ICC news

'Don't mind being proved wrong by DRS'

ESPNcricinfo staff

July 21, 2011

Comments: 5 | Text size: A | A

Stuart Broad shows his frustration after an lbw appeal is turned down by Tony Hill, Bangladesh v England, 2nd Test, Dhaka, March 23, 2010
Tony Hill: "Players tend to get on a hell of a lot better with each other when DRS is in use." © Getty Images
Enlarge

Umpire Tony Hill has said he doesn't mind being proved wrong by the DRS as long as the correct decision is arrived at. While the technology is not fully perfected yet, the concept is "magnificent", Hill said at a seminar for umpires in Nelson, New Zealand.

"I can see no reason why you can't be sitting in your lounge at home and see I'm wrong. I'd much rather have the decision right and get on with the game," Hill was quoted as saying by Stuff.co.nz. "I also find that the players tend to get on better with each other out on the paddock when DRS is in use, because the little niggles that can occur when a mistake's made, they're taken out of the game."

The hardest areas for umpires to judge, Hill said, are the "little fine edges down leg side off gloves". Hot Spot to help detect faint edges, along with Virtual Eye to help with lbw decisions, though not absolutely foolproof, are preferable to no assistance at all he said.

The ICC's new rule that abolishes runners, he said, makes sense since bowlers don't receive similar assistance. "The way [the ICC] have explained it, it does make some sense in that if a bowler gets injured, you can't replace him with another person to do the bowling. I think it has some merit.

"There'd be a few [batsmen] over the years, I'd imagine, who wouldn't have picked up hundreds without a runner coming out to help them get there. Nobody comes in for the poor old bowler to help him get his sixth wicket."

Hill, who has officiated in 23 Tests and 84 ODIs, has been part of the ICC's international panel since 1998 and the elite panel since 2009.

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Gizza on (July 23, 2011, 5:55 GMT)

@Cerren, exactly when a bowler pulls up lame in the middle of his over another bowler has to complete it. When a batsman gets injured another batsman doesn't complete his innings or whatever. The batsman still bats but does have it run. The equivalent is actually a second bowler running for the first. Let's use the current Eng vs Ind example. Imagine if Praveen Kumar would do his run up then he passes the ball to Zaheer Khan who then releases the ball as an outswinger. That doesn't obviously work. But that is the real equivalent of a runner for bowling. Case in point: Yesterday India had less options for bowling (Only 3). Same should happen for batsmen. They should RETIRE HURT. Actually for non-leg injuries they already retire hurt so what's so special about leg injuries anyway? Great words from Tony Hill btw.

Posted by   on (July 22, 2011, 10:07 GMT)

I only don't agree with the bowling statement. If a bowler pulls up lame in the middle of his over another bowler has to complete it. And for the duration of that game someone else generally is asked to put in some extra overs to help make up.... even persons who have never bowled at this level in their life. (case in point Kirk Edwards in the recently concluded series between India and West Indies)

Posted by Salim_123 on (July 22, 2011, 8:02 GMT)

Completely agree with him. Very valid points. BCCI should learn from it

Posted by xylo on (July 22, 2011, 4:56 GMT)

makes a lot of sense! had me nodding in agreement all along!

Posted by smhbkasemi on (July 21, 2011, 12:02 GMT)

I agreed with him. He seems to be one of the best umpires in near future. I like him.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days