Where has the technology gone?
Lack of DRS and third umpire intervention leaves a sour taste following Ireland's series defeat
Cricketers can be superstitious beings. You’d forgive Ben White if he now starts believing in the dark arts of the cricketing gods after his recent luck with umpires.
Twice, during separate games of Ireland’s T20 series defeat to Aghanistan, White bowled the 13th over of the innings - unlucky for some. On both occasions, he induced an Afghan batter to pick out a fielder in the deep. For both dismissals, the umpire’s arm went out: no ball. Twice, we saw television replays that, at the very least, cast doubt on the decision-making, with footage appearing to suggest at least some part of his left foot landed behind the line.
Once again, the issue of technology in cricket, or lack thereof, has reared its head. On the field, Ireland’s players remonstrated with the umpire when they saw a replay on the big screen. They wanted to know why the third umpire hadn’t corrected the decision.
Off the pitch, fans clamoured both over these decisions and, more generally, incorrect umpiring calls that were not overturned. Ireland’s Andrew Balbirnie was fined 25 per cent of his match fee for showing dissent against an LBW decision after - according to him at least - the ball touched his glove.
Technology has become so ubiquitous in cricket officiating that it is only really noticeable these days by its absence. Unlike other sports - looking at you, rugby - cricket has largely avoided a glut of controversy by ironing out a review system that, for the most part, leads to consistent accuracy. Yet now we have a relatively high profile example of human error dominating. Where has the technology gone?
The first point to be made is that we are dealing with two separate issues here. One is the decision review system (DRS), a well-established feature of the game that allows opposition captains to challenge on-field decisions for LBW and caught behind. The other issue is that of no balls, something which cannot be reviewed by players, but has nonetheless undergone changes in how technology affects the implementation of the law.
In 2020, the ICC essentially took away the decision-making responsibility for front foot no balls from the on-field umpire, instead making it the purview of the third umpire. It’s why we now see delayed no ball calls. Third umpires check the replay after all deliveries, sometimes leading to the scenario where the bowler is at the top of his mark ready to bowl the next ball, only for the umpire’s arm to go out for what happened roughly 10 seconds previously.
According to the ICC, “on-field umpires have been instructed not to call any front foot no balls unless advised to do so by the third umpire.” You can understand the frustration of the likes of White when he was denied a pair of wickets by the on-field umpire doing what he supposedly was not supposed to.
Clearly, this series did not see the third umpire given that responsibility. Part of the reason for the ICC introducing the technology was to avoid batters being dismissed off of no balls. However, the motivation to prevent bowlers being wrongly denied wickets was also present. In 2016, in a game between New Zealand and Australia, Adam Voges was given a reprieve when bowled by Doug Bracewell. The on-field umpire signalled no ball. The only issue was Bracewell did not overstep. Voges went on to score a double-hundred.
Incidents akin to what happened with White were part of the motivation behind introducing this technology.
However, it is not as clearcut as looking at the tape. According to a report in The Independent, third umpires use Hawkeye freezeframe paired with super slo-motion replay when monitoring the front foot. Hawkeye is also used for LBW ball-tracking in DRS. There was no review system for this series, so in all likelihood no Hawkeye. All that was available was the super slo-mo replay, which is what we saw on the broadcast. That alone appears not to be sufficient for the third umpire technology.
According to that same report in The Independent, the no ball technology was introduced for all ICC competitions, including the now defunct ODI Super League and the World Test Championship. This series was a mere bilateral, with no wider ICC implications. Therefore, the playing regulations which govern officiating and the use of technology are the remit of the host board, in this case Afghanistan.
The logical explanation is that they could/did not want to pay for Hawkeye. As a result, if the on-field umpire does or does not call no ball, that’s that. It’s wrong? Tough luck.
The ACB has been contacted with questions regarding the use of technology in its home series.
This brings us to the second issue, that of DRS more generally. Unsurprisingly, akin to the barriers to Hawkeye and the no ball system, it all comes down to money.
Sources with knowledge of implementing DRS - including ball tracking for LBW and snicko (or equivalent) for caught behind decisions - say that it costs as much as €15,000/$16,300 per day of cricket. That’s close to 50,000 in either currency over three T20s. The cost is borne by the host country, in this case the ACB.
