India v Australia, 2nd Test, Hyderabad, 1st day March 2, 2013

When DRS is not DRS

ESPNcricinfo presents the plays of the day from the opening day in Hyderabad
  shares 38

Non-DRS review of the day
In a series without player reviews, it was a strange sight to see the third umpire checking for an edge on a close-in catch. But that was the scenario after Marais Erasmus asked for the TV official to check whether the ball had carried to silly point when Moises Henriques pushed at a Harbhajan Singh delivery. Under the ICC's Test match playing conditions, while an on-field umpire is meant to only ask for a review to check if a catch is clean, if in the process of doing so the third official sees that the ball was clearly not hit by the batsman, he can inform the on-field umpire. That was the case in this instance and Henriques was reprieved.

Miscount of the day
Erasmus was involved in another unusual occurrence earlier in the day when he appeared to call over following the fifth ball of the 19th over. Erasmus gave the bowler Ishant Sharma his cap and the players began to walk to their positions for the next over. But whether prompted by third-umpire intervention or simply his own realisation, Erasmus called Ishant back and corrected his error. The sixth ball was defended by Phillip Hughes without any drama.

Placement of the day
Michael Clarke's work against the spinners during this series has been exemplary but he has also shown his class against the seamers when given a chance. One particular shot during the 31st over of the innings was especially impressive. MS Dhoni had put in two catching men at short midwicket, standing just a few metres apart. But that didn't stop Clarke whipping the ball off his pads when Bhuvneshwar Kumar bowled too straight, and the ball bounced safely between the two men, either a feat of precision placement or luck. And given the form Clarke is in at the moment, it would be unfair to presume it was luck.

Presentation of the day
Another match, another baggy green presentation. In Chennai it was Henriques who made his Test debut and in Hyderabad it was Glenn Maxwell, brought in as one of two changes to the Australia side. Maxwell was given his cap by Matthew Hayden, who was commentating on the match. If the presenter was appropriate - one aggressive batsman to another - it was certainly incongruous to see Hayden do so in a jacket bearing the BCCI logo, as required for his commentary duties.

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Harmony111 on March 3, 2013, 5:49 GMT

    @Bob Young: Ref - "... it does not blink at inopportune moments..."

    In the recent SA-Pak test series and perhaps in the recent Eng-NZ ODI series, the Hot-spot had a no of off days for no specific reason. Are they not inopportune moments in your eyes?

    You really have little idea about DRS, its components, how each component works, what goes into their making etc. Your sweeping statement that "DRS does not make mistakes" shows your ignorance. DRS is by no means perfect. This is why they say it is umpire's call when the ball is shown to be clipping the stumps. Do you remember Phil Hughes' lbw in Aus-SL test in 2011? DRS was CLEARLY shown to be at fault there. Umpire Taufel and the maker both said that. So that takes care of your sweeping statements.

    1stly, DRS has its own inherent limitations and can go wrong. 2ndly, human error in operation is a possibility too.

    BOTH are possible.

    When it is blatantly wrong, we all can see it but what if the mistakes are tiny?

  • dan1234 on March 3, 2013, 3:47 GMT

    The reason the Indians don't want DRS is simple. They appeal after every delivery, eg. such as for LBW when it strikes the batsmen in line with 8th stump. With this excessive appealing, eventually the umpire will make a howler (out of exasperation) and the Indians don't want the batsmen to be able to appeal. Perhaps instead of DRS there could be a limit on frivolous appeals. Dhoni would burn through those in the first half of play.

  • TheBigBoodha on March 3, 2013, 1:52 GMT

    As for DRS, the Indians are never going to agree to it while they are on...ahem... such a good wicket. It's obvious that umpires are subconsciously influenced by the very partisan crowds and culture in India (which they are immersed in, even away from the game), and DRS would counter that advantage. Let the rest of the world get on with it, and leave the Indians in theirlittle bubble, in dark ages. And every time the Indian team leaves India to play offshore, the real world will come crashing down again.

