heard.[12]

In February 2017, the ICC agreed the use for all future ICC World Twenty20 tournaments, with one review per team.[13] The first T20 tournament to use the technology was the 2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20.[14] It was used in the knockout stages of Pakistan Super League 2017, which was the first time DRS used in a T20 league. DRS was used for the first time in a Twenty20 International in the India–Australia T20I series in October 2017.[15]

Under the new ICC rules of November 2017, there would no longer be a top-up of reviews after 80 overs in Test matches, and teams will have only 2 unsuccessful reviews every innings. However, teams would no longer lose a review for an umpire's call(A ruling in which the on field's umpire's ruling stands due to inconclusive data) on an LBW review.

In 2020, the requirement to appoint neutral match officials was temporarily suspended due to the logistical challenges with international travel. Following from this change, the number of unsuccessful reviews per test innings was raised from 2 to 3 keeping in mind that there may be less experienced umpires on duty at times.[16]

The components in UDRS are:

• Television replays, including slow motion.
• Hawk-Eye,[17] Eagle Eye, or Virtual Eye: ball-tracking technology that plots the trajectory of a bowling delivery that has been interrupted by the batsman/batswoman, often by the pad, and can predict whether it would have hit the stumps.
• Snickometer or Ultra-edge[18][19][20] (Hawk-Eye's version): directional microphones to detect small sounds made as the ball hits the bat or pad. The use of the original Snickometer was superseded by Real Time Snicko in 2013.[21][22][23][24][25]
• Hot Spot: Infra-red imaging system that shows where the ball has been in contact with bat or pad. Improved cameras were introduced for the 2012 season.[26] The system came under fire after the 2013 Ashes in England.[27] It was claimed that using silicone tape prevented faint edges being picked by Hot Spot, which was later confirmed by a MIT report.[28]

In 2013, ICC tested a broadcaster-free replay system. Under the experiment, a non-match umpire sits in a separate room with a giant monitor and has discretion over which replays to see rather than relying on the broadcaster. The non-match umpire mirrors the role of the third umpire without having the duty of making adjudications. The system was first used in an Ashes Test (where Nigel Llong performed the duties of non-match umpire) and was repeated in a Pakistan-Sri Lanka ODI.[42]

After the Stuart Broad incident, in The Ashes 2013, ICC has started to take steps to give third umpire access to instant replays. This is regardless of calls being referred to by on-field umpires. By doing so, ICC wants to make sure that any obvious mistakes are avoided in future.[43]

The Decision Review System has generally received positive response from players and coaches since its launch. Because of its positive response, the ICC has attempted to apply uniform application of DRS in all cricket games around the world, but this has been difficult for some countries to implement. Some countries, especially the poorer ones, are unable to afford the technology and choose to use parts of it or not use it at all.[44] The technology is often used by broadcasters to bring an even more vivid analysis of specific plays and games. It was designed to eradicate the errors of umpires, and it has done so in many games.

However, there have been some negative responses to the DRS technology as well. West Indies legend Joel Garner labelled the system a "gimmick".[45] Another West Indian Ramnaresh Sarwan said that he was not a supporter of the experimental referral system.[46] Former umpire Dickie Bird also criticised the system, saying it undermines the authority of on-field umpires.[47] The cricketing board of India has expressed a skeptical view on the adoption of the system if it is near perfect.[48] Pakistani spinner Saeed Ajmal expressed dissatisfaction over the Decision Review System after a semi-final of the 2011 Cricket World Cup against India. He said that DRS showed the line of the ball deviating more than it actually did.[49] Hawk-Eye officials admitted in December 2014 that their review technology made an error in a decision to give Pakistan opener Shan Masood out in the second Test against New Zealand in Dubai (17-21 November 2014). At a meeting held at the ICC office in Dubai two weeks later, Hawk-Eye is understood to have conceded to Pakistan captain Misbah-ul-Haq and team manager Moin Khan that the projection used by their technology for the Leg before wicket decision was incorrect.[50] Also, a challenge can only be made by the captain within a 15-second window from when an initial decision is made, but it can be lengthened if no clear decision is made, especially they are assumed not out if there is no reaction by the umpire.

During the 2012/2013 domestic season Cricket Australia trialed a review system in the domestic one day competition where the third umpire could intervene and review any out or not out decision. The review system was unpopular among players and critics, which the Australian International Twenty20 captain George Bailey calling the system "shocking and embarrassing".[51] The review system was dropped by Cricket Australia after only two rounds of the competition.[52]

An analysis of more than 2,100 Player Reviews between September 2009 and March 2017 found that:[53][54]

• 26% of Player Reviews resulted in on-field decisions being overturned.
• Reviews by batsmen were less frequent than reviews by bowling teams, as 41% of reviews were by batsmen and 59% by bowling teams.
• Reviews by batsmen were more likely to be successful, with a 34% success rate, compared to a success rate of about 20% for bowling teams.
• 74% of referrals were for LBW, 18% for wicketkeeper catches, and the rest for catches elsewhere or indeterminate reason. The success rate was only 22% for LBW, compared to 40% for wicketkeeper catches.
• There were on average about 1.4 batting overturns and 1.2 bowling overturns per match. Initial fears that DRS would bring an increase in the number of dismissals have, therefore, not come true.
• The UDRS claims to have 90% accuracy [55]