ICC news January 2, 2014

ORS will give greater efficiency - Taufel

24

Simon Taufel, the ICC training and performance manager for umpires, hopes the Officiating Replay System (ORS) could revolutionise the role of the third umpire, improving efficiency and accuracy in decision-making.

The ORS is an attempt to streamline the existing DRS system by allowing the third umpire control over the replays they see, whereas normally they have to wait for the broadcaster to provide them. It has been in use since the fifth ODI between Sri Lanka and Pakistan in the UAE and has been extended for the two remaining Tests as well.

The chosen official - Taufel for the first Test - sits in a room with high definition television sets that receive 16 different real-time feeds from the match directly from the broadcaster. The footage may vary according to the video cameras being used for the match. Taufel also has the help of a HawkEye engineer, who is also the effectively his personal TV director.

"It's a separate technology on trial and is independent of what is happening with the third umpire in this Test," Taufel told reporters. "It's a very efficient way of being able to look at replays and avoid communication issues. We're looking at timing efficiency at the moment, accuracy of decision-making as well as being able to standardise some of our technology tools and information so that the third umpire can be as efficient as possible and make as many correct decisions as possible."

The current trial is taking place without any communication with the third umpire S Ravi, who depends on the broadcaster for his replays, which take a minimum of 30 to 40 seconds to retrieve. Using ORS, however, the official is given the same footage in real-time within 5 seconds.

"If I can do a boundary check in five seconds [when] normally for a third umpire to go through to a director and then he shows a replay, will take roughly 30 seconds. It's a huge difference in that respect," Taufel said. "Even a front-foot no-ball check, I could probably do that in two seconds, even before the batsman leaves the square and I have an answer for the umpire. [Without ORS] That could take 30-40 seconds because the director is focused on something else, his broadcast; we're focused on our decision-making.

"Technology changes all the time, cricket changes a lot of the time. Umpiring is all about giving the players the best service, the best umpiring and best decisions possible. This trial fits into that theory."

The ORS might well improve decision-making, but the cost of implementing it could be a topic of debate. Currently, the broadcaster covers the production cost, including that of the DRS. "From an umpire's perspective, we would like to see as many common factors and decision-making tools from place to place, board to board, game to game. It makes our job a lot easier, but we're also aware of the cost implications and things like that have to be worked through."

Umar Farooq is ESPNcricinfo's Pakistan correspondent. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on January 3, 2014, 18:15 GMT

    Why they took so long to realize that the TV fans get a faster and realiable view of the referral. DRS is good for the game but the people operating the system must have the proper views. This ORS is used by the NBA NFL BASEBALL and they are better results. Cricket need to do catching up.

  • Rahulbose on January 3, 2014, 17:26 GMT

    ERS comes after DRS, how did they jump to ORS? This system will create even more controversy, if the umpire controls the replays he might give a decision quickly but what happens when the broadcaster shows a different angle or a slow motion replay later to the audience that proves the 3rd umpire is wrong.

  • leave_it_to_the_umps on January 3, 2014, 13:20 GMT

    Fantastic if a no ball can be checked in 2 secs then every ball could be checked by the 3rd umpire. This would mean the umpires can focus on the real decisons, persistent no ballers will get called (rather than just when they get a wicket) and be forced to change the way they bowl and we can do away with the ridiculousness of players stopping at the boundary whilst the noball is checked!

    Now all we need is a fast/reliable/trusted hawkeye and way of detecting edges and we can do away with player reviews and put umpiring decisions back into the hands of the umpires!

  • boomslanger on January 3, 2014, 12:32 GMT

    @Shamsuddin Channa If that makes up for errors made by human umpire, who cares? The more robots, the better. At least corruption and bias will be done away with. How many test matches have been won or lost on an umpire's (and not "empire", please!) whim? How many cricketing careers have come to an end because of their incompetence? What do you need human umpires for? to chat? Heck, they cant even make out if the light is good enough to play and use "Light Meters".

