India v Australia, 1st Test, Chennai, 1st day

An edge the umpire missed

Plays of the Day from the first day of the first Test between India and Australia in Chennai

Brydon Coverdale

February 22, 2013

Comments: 77 | Text size: A | A

Michael Clarke drives on his way to fifty, India v Australia, 1st Test, Chennai, 1st day, February 22, 2013
Michael Clarke went on to make a hundred after getting a life on 39 © BCCI
Enlarge
Related Links

Edge of the day
Test matches can turn on moments like this. Shortly before tea, when Michael Clarke and Moises Henriques were rebuilding Australia's innings, R Ashwin should have had his sixth wicket when Clarke, on 39, pushed forward and inside-edged onto his leg and up to the fielder at bat-pad. Vociferous appeals from the Indians were unable to sway the ICC's Umpire of the Year Kumar Dharmasena, who ruled not out as Clarke nonchalantly re-marked his guard and settled in for a longer stay. With no DRS in place, there was nothing India could do about the decision, which saved Australia from becoming 206 for 6.

Drop of the day
India could consider themselves unlucky not to have had Clarke, but they had nobody to blame but themselves earlier in the day for allowing David Warner a life. On 18, Warner was beaten in flight by Ashwin and his edge sailed towards Virender Sehwag at slip. But Sehwag's reflexes deserted him and he didn't manage to get his hands in the right position, spilling the chance and giving Warner what proved to be a somewhat costly reprieve. Warner went on to make 59.

Unexpected six of the day
If a market had been framed for the first Australian to hit a six in this Test series, Ed Cowan might have been the ninth or tenth favourite. In a two-way market between Cowan and his opening partner Warner, Cowan would have still been a massive long-shot. So it was quite a surprise to see that when a batsman advanced to Harbhajan Singh and lofted the ball cleanly over the long-off boundary early in the day's play, it was not Warner but Cowan who had taken the risk. Unfortunately for Cowan, a second attempt at a similar stroke off Ashwin brought about his downfall.

Caps of the day
On a pitch that was clearly going to favour the spinners, it was interesting that both teams named medium-pacers to make their Test debuts. Moises Henriques became the second Portugal-born Test cricketer after the South African Dick Westcott and received his baggy green from Steve Rixon, the former Australia wicketkeeper and current assistant coach. Bhuvneshwar Kumar collected his cap from his team-mate and the only other seamer in the Indian outfit, Ishant Sharma.

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

RSS Feeds: Brydon Coverdale

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (February 23, 2013, 6:46 GMT)

If any player is wrongly given out by the umpire, he is supposed to walk silently. similarly it is true other way around. In long run it gets balanced in one's career as he may get decisions in both ways.

Posted by PASindu_M_bandara on (February 23, 2013, 6:40 GMT)

drop of the day was by far the worst nightmare for indian fans

Posted by   on (February 23, 2013, 5:07 GMT)

ICC should give the licence to the fielders and captains for 3rd umpire review directly against the field umpires whenever there is a wrong decision and same also for a batsman. Another point of view it is australia spirit that clarke had not left the field.if it is sachin he must left the crease whether India wins or not.lack of spirit in Aussies.

Posted by Sooryan_Indian on (February 23, 2013, 4:20 GMT)

i feel that a gentleman is not captaining the aussies in a gentleman's game. no great player will show such a pathetic behaviour when he clearly know that he is out. behaviours like this calssifies a good player and a great player. gilchrist, sachin, hussey etc are some that i can think of who never behaved or acted like this after getting out... DRS, BCCI, ICC are all in discussion for obvious reasons because they couldn't provide a permanat and easier solution.

Posted by PACERONE on (February 23, 2013, 3:55 GMT)

All of these conversations could be avoided if cricketers were more honest.They appeal for almost ever situation that an out could be given.they must surely know the rules of getting out. eg You cannot be caught off your hip.It was good to FAF walk before the umpire gave him out.Zimbawbe batsman also walked before the umpire raised his finger.Clarke stayed and re-marked his guard.LBW decisions you have to wait for.