  • TheBigBoodha on March 3, 2013, 1:48 GMT

    @Kapstif, you believe Australia's struggles have been caused by blooding new players? So, how would you explain all the successes, given that the team has been very successful under Clarke? In fact there has been far more success than "struggle" - 11 wins, 4 losses, and only one very narrow series loss so far. Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

  • farkin on March 3, 2013, 1:37 GMT

    why India don't like the drs is because they have no control over it at all

  • hycIass on March 2, 2013, 23:16 GMT

    I shudder to think of where we would be without Clarke. He's saved us far too often over the last 12 or so months. In a way it would have been better if he hadn't been so good during the last year as our fragile top order would have been deservedly axed long ago. And Guptill agree that its time to bring Khawaja in to the lineup. Also As the key batsman in the side, & the only class player, Clarke must bat at 4. His reluctance to do so is the only criticism I have of his captaincy to date.

  • xylo on March 2, 2013, 23:07 GMT

    One aggressive batsman to another? I believe by that definition, Harbhajan Singh is no different from Virender Sehwag, in that both are aggressive batsmen?

  • bumsonseats on March 2, 2013, 21:28 GMT

    to say the drs is not foolproof is correct, but then to say in the same breath you can accept an umpire mistake but not a so called drs mistake, if indeed it was.

  • Kapstif on March 2, 2013, 20:53 GMT

    Interesting reading about Hayden giving Maxwell his new baggy green today. Makes you wonder what a baggy green is really worth these days?

    Since the start of the 2009 Ashes Australia have handed out 23 new baggy greens! (England have handed out 11 new caps and South Africa 12 in the same period).

    When Ricky Ponting was handed his baggy green in 1995 it took approximately 8 years for the same number of baggies to be handed out.

    Without a doubt a clear sign of the struggles the Austealian side have had over the last few years.

  • Me_An_Indian_Cricket_Fan on March 2, 2013, 20:34 GMT

    India does not oppose DRS because it is not right 100% of times. The reason BCCI does not like DRS is because the camera feed and other technologies made available to the 3rd umpire are controlled by the production company who has the TV rights to the game.

    This means TV producer can hide a camera feed that would show the a batsman to be out if they wanted to do it on purpose. BCCI does not want to move the decision making from the hands of umpire to people who have commercial interest in the outcome of the game or how long it goes on.

    The reason BCCI does not say this out loud is they do not want to antagonize the producers who are responsible for most of their revenue.

    I am sure no cricket fan would have more faith in the cameraman than the on field umpires.

  • Harmony111 on March 3, 2013, 5:49 GMT

    @Bob Young: Ref - "... it does not blink at inopportune moments..."

    In the recent SA-Pak test series and perhaps in the recent Eng-NZ ODI series, the Hot-spot had a no of off days for no specific reason. Are they not inopportune moments in your eyes?

    You really have little idea about DRS, its components, how each component works, what goes into their making etc. Your sweeping statement that "DRS does not make mistakes" shows your ignorance. DRS is by no means perfect. This is why they say it is umpire's call when the ball is shown to be clipping the stumps. Do you remember Phil Hughes' lbw in Aus-SL test in 2011? DRS was CLEARLY shown to be at fault there. Umpire Taufel and the maker both said that. So that takes care of your sweeping statements.

    1stly, DRS has its own inherent limitations and can go wrong. 2ndly, human error in operation is a possibility too.

    BOTH are possible.

    When it is blatantly wrong, we all can see it but what if the mistakes are tiny?

  • dan1234 on March 3, 2013, 3:47 GMT

    The reason the Indians don't want DRS is simple. They appeal after every delivery, eg. such as for LBW when it strikes the batsmen in line with 8th stump. With this excessive appealing, eventually the umpire will make a howler (out of exasperation) and the Indians don't want the batsmen to be able to appeal. Perhaps instead of DRS there could be a limit on frivolous appeals. Dhoni would burn through those in the first half of play.

  • TheBigBoodha on March 3, 2013, 1:52 GMT

    As for DRS, the Indians are never going to agree to it while they are on...ahem... such a good wicket. It's obvious that umpires are subconsciously influenced by the very partisan crowds and culture in India (which they are immersed in, even away from the game), and DRS would counter that advantage. Let the rest of the world get on with it, and leave the Indians in theirlittle bubble, in dark ages. And every time the Indian team leaves India to play offshore, the real world will come crashing down again.

  • TheBigBoodha on March 3, 2013, 1:48 GMT

    @Kapstif, you believe Australia's struggles have been caused by blooding new players? So, how would you explain all the successes, given that the team has been very successful under Clarke? In fact there has been far more success than "struggle" - 11 wins, 4 losses, and only one very narrow series loss so far. Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

  • farkin on March 3, 2013, 1:37 GMT

    why India don't like the drs is because they have no control over it at all

  • hycIass on March 2, 2013, 23:16 GMT

    I shudder to think of where we would be without Clarke. He's saved us far too often over the last 12 or so months. In a way it would have been better if he hadn't been so good during the last year as our fragile top order would have been deservedly axed long ago. And Guptill agree that its time to bring Khawaja in to the lineup. Also As the key batsman in the side, & the only class player, Clarke must bat at 4. His reluctance to do so is the only criticism I have of his captaincy to date.

  • xylo on March 2, 2013, 23:07 GMT

    One aggressive batsman to another? I believe by that definition, Harbhajan Singh is no different from Virender Sehwag, in that both are aggressive batsmen?

  • bumsonseats on March 2, 2013, 21:28 GMT

    to say the drs is not foolproof is correct, but then to say in the same breath you can accept an umpire mistake but not a so called drs mistake, if indeed it was.

  • Kapstif on March 2, 2013, 20:53 GMT

    Interesting reading about Hayden giving Maxwell his new baggy green today. Makes you wonder what a baggy green is really worth these days?

    Since the start of the 2009 Ashes Australia have handed out 23 new baggy greens! (England have handed out 11 new caps and South Africa 12 in the same period).

    When Ricky Ponting was handed his baggy green in 1995 it took approximately 8 years for the same number of baggies to be handed out.

    Without a doubt a clear sign of the struggles the Austealian side have had over the last few years.

  • Me_An_Indian_Cricket_Fan on March 2, 2013, 20:34 GMT

    India does not oppose DRS because it is not right 100% of times. The reason BCCI does not like DRS is because the camera feed and other technologies made available to the 3rd umpire are controlled by the production company who has the TV rights to the game.

    This means TV producer can hide a camera feed that would show the a batsman to be out if they wanted to do it on purpose. BCCI does not want to move the decision making from the hands of umpire to people who have commercial interest in the outcome of the game or how long it goes on.

    The reason BCCI does not say this out loud is they do not want to antagonize the producers who are responsible for most of their revenue.

    I am sure no cricket fan would have more faith in the cameraman than the on field umpires.

  • shiv_mishra on March 2, 2013, 20:17 GMT

    I was a supporter of DRS, untill world cup when Bell was adjudged Not Out. How many tests of DRS has been done on subcontinental pitches? Is 2.5 meter criteria arrived solely based on tests on English and Australian pitches? I don't know answer to these questions, but i would like to see DRS team discussing these questions as well.

  • SanjivAwesome on March 2, 2013, 18:43 GMT

    Lots of DRS posts with a certain bias. Again. If you believe all such posters, then it means all the historically major countries' pre-DRS performances were questionable due to a century of human umpiring biases that must have occurred. Let us wipe the slate clean of such tarnished histroical achievements of Lindwal, Lever and Lawson.

  • on March 2, 2013, 18:01 GMT

    bobmartin - While I applaud you for being pro-DRS, I have to say your suggestion is a bit silly. India has a problem with the use of technology, whether it is in the hands of the umpires or the players. So your solution won't work for them. Also, they know that without DRS they anyway get more decisions in their favour thanks the umpires not wanting to rub the economic powerhouse of cricket the wrong way. So really, no hope for DRS, even if it's 100% accurate

  • TamilIndian on March 2, 2013, 18:01 GMT

    The Clarke shot splitting the two fielders was really nice to watch.

  • kumarcoolbuddy on March 2, 2013, 16:57 GMT

    @Experienceisoverrated, how can you calculate the percentage of errors corrected before and after DRS. You are just thinking only in current situation. When DRS is not used you feel DRS that would have helped in correcting umpiring errrors. But if DRS technology is not proper then instead of correcting the umpiring errors it might create new errors. You never know until experience. So percentage of errors might stay same or increase with new errors in DRS.

  • on March 2, 2013, 16:32 GMT

    I guess DRS has two issues at a time. Service provider wants to charge heavily to cricket boards for their low quality product.That's the reason India is against this low quality product.One gentleman is saying some 10% and 20%figure. How find that DRS has 10% errors, I guess with your naked eye. So which system is better you can guess easily?2nd thing if we will fix the no. of decision only go for third Empire that shows in the past that one is also not a good system it helps one team who's captain is clever or smarter than other team.In my opinion game should be left on Empires judgment and whenever they feel not confident should call technology for verification. This will save time and charm of human error also.

