THE CORDON HOME

BLOGS ARCHIVES
SELECT BLOG
January 1, 2014

DRS in the parallel universe

Jon Hotten
India may not use DRS, but the decisions they receive from umpires today are tinged with a DRS worldview  © Getty Images
Enlarge

The theory of multiple universes was developed by an academic physicist called Hugh Everett. He was proposing an answer to the famous paradox of Schrödinger's Cat, a thought experiment in which the animal is both alive and dead until observed in one state or the other.

Everett's idea was that every outcome of any event happened somewhere - in the case of the cat, it lived in one universe and died in another. All possible alternative histories and futures were real. It was a mind-bending thought, but then the sub-atomic world operates on such scales. Everett's idea was dismissed at first, and wasn't accepted as a mainstream interpretation in its field until after his death in 1982. Like most theories in physics, its nature is essentially ungraspable by the layman - certainly by me - but superficially it chimes with one of the sports fan's favourite question, the "what-if". And after all, the DRS has produced a moment when a batsman can be both in and out to exactly the same ball.

There came a point during the fourth Test in Melbourne, as Monty Panesar bowled to Brad Haddin with Australia at 149 for 6 in reply to England's 255, when Monty had what looked like a stone-dead LBW shout upheld. Haddin reviewed, as the match situation demanded he must, and the decision was overturned by less than the width of a cricket ball.

In the second Test in Durban, Dale Steyn delivered the first ball of the final day to Virat Kohli with India on 68 for 2, 98 runs behind South Africa. The ball brushed his shoulder and the umpire sent him on his way. India don't use DRS, and so the on-field decision stood.

When the fans of the future stare back through time at the scorecards of both games, they will look at wins by wide margins - eight wickets for Australia and ten wickets for South Africa. They might not notice these "what-if" events.

Yet it's worth a thought as to what might have happened should England have had another 50 or 60 runs in the bank on first innings, and India the in-form Kohli at the crease to take the morning wrath of Steyn. Test cricket has a capacity to develop thin cracks into chasms as wide as the cracks in a WACA pitch, and the game is full of subtle changes that discharge their payload further down the line.

The thought that somewhere out there is a universe without DRS for England and with it for India is no consolation to the losing sides, but such moments highlight the ongoing flux within the system.

As soon as Kohli was fired out, Twitter was filled with comments along the lines of: "Bet they wish they had DRS now", but as one voice amongst the clamour noted: "India don't deserve poor umpiring because they don't want DRS."

That point had weight. Even in games without the system it retains its impact because it has reshaped the way umpires and players approach the game. India will, for example, still have batsmen given out leg before wicket while stretching well down the pitch in the post-DRS manner, because the worldview of the umpire has been changed by what he has seen on its monitors. Players bat and bowl differently, and umpires give different decisions, because of what DRS has shown them.

The retirement of Graeme Swann was something of a milestone in this respect. His career would have been significantly altered had he not been such a master of exploiting the conditions created by DRS. He knew how to bowl to get front-foot LBW decisions. In response, batsmen have had to adapt their techniques when playing spin bowlers.

In this way and in others, DRS has become knitted into the fabric of Test cricket, whether it is being used or not. Were it to be withdrawn now, its effects would still exist, and irrevocably so.

But India's aversion still has its merits. It's now thuddingly obvious that DRS will never be used for its original purpose, the eradication of the obvious mistake. Instead, it has, in a classic case of function-creep, become the sentry of the fine margin, inserting itself into places where its own deficiencies are highlighted. The Ashes series in England was inflamed by a malfunctioning Hotspot. The Ashes series in Australia has revealed that umpires no longer seem to check the bowler for front-foot no-balls.

The outsourcing of DRS technology remains a paradox worthy of Schrödinger. TV companies have to pay for it, and the developers of the system have a commercial reason to stress its accuracies. Such truths sit uneasily with the notion of fairness and impartiality. Similarly, players have been radicalised into ersatz umpires, having to choose whether or not to have decisions made. Such randomness also impinges on impartiality.

It's hard to think of something more implacable as a piece of machinery, and yet cricket has found a way to politicise it, and it's this, at heart, where India's objections lay. They have a point.

NB: Hugh Everett's son is Mark Everett of the band Eels. He made a wonderful film about his father's life called Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives. It's well worth seeking out.

Jon Hotten blogs here and tweets here

RSS Feeds: Jon Hotten

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by imtiazjaleel on (January 2, 2014, 11:05 GMT)

i strongly recommend the TV broadcasters not to show slow motion replays especially when India is playing. There will be no controversies and nobody in the world can blame the Umpires for their decision.

Posted by imtiazjaleel on (January 2, 2014, 10:38 GMT)

How on Earth did DHONI or everybody else knew that Virat Kohli or Zaheer Khan were not out, It is because of the slow motion replays. But Mr. Dhoni and BCCI does not want to use DRS, but instead want to criticize the umpiring. But he forgot to tell in the first Test when Kallis was also not out and he was going great and who know they have won the match easily. Stop blaming the umpires and accept the fact that you were beaten by the opposition team and not due to the umpiring decisions.

Posted by glen1 on (January 1, 2014, 22:10 GMT)

Yes, the 'tense situation of the match', that is when wrong decisions hurt. The entire approach of ICC should be to review umpiring decisions at these times, through some mechanism. If that can be accomplished by a second panel of umpires, all the better for the game, instead of players taking charge. Yes, one can argue that Kohli would have potentially fought tooth and nail, but he never even had a chance getting off the bed.

Posted by TommytuckerSaffa on (January 1, 2014, 17:07 GMT)

As a fan DRS adds value to the game and an additional aspect that makes in more exciting. More importantly it does remove howlers in the game which is key. The LBW process however, needs to reviewed.

Posted by   on (January 1, 2014, 16:42 GMT)

I say you can't have teams who choose not to use DRS playing teams who uses the system. The game of cricket should have the same rules for all teams regardless. It's makes no sense to have different rules for different teams. You can't have one team dictating terms for nine others teams.

Posted by   on (January 1, 2014, 14:30 GMT)

DRS is good enough for the Fans.....if the players can't use it then too bad

Posted by   on (January 1, 2014, 13:13 GMT)

Y crying for poor umpires ,,, y not use DRS... ??? had it been used in the game when kumble took 10 in an innings the result would have been different y dont cry on that poor umpire ??????? forget what happened in past... future is use DRS it will help more than it looks like ..........................

Posted by   on (January 1, 2014, 12:12 GMT)

@Zain Paul...please dont be biased. it went both ways. Kallis was wrongfully given out in the forst test when, he had momentum. Why cant you say that was a turning point as SA suffered a collapse after a set batsman was given out wjen he was not? dont you think the result wouldve been different then?

Posted by DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on (January 1, 2014, 10:01 GMT)

drs process not designed to eliminate errors but to support onfield decision in most of the case is the main problem of drs. During ashes series in england, error in khwaja's wicket had great impact on next innings warner's wicket which 3rd umpire ruled not out using drs but later clarke told that warner himself admitted that he had nicked. So drs has lot of problem.

Comments have now been closed for this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jon Hotten
Jon Hotten is the author of Muscle and The Years Of The Locust, neither of which is about cricket, and writes the blog The Old Batsman, which is. @theoldbatsman

All articles by this writer