no_image_available

Men's Test Match Appendix D Decision Review System (DRS) and Third Umpire Protocol 3: Player Review

The following paragraphs shall operate in addition to and in conjunction with paragraph 2 (Umpire Review).

  • 3.1. Circumstances in which a Player Review may be requested
    • 3.1.1. A player may request a review of any decision taken by the on-field umpires concerning whether or not a batsman is dismissed, with the exception of ‘Timed Out’ (Player Review).
    • 3.1.2. No other decisions made by the umpires are eligible for a Player Review with the exception of Fair Catch/ Bump Ball (even after the third umpire has been consulted and the decision communicated).
    • 3.1.3. Only the batsman involved in a dismissal may request a Player Review of an Out decision and only the captain (or acting captain) of the fielding team may request a Player Review of a Not out decision.
    • 3.1.4. A decision concerning whether or not a batsman is dismissed that could have been the subject of a Umpire Review under paragraph 2 is eligible for a Player Review as soon as it is clear that the on-field umpire has chosen not to initiate the Umpire Review.
  • 3.2. The manner of requesting the Player Review
    • 3.2.1. The request shall be made by the player making a ‘T’ sign with both forearms at head height.
    • 3.2.2. The total time elapsed between the ball becoming dead and the review request being made shall be no more than 15 seconds. The only exception permitted shall be when an Umpire Review for Fair Catch or Bump Ball (as permitted in paragraph 2.2 above) is required to answer an appeal for a caught decision, in which case either team is able to request a Player Review of that caught decision within 15 seconds of the decision being communicated. The bowler’s end umpire shall provide the relevant player with a prompt after 10 seconds if the request has not been made at that time and the player shall request the review immediately thereafter. If the on-field umpires believe that a request has not been made within the 15 second time limit, they shall decline the request for a Player Review.
    • 3.2.3. The captain may consult with the bowler and other fielders, and the two batsmen may consult with each other prior to deciding whether to request a Player Review. Under no circumstances is any player permitted to query an umpire about any aspect of a decision before deciding on whether or not to request a Player Review. If the on-field umpires believe that the captain or either batsman has received direct or indirect input emanating other than from the players on the field, then they may at their discretion decline the request for a Player Review. In particular, signals from the dressing room must not be given.
    • 3.2.4. No replays, either at normal speed or slow motion, shall be shown on a big screen to spectators until the 15 second time limit allowed for requesting a Player Review has elapsed. The only exception to this provision is where a Player Review of a caught decision is requested after the Umpire Review of a Fair Catch or Bump Ball has concluded, as detailed in paragraph 3.2.2 above (due to the fact that replays may have been shown on the big screen during that Umpire Review process).
    • 3.2.5. Where either on-field umpire initiates an Umpire Review, this does not preclude a player seeking a Player Review of a separate incident from the same delivery. The request for a Player Review may be made after the Umpire Review, provided the request is still within the 15 second time limit described in paragraph 3.2.2 above. (See paragraphs 3.9.2 and 3.9.3 below for the process for addressing both an Umpire and Player Review)
    • 3.2.6. A request for a Player Review cannot be withdrawn once it has been made.
  • 3.3. The process of consultation

    • 3.3.1. On receipt of an eligible and timely request for a Player Review, the relevant on-field umpire shall make the sign of a shape of a TV screen with his/her hands in the normal way.

    • 3.3.2. The relevant on-field umpire shall initiate communication with the third umpire by confirming;

      • 3.3.2.1. That a Player Review has been requested,
      • 3.3.2.2.The mode of dismissal for which the relevant on-field umpire adjudicated the appeal,
      • 3.3.2.3. The decision that has been made (Out or Not out), and;
      • 3.3.2.4. For LBW appeals, where relevant, if the bowler’s end umpire believed that the striker made no genuine attempt to play the ball with the bat (the default presumption of the third umpire in the absence of any information on this point from the bowler’s end umpire shall be that a genuine attempt to play the ball with the bat was made)

    • 3.3.3. A two-way consultation process shall begin to investigate whether there is anything that the third umpire can see or hear which would indicate that the on-field umpire should change his/her original decision.

