Cricket: Evidence stacking up for better use of technology

The ICC claims the controversial Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) has contributed to a lift in correct decisions from 95 to 98 per cent. (Sound of buzzer interjecting). Wrong. All it has done is give umpires more latitude over what is a right decision.

That's an important distinction.

Daniel Vettori called the Basin Reserve a "tough week for technology". Apart from the wobbly camera incident, he is also wrong. It wasn't a tough week for technology, but it was a week in purgatory for the umpires.

From Bangladesh and the Basin, it has been proven that using technology is better than having none, but life would be a whole lot better still if they used it properly.

First to Mirpur, the venue for the second test between Bangladesh and England, where they had no UDRS at all.

Umpires Rod Tucker and New Zealander Tony Hill reportedly made a series of poor calls in England's first innings that were to have a profound effect on the match, when Matt Prior, Ian Bell and Tim Bresnan were all given let-offs.

It had the effect of reinforcing what everybody - apart from the umpires themselves and the ICC - have known for years: the stronger teams always get the rub of the green in 50-50 decisions.

What threw it into the sharpest light was the fact that Andy Flower prefaced it before the series and, having played for a minnow and coached a major, he was in a perfect position to judge.

Jamie Siddons, the Australian who coaches Bangladesh, has predictably come on board.

"I've felt that my whole career," said Siddons. "I definitely never felt Australia were on the wrong end but, with Bangladesh, I definitely think it comes out against us. I don't know why."

The UDRS has the ability to iron that ugly crinkle out of the game.

Shakib Al Hasan, the Bangladesh captain, at least blamed his own board, whose decision it was not to implement UDRS, instead spending the money on decking out the stadium in flowers to welcome ICC president David Morgan.

"We would have been in a very good position if [UDRS] was in use here. I think we would have asked for a referral four times with full confidence, and three of them would have come our way for sure."

Shakib is absolutely right in that having the system is far better than nothing, but he is wrong when he talks about having full confidence, just ask Tim Southee and Daniel Vettori.

It brings us back to those ICC figures that suggest the UDRS is eliminating wrong decisions. It all sounds paradoxical, but what the ICC has effectively done is come up with a system where they can say wrong decisions are right.

Take two incidents from the Basin Reserve test.

Exhibit A:
At the tail end of New Zealand's first innings Southee swung wildly at a ball from Mitchell Johnson ... and missed.

Brad Haddin didn't appeal but others did. Ian Gould performed another typical umpiring trait and fired the tail-ender to end the innings.

A smiling Southee called for the review. The replays, while indicating there had been a simultaneous noise, showed there was daylight between bat and ball. Not out, you would think. (Buzzer interjects again). Wrong.

Third umpire Aleem Dar backed his man, citing a lack of conclusive evidence to overturn the on-field umpire.

So the ICC chalks that down as another correct decision - well done.

It precipitated a walk to the ICC match referee's office from Vettori.

"Srinath told me that unless there's absolutely conclusive evidence to say it's not out then they'll go with the on-field umpires' decision and we had a discussion around that," Vettori said.

"It's your take on what's conclusive and what's not and I suppose for us, being on the emotional side of it, we felt it was conclusive one way.

"I understand the logic of the umpires, but it makes it difficult to take at times."

Exhibit B:
Brent Arnel pushes forward to Ryan Harris and gets struck on the pad. He is a tail-ender so Asad Rauf's finger hits the wind.

Arnel calls for a review. The Virtual Eye ball-tracker shows the ball is going to just clip the top of the bails. Decision stands and you could argue it is fair enough. Another one in the correct column for the umpires.

Later Simon Katich pushes forward to Arnel, but he is Australian and a top-order player, so he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Arnel calls in the UDRS. The ball-tracker shows that almost half the ball is going to crash into the top of the stumps. According to the dictates of the UDRS, that is not enough to overturn the on-field decision. Another tick in the correct column.

But it is a nonsense, of course. Katich was, according to the technology available, more out than Arnel, but both are correct decisions.

Elsewhere it would be branded stupidity. In cricket we're meant to see it as one of the quirks of the game.

Until someone makes the technology available to the umpires, before they have to make an on-field call, they are going to continue to be laughing stocks.

No matter how hard the ICC tries to tell you how wonderful they are.