  • on March 2, 2013, 16:24 GMT

    I dont know why should there be a third umpire. Umpires should have mini Ipads/tablets or wide screen smartphones in-hand to quickly review the decision with replays and make a judgement on the field. THat will make DRS cost effective as it cuts down one unneccessary umpire.

  • Crik_Fan on March 2, 2013, 15:27 GMT

    @Fazald, It is time for you to realise that DRS is not a stick to beat India. If you question results of match based on whether or not the DRS was used in a match than the victories of your team when DRS was not available are also questionable. The benefits of using or not using DRS can not go to one team. Your claim of 'so many LBW going in favour of India' is both prepostrous and slanderous. Watch the replays again. Umpiring was excellent and no decision made by them was challenged by anyone. It is funny that on one hand you claim that India is reaping the benefit of not using DRS, and on the other "India can't eat the cake and keep the cake and should suffer the consequences for not agreeing to use the DRS". So use or no use has equal implications for both teams and offers no advantages to a particular team. You got to find better ways to trivialize India's win to console yourself.

  • Experienceisoverrated on March 2, 2013, 15:17 GMT

    Anti-DRS people are really ridiculous. According to them, its better to have 20% of the decisions wrong without technology rather than only 10% wrong with technology unless technology can make it 0%.

  • tickcric on March 2, 2013, 14:53 GMT

    In the Henriques case one would have expected the commentators to discuss and explain whether the umpire can ask for the review or not. How the commentators (BCCI approved) keep total mum about DRS is really shocking. It is as if the word, 'review' is an absolute no-no for them! Be it 50-50 decisions or even howlers they are just mum. Most often they try to discuss as little as possible about umpiring errors. Mostly they would dilute the issue by trying to prove how 'close' it appeared in real time or how the umpire 'got it right' even when there is clear evidence of doubt! So pathetic to see.

  • gsingh7 on March 2, 2013, 14:27 GMT

    how can third umpire tell if it was a snick? , no drs available to him, it should have stayed out since onfield gave out and catch was clean. bcci need to look in this matter as often they are biasly treated due to non drs stand.

  • bobmartin on March 2, 2013, 14:26 GMT

    Firstly I'll admit to being pro-DRS.. Having said that, it would appear to me that the ICC have a way around the current veto on it's use in any match involving India.. As someone else has already said... take it out of the players hands and give the on-field umpires the sole licence to use it or not in coming to a decision. That way it will give India what they want, ie all decisions taken by the on-field umpires, and give the pro-DRS fans and most players what they want, less incorrect decsions. Simples.

  • on March 2, 2013, 14:20 GMT

    i don't understand why does the icc have to tinker with the game so much! what is wrong with the old fashioned review in the umpires' hands when they could refer any dismissal to the third umpire about which they weren't sure? the drs should be taken out of the players' hands and put it back into the umpires' and they can use whatever technology that they have at their disposal to give the correct decision.

  • bipulkumar on March 2, 2013, 14:19 GMT

    I hear large number of controversies on Series where DRS has been used. For example, SA and Pak series, even when the test matches were pretty much one sided. DRS is also not accurate because the person who gives the judgement based on technology is also human.

  • fazald on March 2, 2013, 14:05 GMT

    At last the selectors have made the right decision to drop spinner Lyon from the team for the second test only after the horse has already bolted. I think it's now too late "cos the damage is already done while in the middle of the test series against India and the ashes series in England to follow in July. This decision should have been made soon after the series against South africa last November where Lyon failed to win the match for on a spinners wicket in Adelaide and there was ample time to try out another spinner. While the team was chopped and changed by the so called rotation policy no thought was given to groom another spinner and Lyon was given the license to continue whether he performed or not. While the leading spinner in the Sheffield Shield this season Steve O'Keefe is left to ponder his future at home how come Lyon, Doherty, Smith and Maxwell who put together have taken the same number of wickets were selected? This is really sheer incompetency on the part of selec

  • gazelle79 on March 2, 2013, 13:58 GMT

    @fazald , were you watching the same match that everyone else was ? Australia got far more calls in their favour than India did . The only change in result that could have happened was that India might have won by an innings if DRS was in place . FYI the third umpire is not synonymous with DRS . He can be approached by the onfield umpires to give his opinion on many close decisions , not just dismissals . The umpires went by the rules , so there was no question of benefit or not for any team .