    • 3.3.4. The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision making process. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be Out by any other mode of dismissal, he/she shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given Not out.

    • 3.3.5. The third umpire shall initially check all modes of No ball except for the bowler using an Illegal Bowling Action (subject to the proviso that the third umpire may review whether the bowler has used a prohibited Specific Variation under Article 6.2 of the Illegal Bowling Regulations), where appropriate advising the on- field umpire accordingly.

    • 3.3.6. If despite the available technology, the third umpire is unable to decide with a high degree of confidence whether the original on-field decision should be changed, then he/she shall report that the replays are ‘inconclusive’, and that the on-field decision shall stand. The third umpire shall not give answers conveying likelihoods or probabilities.

    • 3.3.7. In circumstances where the television technology (all or parts thereof) is not available to the third umpire or fails for whatever reason, the third umpire shall advise the on-field umpire of this fact but still provide any relevant factual information that may be ascertained from the available television replays and other technology.

    • 3.3.8. The on-field umpire shall then make his/her decision based on the information provided by the third umpire, any other factual information offered by the third umpire and his/her recollection and opinion of the original incident.

    • 3.3.9. The on-field umpire shall reverse his/her decision if the nature of the supplementary information received from the third umpire leads him/her to conclude that his/her original decision was incorrect.

  • 3.4. Review of LBW Decisions

    • 3.4.1. In assessing whether a batsman is Out LBW in accordance with clause 36, the third umpire shall first judge whether the delivery is fair (as set out in clause 36.1.1), and second, whether or not the ball has touched the bat before being intercepted by any part of the striker’s person (as set out in clause 36.1.3).

    • 3.4.2. If the batsman is still eligible to be Out, the ball-tracking technology shall then present three pieces of information to the third umpire relating to the path of the ball:

      • 3.4.2.1. The point of pitching (where applicable) (PITCHING)
      • 3.4.2.2. The position of the ball at the point of first interception (IMPACT)
      • 3.4.2.3. Whether the ball would have hit the wicket (WICKET)

    • 3.4.3. This Decision Review System (DRS) and Third Umpire Protocol includes a category of Umpire’s Call, which shall be the conclusion reported where the technology indicates a marginal decision in respect of either the point of first interception or whether the ball would have hit the stumps.

  • 3.4.4. PITCHING

    • 3.4.4.1 The interpretation of “pitches in line between wicket and wicket” in clause 36.1.2 shall refer to the position of the centre of the ball at the point of pitching, in relation to the Pitching Zone.

    • 3.4.4.2. The Pitching Zone is defined as a two dimensional area on the pitch between both sets of stumps with its boundaries consisting of the base of both sets of stumps and a line between the outside of the outer stumps at each end.

    • 3.4.4.3. Where applicable, the ball-tracking technology shall report that the ball pitched in one of the following three areas in relation to the Pitching Zone:

      | In Line | The centre of the ball was inside the Pitching Zone | | --- | --- | | Outside Off | The centre of the ball was outside, and to the off side of, the Pitching Zone | | Outside Leg | The centre of the ball was outside, and to the leg side of, the Pitching Zone |

    • 3.4.4.4. Subject to the satisfaction of the other elements of clause 36, the batsman can be Out if the ball- tracking technology reports that the ball pitched Outside Off or In Line, but the batsman shall be Not out if the ball pitched Outside Leg.

  • 3.4.5. Impact

    • 3.4.5.1 The interpretation of “the (first) point of impact, even if in above the level of the bails, is between wicket and wicket” in clause 36.1.4 shall refer to position of the ball at the point of first interception, in relation to the Impact Zone.

    • 3.4.5.2. The Impact Zone is defined as a three dimensional space extending between both wickets to an indefinite height and with its boundaries consisting of a line between the outside of the outer stumps at each end.

