Utterly Disgusting Referral System?

India wouldve felt so when Ian Bell was reprieved on Saturday but there was a reason behind the decision

The incident in question occurred during the 25th over of the English run chase. Bell was 17 out of 163 for two when he shaped to sweep Yuvraj Singh. The ball thudded into his pad with the batsman seemingly adjacent, but umpire Billy Bowden ruled in Bell’s favour.

India instantaneously sought the review. Perhaps, Bowden believed Bell had been hit outside off, but replays clearly showed that while the ball had pitched outside off, the point of impact had been in line with the stumps.

The predictive Hawk-eye technology showed the ball going on to hit middle stump halfway up, suggesting that Bowden would reverse his call. So convinced was he that he had been dismissed that long before the Kiwi eventually made his decision, Bell had started the long walk back to the pavilion before being asked to stop by skipper and non-striker Andrew Strauss.

The Indians and the crowd started to celebrate when, to their utter consternation, Bowden stuck by his original decision and ruled the batsman not out. Mahendra Singh Dhoni and his men were totally non-plussed; everything said Bell was out, and yet he had been adjudged not out. What on earth was happening?

What was happening was that Bowden was going by the letter of the DRS. Unless there is overwhelming evidence in front of the third umpire that the original decision was incorrect, there is little chance of the initial judgement being overturned. In this instance, while there appeared to be clinching proof, the fact was that the ball had to travel a good eight feet, if not more, to the stumps, creating the element of doubt that then threw the ball back into the on-field adjudicator’s court.

Had Bowden’s initial verdict been ‘out’ and Bell asked for the review, he would still have been ruled out, because there was no clinching evidence to show he was not out. In this case, given that there was no finality from technology, the final decision rested with Bowden and unsurprisingly, he stuck by his first reaction.

“I thought the ball was hitting the stumps and if the Hawk Eye shows that, then why not give it?” Dhoni said after the game, still struggling to come to grips with the decision. “There was adulteration between human nature and technology, and the rule book rests with the third and fourth umpires.”

Clearly annoyed, he went on, “Once, Simon (Taufel) gave me out leg before when I had stepped down the track. If that is the case, I don’t see any reason why any other batsman cannot be given out.”

Dhoni does have a point. How a batsman can be ruled out and not out off the same delivery, and how both decisions can be justified as the correct one by the same umpire, is something that has clearly confused the fans and the players. The DRS is still work in progress, but obvious grey areas exist that must be addressed before things get out of hand.

Fortunately, the Chinnaswamy stadium crowd showed enough restraint in ensuring that things did not go out of hand. The decision process was beamed live on the giant screen, and having seen the evidence and Bell’s reaction, the home crowd could have flared up when the decision went against their team. Their disappointment was obvious, but by taking it in their stride, the Bangalore crowd showed tremendous spirit. Well done, indeed!

Having said that, things can take an ugly turn at other venues in similar circumstances. The logic behind showing the review process live at the ground is that fans at the venue must not feel short-changed when those watching at home on TV have access to those live images. As convincing as that is, it can lead to unpleasantness and intemperate crowd behaviour, especially in the sub-continent where the crowds are excitable. That’s something for the mandarins to chew over.