David Leggat: How an umpire trumps the DRS

Dave Richardson of the ICC. Photo / NZ Herald

It came just before the finish of a lengthy press conference on the contentious DRS system in Dunedin, and so it almost slipped by unnoticed.

Technology guru Ian Taylor and the International Cricket Council's man-on-the-spot Dave Richardson, were confirming the system for assisting the umpires would be in place for the second and third tests between New Zealand and South Africa.

Taylor, boss of the Virtual Eye technology, had threatened to take it away, fed up with criticism from players on each side at a couple of calls which, via third umpire Richard Kettleborough, went against their team.

Kettleborough's advice to colleagues Billy Doctrove and Aleem Dar had been based on the evidence presented to him by Taylor's men in the van out the back of the ground.

Taylor has always maintained umpires should make decisions; his system is there to help them in their judgments, not to make cast-iron evaluations on behalf of them.

Then Richardson opened the door in an unexpected way. The umpire, he said, had protocols to guide him, but had some latitude to make his own call.

Take a specific example.

Doug Bracewell, and those New Zealand players in a position to judge it, were convinced he had left-hander Jacques Rudolph lbw late on the third day. However, replays showed Rudolph could not be out because enough of the ball had pitched just outside leg stump, thus, according to the rules, saving the batsman.

Bracewell was incensed. The effect of former South African wicketkeeper Richardson's words on Sunday were that had Kettleborough seen the evidence but felt logic gnawing at him that Rudolph should be given out, he could advise the umpire to that effect.

"Bottom line: it's the umpires who make the decisions," Richardson said.

"To be consistent they have certain protocols in how they should interpret the evidence. We have rules about half a ball [pitching outside leg stump], all those rules coming into play.

"These [Virtual Eye] guys are providing a service. When things go wrong in theory the umpires can overrule the technology. So it's their decision, they make it."

Pressed to reiterate the point, Richardson confirmed it.

This is unlikely to lead to a wholesale ignoring of the technological evidence, but does open the door to more freedom of thought for the umpires.

If they think the evidence is bunk, they can exercise their own judgment, and Taylor has no problem with that. He has always maintained the DRS is an aid, but should not be the arbiter on decision-making.

Indeed, in the Rudolph decision, he said if the third umpire had wanted to overrule the DRS evidence, "we are happy that he could".

But how many umpires are going to risk furrowing ICC brows and effectively going against the checks and balances put in place to assist them?

So a system designed to eliminate the real clangers among umpiring decisions, has become the crutch that can't be set aside.

Umpires are in their roles because they are regarded as the most capable at that job - although some are certainly more capable than others.

But the point is they should be trusted to exercise their judgment at those times when their eyes and common sense tell them something different from what they see on a small screen.