  • on January 3, 2014, 9:40 GMT

    Well I think that the role of on-field empire is reducing day by day. In my opinion those days are not far when u would see a robotic figure instead of a human empire who would be taking all decisions.

  • on January 3, 2014, 5:13 GMT

    How about using google glasses to stream the same high definition video it to the on field umpires too and together with the third umpire discuss and decide on the outcome? That would be much better and would eradicate any communication gaps that might exist. Google glasses is no longer a fantasy, its real and no reason why it should not allowed to be used by umpires, at the least.

  • John_Raj_Mohammad_Singh on January 3, 2014, 3:29 GMT

    What's all this I'm hearing? This pathetic, spineless organization called the ICC is actually doing something for the betterment of this game? OH HAPPY DAYS...TRULY HAPPY DAYS!

  • PadMarley on January 3, 2014, 1:42 GMT

    Just imagine the amount of LBW decisions that may have gone against Murali and Warne simply because there was a benefit of doubt! Specially Murali, the amount times he hit the pad and the amount of shouts that were turned down simply because there was a doubt!! He probably would have hit 1000 wickets and Warnie around 800/900 if DRS was there..

  • on January 2, 2014, 15:24 GMT

    now bcci should also use this technology.

  • mucheemaann on January 2, 2014, 14:24 GMT

    I have a simple suggestion.

    TV umpires should review every decision (out or not-out) immediately after the play. If there's some element of doubt, they should indicate to the on-field umpires so they will alert the players. Very simple. It will take away reviews out of captain's hands and will let them concentrate on playing. It will put the decision making authority solely on umpires. Maybe ICC can use some point system (internally/not-public) for the umpires for bad decisions they make.

    Do not argue about wasting time. Do players really need 6 hours to finish 90 overs? 3.5 hours to finish 50 overs? ICC should still penalize the teams as though this new DRS never existed. Let the players contribute to this cause by finishing their overs quicker.

  • on January 3, 2014, 18:15 GMT

    Why they took so long to realize that the TV fans get a faster and realiable view of the referral. DRS is good for the game but the people operating the system must have the proper views. This ORS is used by the NBA NFL BASEBALL and they are better results. Cricket need to do catching up.

  • Rahulbose on January 3, 2014, 17:26 GMT

    ERS comes after DRS, how did they jump to ORS? This system will create even more controversy, if the umpire controls the replays he might give a decision quickly but what happens when the broadcaster shows a different angle or a slow motion replay later to the audience that proves the 3rd umpire is wrong.

  • leave_it_to_the_umps on January 3, 2014, 13:20 GMT

    Fantastic if a no ball can be checked in 2 secs then every ball could be checked by the 3rd umpire. This would mean the umpires can focus on the real decisons, persistent no ballers will get called (rather than just when they get a wicket) and be forced to change the way they bowl and we can do away with the ridiculousness of players stopping at the boundary whilst the noball is checked!

    Now all we need is a fast/reliable/trusted hawkeye and way of detecting edges and we can do away with player reviews and put umpiring decisions back into the hands of the umpires!

  • boomslanger on January 3, 2014, 12:32 GMT

    @Shamsuddin Channa If that makes up for errors made by human umpire, who cares? The more robots, the better. At least corruption and bias will be done away with. How many test matches have been won or lost on an umpire's (and not "empire", please!) whim? How many cricketing careers have come to an end because of their incompetence? What do you need human umpires for? to chat? Heck, they cant even make out if the light is good enough to play and use "Light Meters".

  • on January 3, 2014, 9:40 GMT

    Well I think that the role of on-field empire is reducing day by day. In my opinion those days are not far when u would see a robotic figure instead of a human empire who would be taking all decisions.

  • on January 3, 2014, 5:13 GMT

    How about using google glasses to stream the same high definition video it to the on field umpires too and together with the third umpire discuss and decide on the outcome? That would be much better and would eradicate any communication gaps that might exist. Google glasses is no longer a fantasy, its real and no reason why it should not allowed to be used by umpires, at the least.