    • The ball-tracking technology shall report that the point of first interception was in one of the following categories in relation to the Impact Zone:

      | In Line | The centre of the ball was inside the Impact Zone | | --- | --- | | Umpire’s Call | Some part of the ball was inside the Impact Zone, but the centre of the ball was outside the Impact Zone, with the further sub-category of ‘Umpire’s Call (off side)’ where the centre of the ball was to the off side of the Impact Zone and the bowler’s end umpire communicates to the third umpire that no genuine attempt to play the ball was made by the batsman. | | Outside | No part of the ball was inside the Impact Zone, with the further sub- categories of ‘Outside (off)’ and ‘Outside (leg)’ to indicate the location of the point of first interception in relation to the Impact Zone when the bowler’s end umpire communicates to the third umpire that no genuine attempt to play the ball was made by the bats |

  • 3.4.5.4. Where a Not out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made a genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of first interception was In Line for the batsman to be eligible to be given Out, otherwise the batsman shall remain Not out.
  • 3.4.5.5. Where a Not out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made no genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of impact was In Line, or Umpire’s Call (off side), or Outside (off) for the batsman to be eligible to be given Out, otherwise the batsman shall remain Not out.
  • 3.4.5.6. Where an Out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made a genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of first interception was Outside for the decision to be reversed to Not out, otherwise the batsman shall remain eligible to be given Out.
  • Where an Out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made no genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of first interception was
    Outside (leg) for the decision to be reversed to Not out, otherwise the batsman shall remain eligible to be given Out.
  • 3.4.6. Wicket3.4.6.1. The interpretation of whether “the ball would have hit the wicket” in clause 36.1.5 shall refer to position of the ball as it either hits or passes the wicket, in relation to the Wicket Zone.

3.4.6.2. The Wicket Zone is defined as a two dimensional area whose boundaries are the outside of the outer stumps, the base of the stumps and the bottom of the bails.

3.4.6.3. The ball-tracking technology shall report whether the ball would have hit the wicket with reference to the following three categories:

| **Hitting** | The ball was hitting the wicket, and the centre of the ball was inside the Wicket Zone |
| --- | --- |
| **Umpire’s Call** | The ball was hitting the wicket, but the centre of the ball was not inside the Wicket Zone |
| **Missing** | The ball was missing the wicket |

  • 3.4.6.4. Where a Not out decision is being reviewed, the ball-tracking technology must report that the ball was Hitting for the batsman to be eligible to be given Out, otherwise the batsman shall remain Not out. However, where the evidence shows that the ball was Hitting, the point of first interception was In Line, and the ball pitched In Line or Outside Off, but that:

  • The point of first interception was 300cm or more from the stumps; or

  • The point of first interception was more than 250cm but less than 300cm from the stumps and the distance between the point of pitching and the point of first interception was less than 40cm,

The on-field decision shall stand (that is, Not out)

  • 3.4.6.5.Where an Out decision is being reviewed, the ball-tracking technology must report that the ball was Missing for the on-field decision to be reversed to Not out, otherwise the batsman shall remain eligible to be given Out.

  • 3.4.7. When the ball strikes the batsman on the full, and the evidence provided by the ball-tracking technology indicates that the ball would have pitched before striking or passing the wicket, there will be no information available from that delivery that will allow the ball-tracking technology to accurately predict the height of the ball after pitching.

  • 3.4.8. With regard to determining whether the ball would have hit the wicket under these circumstances, the ball- tracking technology shall project the line of the ball in accordance with clause 36.2.3 (it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not), and display the simulated path of the ball from directly above the wicket.

