Ever since the new Decision Review System was launched in 2009 in a Test match between http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Pakistan-c755, the concept has polarized opinion like no other invention in the history of the game. The system has been the subject of constant debate and
controversy, where arguments in favor of the system and against it, have circulated in almost every forum. Players have also been at loggerheads over the system, as their respective careers had been at stake over decisions which have been made by the naked
eye. Some of the most erudite umpires have also fallen prey to making fallacious decisions. In light of acknowledging the judgments that have been pivotal, the Decision Review System was formally incorporated into international cricket, after it was considered
as a legitimate tool for clouding controversy on the field.
The hailers of the system consider it to be a fine edition in a game which has constantly evolved since its inception. The DRS according to them, is considered to be the best possible option, and one in which a player’s career would not be disrupted due
to a poor decision. Proponents of the system have also argued over the fact that umpires today could improve on the errors that they make on the field, after reflecting on replays.
Applications such as Hawkeye, Hot Spot and Snick O meter are considered to be the best possible depictions of errors that are equated with cardinal sins in modern times. For example, an LBW referral would most certainly take into consideration the trajectory
of the delivery and whether or not it would be pitching in line of the stumps. Then comes the assertion as to whether the umpire’s call on the field holds or not. That assertion can only be considered in light of whether or not Hot Spot and the Snick O Meter,
give undue clearance to the decision. Such tools would then ensure that the new decision is complete and comprehensive.
These tools enshrined in the DRS are instrumental in ensuring that final decisions are almost flawless. This fact is in stark contrast to previous days, where a controversial umpire decision would act to the detriment of the player and eventually determine
the fate of the match. With the DRS in place, such possibilities remain distinct and more fair play is encouraged. This fact has been acknowledged by players such as http://www.senore.com/Cricket/West-Indies-c760, where in one of his interviews for
Star Cricket, he went on to claim that anything that benefits the game should be kept intact. Similarly, many English commentators who witnessed the DRS being deployed with good effect have lauded this new innovation, where it seems to negate the possibilities
of erroneous decisions taking place and has a grave impact on the outcome of games.
Contrary to popular belief, The DRS is not all about technology. Each side is allotted a quota of three DRS decisions which they need to use wisely in an innings for overturning on-field decisions. This in itself means that the DRS retains the ‘human’ element
of taking decisions, which would eventually become binding if the DRS options run out for any side. The system ensures a balance between the usage of technology to avert controversial decisions while maintaining the spirit of the game.
Disclaimer: Any views and opinions expressed in this article are solely of the author and do not represent Bettor.com's official editorial policy.
Tags: