A lot needs to be done to perfect DRS in cricket

The nature of cricket is such that it cannot totally do without on-field umpires, but there’s also no denying the fact that they are becoming increasingly irrelevant as technological advancements invade the game and threaten the last vestiges of conservatism many fans all over the world still tend to cherish.

The first Ashes Test that ended on Sunday with a thrilling 14-run victory for England once again brought to the fore the inadequacies of human capacity, at the same time striking a blow for the advocates of scientific innovation in sport.

The Nottingham series opener was marred by several wrong calls by ground officials and even ended on a somewhat jarring note with Australian batsman Brad Haddin, who had engineered a valiant fightback and taken his team to the brink of an unlikely victory, falling to a decision by the third umpire after Aleem Dar had ruled him not out.

The England players waited nervously for the make-or-break decision but soon were hopping around with joy after the Hot Spot technology confirmed that the ball had nicked Haddin’s bat on the way to wicket-keeper Matt Prior’s gloves.

While the International Cricket Council (ICC) had been trying to implement the so-called Decision Review System (DRS) across all matches under its jurisdiction, it has been met with severe opposition from the game’s economic powerhouse, India, which argues that some of the technology in use is still imperfect and also very expensive to use.

While India’s stance cannot be totally dismissed, it is imperative that some sort of a compromise is reached. Some of the available technology may not be perfect that it is also a fact that its use has minimised human error to a large extent thereby preventing a lot of bad blood and unnecessary tensions.

England captain Alastair Cook, for one, prefers a bit of human element, saying that whether to review a decision or not also calls for certain skills.

“I think it’s pretty fair as there is a bit of skill in using DRS and you have to have a little human element,” explained Cook.

“Tactically we have found that we have been quite poor with DRS in the past and in this game we’ve been a bit better.”

In that sense Cook certainly got the better of his Aussie counterpart Michael Clarke who had used both his reviews and hence couldn’t call for a referral when England’s Stuart Broad was given not out when he had clearly edged a ball to the slips off the wicket-keeper’s gloves during his match-winning stand with Ian Bell in the second innings.

Clarke has promised to use his quota of referrals better in the future. Under current laws only two reviews per team are allowed in each innings.

Which begs the question: Why not increase it to four on an experimental basis and then review its merits and demerits?

Or why can’t the third umpire simply take decisions of his own and not wait for a referral by the on-field officials?

Ultimately, it all boils down to a perfect balance between man and machine. But can it be achieved? That is the million dollar question.