DRS was available for the Test match, meaning upwards of €50,000 was spent on that. That is likely why it fell by the wayside for the white ball portion of the tour. Afghanistan simply could not afford it, or at least decided to prioritise funds elsewhere. In the current situation, the ICC has not made DRS mandatory in bilateral series because there are many boards that would suffer financial ruin if they had to pay for the system for every home game.
Given Ireland frequently have no DRS at their home matches, you can likely include them on that list. It’s a different story when the likes of India or England are in town. Boards can make money from the TV rights and therefore afford to fork out for DRS. For the most part, given the dwindling value of bilateral broadcast rights, everyone’s shit out of luck.
There is a relatively straightforward solution here. The ICC could mandate DRS (and by extension Hawkeye technology for third umpire no balls) by paying for it themselves, no matter what the event. This would be expensive, and would probably require the ICC taking control of bilateral broadcasting rights more generally and finding a way of commercialising them in a way that funds DRS. Tricky, but not impossible with some inventive leadership.
This isn’t a case of sour grapes about decisions which went against Ireland in a series they lost. Ireland likely would have fallen even if White’s no balls were reversed. Perhaps they would have made the second T20 closer if Balbirnie batted for longer. If my granny had balls she’d be my grandad.
Instead, this issue has wider implications for the sport. Balbirnie’s livelihood was affected because he remonstrated against a seemingly incorrect decision. You can absolutely lay the blame at his feet, bad decisions are a part of the game and don’t excuse bad behaviour. His punishment was warranted, yet it would be disingenuous to completely discount every factor behind the incident.
Equally, players are soon going into a T20 World Cup where DRS will be in use, despite a lack of experience of playing with the technology. Career stats and the ability to make money off of franchise cricket are also affected by officiating errors. These are competitive disadvantages compared to players from other, richer nations.
The same can be said of umpires. Those used by the ACB for this series were largely from Afghanistan. Neutral umpires haven’t been a requirement since the pandemic, meaning chatter about bias should quickly disappear. Ireland use their own umpires for home games as well. Though the integrity issue around combining home umpires with a lack of DRS should still be raised. After all, when home umpires were allowed first for England’s home matches in the summer of 2020, they were paired with an extra review per side in order to placate suspicious away players.
Regardless, if these umpires want to progress to ICC events, in the same way players do, why are we demanding they officiate in conditions not replicated at the highest level?
Technology has become so commonplace in cricket that its absence now harms the sport. It creates discussion points away from the on-field feats of skill and athleticism displayed by the players, and unfairly highlights human error from a group of people who should be shielded. No one slates umpires who have decisions overturned by DRS anymore. We’re all just happy that the right decision was ultimately reached.
Once again, the sport suffers but not enough people in positions of power care enough to do anything about it. When it comes to asking the ICC to take genuine custodianship of the game, this is unlikely to happen. Time and again, the ICC shows itself to be a private members club for the individual boards which make up the organisation, instead of a governing body which has the sole remit of protecting the sport. The biggest and richest members shout the loudest. Boards like Afghanistan and Ireland don’t have the political clout to demand money for DRS.
At this stage, prudent analysts would point to the increased funding offered to countries like Ireland and Afghanistan this year and ask why that can’t be spent on DRS? Neither board will publicly answer questions on that at this stage, though it is expected that Cricket Ireland will soon show how at least some of the new cash is being spent.
As long as the status quo remains as it is in cricket’s political landscape, smaller nations will keep having conversations like this. At this stage, it is more likely that cricket’s governors will allow bilateral cricket to die before they mandate and pay for widespread DRS usage.
Maybe one day we will see every Ireland match incorporate technology that makes the game better. It will just be in ICC events alone, which, given the impending death of bilaterals, Ireland could well struggle to qualify for.
PS - negative sentiments are always shouted the loudest, so given this controversy and Ireland’s white ball form more generally, I have seen plenty of you clamouring on social media with opinions. Send them to me! I’m opening up the mailbag once again so you can have your thoughts heard and questions answered. Reach out on Twitter (@nathanrjohns), email me (nathanrjohns@icloud.com) or comment below and I’ll include you in the next post for some good old fashioned reader engagement.