  • John_Raj_Mohammad_Singh on January 3, 2014, 3:29 GMT

    What's all this I'm hearing? This pathetic, spineless organization called the ICC is actually doing something for the betterment of this game? OH HAPPY DAYS...TRULY HAPPY DAYS!

  • PadMarley on January 3, 2014, 1:42 GMT

    Just imagine the amount of LBW decisions that may have gone against Murali and Warne simply because there was a benefit of doubt! Specially Murali, the amount times he hit the pad and the amount of shouts that were turned down simply because there was a doubt!! He probably would have hit 1000 wickets and Warnie around 800/900 if DRS was there..

  • on January 2, 2014, 15:24 GMT

    now bcci should also use this technology.

  • mucheemaann on January 2, 2014, 14:24 GMT

    I have a simple suggestion.

    TV umpires should review every decision (out or not-out) immediately after the play. If there's some element of doubt, they should indicate to the on-field umpires so they will alert the players. Very simple. It will take away reviews out of captain's hands and will let them concentrate on playing. It will put the decision making authority solely on umpires. Maybe ICC can use some point system (internally/not-public) for the umpires for bad decisions they make.

    Do not argue about wasting time. Do players really need 6 hours to finish 90 overs? 3.5 hours to finish 50 overs? ICC should still penalize the teams as though this new DRS never existed. Let the players contribute to this cause by finishing their overs quicker.

  • mucheemaann on January 2, 2014, 14:13 GMT

    Why not review every decision to give the batsman out? and all runout scenarios (out /notout)? That will take the review decisions out of the captain's hands? That should let the players concentrate on playing, and umpires concentrate on correct decision making? I never really appreciated the reason behind 'limiting the reviews'.

  • Sigismund on January 2, 2014, 13:00 GMT

    Staggered to hear that they haven't been doing something similar already. How Mickey Mouse is that? This really shouldn't be expensive; the only thing that would make it so would be fees demanded by the broadcaster, and we should be able to get around that.

  • BradmanBestEver on January 2, 2014, 12:32 GMT

    DRS should be used all over the world. We have the technology we should use it to reduce the total number of errors.

  • on January 2, 2014, 11:56 GMT

    Finally some sense is coming into this nonsensical DRS. I cannot believe that idiot organization ICC is doing something useful. Good job Simon. If this can help get 100% decisions right, nothing can be better.

  • on January 2, 2014, 11:33 GMT

    Now good name changed from DRS to ORS , am pretty sure BCCI will accept.

  • babu_arun on January 2, 2014, 11:25 GMT

    Is their any chance that DRS Technicians/Engineers who provide the Hawkeye or hot spot can manipulate so that Batsman can be given out or not out. Still I remember WC 2011 Sachin was clearly out LBW for Ajmal doorsa and Hawkeye said it is missing leg stump.

  • pitch_curator on January 2, 2014, 11:17 GMT

    @ Siva_Bala75 - Really? Can you think again? What will you do if fielders are stationed outside the boundary?

  • himanshu.team on January 2, 2014, 11:01 GMT

    I don't think this would be expensive. The venues holding international matches should have provision for two (or more if required) high definition TV sets. The broadcaster has the live feeds from all cameras anyways. All that needs to be done is to ensure that those feeds are available for the third umpire. Only one engineer from the broadcaster should be there with the third umpire to help him pause/rewind/replay feed from a particular camera. Nuisance of reviews should be done away with and it should be the responsibility of the third umpire, if he notices any wrong decision being made on the field. On that subject: I feel ICC should tweak LBW rule in favor of the bowlers a little bit. It should not matter where the ball pitched or where it hit the pad. If the ball seems to be hitting the stump and there's no bat involved then the batsmen must be given out.

  • imtiazjaleel on January 2, 2014, 10:52 GMT

    Why he is talking about time factor, when lot of time is being washed out due to rains or due to bad light and which is not been added to the game again.

  • imtiazjaleel on January 2, 2014, 10:41 GMT

    Definitely, i fully support the technology to be used in every match, otherwise Captains will excused themselves by blaming the umpires for making wrong decisions.

  • Siva_Bala75 on January 2, 2014, 10:38 GMT

    This ORS sounds much better than the DRS. People will take this subject to the cost, I guess.

  • Siva_Bala75 on January 2, 2014, 10:37 GMT

    The boundary law in cricket should be changed. As long as the ball does not touch or cross the rope it should not be declared a boundary notwithstanding whether the fielder touched or crossed the rope. While this gives an additional incentive for an 'otherwise' brilliant' fielding it also saves umpires' valuable time.

  • HashirSL on January 2, 2014, 10:34 GMT

    Agree with Simon Taufel! But, I really don't think the system will help with time efficiency as mentioned, since just a maximum of 10 to 20 such instances cold occur in a match. In the other hand, true to be, this system will allow accuracy for umpiring decisions.

  • regofpicton on January 2, 2014, 10:29 GMT

    It sounds excelllent, but it aso sounds expensive. I fear this is going to finish up as another of the "might have beens". But whatever the cost, surely the cricket has to be taken back from the broadcasters. They might be paying a fortune for broascasting rights, but those rights should not come with control of the decision making

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • regofpicton on January 2, 2014, 10:29 GMT

    It sounds excelllent, but it aso sounds expensive. I fear this is going to finish up as another of the "might have beens". But whatever the cost, surely the cricket has to be taken back from the broadcasters. They might be paying a fortune for broascasting rights, but those rights should not come with control of the decision making

  • HashirSL on January 2, 2014, 10:34 GMT

    Agree with Simon Taufel! But, I really don't think the system will help with time efficiency as mentioned, since just a maximum of 10 to 20 such instances cold occur in a match. In the other hand, true to be, this system will allow accuracy for umpiring decisions.

  • Siva_Bala75 on January 2, 2014, 10:37 GMT

    The boundary law in cricket should be changed. As long as the ball does not touch or cross the rope it should not be declared a boundary notwithstanding whether the fielder touched or crossed the rope. While this gives an additional incentive for an 'otherwise' brilliant' fielding it also saves umpires' valuable time.

  • Siva_Bala75 on January 2, 2014, 10:38 GMT

    This ORS sounds much better than the DRS. People will take this subject to the cost, I guess.

  • imtiazjaleel on January 2, 2014, 10:41 GMT

    Definitely, i fully support the technology to be used in every match, otherwise Captains will excused themselves by blaming the umpires for making wrong decisions.

  • imtiazjaleel on January 2, 2014, 10:52 GMT

    Why he is talking about time factor, when lot of time is being washed out due to rains or due to bad light and which is not been added to the game again.

  • himanshu.team on January 2, 2014, 11:01 GMT

    I don't think this would be expensive. The venues holding international matches should have provision for two (or more if required) high definition TV sets. The broadcaster has the live feeds from all cameras anyways. All that needs to be done is to ensure that those feeds are available for the third umpire. Only one engineer from the broadcaster should be there with the third umpire to help him pause/rewind/replay feed from a particular camera. Nuisance of reviews should be done away with and it should be the responsibility of the third umpire, if he notices any wrong decision being made on the field. On that subject: I feel ICC should tweak LBW rule in favor of the bowlers a little bit. It should not matter where the ball pitched or where it hit the pad. If the ball seems to be hitting the stump and there's no bat involved then the batsmen must be given out.

  • pitch_curator on January 2, 2014, 11:17 GMT

    @ Siva_Bala75 - Really? Can you think again? What will you do if fielders are stationed outside the boundary?

  • babu_arun on January 2, 2014, 11:25 GMT

    Is their any chance that DRS Technicians/Engineers who provide the Hawkeye or hot spot can manipulate so that Batsman can be given out or not out. Still I remember WC 2011 Sachin was clearly out LBW for Ajmal doorsa and Hawkeye said it is missing leg stump.

  • on January 2, 2014, 11:33 GMT

    Now good name changed from DRS to ORS , am pretty sure BCCI will accept.