The Draft Of The ICC's Revision to the DRS post-Bell

I recieved the following in an email exchange with Mr. Colin Gibson who is Head of Media and Communications for the ICC. Mr. Gibson explained that this advisory was sent out after two or three decisions, not just Bell's (i suspect these include the Watson decision). I suspect that this document has been drafted as much for the Public as for the Umpires. I have still not received any clarification as to what, if any, advisory might have existed before the World Cup. The explanations for the Bell LBW included this middle-stump rule, a rule which is not to be found anywhere in the ICC DRS document. I have copied out the full draft below. Mr. Gibson has added a comment from Dave Richardson at the end.

When a batsman is originally given NOT OUT, graphics are displayed when the distance from pitching to impact is less than 40cm and the distance from impact to stumps is greater than 2.5m.
These are the guidelines which have been given to the umpires.
(a) If both the 40cm and 2.5m graphics appear for the same delivery, the batsman will definitely remain NOT OUT.
If the "OVER 2.5m" graphic appears without the 40cm, the third umpire will be informed verbally by Hawk-Eye of the exact distance of impact from the stumps.
(b) If this distance is greater than 3.5m, the batsman will definitely remain NOT OUT.
(c) If this distance is greater than 2.5m and not more than 3.5m, the third umpire is to advise the on-field umpire to overturn a NOT OUT decision
when some part of the ball (as presented by Hawk-Eye) is hitting the middle stump AND the whole of the ball is hitting the stumps below the bottom of the bails.
(d) If the ball is not hitting within the parameters outlined in (c) above, the batsman will remain NOT OUT.
For (c) and (d) above, the third umpire will make the judgment by viewing Hawk-Eye from above and side-on, and advise to the on field umpire the exact distance, view from side on and the on field umpire will actually make his decision based on this additional information provided by the third Umpire, as set out above.
Mr Richardson said: ‘This is not a change in rules as some people have suggested but a broad guideline which we hope will bring a consistency to the decision making.

Dave Richardson insists at the end that these are not a change in the rules as some people have suggested. It is hard to agree with this. The field umpire is left with almost zero discretion in judging situations which Hawkeye cannot definitively judge. Instead, a full set of arbitrary standards have been created, just as I suspected they would be - certainty has been manufactured. Consider this explanation of the Bell LBW on the ICC's website (thanks to G Rajaraman for this link). It lays out what "normal cricketing principles" are. The rules above translate these "normal cricketing principles" into the language of Hawkeye.

* The distance between point of pitching and point of impact (the shorter this distance, the more difficult it is to be certain that the ball will go onto hit the stumps and thus the more unlikely it will be that the umpire will change his not out decision).
* The distance from point of impact to the stumps (the greater this distance, the more unlikely it will be that the umpire will change his decision)
* Where the ball is predicted to hit the stumps (the further this point from the centre of middle stump, the more unlikely it will be that the umpire will change his decision).

But it is a combination of the above factors that must be taken into account by the umpire in consultation with the third umpire.

The guidelines above spell out just how these factors are to be combined to manufacture a decision whose correctness can be verified. Note that the TV Umpire is not playing an advisory role, merely relaying the facts. In the new draft, the TV Umpire is to "advise advise the on-field umpire to overturn a NOT OUT decision when some part of the ball (as presented by Hawk-Eye) is hitting the middle stump AND the whole of the ball is hitting the stumps below the bottom of the bails." The original ICC DRS document was at pains to point out that the on-field Umpire could not ask the TV Umpire questions that were not concerned with facts. Now, the TV Umpire is empowered to tell the on-field Umpire how he should rule in the event of a review.

The transfer of expertise from the Umpire to a fully verifiable (albeit dubiously so, totally at the mercy of Hawkeye) set of criteria is complete. There is no room here for gut instinct, for the merit of a judgment reached by an expert - the umpire, in real time, even though it is acknowledged that Hawkeye's prediction cannot be fully trusted. There is no room for a genuinely 50-50 decision (unless the fielding side, or the batting side has used up their two reviews, or chooses not to use a review). Is this not a long long way away from an effort to eliminate obvious errors?

There are no experts anymore. There are clerks who operate machines.