Posted by swamistyle on (February 23, 2013, 3:47 GMT)

If only there was some sort of SYSTEM in place where modern technology could help the umpire REVIEW a DECISION? We could call the system SRD or even DRS? And then that way howlers made by bad umpiring could be eliminated? Maybe some of the bloggers on this page, especially some of the geniuses from India, could think up such a system? To help, I believe they could look at some countries outside of India (it's true, some do exist!) that might have already thought up such a system? I am only thinking of India's best interests, of course, as I would hate to see another Sydneygate. Imagine Tendulkar wrongly given out because of "the glorious uncertainties of cricket umpiring". That would be a crying shame. If only there was such a system.....

Posted by   on (February 23, 2013, 1:44 GMT)

@Mr_Ronan, did you watch the match or what? Both Watson and Henriques were plumb LBW. The only bad decision today was Clarke's. Hopefully India will have their share of luck when they bat.

Posted by aewahid on (February 22, 2013, 23:23 GMT)

India deserves every bad call they get, given the BCCI's unilateral position on the DRS. But at the end of the day, count em up, and I'd be willing to bet, India more than breaks even with the game-changing calls going in their favor.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 23:23 GMT)

Lets not give teams unlimited reviews, otherwise every time a bowler thinks they could have the batsmen out, they will review it, likewise, everything the batsmen thinks he may escape being out, they'll review it .... and you'll end up having double, triple, the reviews you have now. With regards to Clarke not walking, every batsmen is in their right to wait for the umpires decision before leaving the crease. I remembered once when Gilly walked and it was later revealed that he actually wasn't out. Can the Indian supporters here saying Clarke should have walked, say with 100% accuracy that any of their players would have walked if they knew they were out.

Posted by UJ_Sydney on (February 22, 2013, 23:12 GMT)

I agree with other comments that technology MUST be used in cricket. Its being used in so many sports, like Rugby, Tennis, etc. And, of course, DRS is used in Australia for a long time and with excellent results. If cost is an issue that's another issue - something I am sure can be resolved in this multi-million dollar industry that is cricket. As lovers of this sport we all want to see correct decisions are made and that is paramount.

Posted by Mitcher on (February 22, 2013, 22:56 GMT)

There is a simple reason why we haves limited reviews. So teams who always think they're hard done by and never think they're out (let's use, say, India for example) can't constantly challenge every decision, slowing the game to snails pace. If you run out of challenges then you're clearly not using the system as it was designed - to get rid of howlers - and it serves you right to run out of challenges.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 22:53 GMT)

@Mitcher - You are probably the only person to think Watson dismissal is suspect.. Even Watson would agree he is out!

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 22:35 GMT)

It is absurd that DRS, hot spot and slo mo are not all used. Tech should also be allowed to totally OVERRULE the umpire.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 22, 2013, 22:10 GMT)

And also, the rules for LBWs need to change. There should be nothing like 'pitched outside the leg-stump can't be given out LBW'. The rule of 'notout if not hit in-line with stumps when offering a shot', has to change. If the ball is going to hit the stumps, the batsman is out. It should be simple. There should be some plausible logic for rules. Haven't we seen balls pitching outside leg stump and going and hitting the stumps? If the pad intervenes, then the same delivery would have been a dot ball or leg-byes. How can one make sense of it all? Of course, if the umpire fails to conclude that the ball is going to hit the stumps because of enormous turn or hitting so much outside the stumps that he simply can't judge properly whether the ball is going to hit the stumps or not, then obviously he will judge the batsmen notout. But there shouldn't be obsolete rules that prohibit him from judging the batsmen out irrespective of where the ball pitches and whether it hits him in line or not.

Posted by IndianSRTfan on (February 22, 2013, 21:49 GMT)

There seems to be a lot of debate about DRS (as usual). Somehow I feel this debate becomes more important than cricket played on the field by every passing game. I agree BCCI are usually a obdurate bunch determined to have their way. However having seen Hotspot's performance in the ongoing SA-PAK series, I say it is too unreliable. Ball tracking has too many variables too. BCCI and ICC need to find some middle ground here. I agree Slow-Mo cameras are exceptional and can be used along with Snicko. How about a simpler solution? Increase role of the third umpire who assists decision making only when called for deciding run outs. Give him authority to overturn or review decisions which can be termed as howlers even without either on-field umps or players requesting a review. He can use technology (Not hotspot or ball tracking but other ones agreed to be reliable). And if howlers are not corrected penalize Third Ump first. That should ensure he's more active.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 21:40 GMT)

Why do we complain about who is out or not out! As I said before if we do not want to get out of stone age and use modern technology we must abide with the umpires decision without complaint. Its time ICC make DRS mandatory for all playing nations, those who do not want to comply, suchh as India should be penalized. They are slowing down the fairness of the game. By the way even umpires are already relying heavily on DRS.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 21:07 GMT)

Why don't we get just the Slo mo, hawk eye and snickometer for the Third Umpire and then leave it to him for decision just like Stumping and Run outs. Why do we need fully automated answer by DRS. 70-80% or may be more can be resolved just by watching slow mo etc reviewed by third umpire when asked. You can limit the number of reviews same way to 2 or 3 per team per innings in order to save time.

Posted by Solar_Rex on (February 22, 2013, 20:55 GMT)

One thing DRS does impact is to keep Umpire honest, who knowing that they can't be blatantly biased, will be a little more diligent. But what I don't get is, why limit DRS to certain # of review per innings as that makes DRS totally meaningless in my book. If a team is using DRS indiscriminately, then they can be penalized in the same manner as slow over rate or adding certain number of runs even hitting them where it hurts the most.

Posted by shillingsworth on (February 22, 2013, 20:51 GMT)

@Dravid Gravitas - Not sure which of the multiple questions I'm supposed to be answering. In short, the ICC haven't proposed DRS minus Hotspot and Hawkeye and I agree it's time they did. The BCCI haven't either and it's also time they did. I'm not bashing the BCCI, I just despair of the 'my national board right or wrong' attitude. 'So listen', you say. How about you listening more and lecturing less?

Posted by Mitcher on (February 22, 2013, 20:43 GMT)

Having watched the day one coverage I am much more well informed on why some Indian fans only ever think India get bad decisions. The BCCI sponsored commentators give very short shrift to any that go against visitors. Barely a word about watson's dubious dismissal yet an inquiry into clarke's not out.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 22, 2013, 20:40 GMT)

It's sad to see that lot of people are misled into believing that this is DRS vs BCCI or BCCI vs technology. It is not, let me say it earnestly. It is DRS vs it's contents. DRS (or any other fancy name) SHOULD be used to eliminate howlers (great if we can have a system which can help with the marginal calls) with the help of the available fantastic technology of slo-mos. BCCI or any logical fan cannot be against slo-mos for runouts. Can we? And aren't slo-mo replays technology? I'm against the present contents of DRS. I'm not against technology. And yes, I'm against science projects in cricket. Especially, hot-spot was for military use to track tankers and such stuff. The heat produced by them is enormous. The heat produced in cricket is miniscule when a delivery, especially from a pacer, brushes faintly with the bat. It is not yet there to be used as a tool to judge right from wrong. You must be a stupid to spend 6,000 to 10,000 USD per day on it. ICC SHOULD answer.

Posted by frozeninusa on (February 22, 2013, 20:13 GMT)

Why are people blaming India for umpire's mistake. DRS or no DRS, the error was made by the umpire. You can't justify poor umpiring on the absence of DRS. It is like saying one is justified in committing theft if there is no policing in the area.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 22, 2013, 20:04 GMT)

I have no problem with Clarke not walking. He is well within the rules. Are the bowlers going to show 'spirit' and not appeal for his dismissal when they know that he is notout? The bowlers and fielders are also well within the rules to appeal every now and then when there is some action on the pitch. So leave the discussion about honesty and 'spirit'. Shall we? The bigger question is: What is preventing ICC from proposing that DRS be used with the available lovely technology of slo-mos? What is it with ICC and ECB that they are insisting hot-spot and tracker be part of DRS? BCCI should sure use their muscle to bring DRS with the available technology and keep the science projects out. IF the intention is to keep cricket clean and try to eliminate howlers why is it unacceptable for ICC and ECB to have DRS without the science projects? Their obsession seems to be with having science projects than trying to keep cricket clean. Their behaviour is very poor to say the least. Shame!

Posted by Mr_Ronan on (February 22, 2013, 20:01 GMT)

LISTEN UP....If DRS was in use nether Watson nor Henriques would have been out. So that's 2 decisions that hurt Australia vs one which hurt India (Clarke). And anyone claiming Clarke should have walked has got their head in an intimate place...since when do batsmen have to walk? In almost every Test some batsmen edges it and doesn't get given out, yet somehow Clarke's committed some sort of heinous crime? Get a grip.

Posted by TommytuckerSaffa on (February 22, 2013, 19:51 GMT)

Move out of the stone-age and get DRS. its getting embarrassing.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 22, 2013, 19:49 GMT)

@clarke501, there you go again! Answer my question first. How did we come to know that Clarke edged it? It sure is not with the help of hot-spot. Let's stop the discussion then and there and read what Andrew Busch had to say. Can't agree more with him. Let's stop wasting hours bitching about bad decisions and let us stop bashing BCCI when the logical solution is to question ICC or BCCI or whoever it is as to what is their objection to slo-mo? Did you ever hear ICC saying, "Ok, let's have DRS sans hot-spot and tracker" and BCCI opposing such a move? So, listen. Stop your insularity of bashing BCCI without any evidence. Question: Why is ICC making it an all or none phenomenon, like if there is no hot-spot and tracker then there is no DRS? A little bit of patience clearly tells us that DRS should be used with slo-mos IF the intention indeed IS to cut down on howlers. The intentions of ICC and ECB don't look like they are genuinely interested in howler reduction.

Posted by Adoh on (February 22, 2013, 19:43 GMT)

All decisions have consequences. The decision not to use DRS, the decision to use it. The decision to give Clarke not out when he was actually out, the decsion to give Henriques out when the ball hit him outside the line. The umpiring in this game so far I can see has been below par, but at least it's been consitently below par. It's ony when there's apparent bias in umpiring decisions that I start to worry.

Posted by 777aditya on (February 22, 2013, 19:38 GMT)

Bring back Gilly!

Posted by anto12 on (February 22, 2013, 18:58 GMT)

Andrew Symonds was given not out in Sydney,when Slo-Mo's clearly showed that he was caught behind, during India's tour of Aus in 2007.We all know what happened after that.I hope the same thing does not happen again.

BCCI and ICC should sincerely think of implementing UDRS,without the contentious Ball tracking Technology and Hot Spot on a uniform basis.

Posted by goldeneye075 on (February 22, 2013, 18:56 GMT)

No edge would have been missed if DRS was used :-) :-) ;-) :D

Posted by fireballer on (February 22, 2013, 18:37 GMT)

Batsmen need to walk when they know they hit it. Simple as that.Technology can take care of the rest.Batters nowadays have no shame nor decency. Where have all the walkers gone.It's something coaches need to incukcate in their young charges.

Posted by PJ_DEL_BOS on (February 22, 2013, 17:36 GMT)

As much as we all love this debate, we all know that DRS, even though it might falter at times, is much more accurate than an on-field umpire. Having said this, I am one of those conservatives who feel that cricket shouldn't change so much as it does today (the evidence being all the law-tampering the ICC indulges in). Traditionally, umpires used to run the game and were infallible at least during the course of the game; now they are looked down upon if they commit an error. I believe that taking that essential human element out of the game is something cricket will find detrimental in the long run. However, I do feel that if DRS must be implemented, it has to be uniformly done in all bilateral series, regardless of one board saying 'nay' to that.

Posted by Baseball-Sucks on (February 22, 2013, 17:29 GMT)

Well, A lot of comments has been made here regarding Clarke's decision. For me he was not NOT OUT coz Umpire gave him NOT OUT. It doesn't matter what TV replays show. If Indian players thought it was a howler, they should have referred it to the 3rd umpire. OH I'M SORRY ... THEY DON"T USE DRS. The funny thing is that BCCI think they are smarter than everyone else n refuse to use DRS. At the same time India are getting howlers from umpires left to right. :)). So All I have to say : NO DRS - NO PROBLEM :))

Posted by sensible-indian-fan on (February 22, 2013, 17:16 GMT)

Honestly speaking, it makes me sick that we all have to fight about DRS when there is a simple solution at hand. The Solution is Decision Review System with existing technology. Let's use the existing technology to review decisions and then let the third umpire make the call. No increase in costs. All howlers eliminated. I mean, how complicated is this logic to understand? Why can't all the boards in this world implement this? Surely there must be something that makes ECB, PCB, CA, CSA want DRS (with all the crazy Hotspot, etc involved) and something that prevents BCCI from bringing up this alternative solution. Somebody (anybody), please enlighten me with a well written, logical answer.