  • landl47 on March 2, 2013, 13:41 GMT

    Once again I see we have the usual comments that from fans who, like the BCCI, are not interested in getting the best possible decision, even if a wrong decision may be critical to the outcome of a match or to a player's career. On what basis these people think of themselves as sportsmen I have no idea.

    On the other hand, there is the comment from Bharat Kumar Jaiswal, which in two very simple sentences sums up the whole issue and the way it should be resolved. Leave the decisions in the hands of the umpires, using whatever technology the host country has provded them with to help them. Scrap the DRS guessing game and give the authority to make decsions back to the umpires, recognizing that if technology would help them and is available, they are free to use it.

    Bravo, Bharat.

  • fazald on March 2, 2013, 13:15 GMT

    Since India is not in favour of the DRS this catch shouldn't have been refered to the third umpire for his decision and the umpire should give the decision in favour of the batsman if he wasn't quite sure whether the catch was taken cleanly. Eventually it was found that Moses Henriques had not even nicked the ball. If the decision was given in India's favour no doubt they would have had the last laugh. In such instances if the umpire is not sure the benefit of the doubt should go towards the team that is in favour of the DRS. In the first test there were so many LBW decisions that went in favour of India. If the DRS was in use the result could have been different. No doubt India is reaping the benefit of not using the DRS in India especially with their strong spin bowling attack on turning wickets while depriving other teams that are in favour of the use of the DRS. Surely India can't eat the cake and keep the cake and should suffer the consequences for not agreeing to use the DRS.

  • bumsonseats on March 2, 2013, 13:01 GMT

    i am of the opinion that it should not have been used. the 3rd umpire does not the technology to see correctly. the umpire asked ( why i am not sure as it was held ) did it carry.the DRS is not in use so he should have simply asked did it carry when he was told it had then the he was out. i am in favour of the DRS but this to me was above the remit of the 3rd umpire. he had no snicko or hot spot to fall back on.

  • HatsforBats on March 2, 2013, 12:57 GMT

    If a national cricket board deems DRS technology unreliable it seems ridiculous that they are able to gain the benefit of umpires independently using technology to determine the legitimacy of an appeal. Cowan (pitching outside) & Watson (outside off) have every right to feel aggrieved. Very glad that the Henriques replay showed the appeal to be missing leg and any relevant contact by a substantial margin.

  • on March 2, 2013, 12:47 GMT

    Q: Who is Australia's Best Opener, Middle-Order Batsman, and Tail-Ender?

    A: Michael Clarke.

  • on March 2, 2013, 12:38 GMT

    Maxwell came out to bat in his baggy green as well, looking quite Bradman-esque I must say. Pity he didn't bat like him too - though I suppose it's early days.

  • fazald on March 2, 2013, 12:21 GMT

    Once again it was a fighting innings by captain Michael Clarke untill he messed up everything at the end of the day by his poor judgement trying to palm over the strike to the tail enders who were clueless against the spinners after Maxwell was dismissed. In the process he not only failed to score his century but also deprived Australia of adding more runs to the total. I am sure he would have remained not out at the end of the day. The stroke he played while trying to race to his century was his worst in the whole innings. Surely he should have tried to remain at the wicket at the end of the day and taken a leaf from Dhoni's innings in the first test which added over 200 runs for the last three wickets which helped India win the match.The declaration no doubt was least expected since the writing is already on the wall for another defeat in this test match.

  • on March 2, 2013, 12:19 GMT

    You got it so wrong Brydon. The rule clearly says if third umpire has been referred to whether catch has been taken cleanly or not, he can give the batsman not out if he finds batsman had not hit the ball. Below is as defined by ICC: The third umpire has to determine whether the ball was a bump ball or not. However, in reviewing the television replay(s), the third umpire shall first check the fairness of the delivery (fair delivery - the feet) and whether the batsman has hit the ball. If the delivery was not a fair delivery or if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball he shall indicate that the batsman is not out and, in the case of an unfair delivery, advise the on-field umpire to signal no ball.

  • suhail1988 on March 2, 2013, 12:18 GMT

    if clarke doesnt play in the top 4..then this series is a lost cause for australia already!!

