England in India 2012-13

Pietersen cautioned over dissent

ESPNcricinfo staff

January 21, 2013

Comments: 83 | Text size: A | A

Ishant Sharma had Kevin Pietersen caught behind, India v England, 3rd ODI, Ranchi, January 19, 2013
Kevin Pietersen looks around after being given out caught behind © BCCI
Related Links
Players/Officials: Ashley Giles | Kevin Pietersen
Series/Tournaments: England tour of India
Teams: England | India

Kevin Pietersen has been given a gentle reminder over his on-pitch behaviour following the obvious disappointment he exhibited after his dismissal in the third ODI in Ranchi.

Pietersen was adjudged by umpire S Ravi to have been caught behind off Ishant Sharma for 17 but lingered in the crease for several seconds in apparent disbelief at the decision.

While Pietersen may well have been unfortunate with the dismissal, replays suggesting that the ball brushed only his thigh, England's limited-overs coach, Ashley Giles, supported the action of the match referee, Andy Pycroft, to have an informal chat with Pietersen.

Giles was particularly keen to remind Pietersen how difficult umpiring could be in conditions as noisy as the ODI in Ranchi where umpires have little hope of distinguishing between the noise of the bat clipping the pad or the ball clipping the edge of the bat.

"Andy was right to speak to Kev," Giles admitted, "but I think common sense prevailed. It was just a little word. I didn't think it was a reaction, more disappointment from Kev.

"But we've got to be careful with reactions to decisions. It's tough for the umpires here, it's so loud that decision making is tough. We understand that."

Pycroft also had a brief conversation with Giles, taking the chance to talk with the England coach after bumping into him in the toilet at Ranchi airport. "It was in the gents," Giles said. "So that was a nice scene for my first meeting with the match referee."

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by ShankarKR on (January 23, 2013, 22:07 GMT)

India won the ODI series only due to poor decisions made by umpires. DRS should be made mandatory for all matches.

Posted by simon_w on (January 23, 2013, 3:05 GMT)

Kev got a poor decision, no doubt, but you have to feel for the umpires. they're a bit hung-out-to-dry without the DRS. I like the fact that cricket doesn't tolerate dissent, indeed, as a cricket fan I'm proud of it, and it's right that the match referee reminded KP of that.

Posted by Paras.Rishi on (January 22, 2013, 20:33 GMT)

Disgraceful from the English team. And the English fans have gone one step further and have started criticizing the umpire, match referee and the BCCI!

Posted by subgul on (January 22, 2013, 19:10 GMT)

As far as I know, the issue is not about whether to allow DRS or not. Rather it is about who is going to pay for DRS. Isn't it ?. So, I think its the ICC who should be bashed for not standing up not the BCCI.

Posted by subgul on (January 22, 2013, 19:05 GMT)

I really feel pity for the people reasoning here when they say that the reason for India not going for DRS is because most of the bad decision goes in India's favour..haha..halarious!!!

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (January 22, 2013, 18:20 GMT)

Fair enough Kevin. I mean, his decision left a lot to be desired in terms of umpiring standards in India and the overall attitude towards the DRS from the BCCI. However, the only error Pietersen committed after attempting to play the delivery was that he turned behind to look at the wicket keeper. That probably gave an indication to the umpire that KP had edged it. So I feel sorry for both the umpire as well as KP. Speaking of umpires, why are Indian umpires officiating in this series ? Shouldn't it be neutrals at both ends ? Or did I miss an important ICC ruling addressing umpire allocation for a bilateral series ? Someone 'enlighten' me. :D

Posted by Harmony111 on (January 22, 2013, 17:51 GMT)

@Sohansunny: Really? Do you say that players are to be given a warning if they are given out wrongly? Do you even know why KP has been given the warning? The very1st and 2nd paragraph of this article explains it why....

Posted by AllanofSouza on (January 22, 2013, 17:34 GMT)

India is the only country that does not support DRS for obvious reasons. The umpires decisions go more in favour towards them. They are the most powerful board today. The ICC should make DRS mandatory across the boards so that the playing platform is equal throughout the cricketing globe. Not skewed in Asia or rather india to be exact.

Posted by Sohansunny on (January 22, 2013, 15:56 GMT)

DRS should be made mandatory. Even Yuvraj Singh was given out on a poor decision in the second ODI. Surprised why he wasn't given a warning.

Posted by Sameer-hbk on (January 22, 2013, 15:20 GMT)

I really do not understand why cricket administrators want players to be so 'robotic'. So he hung around, big deal!! He did not really say anything significant or it was nothing like the Warne saga. This is a non-issue really and the game would be fine as long as no one really crosses the line. Just get on with it plz

Posted by Harmony111 on (January 22, 2013, 15:01 GMT)


".....yours is the only nation that complains a LOT....."

ONLY nation? Ok, why are you (and several Eng fans) complaining then?

Posted by SpeedCricketThrills on (January 22, 2013, 14:49 GMT)

It's tough for the umpires to make correct decisions in the noise and din of Indian crowds. Agreed. But it is equally tough for a non-Indian player to hold emotion back when a decision is wrong. While the player may not be asking for reversal of decision, there is nothing wrong if a player conveys to the umpire (and to the crowd!) in an acceptable way that the decision was wrong. Legalize 'limited dissent' as long as it stays within some norms

Posted by bobmartin on (January 22, 2013, 14:22 GMT)

I don't think any fair minded cricket fan is stating that incorrect decisions have cost their team a match. However, that risk does exist. You could also say with a fair degree of accuracy that in all matches where DRS is not used, the scores are totally dependent on the umpires' getting their decsions 100% correct. One incorrect decision will invariably cost a wicket or contribute runs that shouldn't have been scored. These are the arguments for DRS... The only argument against DRS is that you want this unsatisfactory state of affairs to continue. This was fine when there was no other means, but it is singularly stupid when the mean to eradicate errors exists. The game should be decided by which set of players makes the fewest mistakes, not the one that benefits most from umpiring errors. As a final thought; the one immutable fact is that incorrect decisions have and will continue to influence bowlers' and batters' averages.

Posted by bluemarlin on (January 22, 2013, 13:25 GMT)

All teams should want to eliminate accusations of umpiring bias. In the 4th Test England's best batsman, Cook, was given out twice to poor decisions. England's best one day batsman was given out to a shocker in the third ODI. All of these would have been rightly overturned with DRS. If the BCCI wants to dispel controversy over these matters they should adopt DRS as soon as possible. Both teams should agree to the TV umpire. It is in all teams' best interests to be seen to be supporting the best solution to avoid any risk of implication of biased (or indeed influenced) umpiring decisions.

True fans will also desire the results of matches to be seen to be as fair and equitable as possible.

Posted by SherjilIslam on (January 22, 2013, 12:16 GMT)

@womenlovecricket: You have summarized what most of the Indians have to say about our wins. DRS or no DRS, England have suffered whitewashes in two previous ODI bilateral here in India.You can actually come up with an excuse of poor umpiring for one or two matches, not of a 5-0, 6-0 whitewashes.So to all the crybabies of England, simply accept you are historically a poor ODI Side.

Posted by CricketingStargazer on (January 22, 2013, 11:18 GMT)

@Selassie-I When I read things like that I do wonder if the BCCI has got it right afterall. As I have said all along, it doesn't matter how good the technology is (and it is pretty good), if you don't use it sensibly it is worse than useless. Many of the objections raised based on examples have not been due to DRS being unreliable,rather they have been due to it being very badly used (like trying to use 20cm of trajectory after bouncing to extrapolate the ball's path for a further 2m or more to the stumps)! I think that a large part of the problem is that the people who have to use DRS in a match situation don't understand the technology well enough to use it sensibly. There is also the not inconsiderable issue that people already know how to make bats less sensitive to Hotspot to try to beat DRS - as a by-product, they become less sensitive to Snicko too - although, that tell-tale edge seen on Hotspot that gets them caught behind, would also save them from an LBW...

Posted by keptalittlelow on (January 22, 2013, 10:50 GMT)

All my Indian friends want DRS for India matches, why ICC is so helpless against just ONE country in the world? why cant they make DRS mandatory? if India does not accept then sorry...

Posted by Selassie-I on (January 22, 2013, 10:39 GMT)

@ Posted by Madselector on (January 22 2013, 09:05 AM GMT) That's a great Idea, I like it! maybe all reviews should be 'paid'? then sides would only use them when they know the decision is wrong rather than the speculative reviews that just waste everyones time.

10 runs in ODI & T20, 20 in tests would be fair maybe? Just added on to your opponents score as extras.

Posted by Selassie-I on (January 22, 2013, 10:35 GMT)

@Posted by CricketingStargazer on (January 22 2013, 09:37 AM GMT) Well I remember the occasion in South Africa where Greame Smith was not given out after review of a huge edge beacus the 3rd umpire didn't have his earpiece on, then went on to make a huge 100 and level the series. (I think it was Daryl Hair, who since has discraced himself on more than one occasion and eventually and rightfully quit).

I think that the caution was right for KP, anything stronger would have been harsh. He shouldn't hang about but it was a bad decision. Again though it does make a vary convincing argument for the DRS, especially if the stadium is so noisy that the umpire can't hear edges! The batsman 99% of the time knows if he's hit it and can review, we can't expect umpire to be right 100% of the time, especially in these kind of conditions, let's at least give them a helping hand.

Posted by CricketingStargazer on (January 22, 2013, 9:37 GMT)

@Andy_wright Hawkeye and Hotspot are real time. Snicko is not and cannot be as picture/sound synchronisation issues make it very slow to respond. At present it takes several minutes to get the synchronisation right and that rules out its use unless we accept very long delays - sometimes 10 minutes or more - on decisions. However, the stump microphone is real time and, if it is turned on (I recall a famous occasion in the Caribbean when it was being trialled, when the 3rd umpire failed to hear a nick because the sound on his monitor was muted!!) it is a considerable help.

Posted by Madselector on (January 22, 2013, 9:05 GMT)

I think apart from the free review, teams can be given an option of PAID Review. i.e a team can still review the decision but if the on-field decision remains as it is, team would loose 5 or 10 runs from their score/ add 5 or 10 runs to the opponent. This would ensure that teams use them only for howlers and not for the marginal ones..

Posted by yorkslanka on (January 22, 2013, 8:19 GMT)

@cricmatters - I agree with you that drs does improve the game. The problem with the Aus v SL match was that the ICC reduced the number of challenges a team can make- this system was working very well at two per team and I can't see any logic in its change...this is in addition to the silly idea of having two new balls which favours teams dominated by fast bowlers at the expense of those driven by spin...

Posted by Fast_Track_Bully on (January 22, 2013, 6:33 GMT)

@Sinhaya-2. Your team lost each and every game with and without DRS then what? Also, you do not have DRS when others visit you? Why this double stand?? @Front-Foot-Lunge. You forgot about WC. Do you think WC was without DRS? grow up...

Posted by Pathiyal on (January 22, 2013, 5:27 GMT)

pietersen's was a big wicket. quite disappointed by that decision. these decisions are not in the interest of the game!!

Posted by Dirk_L on (January 22, 2013, 5:21 GMT)

@cricmatters: you'll have to wait a certain time after every appeal for the third umpire to maybe pitch in, just imagine what that will do to over rates. The referral available to the captain is a resource just like the few overs left to his strike bowler and should be managed as carefully. The blame for those howlers rests squarely on Michael Clarke. It's OK to refer in desperation with ten overs left when the batsman concerned is your only real hope of a decent score, but this was a bad review: inside the first ten, with Warner still in and the whole side to come.

Posted by PrasPunter on (January 22, 2013, 5:21 GMT)

@ tendulkarisGOOD , right , leave it as it is - but for whatever reason, yours is the only nation that complains a LOT especially when you lose and complain again, even if you win , about umpiring. And you are the one not to accept DRS as well. Choose the best of these two to do . Don't do both.

Posted by simpleguy2008 on (January 22, 2013, 5:19 GMT)

I am also an indian and i want the UDRS system

Posted by CrICkeeet on (January 22, 2013, 5:10 GMT)

I think all d countries want DRS xcpt IND fans..

Posted by anver777 on (January 22, 2013, 4:38 GMT)

I think KP's dismissal somewhat effected Eng's middle order batting in Ranchi. He was batting beautifully until that moment !!!! With jam packed stadium, these type of errors happens in modern day cricket..... hope for a Eng win in 4th match & make the series more thrilling & interesting !!!!!

Posted by tendulkarisGOOD on (January 22, 2013, 2:19 GMT)

Leave it as it is ! it happens alot in these days! UDRS needed otherwise !umpires tend to make wrong decisions in nosiy grounds! and Dhoni's appeal absolutely convienced the umpire!

