Review the review

There was a reason why England refused to test the umpire referral system in their Test series against South Africa. That reason is now coming to light.

India can count themselves 'unfortunate' that they weren't able to utilise their referrals to good effect, and Sri Lanka struck gold each time they called for a review. But it won't be long when the positions will be swapped and some other nation (not necessarily Sri Lanka) will be feeling hard done by it all. Don't be surprised if it happens.

The problem with this new system has long been debated, and there are several loopholes.

First is the availability of technology or the lack of it during these decisions. While in some cases the 'mat' was shown for leg before calls, it wasn't available to the TV umpire in other cases. There was an instance when an lbw call was made, but there weren't even sufficient camera angles to view the appeal. How on earth is an umpire going to announce his verdict by looking at an angle which is perched almost on top of the batsman? Forget the view from behind the umpire, it was nowhere to be seen.

The batsman just escaped in that case, but during another review, there were all the camera angles available as well as the mat, the delivery and the impact minutely scrutinised, and rightly went against the batsman. So is the review system being employed as a draw of lots?

Second comes the way the system is making the on-field umpires jittery. Mark Benson and Billy Doctrove were clearly unsure of certain decisions they were making on the field, prompting the players to review those calls. Don't be surprised if you see them just referring it upstairs for every dismissal without even waiting for a challenge from the respective teams.

Most of the criticism has come against leg before calls, and rightly so. Remember, when the Hawkeye was introduced, commentators would argue its credibility simply because a ball can behave howsoever after pitching, which it doesn't take into account. And it's this very technology that the umpires are now referring to make the ultimate decisions. As an umpiring rule, the benefit of doubt has always been given to the batsman. After all, it only takes one delivery for a batsman to be out.

But the basis on which Virender Sehwag was given out in the second innings, one can safely say that this is not going to be the case for the times to come. After all, the ball pitched on the line of the 'mat', a centimetre here or there would have meant otherwise. The point of impact furthered the lunacy: the umpires considered the impact on the back leg when the ball had brushed Sehwag's front pad first.

Another drawback that people are arguing is the time taken for some decisions. And it's for everyone to see. The platform the review system is being tested itself is the longest version of the game. And in some cases it's almost been like the next day that the decision has been announced. Wonder if that was the reason that the Test got over inside four days with almost an entire day lost, and yet seemed long.

Geoffrey Boycott, while on the show on Ten Sports argued yet another case.

The ICC, while introducing the system for the series, maintained that the on-field umpire's decision will still remain 'final' on referral calls, and this is exactly what never appeared. While a leg before decision was being reviewed, there was little or no communication between umpire Mark Benson and TV umpire Rudi Koertzen. The communication, as Boycott rightly pointed out, is a deciding factor on these calls.

The leg before wicket call is unlike any other dismissal in cricket because of the prediction factor involved. It's no run-out the TV umpire is viewing where he has to detrmine whether the bat or any part of the batsman was inside or on the crease when the bails were broken. This is why communication is so important between the on-field official and the man viewing it on the telly.

The case Boycott refers to was a similar lbw appeal, where Benson just threw the appeal upstairs and didn't bother discussing it with Koerzten. He should have asked him questions: was the ball pitching in line, how much did it turn, how far was the batsman lunging forward, did the ball strike him on the front pad or otherwise, how high was the impact on the batsman's pads?

The problem with the 'mat' is that it can show the ball clipping the bail or the side of the stumps or having pitched right on line of the mat. This is the deciding factor in most cases, and there's no doubt that more decisions during the Test series will be under scrutiny.

India clearly weren't prepared for this, as explains the nature of decisions they called for. Those decisions looked rather 'easy' even to the naked eye. With due respect to Anil Kumble, he needs to let the bowler and the wicketkeeper take the call on whether to go for a review or not. No one can judge a decision standing at wide mid-off/mid-on, because it makes for a silly point.