DRS insider admits rare error was behind Zak Crawley’s controversial lbw

The rogue Hawk-Eye graphic beamed around the world on the final day of England’s third Test against India was the result of a rare error in the Decision Review System, i can reveal.

It led to Ben Stokes calling for the abolition of umpire’s call, though England’s fate on the final day in Rajkot was pretty much sealed by the time Zak Crawley was given out lbw to Jasprit Bumrah. Indeed, it had little bearing on the result, a landslide 434-run win for India.

However, the opener’s unsuccessful review left many, including Stokes, bemused after Hawk-Eye showed the ball missing the stumps. Stokes and England coach Brendon McCullum hunted down match referee Jeff Crowe at the end of the match to seek clarification. Neither, though, were sure what had really happened.

“The ball is quite clearly missing the stumps,” said Stokes. “So, when it gets given umpire’s call we were a bit bemused. We just wanted some clarity from the Hawk-Eye guys. It came back saying the numbers, or whatever that is, was saying it was hitting the stumps but it was the projection that was wrong. I don’t know what that means. Something’s gone wrong.”

Read Next

The four selection changes England are considering for 4th India Test

CricketSport Analysis

The four selection changes England are considering for 4th India Test

Read More

McCullum added: “The information we got back from the match ref and the DRS people was that whilst there was a clear gap between the ball and the wicket, that was actually incorrect and the data said it was going to hit.

“That’s a little hard from a layman’s point of view to understand how that works. It is what it is. You don’t get angry or anything, it’s more bewilderment in a situation like that.”

i has spoken to a source close to the DRS process in Rajkot.

They confirmed the image shown during Crawley’s lbw review was indeed wrong and the result of a malfunction in the generation of the graphic that meant there was a marginal difference between what was shown on TV and the path of the delivery predicted by the ball-tracking software.

While DRS is overseen by the International Cricket Council, the ball-tracking technology is overseen by Hawk-Eye operatives at the ground who are appointed by the company based in Basingstoke.

Most of the technology is automated but some is not, meaning human error can be a factor in rare cases.

The person i spoke to maintained that the decision was correct and that the graphic was wrong.

Yet it does not instil confidence in DRS, especially given Stokes mused after Rajkot: “When the people that use the system are saying something has gone wrong who’s to say it’s not gone wrong at another time that could prove pivotal? Umpire’s call, personally I think we should just get rid of it. If it’s hitting the stumps, it’s hitting the stumps, then it’s a level playing field.”

How DRS works for lbw decisions

Key to understanding the Decision Review System is the three-step process that decides the batter’s fate when it comes to lbw decisions. This is done by dividing the pitch into three zones.

The three zones DRS uses to track the ball (Graphic: Getty/i Sport)

Pitching zone

The two-dimensional shaded line that runs down the length of the pitch, with its boundaries set at the outer edge of the stumps at each end.

Impact Zone

Where the ball hits the pad for the first time. It is a three-dimensional space extending between both sets of stumps, from ground level to an indefinite height vertically. Its horizontal boundaries are the outer edge of leg and off stump.

Wicket Zone

A two-dimensional area bounded by the stumps, from their base to the top of the bails, and the full width from the outer edge of the off and leg stumps. This was extended to include the top of the bails only in April 2021.

If an lbw decision is not tight then a red signal will come up. But umpire’s call comes into play – and the third umpire has to uphold the on-field decision – if replays show at least half the ball hitting an area that includes the outside of off and leg stumps. In other words, at least 50 per cent of the ball should be hitting any part of a stump.

i requested clarification on what exactly had gone wrong with the technology in Rajkot from Paul Hawkins, the founder of Hawk-Eye. He did not respond before publication.

The error in Rajkot follows complaints from Stokes at the end of the second Test in Visakhapatnam about another lbw given against Crawley on the final day, when a delivery from Kuldeep Yadav that looked to be missing leg stump in real-time was shown to be hitting according to Hawk-Eye.

Read Next

The lessons England must learn from humiliating rout in Rajkot

Chris Stocks

The lessons England must learn from humiliating rout in Rajkot

Read More

After that, Hawkins spoke to the Sunday Times to explain that the decision looked wrong on first glance because the TV camera was placed to the left of the bowler’s stumps but the Hawk-Eye camera was directly behind.

He also explained: “For every DRS [incident], we do screen-grabs which show everything the [Hawkeye] operator shows. This is automatic, we can’t manipulate it, and that immediately goes to the ICC as part of the quality control process.

“It’s not a fully automated system but a lot is done to eliminate human error by having checks, training and this process of two people doing things independently, [which] has pretty much always been there.”

Unlike football, players, coaches and fans have embraced technology since DRS was first introduced to cricket in 2009.

But incidents such as those that occurred in Rajkot do undermine trust in the process.

Former England captain Nasser Hussain doesn’t believe umpire’s call should be scrapped but agrees the rogue Hawk-Eye graphic on Crawley’s dismissal in the last Test was not a good look.

“I haven’t changed my mind on DRS and umpire’s call,” he said on his Sky Sports Cricket podcast on Monday. “But Ben’s other point, he said from the video analysis of Crawley the match referee had said there was an anomaly there. You can’t have that. You can’t be putting out pictures of the ball missing the stumps and saying it’s umpire’s call.”