At first glance, the revised DRS system where teams retain reviews for umpire's call verdict seems like a good change. But on closer inspection, this change actually gives umpires significantly more power, and more importantly, start promoting umpire bias towards the side who have used up their reviews. First off, umpires do not want to be criticised for their decisions, so in their opinion, marginal calls would go in favour of the team with no reviews left to avoid making a shocking decision, since the team with reviews left can always review and also not lose a review if it shows up as umpire's call. But because all DRS umpire's call decisions remains with the umpire's onfield call, this means the umpires suddenly wield significantly more power and bias then ever before. Previously teams would lose a review for umpire's call, meaning the umpire's get a strike against their call so umpires are far less likely.to favor one team over the other.
So what does this mean? As long as one team have used up their reviews and the other team still has reviews left, they can start appealing excessively for all marginal calls and more likely then not, the umpires would give all those calls in fear of making a howler - until the other team have used up their reviews (which might take forever since they can keep reviewing unsuccessfully but still keeping their review when it shows up as umpire's call).
So what does this mean? As long as one team have used up their reviews and the other team still has reviews left, they can start appealing excessively for all marginal calls and more likely then not, the umpires would give all those calls in fear of making a howler - until the other team have used up their reviews (which might take forever since they can keep reviewing unsuccessfully but still keeping their review when it shows up as umpire's call).
Last edited: