Reviewing LBW Decisions: When Batsmen Use the DRS
The strategy behind a batsman's decision to review an LBW dismissal using the Decision Review System — the three questions technology answers (where did the ball pitch, did it hit in line, would it have hit the stumps), why some LBWs are reviewable but others are not, the statistical success rates of DRS reviews for batsmen, how teams preserve review credits across an innings, and why some dismissals appear clearly out but are overturned on review (and vice versa).
What DRS Assesses for LBW
When a batsman reviews an LBW decision, DRS technology (ball-tracking and edge-detection) answers three questions in sequence. First, did the ball pitch in line with the stumps (between the wickets)? If it pitched outside leg stump, the dismissal cannot stand — ball-tracking confirms this. Second, if the ball pitched in line, was the impact on the pad in line with the stumps? If the pad was struck outside the line of the stumps (outside off), the batsman may still survive depending on whether they played a shot (no-shot: can be out; played shot: not out outside off stump). Third, would the ball have gone on to hit the stumps? The predictive ball-tracking extrapolates the delivery's trajectory from pitch point through impact point to determine the 'projected path' and whether it would have clipped, hit, or missed the stumps.
Umpire's Call
The DRS introduces 'Umpire's Call' — a zone around the edge of each stump where the ball-tracking system's margin of error is acknowledged to be too small to be certain. If the projected ball path shows the ball clipping the edge of the stump (within a specific tolerance), 'Umpire's Call' is announced — meaning the on-field umpire's original decision stands, whether out or not out. A batsman who reviews an LBW that is 'out' on the umpire's call loses the review; a batsman who reviews an 'out' decision where DRS shows Umpire's Call keeps the review. This asymmetry exists because Umpire's Call acknowledges uncertainty rather than definitively overturning.
The Strategy of Reviewing
Batsmen make the review decision under extreme time pressure (typically 15 seconds) based on: their sense of whether the ball pitched outside leg (not out), whether they hit the ball before it touched the pad (not out via bat first), and whether they believe the ball would have missed the stumps (height or line). Batsmen's success rate at DRS reviews varies substantially by individual — some are good at self-assessment (knowing when they hit it, correctly judging height) while others review instinctively without reliable information. Teams often discuss review strategy explicitly: saving reviews for dismissals where the batsman is certain (rather than using reviews speculatively on 50/50 decisions).
Frequently asked questions
How many DRS reviews does each team get per innings?
In Test cricket, each team receives 2 unsuccessful reviews per innings. A review that successfully overturns the on-field decision (whether batting or fielding team's review) is not deducted — only unsuccessful reviews are counted against the allocation. The 2-review limit means teams must manage their reviews strategically across an innings — using too many reviews early (on borderline appeals that turn out to be correct) leaves fewer reviews available for more consequential decisions later. In T20 International cricket, each team receives 1 unsuccessful review per innings. In ODI cricket, each team receives 2 unsuccessful reviews per innings.
Can a batsman review a decision if there is no ball-tracking available?
No — DRS LBW reviews require ball-tracking technology to be available at the ground. Some venues (particularly in smaller cricket-playing nations) do not have the full DRS infrastructure, and LBW reviews cannot be made at those venues. The ICC requires DRS for all ICC full-member international matches, but the specific technologies available vary — some venues have ball-tracking but not Snickometer (for edge detection), making LBW reviews possible but not bat-pad reviews. When specific DRS components are unavailable, the ICC issues specific rules for that series about which types of reviews are permissible.
What is 'soft signal' and how does it affect DRS?
When an umpire is uncertain about a fielding decision (typically a catch near the ground — was it clean or did it touch the ground?), they give a 'soft signal' before referring to the third umpire. The soft signal indicates the on-field umpire's leaning — 'soft signal: out' means the umpire thinks it was a clean catch. The third umpire then reviews available video. Crucially, the soft signal influences the DRS outcome: if the video cannot definitively determine the answer (inconclusive evidence), the soft signal stands as the outcome. This means an on-field umpire's 'soft signal out' that is reviewed but produces inconclusive video evidence results in 'out' — the soft signal's direction was used as the tiebreaker. The soft signal provision has been controversial, particularly when catches with borderline replays were upheld because the soft signal was 'out'.