  • 3.4.9. The third umpire shall advise the bowler’s end umpire only on the point of first interception and whether the ball would have hit the stumps (in line with the process set out in paragraph 3.4 above), but shall make no comment on the predicted height of the ball after pitching, which shall remain a judgment of the bowler’s end umpire

  • 3.5 The process for communicating the final decision

    • 3.5.1. For Player Reviews concerning potential dismissals, the relevant on-field umpire shall indicate Out by raising his/her finger above his/her head in a normal yet prominent manner or indicate Not out by the call of ‘not out’ and by crossing his/her hands in a horizontal position side to side in front and above his/her waist three times. Where the decision is a reversal of the on-field umpire’s previous decision, he/she shall make the ‘revoke last signal’ indication immediately prior to the above.
    • If the mode of dismissal is not obvious or not the same as that on which the original decision was based, then the umpire shall advise the scorers via the third umpire.

  • 3.6. Number of Player Review requests permitted

    • 3.6.1. In each innings, each team shall be allowed to make a maximum of two Player Review requests that are categorised as ‘Unsuccessful’ (as set out in paragraph 3.6.3 below).

    • 3.6.2. Where a request for a Player Review results in the original on-field decision being reversed, then the Player Review shall be categorised as ‘Successful’ and shall not count towards the innings limit.

    • 3.6.3. Where a request for a Player Review results in the original on-field decision remaining unchanged (other than in the circumstances set out in paragraphs 3.6.4, 3.6.6 or 3.6.8), the Player Review shall be categorised as ’Unsuccessful’.

    • 3.6.4. Where a request for a Player Review of an LBW decision results in the on-field decision remaining unchanged solely on the basis of an Umpire’s Call, the Player Review shall be categorised as ‘Unchanged – Umpire’s Call’. A Player Review categorised as ‘Unchanged – Umpire’s Call’ shall not count towards the innings limit set out in paragraph 3.6.1.

    • 3.6.5. Where, following a request for a Player Review, the original on-field decision of Out is unchanged, but for a different mode of dismissal from the original on-field decision, then the Player Review shall still be categorised as ’Unsuccessful’.

    • 3.6.6. Where, following a request for a Player Review, the original on-field decision of Not out is unchanged on account of the delivery being a No ball (for any reason), thereby not requiring any further evaluation, the Player Review shall not be counted as ‘Unsuccessful’ and accordingly shall not count towards the innings limit set out in paragraph 3.6.1.

    • 3.6.7. Where a Player Review and an Umpire Review are requested from the same delivery and the decision of the third umpire from the Umpire Review renders the Player Review unnecessary (see paragraphs 3.9.2 and 3.9.3), the Player Review request shall be disregarded and accordingly shall not count towards the innings limit set out in paragraph 3.6.1.

    • 3.6.8. A Player Review categorised as ‘Unsuccessful’ may be reinstated by the ICC Match Referee at his/her sole discretion (if appropriate after consultation with the ICC Technical Official and/or the television broadcast director) if the Player Review could not properly be concluded due to a failure of the technology. Any such decision shall be final and shall be taken as soon as possible, being communicated to both teams once all the relevant facts have been ascertained by the ICC Match Referee. A Player Review categorised as ‘Unsuccessful’ shall not be reinstated if, despite any technical failures, the correct decision could still have been made using the other available technology. Similarly, a Player Review categorised as ‘Unsuccessful’ shall not be reinstated where the technology worked as intended, but the evidence gleaned from its use was inconclusive.

    • 3.6.9. The third umpire shall be responsible for counting the number Player Reviews categorised as ‘Unsuccessful’ and shall advise the on-field umpires once either team has exhausted their allowance for the innings.

    • 3.6.10. The scoreboard shall display, for the innings in progress, the number of Player Reviews remaining available to each team.

      | Category of Player Review | Outcome of Player Review | Consequence of Player Review | | --- | --- | --- | | Successful (paragraph 3.6.2) | On-field decision reversed | Does not count towards innings limit set out in paragraph 3.6.1 | | Unsuccessful (paragraphs 3.6.3 and 3.6.5) | On-field decision unchanged | Counts towards innings limit set out in paragraph 3.6.1 | | Unchanged – Umpire’s Call (paragraph 3.6.4) | On-field decision unchanged | Does not count towards innings limit set out in paragraph 3.6.1 | | No ball – no evaluation required (paragraph 3.6.6) | On-field decision unchanged | Does not count towards innings limit set out in paragraph 3.6.1 | | Failure of technology (paragraph 3.6.8) | On-field decision unchanged | Does not count towards innings limit set out in paragraph 3.6.1 |

