By Garfield Robinson, from the Caribbean
In the Perth Test of the 2013-14 Ashes series, Australian fast bowler Ryan Harris bowled Alastair Cook with the first delivery of the second innings. It was a delivery like no other and was rightly adjudged the “Ball of the Century” by Cricinfo.
Delivered with an upright seam, canted ever so slightly towards leg slip, the ball did as the bowler urged and swung in to the left-handed batsman, landing on a good length about middle and off stump. Drawn forward in studious defence, Cook appeared to have the delivery covered, only for the ball to defy logic, if not physics, deviate towards off, evade his notoriously broad bat, and clip the top of his off stump.
Upon setting off for the pavilion, Cook glanced backwards, understandably bewildered as to what exactly had occurred. As far as he was concerned, the ball was heading for the very middle of his bat, and so he would not have expected to hear the dreaded sound of leather clattering wood.
So, what exactly happened?
After viewing the delivery in slow-motion about a dozen times, it became clear that once the ball landed on the surface it stopped rotating. The lack of rotation then triggered what is known as the “knuckling effect”. And that is what caused the ball to deviate after it rose from the pitch.
Rabi Mehta is a NASA scientist and the world’s foremost cricket-ball aerodynamics expert. This is how he described the science behind the “knuckling effect” in a Cricinfo article: “As the ball flies, a thin layer of air called the ‘boundary layer’ forms along its surface. This layer cannot stay attached to the ball’s surface all the way around, so it tends to leave or separate from the surface at some point. The location of this separation point determines the pressure on either side of the ball, and a relatively late separation results in lower pressure on that side. A side force, or swing, is generated if there is a pressure difference between the two sides of the ball. The seam on a baseball or cricket ball acts to disturb the boundary layer, and hence affects at what point the separation occurs. For that small distance, the ball behaves like a knuckleball in baseball or the kick we sometimes see in football of the minimally rotating ball deviating all over the place giving the goalkeeper a hard time.”
That, for the purposes of this article, is a very salient point. The ball deviated after it left the surface and therefore took an unexpected path toward the stumps. Nothing could have predicted the track it’d take. No matter how advanced the Hawkeye technology, it could not have plotted an unquestionably accurate path after the ball touched down on the pitch.
It is for reasons like that why the umpire’s call aspect of the Decision Review System (DRS) should be persevered with in cricket. The recent controversy erupted with the second-innings dismissal of Zac Crawley in the third Test of the current India-England series. Having seen the projected path, which appears to be slightly wide of the leg stump, it is understandable that the England team would seek clarification. But even if something went awry with that particular review, it’s not a good enough reason to proffer, as Ben Stokes, England’s captain, did, for the umpires call to be abandoned.
Cornered England on mission comeback in Ranchi after Rajkot humiliation
✍️@Fancricket12#INDvsENGTest #Bazball https://t.co/FbTrK81hOh
— RevSportz (@RevSportz) February 23, 2024
This is what Stokes said: “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.” But it’s not as simple as that. The path to the stumps is a projection that has within it a margin of error. The technology, at this time at least, cannot calculate, for example, the aforementioned knuckling effect that would affect the track the ball takes after leaving the surface, or the effect of a sudden rush of wind.
The point is that the margin for error inherent in the technology would, as former England captain Nasser Hussian pointed out while doing commentary on Sky, have the effect of making the stumps wider and higher. Batsmen would, as a result, get out more frequently, and matches would, on the whole, end more quickly. Nobody wants that, I’d imagine.
Nothing is perfect in life and in sport. The DRS system was devised, it was said, to rid the game of obvious umpiring errors.In April 2021, Anil Kumble, then head of the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) cricket committee, had this to say about DRS: “The principle underpinning DRS was to correct clear errors in the game whilst ensuring the role of the umpire as the decision-maker on the field of play was preserved, bearing in mind the element of prediction involved with the technology. Umpire’s call allows that to happen, which is why it is important it remains.”
It is easy to understand, especially in the heat of battle, why players would feel hard done by when certain close decisions go against them or when apparent errors are made. It has to be accepted, however, that the DRS system has been good for the game and has resulted in better decisions being made on the field. It is certainly a vast improvement over the days when we were solely reliant on the skill and fairness of the umpires.
Nasser Hussain’s scathing criticism of Ben Duckett’s foolish remarks about Yashasvi Jaiswal is just a hint of what awaits England if Bazball unravels again in Ranchi.
✍️ @BoriaMajumdar#INDvsENG #INDvENGTest #Bazball https://t.co/VeT9CaBcPJ
— RevSportz (@RevSportz) February 22, 2024