Are cricketers, officials and commentators getting their Snickos in a twist?

Today we hear that members of the International Cricket Committee have ruled that the now infamous Decision Review System (DRS) will continue to be used in the remaining Ashes Test Matches.

Whether or not the DRS leads to "better" decisions and fairer outcomes is a matter of opinion, of course. It can't be answered definitively. And the only people whose opinion matters on this are those committee members who were asked to pronounce on its continued use. If people don't like what they have decided, it's too bad. There is no appeal to a 'third umpire'. No technology to scrutinize their decision-making.

In any event, technology is incapable of replicating the ways in which those who made the decision perceived, interpreted and evaluated the 'evidence' before them. And it's on the basis of those perceptions, interpetations and evaluations that, in the opinion of the ICC, the DRS is deemed to be 'not out'. There is no 'reality' that exists in any way separate from the committee members' opinions on the matter - just other people's opinions. And those other opinions have no relevance to the decision that has been taken. it's down to them to decide. And decide they have.

Unfortunately, this same logic is conspicuous by its absence from the substantive decision about the continued use of the DRS. In the context of a cricket match (and contrary to popular myth), there is also no 'reality' that exists separate from the on-field umpire's in-the-moment perception, interpretation, and evaluation of the complex of factors on which he expresses his opinion. A batsman is "out" or "not out" if (and only if) in the opinion of the umpire the relevant conditions have been met. Technology cannot answer the question as to whether or not the on-field official's call was 'right' or 'wrong' because it cannot replicate the specific process through which he came to his opinion.

The 'Ins' and 'Outs' of cricket only come into being through the combined actions of the batsmen, bowlers, fielders and on-field umpires. Anything that suggests otherwise is a distortion.

_______________

PS I assume that, for consistency, the advocates of DRS will argue that all pre-DRS batting and bowling achievements should be struck from the record books, on the basis that these are fatally flawed by the absence of a decision-making review system.

PPS How long will it be before someone decides that limiting the number of referrals means that most decisions still go 'unchecked' - and that decision-making by the on-field umpires should therefore be replaced altogether by technological simulation?

PPPS Why not simulate the whole thing?