  • 3.7. Dead ball

    • 3.7.1. If following a Player Review request, an original decision of Out is changed to Not out, then the ball is still deemed to have become dead when the original decision was made (as per clause 20.1.1.3). The batting side, while benefiting from the reversal of the dismissal, shall not benefit from any runs that may subsequently have accrued from the delivery had the on-field umpire originally made a Not out decision, other than any No ball penalty that could arise under paragraph 3.3.5 above.
    • 3.7.2. If an original decision of Not out is changed to Out, the ball shall retrospectively be deemed to have become dead from the moment of the dismissal event. All subsequent events, including any runs scored, shall be ignored.

  • 3.8. Use of technology

    • 3.8.1. The following technology may be used by the third umpire during a Player Review:

      • 3.8.1.1. Replays, at any speed, from any available broadcast camera
      • 3.8.1.2. Sound from the stump microphones with the replays at normal speed and slow motion
      • 3.8.1.3. Approved ball-tracking technology:

  • HawkEye (HawkEye Innovations), or;

  • VirtualEye (ARL) - 3.8.1.4. Approved sound-based edge detection technology:

  • Real-Time Snickometer (BBG Sports), or;

  • UltraEdge (HawkEye Innovations) - 3.8.1.5. Approved heat-based edge detection technology:

  • Hot Spot cameras (BBG Sports) - 3.8.1.6. LED Wickets (using the lights to indicate if the wicket is broken, as set out in paragraph 4.2):

  • Zing Bails and Stumps

    • 3.8.2. In addition, other forms of technology may be used subject to the ICC being satisfied that the required standards of accuracy and time efficiency can be met.
    • 3.8.3. Where practical usage or further testing indicates that any of the above forms of technology cannot reliably provide accurate and timely information, then it may be removed prior to or during a match. The final decision regarding the technology to be used in a given match shall be taken by the ICC Match Referee in consultation with the ICC Technical Official, ICC management and the competing teams’ governing bodies.

  • Combining Umpire Review with Player Review

    • 3.9.1 If an Umpire Review (under paragraph 2) and a request for a Player Review (under paragraph 3) are made following the same delivery but relating to separate modes of dismissal, the following process shall apply.

      • 3.9.2. The Umpire Review shall be carried out prior to the Player Review if all of the following conditions apply:
      • 3.9.2.1. The Player Review has been requested by the fielding side.
      • 3.9.2.2. The Umpire Review and the Player Review both relate to the dismissal of the same batsman
      • 3.9.2.3. If the batsman is out, the number of runs scored from the delivery would be the same for both modes of dismissal
      • 3.9.2.4. If the batsman is out, the batsman on strike for the next delivery would be the same for both modes of dismissal.

    • 3.9.3. If the Umpire Review leads the third umpire to make a decision of Out, then this shall be displayed in the usual manner and the Player Review shall not be undertaken. If the Umpire Review results in a Not out decision, then the third umpire shall make no public decision but shall proceed to address the request for a Player Review.

    • 3.9.4. For illustration, following an LBW appeal which is given Not out by the bowler’s end umpire, the striker sets off for a run, is sent back and there is an appeal for his/her run out. The players request that the LBW decision is reviewed and the umpires request that the run out be reviewed. The four criteria above are satisfied, so the run out referral is determined first. Should the appeal for run out be Out, then there is no requirement for the LBW review to take place.

    • 3.9.5. In all other circumstances, the incidents shall be addressed in chronological order. If the conclusion from the first incident is that a batsman is dismissed, then the ball would be deemed to have become dead at that point, rendering investigation of the second incident unnecessary.