The DRS was introduced to help umpires. Now, it's on course to replace them

In the first Test between South Africa and India in Durban, in 1992, Sachin Tendulkar earned a dubious distinction for himself. Of being the first player to be given out by the third umpire. Despite the passage of time, this tag is one that refuses to stay in the shadows though it does little to diminish the former player’s outstanding career timeline.

A path-breaking initiation at the time, the system of third umpires and television replays was introduced as a way of giving clarity to the on-field umpires’ doubts. It was not meant to take over, but was intended to complement the responsibilities of the two match officials, overseeing the play.

Umpire's call

Over two decades on, the refereeing module of the sport has been equipped with the Decision Review System, along with the supervising umpires. Teams can utilise the DRS to re-check if they felt the umpire had adjudged a call wrong, mistakenly. It says a great deal for the evolution of the sport, for employing technology to streamline match processes and eliminate contentiousness in umpiring decisions.

There cannot be a more telling example than the Sydney Test in the 2007-'08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy, to give, in this context. Both India and Australia made mistakes in the test, with name-calling and insults dotting the picture much as the runs and wickets did. Bigger infamy however dogs the nature of Australia’s win over India in the match where Australia’s gamesmanship was bolstered by the umpires’ bias in giving decisions against the visitors. Both the umpires officiating in the match, Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson have retired, but their departure from objectivity still grates to this day.

However, the partisanship was a one-off and umpires, on either side of the incident, have taken a conscious effort in not lapsing in their duties. Nonetheless, since it has started to be used, with the citation of being a viable tool, in 2009, the DRS has augmented this divide of opinion between players and umpires. In a volte-face to its intended conception, it has honed on what had been accepted as reasonable margin of error in umpiring decisions.

Previously the sole decision-makers, umpires have now been passed on, hierarchically. Before erroneous umpiring decisions made for loud grumbles and murmurs, the ever-increasing usage of DRS has given players and teams legitimacy to challenge any call that is perceived to be wrong. It has also given leeway, in case of over-turning of the on-field umpire’s call, to fans heckling the official whose initial decision has thus been overturned, seemingly heaping insult upon injury.

As it happened in the second Test between Bangladesh and England, a week ago, when Kumar Dharmasena had a slew of decisions overturned by the DRS. The Sri Lankan umpire's castigation piled on to the numbers of those advocating DRS. Concurrently, it also went on to show the enhanced dependency of the players on the DRS. The latter factor is sure pick up further considering the recent rule modification to the DRS by the ICC.

Question mark on the umpires

This year in September, the ICC implemented a rule change to the DRS that will impact the umpires’ not out decision. The earlier rule specified that if 50% or more of the ball hit the batsman’s pad inside the area extending from the middle of the off-stump to the middle of the leg-stump, covering the bails as well, then the batsman would be declared out upon review. From the ball-tracking perspective, again if 50% or more of the ball pitched fell inside the demarcated area, the on-field umpire’s not out call would be reversed.

The new rule sees an extension in the area covering the stumps to determine the impact of the ball with the pad and the projection of the ball pitched through the ball-tracking system. This extension has been 1.9 cm on either side of the stumps, effectively covering the entirety of the stumps. This, in turn, will prove advantageous to the bowling team overwhelmingly.

More than supplementing the umpires then, the DRS is then almost supplanting them. And, making the vocation redundant since umpires exercising their discretion in the most basic terms, will result in them being countered and – most probably – overruled.

It’s in this vortex of uncertainty that the ICC needs to step in, and step up. Employing technology to speed up the sport is as viable an idea as is. Maintaining and fostering the existing institutions needs to be made just as workable. For, much as engineering systems help brace proceedings, they do not speak authority the way umpires do.