Posted by wah_wah on (January 22, 2013, 1:25 GMT)

@Nampally, you should acknowledge that there is already an umpire review and performance evaluation system. After evry match, both the captains and coaches share their score on umpires with ICC. Consistent poor scores will cause an umpire lose his position in elite panel, as had happened with Ashoka De Silva few years back. S Ravi did not do himself any good with poor decision, as this impacts his chance of making it to elite

Posted by cricmatters on (January 22, 2013, 0:49 GMT)

There were two howlers in Aus-Lanka match in Sydney where batsmen were given out LBW when they nicked the ball onto their pads. This was a match with DRS in place to remove such decisions however Michael Clarke has already used the one review available. I do feel DRS will improve the game but it has to taken out of players hands. I think the new rule should state that you need all three umpires to agree that a batsman is out which means that the third umpire is watching the game constantly and takes an active part in EVERY decision taken. Also the on-field umpire should be able to call on the third umpire to give his opinion whenever there is a doubt. Take players out of decision making.

Posted by MEHATELK on (January 21, 2013, 22:50 GMT)

@ Sinhaya-2, out of last 10 ODIs played against srilanka out side india, (in which 5 match in yr home soil) srilanka just to manage to win only two,

Posted by Nutcutlet on (January 21, 2013, 22:33 GMT)

@Nampally: I sense your frustration, but if public castigation + penalty fines were introduced for umpires who make bad decisions, then I very much doubt that there would be many people who'd choose umpiring as a career! The way to go to ensure that there are as many correct decisions as possible is, of course, with the use of DRS. I do not like or see the sense in the spurious argument (only an assertion anyway) that bad decisions even themsleves out over a period of time. Where's the proof of that? Furthermore, this argument becomes perverse when the technology exists (tried, tested & found to be 5% more accurate than an ump on his own) for getting more decisions right. One day there will be an absolutely crucial decision at the end of the match & if there's no usage of DRS the result may swing on an unassisted ump error. So at least let's save the ump from his subsequent nightmares! Too much rides on decisions being got right these days; the responsible way is the safe way, USE DRS!

Posted by Klgn on (January 21, 2013, 20:45 GMT)

England need to play with potential and fearlessly, with patient and dont go for aerial route shots and control batting with ground shots, capitalized partnerships and then go for big ones. Also its not recommended to go for sweep /cheap shots and earn those risky runs which cost them big.

Posted by Nampally on (January 21, 2013, 19:27 GMT)

Much as I admire the Cricket ettiquette & discipline, there has to be action taken against the Umpires as well when they make blatantly wrong decisions. Why should it be always the batsman's fault for showing dissent? ICC must also penalise the Umpire involved with a fine or whatever the penalty may be. No one should be allowed to get away with blunders in doing their job properly!.

Posted by subgul on (January 21, 2013, 19:22 GMT)

This is not about DRS for the most of the people leaving comment here but it is about the India domination on the game. At least have a guts to speak the truth instead of finding the fault with India team or India umpires with whatever they do.

Posted by womenlovecricket on (January 21, 2013, 18:45 GMT)

@ Front-Foot-Lunge on (January 21 2013, 17:46 PM GMT) - ummm India won the World Cup two years with the DRS in place. It seems to me that people have nothing to do except find problems with India even when they are in good form.

Posted by bobmartin on (January 21, 2013, 18:42 GMT)

@ screamingeagle " taking a potshot at Indian umps" Since there are no Indian umpires on the Elite Panel, and no DRS in India, their incorrect decisions never get challenged and are therefore never corrected...Every decision stands. In consequence, each incorrect decisons simply adds to their total. The Elite Panel however (apart from when standing in matches involving India) have every wrong decision that is challenged overturned. So, apart from learning from their mistakes, their list is of errors must obviously be less than that of Indian umpires. " nor does DRS automatically correct all wrongs".. DRS is not designed to correct all wrongs.. It is only there to correct a wrong decision if it is challenged.

Posted by Maxyboy_123 on (January 21, 2013, 18:19 GMT)

I think KP was more perturbed because it was Ishant Sharma bowling. His radar is nearly as Jade Dernbach.

Posted by WalkingWicket11 on (January 21, 2013, 18:15 GMT)

@gbqdgj @Dark_Harlequin Right, so you do agree there is a possibility of bad decisions despite the use or DRS, and it is not as so simple to say "You know what would have prevented this......? DRS that's what." like Selassie-I did. What if there were DRS and Cook had misused the review? Would you still blame BCCI for KP's dismissal? Also, what if Clarke's lbw had been a marginal one rather than being blatantly obvious as it was? Would it be treated as a misuse of DRS? Why should there be a limit on the number of reviews then? Time-wasting cannot be a reason, because the match referee can easily penalise teams for frivolous use of DRS to waste time, like it is already done with other ways or wasting time. If you are going to use DRS to correct umpiring errors, don't it for all the wrong decisions and not based on whims of players. Some boards don't even have enough money to pay their players, should they be spending it on DRS if it ends up with such farcical situations?

Posted by 200ondebut on (January 21, 2013, 18:11 GMT)

KP's reaction was mild compared to Yuvraj's. I find the comment that it is difficult to tell when it is noisy a bit hard to fathom - are they saying the umpire guessed or are they saying he was overly influenced by the exaggerated appeal and crowd response (perhaps we are getting to the bottom of why India don't want DRS!). Like it or not batsmen get the benefit if the doubt - and if the umpire can't be certain then the benefit goes with the batsman. Bottom line is that the umpire got it wrong.

Posted by Andy_Wright on (January 21, 2013, 17:51 GMT)

How about we solve the problem at the heart of it all, which is bad umpiring decisions. Here's how: you put one umpire in a box watching live TV footage with the "mat" overlay and listening to the stump mic through headphones (which is far better for picking up thin edges). The fielding side appeals: he acknowledges it with an amber light. The umpire then has 5 seconds to make a decision (about the same time that an on-field appeal takes), at which point he gives a green or red light. This would totally negate bad pitched-outside-leg and struck-outside-off LBW decisions, as well as a lot of bad caught-behind decisions.

In the future, it may even be possible to get Hawkeye/Snicko working in near real-time (and maybe Hot Spot too on a separate screen for quick replay access), rendering decision-making near-perfect. Even without the tracking technology however, you'd get much better decisions much more often, and still in about half the time it took Rudi Koertzen to raise his finger!

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (January 21, 2013, 17:46 GMT)

Looks like the only way India can compete in any form of cricket is to not have DRS.

Posted by screamingeagle on (January 21, 2013, 16:58 GMT)

@Bobmartin, while one part of your post(s) do make sense, the other part taking a potshot at Indian umps do not. I do not think umps are better or worse depending on nationalities, nor does DRS automatically correct all wrongs. I do agree though, that India is being a tad rigid in not letting DRS work in Indian conditions. If nothing else, the technology might end being shown up as nothing special in these scenarios.

Posted by bobmartin on (January 21, 2013, 16:56 GMT)

@ Divinetouch on (January 21 2013, 15:46 PM GMT)..... Of course elite umpires make mistakes.. nobody is infallible.. That's the sole reason for DRS.. And incidentally, if India had agreed to it's use, then perhaps SRT would have been reprieved.. Again... don't blame the umpires... in SRT's case blame the BCCI

Posted by Shan156 on (January 21, 2013, 16:46 GMT)


"Make it cheaper or provided by ECB wherever they go"

The problem is, BCCI refused it in Eng. too when Eng. were going to pay. Eng. paid for it in SL too when they toured last time. It is not the money but BCCI simply refuses it.

Posted by CricketingStargazer on (January 21, 2013, 16:28 GMT)

Incidentally, a 100% accurate system is, by definition, impossible. What you can get is a system that is guaranteed to be more accurate than any human can be, but you can never make it 100% accurate.

Posted by bobmartin on (January 21, 2013, 16:09 GMT)

Let's not get confused here.. DRS is there to correct mistakes by the umpires; the number os appeals being 4 per innings... i.e. each side has two. Now I personally think that is a generous allowance given the general competence of the elite umpires these days. If batsmen and/or the fielding captain uses the allowance unwisely, and a decision does not get reversed, then it is his fault not the umpires, i.e the umpire has made the correct decision. The onus is therefore on the players to appeal when they are convinced the umpire has made blatant error, not as seems to be normal, when they merely hope/or are not sure. Don't blame the umpires for the incompetence of the players misguided use of the DRS..

Posted by The_bowlers_Holding on (January 21, 2013, 15:58 GMT)

CricketingStargazer on (January 21 2013, 13:21 PM GMT) I am in total agreement with you, why do these people even watch sport if they don't care of the means of victory (by these people I refer to myopic folk who don't care how they win as long as they do).

Posted by Divinetouch on (January 21, 2013, 15:46 GMT)


Even so-called elite umpires make poor decisions.

Simon Taufel gave Sachin out wrongfully in England whe he held the mantle of the best umpire.

Posted by Sunil_Canada on (January 21, 2013, 15:33 GMT)

Can anyone explain why DRS will not improve decision. Can it not be implemented without hawk-eye where it estimates (usually in case of LBW) where the ball would have gone. Even for LBW DRS can tell you if the ball pitched outside the leg stamp, whether it hit in the line of stamp etc. but in close calls (where it may not be possible for umpire to pick correctly) it eill show if it hit the bat or not, whether it hit the bat first and then pad etc. It's already used for run-outs, no balls, stumps, some catches. Let's not wait for 100% accurate system, let use whatever is available (improvements will be ongoing) with some exclusions. I dont blame the umpires at all, I believe they are doing their best. Most games where it's not always humanly possible to pick things correctly, technology is being used; becasue of BCCI and some top Indian payers stubbornness, let's not deprive cricked from using technology. I am suprised the great commentators & writers dont even talk about it.

Posted by bobmartin on (January 21, 2013, 15:32 GMT)

The simple fact is that it matters not a hoot WHO gets the bad decsions... all that matters is that someone does... Contrary to the popular belief that incorrect decisions even themselves out.. THEY DO NOT... Each wrong decision merely adds to the ever growing list of wrong decisions. And when the means for correcting them exists, there is no excuse. If India are so prepared to accept the umpires decision, then at least have the decency to get competent umpires. Is there any significance in the fact that there is not one Indian umpire on the ICC Elite Panel ? Having witnessed just about every ball of the last three ODI's, I'm not surprised, because if these are the best that India has to offer, I doubt there will ever be.. And if these aren't the best, why were they appointed for an international match.

Posted by Divinetouch on (January 21, 2013, 15:20 GMT)

I hope all of you who are saying KP was right to show dissent will be credible in your comments if other batsmen do the same - especially Indin batsmen.

Posted by Divinetouch on (January 21, 2013, 15:10 GMT)


Like the two elite umpires in the 4th ODI between Australia and Sri Lanka.


Then caution the two elite umpires in the 4th ODI between Australia and Sri Lanka as well as CA for agreeing to only 1 referral.

I support the use of the DRS but find it disgusting when certain umpires are lambasted for errors to the point where they are accused of cheating.

Posted by EdGreen on (January 21, 2013, 14:40 GMT)

Hmm - would have been fairer to caution the umpire for being wrong and the BCCI for their irrational refusal to use the referral system. In this day and age players should not be walking from the field in international matches knowing they were wrongly given out.

Posted by Harlequin. on (January 21, 2013, 14:23 GMT)

@cricketingstargazer - exactly right, that is quite worrying, especially the 'it is morally incorrect but i am going to support it anyway'

Posted by Harlequin. on (January 21, 2013, 14:19 GMT)

@StupId, Warner and Henriques were given out because of the misuse of DRS. The point of it being brought in was to prevent howlers, rather than marginal calls. Clarke disrespected this used it for a 'tactical review' (exactly what they are not supposed to be used for) and two of his team-mates were punished for it. Simple.

Posted by aditya.pidaparthy on (January 21, 2013, 14:04 GMT)

For all its alleged bullying tactics, BCCI does have a valid point over the limited number of referrals. N Srinivasan raised this issue in a december interview. It does seem strange that players are allowed to challenge the umpire but only a limited number of times. Any more than the limited referrals they run the risk of being reprimanded for dissent. It flies in the face of common logic. Fine one might say more referrals might mean slowing down the game. But that is happening already with umpires checking for no-balls.

Give the DRS to umpires and have a gentleman's agreement where batsmen or bowlers can have a word with the umpire and the third umpire in case of a howler to verify a correct decision has been made. The limited referrals flies in the face of the need to get more decisions correct. In fact the third umpire should have the authority to call in the on field umpire to correct any obvious howler. It would remove the gamble with limited referrals.

Posted by blueG on (January 21, 2013, 13:54 GMT)

When an average country who by the way have the world cup twice, but ha they are average compared to the inventer's of the game who have remained at the pinnacle of test cricket for sooo long!! in recent times.

Posted by gbqdgj on (January 21, 2013, 13:38 GMT)

@stup1d. It's because of the awful use of DRS by Michael Clarke earlier in the innings. For those of us who play cricket, you have a fair idea of when you're out lbw even when you're on the move. He is clearly the best batsman in world at the moment imho but the decision to review it was almost sri lankan in its naivety. As a result Warner got a shocker and couldn't have it reviewed. By the way, Warner's punishment was a reprimand (a slap on the wrists) which given what he said to the umpire was outrageous but rather indicates that the Match Referee agreed he got a shocker and felt sorry for him. KP's dissent was also not on but of much less magnitude than Warner's and also got a slap on the wrist so where's the consistency there?

Posted by CityGent on (January 21, 2013, 13:32 GMT)

DRS may not be 100%, but it isn't employed to be 100%. It is used to get more correct decisions, and to correct decisions which are clearly wrong. How can getting more decisions right be in any way detrimental to the game? That is beyond common sense.

S4achin_is_God - its not the grounds who pay for it, but the home board. Please don't tell me the BCCI can't afford it!

KP was disappointed, and I think most batsmen would be with a decision like that. He showed no dissent, just disbelief and disappointment at a decision which could have had a big bearing on the game. A quiet word is the correct way to handle it.

Posted by simpleguy2008 on (January 21, 2013, 13:24 GMT)

Now i think ICC should go for the DRS complension with all the test nation and ICC should take necessary against BCCI.

Posted by CricketingStargazer on (January 21, 2013, 13:21 GMT)

@gsingh7 A fascinating and rather disturbing argument.

Posted by blackforest1002 on (January 21, 2013, 13:01 GMT)

@kam_uk, sorry mate I guess you cant just blame Indian umpires to be too bad. Did you see what happened in Aus-Sri 4th ODI in Sydney by any chance. I guess the way DRS is used is very bad. Michael Clarke used up the only DRS referral available which turned out to be agains Aussies and what happened with Warner and Henriques is very bad too. Huge inside edges and given out and was for sure would have caused for another aussie defeat if the game was not interrupted by rain. So whats the point in using DRS. Everyone can put blame but guess if not able to use it when you really need is its just a waist of time and money. I guess test match DRS is a good option but ODI for sure leave it to your luck. Wrond decisions dosen't happen all the game. Umpires dont have the same pressure of physical strain like in test match. Guess I am clear with my view

Posted by Tapash on (January 21, 2013, 12:55 GMT)

I oppose that; the umpire could not hear the sound properly because of noise. If noise makes the umpire to decide it is 'out, why not 'not out'. If the decision goes against India, there must be huge criticism. What KP has reacted, every player has that right.

Posted by kabe_ag7 on (January 21, 2013, 12:45 GMT)

@jmcilhinney - No. Yuvraj never got any reprieve before he was given out LBW wrongly in that innings. You must be remembering some other match.

Posted by WalkingWicket11 on (January 21, 2013, 12:39 GMT)

@jmcilhinney DRS costs about USD 60000 per day, and the ICC is not willing to pay it. They want the broadcasters to pay it. If they are so committed to it, why not show their intent by getting the boards to bear the cost rather than forcing it on the broadcasters? What's next? Broadcasters should pay the players' hotel bills and flight tickets?

Posted by kristee on (January 21, 2013, 12:39 GMT)

Bad decisions are part of any game, but when they follow a pattern, as MoM adjudication did in Pak series, it raises alarms. Even in the test series, the pattern was somewhat obvious; the more struggling team got less number of lbw outs or controversial ones. But when an average country controls a game with money power, these things are bound to happen. Cricket is doomed to mediocrity.

Posted by skilebow on (January 21, 2013, 12:35 GMT)

There is no point in arguing for DRS. The simple fact is the BCCI is not going to accept it anytime soon. Rightly or wrongly. Although I am a supporter of it, it is the same for both teams and I seem to remember International cricket surviving quite well for 140 years without it

Posted by WalkingWicket11 on (January 21, 2013, 12:33 GMT)

@Selassie-I Please explain to me why Warner and Henriques were given out in the 4th match of the Australia-SL series despite the presence of DRS.

Posted by skilebow on (January 21, 2013, 12:31 GMT)

Whether the decision was right or wrong KP and everyone else in that situation must accept the umpire's decision and walk off. His word is final and absolute. I think this situation was handled correctly. Well done to the match referee and the king of spain

Posted by S4CHIN_IS_GOD on (January 21, 2013, 12:23 GMT)

Why people want DRS so much? Why you against BCCI? Its common sense, not every ground can afford DRS. Make it cheaper or provided by ECB wherever they go. Guess what its always ECB who moans. Its a game enjoy it. Umpires get paid for making decisions. sometimes they against one team, sometimes another.

Posted by SkylaDark on (January 21, 2013, 12:14 GMT)

It's nice that their coach is supporting the umpire and the tough job they have to do.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (January 21, 2013, 12:07 GMT)

@I_AM_INDIA_SUPPORTER, Yuvraj actually got too bad decisions, one against him but, before that, one in his favour. He was caught behind earlier but noone could hear it so he survived, so he shouldn't even have been there to get out LBW. How is it that the BCCI can talk about "glorious uncertainty" and yet demand that technology be 100% before it will be accepted? Umpires are not 100% and yet they are acceptable. Everyone wants umpires to make more correct decisions and yet they are denied technological assistance to do so. I don't think DRS would have changed the results but that is not a reason not to use it. I'm still yet to hear any sort of coherent justification for not using it.