Posted by GrindAR on (February 22, 2013, 17:07 GMT)

@ThatsJustCricket:DRS would fill-in only for LBW decisions. For everything else, the traditional methods are well effective. DRS uses nothing close to better LBW decisions. People believe what the see in screen about the travel path of the ball produced by DRS is what is going to be real. But the trajectory is created based on some assumed metrics, which in realtime make no sense. For e.g: it does not count wind speed and direction that will affect the trajectory. This one loop hole is enough to disqualify the DRS.

Posted by SnowSnake on (February 22, 2013, 17:04 GMT)

It is nice that DRS is not used. This way we can find who is a good Umpire and who is not. Over time bad umpires can be fired and good ones can be retained.

Posted by GrindAR on (February 22, 2013, 16:59 GMT)

Umpires are human.... They review 90*6=540 deliveries a day, at the least. Close call are always hard. There are instances, where the low hits touched the ground at batsman's end, that appeared like straight out of bat, when caught were given out.

In general, the batsman is seen as attacked by many, like 1 vs 11 situation, right? Benefit of doubt goes to batsman, as the fielding team can produce another chance if the batsman is weak in the same area, but a batsman will not have another chance in the same innings... what ever we say, that is the truth and rules are written based on that.

On field umpires must be assisted by third umpires... to help on-field umpires. In the case under discussion, the umpire did not make any mistake, he gave the benefit of doubt to the batsman as required by rules :-)

Posted by GrindAR on (February 22, 2013, 16:49 GMT)

Umpires are human.... They review 90*6=540 deliveries a day, at the least. Close call are always hard. There are instances, where the low hits touched the ground at batsman's end, that appeared like straight out of bat, when caught were given out.

In general, the batsman is seen as attacked by many, like 1 vs 11 situation, right? Benefit of doubt goes to batsman, as the fielding team can produce another chance if the batsman is weak in the same area, but a batsman will not have another chance in the same innings... what ever we say, that is the truth and rules are written based on that.

On field umpires must be assisted by third umpires... to help on-field umpires. In the case under discussion, the umpire did not make any mistake, he gave the benefit of doubt to the batsman as required by rules :-)

Posted by johnathonjosephs on (February 22, 2013, 16:43 GMT)

Umpires make mistakes. DRS may also make mistakes. In the end, the question is who makes less mistakes and undeniably it has to be DRS. Until India comprehend this trivial fact, they will continue to struggle

Posted by shillingsworth on (February 22, 2013, 16:43 GMT)

@Dravid Gravitas - If the ICC are indeed acting illogically, I'd expect the super logical BCCI to be arguing for the common sense solution - DRS shorn of the contentious Hotspot and Hawkeye. Yet they continue to refuse DRS in its entirety. Not logical surely.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (February 22, 2013, 16:19 GMT)

How did we all come to know that Clarke edged it, though hotspot is not in use? Answer is slo-mo replay. So isn't it clear that replays should be used to correct howlers just like how we use slo-mo for run outs? Since when and why did hotspot become synonymous with DRS and since when did slo-mo become an untouchable for DRS? ICC has got to explain their illogical behaviour. Hopefully BCCI will put them in line.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 16:07 GMT)

What I don't understand with regards to DRS, is why an umpire can, when a batsman is out, ask for a review of the no-ball, if he isn't sure if the bowler overstepped or not, yet cannot ask (for example) if the ball pitched outside leg or not for an LBW decision? It seems like these are two very similar events, and yet in one case clarification can be asked for, yet in the other he will probably give the batsman not out, and it is then up to the fielding side who didn't have any better view of the incident to decide to review or not. I believe that there should be much more scope for the on-field umpires to ask for a review when they aren't sure about something like this, especially in regards to inside edges for LBW and bat-pad catches. It won't take more than a few minutes per session to do so, and will save hours of bitching about bad decisions.

Posted by ThatsJustCricket on (February 22, 2013, 15:56 GMT)

@Rasheed Khan on (February 22, 2013, 14:04 GMT) : most indians don't argue against that. We have a few senior cricketers in our team who once made a real mess of how to use DRS and from then on are dead against it. The BCCI also toes the same foolish stance for god knows what. The argument of 100% correctness is crazy. Nothing in life is 100% correct, won't you agree? There's still lot of room for improvement in the DRS but at least we can reduce the howlers.

Posted by ultracoach on (February 22, 2013, 15:54 GMT)

It is important to understand the sport and be fair before jumping to comment. The Umpire will make mistakes no matter what. look at the 3 LBW decisions that went India's way. Each of three were Tough decisions, yet Dharmasena got it right. LBW decsiosns are much harder to make in a split second, Bat Pad catches could be tricky to spot for the naked eye. Day1 Umpiring no complains, thumbs up. DRS is a good tool which any day would help than hinder right decisions. Do not blame others for not having DRS in Indian matches.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 15:49 GMT)

Umpiring error? It's all part of the game. Take it on the chin and move on. Who knows, it may be the turn of an Indian batsman to get a gift from Kumar Dharmasena ... who unwittingly specializes in anti-bowler errors! Wait, there are four more days (hopefully) in this test. Kumar Uncle will be equitable in distributing gifts to the boys on both sides!

Posted by GrindAR on (February 22, 2013, 15:45 GMT)

Why is DRS required in first place. The replay shows convincingly a decision, then third umpire should have the capacity to overturn the on field umpire's decision. Why ICC is trying to sell useless DRS with all these bureaucratic loop holes, which can be plugged by very simple/minimal changes... shoot...

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 15:40 GMT)

Dear M. Radesh Kumar, Please let us know what technology you have used to decide the umpire was wrong as the ICC is badly in need of this equiment and is willing to pay handsomelyfor this. As you all know it is a fact the current technology is not 100% accurate and therefore cannot conclusively prove the umpire wrong. please share this wonderful technology you posses with the rest of the cricket loveling world.

Posted by moscowman on (February 22, 2013, 15:39 GMT)

It is time tat DRS is made mandatory by te ICC. I do not know point o making it optional. Put it as a must and we will see proper cricket ass gone are days wen batsmen walked!!!

Posted by Rezaul on (February 22, 2013, 15:30 GMT)

@timohyj and others who are advocating against DRS, yes ICC elite panel umpires should not make howlers liek these. But do you remember Steve Buckner, who was a very good umpire still he gave 4/5 incorrect decisions in one of India's tour to Australia and all went against India and it cost India the series. There are many such examples, Morgan was given Not OUT in a match against Bangladesh 3 times (1 catch and 2 LBWs) all those were howlers and eventually he won the match for England. But I dont think umpires gave these decisions intentionally. Its just mistake/error of judgement at the heat of moment which can happen definitely as we all are human. Thats where we need DRS as second look by another umpire who can erase these errors and give more correct decisions.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 15:17 GMT)

All this talk about DRS. Here is how it SHOULD work:

The batsmen are NOT, repeat, NOT, allowed to have an LBW overturned unless they have hit the ball. Simple. This gets rid of the terrible decisions, but leaves the game in the hands of the umpires. I am so sick of top order batsmen reviewing LBW in the hope it was just missing. Remove this feature, but keep DRS in place to remedy the blatant mistakes.

Now for catches:

Keep it the same as it is. Snicko, hot spot and super slow motion.

Simple.

Posted by realfan on (February 22, 2013, 15:16 GMT)

i am an indian ... i cant complain on wrong decision... its all part and parcel of the game....but well played clarke , made use of the wrong decision very well....

Posted by Asadpk on (February 22, 2013, 15:11 GMT)

surely this was Dharmasena first and last ICC Umpire of year award

Posted by Patrick_ on (February 22, 2013, 15:05 GMT)

There should be more guidelines for DRS to be used. India is happy if a marginal decision does not go their way, but would need to correct the howlers. Currently all the marginal decisions are scrutinised with Hotspot, ball predictor which gives rise to all the controversies. To avoid howlers like today we just need the TV replays. Why not use that at least for time being ? May be there should be an option to elect for DRS just with TV replays, but again there should be guidelines so that only howlers are corrected.

Posted by Solar_Rex on (February 22, 2013, 14:54 GMT)

If Michael Clark is clearly out of bat pad catch, why didn't he walk like any truly honorable person would do? If players are honest and ethical do we really need DRS as much.? If DRS is so magnificent why limit that to 2 or 3 reviews per innings or what ever. Doesn't it negate the true consistency it is supposed to bring in? Just a few points to ponder for all those who are so enamored by DRS, which is another ca of worms in my humble opinion.

Posted by ISHAIKH82 on (February 22, 2013, 14:32 GMT)

Don't India realise DRS help them when Tendulkar in the Semi Final of the World Cup was clearly out but as they were the hosts of the tournament they were able to alter where the pitch thus showing it to be not out. So surprise why they are against it?

Posted by Desiboi80 on (February 22, 2013, 14:27 GMT)

To add to my last post, umps should also be evaluated on annual basis for their performance during the year and provided with extra training or fired if their performance is not good consistently for few years. That's how it is every other industry, then why in sports/maybe just in cricket specifically that we stick with some of the bad umpires for so long? They should be provided with gadgets to help them, but the review system needs to be changed. Umpire should make a call on use of the review system when they are not sure about an appeal rather than teams asking for reviews. To err is human, but not given opportunity to rectify those mistakes is just plain stupid. Maybe they can get rid of on field umps altogether and use more technology to make faster decisions but that might take away the charm of the game as who would turn to for an appeal?

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 14:13 GMT)

It's amusing that England is oft regarded as a place somewhat stuck in its ways yet I know of no English cricket supporter who is against the use of the DRS. The simple truth is that the DRS is not perfect but use of the DRS means that umpiring mistakes as a whole are reduced, either through better umpiring or through decisions being overturned. Net result = less batsmen given out wrongly. DRS should be used for all Test matches.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 14:04 GMT)

it is india alone who is against drs so they deserve it when things go against them. umpires are human and are liable to make mistake so how do you argue against that?

Posted by balajeev on (February 22, 2013, 14:00 GMT)

Kumar got his cap from Ishant Sharma ? I can't remember Sharma doing anything of significance in test cricket apart from that spell to Ponting many years ago in Australia. We might have a "best of Ishant" piece to celebrate his 50 th test match soon. That will be hilarious.

Posted by SRV_india on (February 22, 2013, 13:53 GMT)

Harbhajan playing his 100th test match...the best spinner in India...yet to pick a wicket in the first day off the match...Ashwin who called rookie spinner got 6 out of 7 wkts (Would have got 7 if clarke was given out)...Hope Bhajji picks the last No.11 batsman of aussies and continue to play for another 10 matches....

Posted by timohyj on (February 22, 2013, 13:38 GMT)

why does india deserve calls against them because they oppose DRS. If DRS was only used to eradicate howlers like that one then it would be fine, but now people use it for no reason and we saw in the SA/PAK series how unreliable it is. It is the umpires fault not india's. I don't see how the umpire can make a mistake like that which may well have cost india the match. You shouldn't even need DRS becasue marginal calls are fine and ICC umpires should not make howlers

Posted by crancher on (February 22, 2013, 13:38 GMT)

I'm not sure why there is no debate going on about India's continued denial of the DRS. It's time we realized that it is doing us more harm than good and yet like stubborn mules we continue to refuse the obvious fact that the game is better off with it. Was the third umpire a perfect system when first introduced in 1992? There were very few camera angles back then and on more than one occasion the replays were inconclusive. Yet we persisted, because overall, the number of run out decisions which were adjudged correctly by the third umpire increased manifold. As technology improved and more money flowed in, we had more cameras and even more correct decisions. So why not the DRS? Evidence has shown that umpires make more correct decisions with the DRS than without it. How can the BCCI ignore such a simple fact?

Posted by torsha on (February 22, 2013, 13:35 GMT)

How can umpire like him can be 'the umpire of the year'?

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 13:34 GMT)

@GlobalCricketLover Sadly you're right. Although I don't believe that technologies like hotspot, hawk-eye should be used mainly because of their inconsistencies and the controversies they cause when not used properly. Instead a decision review system should be implemented where the third umpire only uses the slow motion and pitch-mat to make decisions when the players review it. That solution should eliminate howlers like that of Clarke and should also put to ease concerns about cost, accuracy of the DRS.

Posted by Uppercut07 on (February 22, 2013, 13:22 GMT)

never thought i'll see a day, that am happy with the absence of DRS! today is that day!!! so happy that BCCI opposed use of DRS!

Posted by 100_rabh on (February 22, 2013, 13:21 GMT)

What an irony that this happened at the home ground of certain Mr. Srinivasan. What if this knok of Clarke wins match for Australia and Aussies go on to win series 2-1/1-0 or draw it 2-2/1-1. Thats why DRS is a must for any series and Indian thinktank better understands this quickly!

Posted by GlobalCricketLover on (February 22, 2013, 13:13 GMT)

India has no right to complain about that decision. They deserve more howlers going against them.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 13:06 GMT)

Need better umpires? He was umpire of the year! It just shows that no one is 100% right all the time.

Posted by bumsonseats on (February 22, 2013, 13:02 GMT)

he was out to the very thing the drs was in place to eradicate and i am delighted not that i want the aussie skipper to do well. the umpires cannot be blamed as they must find it complicated 1 test its not in the next series he does its in.perhaps its poetic justice.lol

Posted by Mitcher on (February 22, 2013, 12:59 GMT)

No DRS... No problem!!!!!!!

Posted by GRINDIA on (February 22, 2013, 12:46 GMT)

Glad that DRS has not been implemented.

Posted by deepshah4321 on (February 22, 2013, 12:43 GMT)

Virender Sehwag, the garbage player. This guy's reflexes have slowed down. Having someone like him an International team is a shame. Keeping him in slips is even a bigger shame. He was a great player when he played well. But now, he gets out in single digit scores and the worst fielder on the team. Himself and Gambhir. Give chance o pople who deserve. I am surprised why players like Raina and Mohammad Shami have not been picked. With the kind of players playing from the Indian side, winning a Test match is far away. Even making his a draw will be a challenge for this team. And why is this Ishant picked again? Anyway, I said what I wanted to say. The opinion of fans will not change the team composition.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2013, 12:41 GMT)

Where is Ojha????????????????

Posted by Vivek.Bhandari on (February 22, 2013, 12:39 GMT)

Clarke is all right in staying in his place; and India can't blame anyone (not even the umpire) in not having the DRS for this series. All said and done, what a remarkable rearguard action by the T20 specialist debutante and the best batsman in the world at the moment. Just the perfect 1st day for a great series in the offing.

Posted by Kohli--The_Messi_of_Cricket on (February 22, 2013, 12:36 GMT)

Need better umpires for high-profile series like this. Poor stuff from Dharamsena.

Posted by Surajdon9 on (February 22, 2013, 12:11 GMT)

India deserve the wrong call on Clarke, its their choice that the DRS is not being used and it just might have cost them the match....

Posted by noufu123 on (February 22, 2013, 11:59 GMT)

Calrke...dont know if he edged that one?

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Brydon CoverdaleClose
Brydon Coverdale Assistant Editor Possibly the only person to win a headline-writing award for a title with the word "heifers" in it, Brydon decided agricultural journalism wasn't for him when he took up his position with ESPNcricinfo in Melbourne. His cricketing career peaked with an unbeaten 85 in the seconds for a small team in rural Victoria on a day when they could not scrounge up 11 players and Brydon, tragically, ran out of partners to help him reach his century. He is also a compulsive TV game-show contestant and has appeared on half a dozen shows in Australia.
Tour Results
India v Australia at Delhi - Mar 22-24, 2013
India won by 6 wickets
India v Australia at Mohali - Mar 14-18, 2013
India won by 6 wickets
India v Australia at Hyderabad (Deccan) - Mar 2-5, 2013
India won by an innings and 135 runs
India v Australia at Chennai - Feb 22-26, 2013
India won by 8 wickets
India A v Australians at Chennai - Feb 16-18, 2013
Match drawn
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days