Aakash Chopra has questioned Ben Stokes’ idea that the umpire’s call be removed from the DRS (Decision Review System), pointing out that the system was developed solely to prevent howlers.
Ben Stokes has questioned some of the decisions made against England during the present Test series with India. The England captain was particularly irritated by three of his batters falling victim to an umpire’s call in the second innings of the just finished Rajkot Test.
Aakash Chopra shared a video on his YouTube channel, overlooking Stokes’ claim that the umpire’s decision needs revising. He explained:
“Ben Stokes has said that he is not liking DRS. He asked the umpire’s call to be removed. DRS is not foolproof. So you go towards the umpire’s call as you are not 100% certain.
“You say that is what was the umpire’s job, so you remain out if the umpire gave it out and not-out if he gave not-out. In fact, that was the truth. It is not a howler. What you are trying to remove is already removed by default.”
Aakash Chopra
Chopra stated that the umpire’s call is evaluated for impact on the pads since the DRS technology may not be totally accurate when there are two moving objects. He further stated that because the ball-tracking device projected the impact on the stumps, the umpire’s call takes precedence.
“There were 2 or 3 decisions that you felt were 50-50 when you saw them with the naked eye” – Aakash Chopra
However, Aakash Chopra said that a few decisions, including as Zak Crawley’s dismissal off Kuldeep Yadav’s bowling in Visakhapatnam’s second innings, appeared to be questionable. He observed:
“I will be very honest, there were two or three decisions that you felt were 50-50 when you saw them with the naked eye. One was when Zak Crawley got out off Kuldeep Yadav’s bowling in Vizag. With the naked eye, it didn’t seem like it would hit the middle of the leg stump.”
Aakash Chopra
The former player, now turned commentator, admitted being taken aback by Ollie Pope’s dismissal during the first innings of the Rajkot Test.
“It seemed like at best it would be umpire’s call but it wasn’t the case. That’s the problem with naked eye. After that, when Ollie Pope got out to Mohammed Siraj’s ball, there also I felt that at best it could be umpire’s call but it hit the three stumps. That was also very surprising.”
Aakash Chopra
While acknowledging that Zak Crawley second-innings dismissal in the third Test was somewhat contentious, Aakash Chopra emphasized that the judgment would not have been overturned even if the umpire’s call had not been reviewed. He explains:
“Then when Zak Crawley got out in the second innings, the umpire had given out, and it was umpire’s call only. Stokes said they don’t want umpire’s call. By the way, what is the meaning of umpire’s call?
“The umpire had given it out and you took the DRS. If you don’t agree with umpire’s call, the umpire had given you out in any case, so you wouldn’t have gained anything. So I have got no idea what exactly he is trying to suggest.”
Aakash Chopra
Aakash Chopra pointed out that all three relatively doubtful judgments would not have gone England’s way if the umpire’s call had not been made. The ball-tracking technology showed the ball striking the stumps on the two times where the on-field umpire first ruled it out, and projected it clipping the bail on the one occasion where the on-field umpire declared it out.