  • rohanbala on March 2, 2013, 12:13 GMT

    When the BCCI does not want the DRS, I feel the onfield umpire should have given his decision on his own instinct (whether in favour of the batsmen or otherwise) rather than asking for a review from the 3rd umpire. Was the decision referred to by the on field umpire to save himself from embarrassment?

  • guptahitesh4u on March 2, 2013, 11:46 GMT

    Clarke deserves a huge round of applauds ..he batted like a lone warrior...really, Australia needs to find a more consistent batsman in top four ..neither of Warner,Cowan, Hughes, watson are consistent. I feel, clarke should bat at no. until they don't find another good batsman.

  • on March 2, 2013, 11:35 GMT

    in my point of view. there is no harm in taking the help of technology by umpires. DRS is a facility for player to challenge umpires decision. I think both are different things.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on March 2, 2013, 11:35 GMT

    in my point of view. there is no harm in taking the help of technology by umpires. DRS is a facility for player to challenge umpires decision. I think both are different things.

  • guptahitesh4u on March 2, 2013, 11:46 GMT

    Clarke deserves a huge round of applauds ..he batted like a lone warrior...really, Australia needs to find a more consistent batsman in top four ..neither of Warner,Cowan, Hughes, watson are consistent. I feel, clarke should bat at no. until they don't find another good batsman.

  • rohanbala on March 2, 2013, 12:13 GMT

    When the BCCI does not want the DRS, I feel the onfield umpire should have given his decision on his own instinct (whether in favour of the batsmen or otherwise) rather than asking for a review from the 3rd umpire. Was the decision referred to by the on field umpire to save himself from embarrassment?

  • suhail1988 on March 2, 2013, 12:18 GMT

    if clarke doesnt play in the top 4..then this series is a lost cause for australia already!!

  • on March 2, 2013, 12:19 GMT

    You got it so wrong Brydon. The rule clearly says if third umpire has been referred to whether catch has been taken cleanly or not, he can give the batsman not out if he finds batsman had not hit the ball. Below is as defined by ICC: The third umpire has to determine whether the ball was a bump ball or not. However, in reviewing the television replay(s), the third umpire shall first check the fairness of the delivery (fair delivery - the feet) and whether the batsman has hit the ball. If the delivery was not a fair delivery or if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball he shall indicate that the batsman is not out and, in the case of an unfair delivery, advise the on-field umpire to signal no ball.

  • fazald on March 2, 2013, 12:21 GMT

    Once again it was a fighting innings by captain Michael Clarke untill he messed up everything at the end of the day by his poor judgement trying to palm over the strike to the tail enders who were clueless against the spinners after Maxwell was dismissed. In the process he not only failed to score his century but also deprived Australia of adding more runs to the total. I am sure he would have remained not out at the end of the day. The stroke he played while trying to race to his century was his worst in the whole innings. Surely he should have tried to remain at the wicket at the end of the day and taken a leaf from Dhoni's innings in the first test which added over 200 runs for the last three wickets which helped India win the match.The declaration no doubt was least expected since the writing is already on the wall for another defeat in this test match.

  • on March 2, 2013, 12:38 GMT

    Maxwell came out to bat in his baggy green as well, looking quite Bradman-esque I must say. Pity he didn't bat like him too - though I suppose it's early days.

  • on March 2, 2013, 12:47 GMT

    Q: Who is Australia's Best Opener, Middle-Order Batsman, and Tail-Ender?

    A: Michael Clarke.

  • HatsforBats on March 2, 2013, 12:57 GMT

    If a national cricket board deems DRS technology unreliable it seems ridiculous that they are able to gain the benefit of umpires independently using technology to determine the legitimacy of an appeal. Cowan (pitching outside) & Watson (outside off) have every right to feel aggrieved. Very glad that the Henriques replay showed the appeal to be missing leg and any relevant contact by a substantial margin.

  • bumsonseats on March 2, 2013, 13:01 GMT

    i am of the opinion that it should not have been used. the 3rd umpire does not the technology to see correctly. the umpire asked ( why i am not sure as it was held ) did it carry.the DRS is not in use so he should have simply asked did it carry when he was told it had then the he was out. i am in favour of the DRS but this to me was above the remit of the 3rd umpire. he had no snicko or hot spot to fall back on.