Posted by Mark_Hurst on (January 21, 2013, 11:59 GMT)

To be honest the only good thing would have been for KP to refuse to leave the pitch. He wasnt out and it is only because of the terrible BCCI that DRS was not in place and the decision wasnt overturned.

These are players carrers and averages the BCCI are ruining not to mention how different the result could have been if KP had batted 40 overs.

The other cricket nations need to make a stand against India as DRS should be enforced everywhere in world cricket.

Posted by Narbavi on (January 21, 2013, 11:38 GMT)

@158notout: Mate, when it comes to applauding the opposition, it happens only in england where the supporters clap everytime a boundary is hit or a wicket falls even if its for the oppostion, other countries do appreciate good cricket, our crowds do stand up and applaud whenever a opposition batsman reaches a milestone or something, but no other country comes close to england, chennai crowd stood up and appreciated the lap of honour by the pakistanis when they beat us in a test in 1999, but do not expect us to cheer for every boundary hit by an opposition batsman

Posted by I_AM_INDIA_SUPPORTER on (January 21, 2013, 11:33 GMT)

@sinhaya -2 How can you say KP's wicket cost you in 3rd match. Yuvi also got one bad decision during 2nd ODI but dhoni and jadeja batted well atlast and make big scores on the board.Cricket is a team game not a one man game.Bad decisions were part of the games and it cannot be avoided but without technologies that prove 100% correct and it must satisfy by all cricket boards.Even using DRS there can be made mistake for example if KP's wicket had gone after 3 reviews used by England means whom you will fault umpire or ICC rules(side can use only 3 reviews).So, stop blaming others and play as a team to win matches.In common i am saying this to everyone i am not pointing out any teams :-) Have a good day

Posted by Asb1 on (January 21, 2013, 11:13 GMT)

In a series with no DRS ..... atleast have top tier umpires!!!!!!!!!

Posted by 158notout on (January 21, 2013, 11:09 GMT)

Not taking anything away from India, they well and truly thrashed England in the last two ODI's, in fact as an England fan i would be very happy if we can win just one of the last two, 3-2 seems like it would be a great result for us.

India would have won anyway but this decision just puts a blot on it from their perspective. Surely by now the ICC must have seen enough bad decisions in matches to warrant immediate change to the law making DRS compulsory.

The only other thing I wanted to mention is that it is disappointing once again to see such partisan crowds in India. if a wicket goes down for India or an England batsman hits a decent shot it is met with almost silence. This is in stark contrast to most other countries where fans abide by the spirit of cricket and applaud the opposition for good performances. I remember cheering Praveen Kumar on at Edgbaston for instance.

Posted by Artilleros on (January 21, 2013, 11:05 GMT)

Kp was totally right in showing his dissent as the decision given by the Indian umpire Ravi was awfull.I have seen really poor umpiring when England visited India for Test Series , when Pakistan visited India and now England vs India in the one dayers.All the bad decisions were not given by the same umpire but they all could have been rectified if DRS was in place.Shame on you India for stopping the uniform application of DRS all over the world .DRS may not be Perfect but it is much better then having no DRS.As even Kohli is not 100% Perfect but he is better then having no Kohli.

Posted by Selassie-I on (January 21, 2013, 10:47 GMT)

You know what would have prevented this......? DRS that's what.

So the BCCI, when they have conditions that are 'very difficult' to umpire in still don't care about getting the right decision enough to let the umpires have the support of the DRS.

Posted by Solace1 on (January 21, 2013, 10:37 GMT)

come on, KP was right in showing dissent, it was clearly not out, that one bad decision cost England a well deserved victory just like how so many such decisions have cost us lions too many games against india, this is injustice!!

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
ESPNcricinfo staffClose
Tour Results
India v England at Dharamsala - Jan 27, 2013
England won by 7 wickets (with 16 balls remaining)
India v England at Mohali - Jan 23, 2013
India won by 5 wickets (with 15 balls remaining)
India v England at Ranchi - Jan 19, 2013
India won by 7 wickets (with 131 balls remaining)
India v England at Kochi - Jan 15, 2013
India won by 127 runs
India v England at Rajkot - Jan 11, 2013
England won by 9 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days