The problem with Ben Stokes’s demand to end umpire’s call
England’s captain, who was upset after Zak Crawley’s second-innings dismissal in their heavy third Test defeat against India in Rajkot, has called for the Decision Review System (DRS) to scrap umpire’s call
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.History is written by the victor and refereeing decisions are complained about by the loser. Those are the rules and to this day, Napoleon insists that he was struck outside the line by Wellington.
England lost by 434 runs against India in the third Test. A loss so comprehensive that it was India’s largest-ever margin of victory in Test cricket. And they’ve played a lot.
Nevertheless, the talk following the match surrounds Ben Stokes’s comments where he doubled down on his scepticism about the Decision Review System (DRS) that cricket uses and stated his belief that “umpire’s call” should be scrapped from the game. And on this front at least, he is nothing if not consistent.
“DRS got that completely wrong,” Stokes rallied after England’s miracle-bending and Ashes-saving victory at Headingley in 2019. “[The ball] flicked my front pad first and didn’t spin. I thought as soon as it hit me it was sliding down. I still can’t believe it was three reds.”
Even in victory, Stokes keeps the receipts from when he was wronged.
This has been a good week for Stokes’ss misgivings. A fortnight ago in Vizag, he declared on a hunch that he believed the technology had gone wrong for Zak Crawley’s LBW decision. Then a week later in Rajkot, it actually did.
“The ball is quite clearly missing the stump on the replay,” Stokes said to talkSport after the match. “So when it gets given umpire’s call and the ball’s not actually hitting the stumps, we were a bit bemused. So we just wanted some clarity from the Hawk-Eye guys.
“It came back saying the numbers, or whatever it is, was saying that it was hitting the stumps but it was the projection that was wrong. I don’t know what that means. Something’s gone wrong.”
Stokes answers the crucial point here himself. It was the presentation of ball-tracking that went wrong for Crawley’s dismissal, not the actual numbers, which behind the scenes said Crawley was out. Of course, that’s not great. Presentation of information is important. But it doesn’t mean England suffered an injustice. Effectively, their irritation is that the mugshot of Crawley was wrong, not that he didn’t commit the crime.
“You just want a level playing field,” Stokes continued. “The umpires have an incredibly hard job as it is … my personal opinion is if the ball is hitting the stumps, it is hitting the stumps. They should take away ‘umpire’s call’ if I’m being perfectly honest. I don’t want to get too much into it because it sounds like we are moaning and saying that is why we lost the Test match.”
The contradiction in Stokes’s complaints about umpires’ calls is that in removing the human element from the sport, he places even more faith in the technology he asserts he doesn’t fully trust. And the problem with Stokes’s complaints is that they’re based on nothing other than his own feel. Stokes is a wonderful cricketer and leader. But just as you don’t take vaccine advice from Novak Djokovic, you shouldn’t take aerodynamic engineering advice from Stokes. Crucially, there is absolutely nothing to suggest there is anything wrong with Hawk-Eye’s ball-tracking technology.
“I don’t really understand the system to be honest,” contributed head coach Brendon McCullum to the situation. “But if Stokesy says it, he’d have put a lot of thought into it and if he’s saying that then yeah, I’d agree with him.”
Two of the most senior, well-respected voices in the game, putting their weight behind a significant change in the sport’s playing conditions because one has a suspicion and the other backs his mate.
“There isn’t [even] a one per cent chance of it being wrong,” said the inventor of Hawk-Eye, Paul Hawkins, to the Times last week.
In Stokes and McCullum, England have two spiritualists leading a team of scientists. The pair have an innate feel for the game arguably matched by no one else in the world. And while there is a backroom team at the ECB secretly feeding them data by grating it into their spag bol without telling them, these two are not presented with spreadsheets and data points because history tells them that the numbers support their opinions rather than needing numbers to inform them.
An example of this was the selection of Shoaib Bashir. Previously considered to be a win for the data heads, after he was plucked from obscurity from the county game, it turned out to be a result of Stokes having seen a video of Bashir on Twitter and saying that was enough for him. Stokes’s experience of India was that quick spin from a high release point was the way to go. He didn’t need to see the PowerPoint from the ECB that said the same thing and advanced the case for Tom Hartley.
Stokes and McCullum’s rage against the machine is consistent across the board and ties in with the way the relationship between reality and perception about LBWs has changed dramatically over the past 10-15 years.
For centuries, the engrained thought process was that umpires would only give LBWs if they were certain the ball was smashing two stumps worth of space either side of middle. A scenario where dealing in the hypothetical led to conservatism in decision-making.
But now with ball-tracking readily available, the sport has discovered that the stumps were way bigger than previously realised and umpires have felt emboldened to stick the finger up more often. Before, you had one stump to aim at to convince an umpire of an LBW. Now you have five. Clipping off; off; middle; leg; and clipping leg.
The machines are now telling players of vast experience that their feel is wrong and always has been. And at best that’s confusing, and at worst confronting.
Removing umpire’s call would change the sport significantly. Not just in the quantitative manner of more LBWs being given as anything remotely projected to hit the stumps would be out, but in the qualitative feel. Umpires, already removed in all but name from caught-behind decisions, would effectively become glorified coat racks. The appeal, so synonymous with the sport, would become redundant and the raising of the umpire’s finger a waste of time. What do you value more? Art or consistency?
Officially, umpire’s call exists not to protect the umpire but the technology. That ball has never actually hit the stumps – LBW is a prediction – and therefore, to account for the technology’s margin of error, you back the human.
But this situation isn’t quite true any more. Over time, Hawk-Eye has become more and more accurate to the point that the company itself feels it would be adequate to stand alone on its own two feet. And it’s this point which speaks to the “level playing field” that Stokes is referring to. If we have – and trust – the technology, then why should one team lose their premier batter to the same umpire’s call LBW decision when the opposing team doesn’t? That’s not fair. But it is exciting.
Ultimately, wanting to get rid of an umpire’s call is an opinion that you can hold. But not because the technology isn’t trustworthy. Rather because it’s more accurate than ever.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments