Adam Gilchrist
Former Australia wicketkeeper-batsman

The DRS is not the solution, it's part of the problem

Not only does the review system rob the game of spontaneity and drama, it does not get rid of the mistakes it was created to eradicate

Adam Gilchrist

July 17, 2013

Comments: 233 | Text size: A | A

Brett Lee and Michael Kasprowicz sink to their knees after the loss, second Test, England v Australia, Edgbaston, August 7, 2005
Heartbreak at Edgbaston in 2005: the DRS has put paid to the spontaneous emotion of moments like this © Getty Images

In a week of fantastic Test cricket filled with high drama and controversy, it was inevitable - given one of those controversies was over someone walking, or not walking - that I was drawn into the debate.

That was exacerbated when an idiot who was pretending to be me on Twitter, under a fake account, started to be quoted in newspaper articles as me. To clarify: I have never had a Twitter account and still don't, so any accounts claiming to be me are fake.

Despite the fact that I was a walker, I don't judge any player, past or present, who chooses a different approach. However, I believe the Trent Bridge Test focused the light clearly on the Decision Review System, and overall I think the game is poorer for its inclusion.

The spontaneity and drama, the magic and intrigue that Test cricket always possessed has been lost. The reality and finality of seeing the umpire's finger raised has been erased, because everyone now looks to the batsman or fielding captain to see their response.

Compare the way the Trent Bridge Test ended on Sunday with the memorable scenes at Edgbaston in 2005, when in a similar result Australia fell agonisingly short of the target. Michael Kasprowicz was the last man out, caught behind off Steve Harmison, and if the DRS had been in place, we would probably still be looking at the tape because I don't think anyone really knows even now whether it was out or not. That's fine: I have no problem with the decision that was made.

I was part of the Australian team on that occasion and we, and the whole nation, ended up on the losing side in an incredible match. But what a magical finish it was for cricket. There was no possibility of that instant being lost, whereas now those split-second moments and the ensuing few seconds are quite different. The scenes that played out at Trent Bridge won't be remembered in the same way as those from Edgbaston.

In my opinion, the game is poorer for that. I don't say that because the decision to give Brad Haddin out caught-behind cost Australia a Test match. I understand the proposed benefits of technology eradicating umpiring errors but this Test match, which was full of wonderful technique and skill and fight, showed quite glaringly that the errors are still occurring.

I have always found it a frustration that under the DRS a player can question an umpire's decision. One of the strongest elements of the spirit of any sport is not questioning the umpires or referees. We now have a situation where players can do that, albeit limited times. That doesn't sit comfortably with me. Yes, technology is here, but perhaps a Test match like this has gone a long way to indicate that the umpires need to have full control as to when a decision is reviewed, rather than the players.

One of the strongest elements of the spirit of any sport is not questioning the umpires or referees. We now have a situation where players can do that

For the first time, I'm starting to understand India's reluctance to go with the system. It's not a remedy that seems to have cured the problem. In fact, it may even have become more of a problem. Listening to Michael Clarke talk about using his reviews poorly, it has certainly become more of a headache for captains.

It was an outstanding Test match, the kind of hard-fought Test I remember watching when I was growing up. But I feel technology took something away from the game, for both the teams and for the spectators.

The only sport I've seen where technology has really enhanced the sport - and they're getting it right - is tennis. The review system in tennis is adding to the spectacle and the occasion. It's so quick, and in fact it has probably sped the game up because we don't have players spending time questioning the umpire's call. They just refer it and the decision is made quickly. But those are line decisions, like run-outs in cricket, not catches or lbws. Perhaps cricket's DRS needs to be put on the back-burner until a better system is found.

Despite Australia's loss, there is plenty for the team to take from Trent Bridge into this week's Lord's Test. There was strong evidence the players were really united in their effort and were totally committed to doing whatever the team required. Those are good signs. It's going to be very tough, but I think what we saw there was the foundation of a group that has the potential to succeed.

It was so refreshing to see Ashton Agar's approach to Test cricket. What spoke volumes, as much as the 98 runs and two wickets and his cool head, was his reaction on getting out: the disappointed smile and then his interaction with his family, apologising to them for not getting a hundred. It was a wonderful and uninhibited approach from a player who doesn't expect anything from the game, and I don't expect that will change just because of the way he played at Trent Bridge.

Agar and the rest of the lower half of the order showed that if you watch the ball closely and occupy the crease, there will be runs on offer in this series. There's a position or two in the batting line-up that might come under scrutiny. I think Ed Cowan is the one who will feel the heat the most. But he has just been moved to a new position from anything else he's been asked to do in Test cricket, so one more opportunity at Lord's would allow him to feel he's had a fair crack at No. 3. The top six know they have to step up and be the predominant run scorers and not leave it to the bottom five.

The Australians will be gutted but it's a good thing that there is such a quick turnaround between Tests. There has to be a binding effect for a group like that, to know they were so close to achieving success together. I wouldn't expect much change in the team for Lord's. Despite the result, they have built up a nice unit and there is a bit of momentum - a refreshing change from what we have seen recently.

Adam Gilchrist was speaking to Brydon Coverdale

Adam Gilchrist played 96 Tests for Australia as a wicketkeeper-batsman and was part of three winning Ashes campaigns

RSS Feeds: Adam Gilchrist

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by nilaksh on (July 20, 2013, 14:04 GMT)

Finally the aussies are beginning to see that they are being sold a dummy in form of DRS. Just too many issues: a) There is no reliable way to predict a ball's trajectory, it cannot be done based on the path it has already travelled. The ball's condition, the moisture in the air, the direction & intensity of the wind to name a few all matter and are unaccounted right now. How much a ball would swing or spin (if at all) is not possible to be computed mathematically (and how would you account for late movement in the air). It's an art & lets leave it that way. b) Hot spot seems to go cold too many times, I say use the regular cameras to detect a broad-esque edge and uphold the umpires decision for close nicks.

For me hawk eye/virtual eye need to be dumped & throw hotspot with it for good measure. Let the umpires review edges using normal cameras (including LBW edges) using the line call model.

Posted by jay57870 on (July 20, 2013, 2:27 GMT)

You know ICC is in serious trouble over DRS, when you see headlines: "ICC defends umpires, DRS"! Once the Pandora's Box is open, it's difficult to close it. Especially when ICC takes the "unusual step of revealing its assessment of the umpires and the DRS analysis from the Test, arguing that the figures vindicate both". ICC says the 3-man umpiring team made 7 errors out of 72 decisions in the 1st Test. Four of the errors were corrected using DRS. No line calls were considered errors - though the Agar stumping was a tight n/o call by 3rd umpire. All 3 uncorrected errors were of the contentious type - lbws & edges - involving Trout & Broad: the latter is what ignited the heated DRS debate. Clearly DRS is not doing the job. That's why ICC is rushing today with a new approach: "ICC trials instant replays for third umpire"! CEO Richardson admits it's frustrating that, in the age of technology, Broad managed to escape. It's incumbent upon ICC to deliver a credible & reliable system!!

Posted by   on (July 19, 2013, 20:26 GMT)

After pushing strongly for DRS, aussie cricketers and fans have suddenly begun to find flaws and are advocating changes. If Aussies don't know how to use DRS, it is rubbish. Previously Aussies would say DRS should be made compulsory and is the solution to all umpiring blunders. Now Gilly says it is a part of the problem. Haddin says DRS should be taken out of players hands. Why? Because Aussie players can't use it! Didn't expect anything different from them. For the record, I am all in favor of DRS and think it is absolutely fine the way it is, as India showed in the champions trophy and England have been showing in the Ashes so far.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 19, 2013, 15:57 GMT)

@jay57870 line calls work? Really? Agar's stumping? Bell's identical stumping? One given, one not? Different Third Umpires was the only real difference.

The line stuff is actually the most contentious stuff. Hawkeye is by far the least, as usual when it doesn't go someone's team's way, they complain. Hotspot's worse, as are the cameras (foreshortening on catches, missing frames on stumpings). Yet we bleat on about Hawkeye which has been measured in Tests by the MCC, and margin of error has been accounted for.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 19, 2013, 15:52 GMT)

@ScottStevo Come off it! Hughes definitely hit that, there was a noise that nothing else could explain (it was nowhere near pad or anything).

Was it harsh the on-field umpire gave it? Probably. It was a faint noise and I don't think he could be certain the batsman's hit it. But once he's given it out, the DRS is supposed to only overrule him if there's nothing, no noise, no hotspot, nothing. It's why I keep saying that despite people insisting it's better for edges than lbws, that isn't borne out by the evidence. Hotspot is inconclusive; Hawkeye just has a margin of error (which is factored in anyway).

Bear in mind, Root's edge behind at Trent Bridge in the second innings? No Hotspot there either. There was a noise, which is why he didn't review it. Hughes' noise was a bit softer, possible he didn't hear it, very faint edge, possible he didn't feel it.

Not a bad use of the review, just unlucky.

Posted by ScottStevo on (July 19, 2013, 13:12 GMT)

@shawndavisalexander, completely agree. It's very difficult on bowlers once they're in a rhythm and not being called for no balls, only to find out that upon taking a wicket it's reviewed by camera's. As for DRS as a whole, there's still a place for technology in cricket, the ICC just need to amend some of it's apllication. Again, today DRS is rubbish. P Hughes, never out...

Posted by coldcoffee123 on (July 19, 2013, 11:38 GMT)

@jay57870, DRS is not the problem. The problem is 2-review limit. After the 2 reviews have been used, what next? The team is left with no choice but to go with the umpire's howlers. DRS works just fine. USE IT WHENEVER YOU WANT. It sounds like blaming the guitar when you don't know how to play.

Posted by jay57870 on (July 19, 2013, 10:42 GMT)

Credit Gilchrist for his courage in changing his position. BCCI got it right. A year ago Martin Crowe too emphasised: "The BCCI is in the right over the DRS; the ICC has been wrong from day one but doesn't want to admit it"! Crowe added: "Surely all it wants is for the system to be trimmed right back". So why make it 'mandatory' when DRS is not ready for universal usage? Look at baseball. Its home is the technology-driven USA, yet MLB is moving cautiously. It started with instant video replays for home runs - 'boundary' calls - in 2008 (same time as DRS). Yet its plans to expand video reviews to other areas - trapped catches, batted fair/foul plays, safe or out baserunning - have been deferred to 2014 because of complex issues with technologies (Note: Hawk-Eye too!), costs & implementation. Only balls & strikes are rightly off-limits for replay review. (Hint: lbws???) MLB's approach is smart. ICC too needs to put DRS "on the backburner until a better system is found": Gilly is right!!

Posted by jay57870 on (July 19, 2013, 10:24 GMT)

By golly, Gilly is spot on! DRS is part of the problem. Technology just for the technology's sake is not a solution. The endless DRS debate has sparked enough controversy for ICC to seriously question it: "How should the system work"? Let's first examine what works & what does not. Yes, line decisions - like in tennis - work for run-outs, stumpings & boundary calls. These are in or out calls: black or white. But what about grey areas: lbws, edges & catches? Therein lies the problem. Cricket is far more complex than tennis. The ball-tracking technology is most contentious: even the inventors of Virtual Eye (Ian Taylor) & Hawk-Eye (Paul Hawkins) are openly involved in a public spat. At least Taylor admits "placing far too much faith in technology" is not OK as mistakes will happen. He wants the 3rd umpire to "over rule the technology" if it's not right. He even criticised ICC's DRS usage in a SA-OZ Test last year. With such questionable reliability & accuracy, why make DRS 'mandatory'?

Posted by shawndavisalexander on (July 19, 2013, 8:13 GMT)

This may not be quite on topic, and I am unsure as to when it started happening but one thing that I'm stumped about is the checking for no-balls for every wicket taking delivery. I don't see why special attention is given to these deliveries purely because a wicket fell. If they check these, they should be checking every delivery; which of course would not be practical. Does the third umpire override incorrect no-ball calls by the umpire also?

Posted by Snambidi on (July 19, 2013, 7:04 GMT)

Adam Gilchrist is a thorough Gentleman cricketer,a good captain,a faithful walker true to his nature like SRT. I LIKED HIS COMMENT."DRS is a problem& not a Solution".I have all along disliked DRS simply because it is a system insulting the White Coats in the middle.Had Dicky Bird faced it he might have stopped Umpiring. Another comment from Gilchrist also attracted me." I never had an account with Twitter.Whoever posts on my behalf is a fake".nowadays fake accounts are on the increasing Trend.Better to quit so called Social Net Work Accounts,if not already did it!

Posted by   on (July 19, 2013, 6:36 GMT)

I totally agree with Golly. We should give full control of the match to the field umpires to maintain the spirit of the game. Just as the laws against crime have not been a deterrent, ICC's idea of using technology to correct mistakes is not proving to be be infallible. The decision to refer to the third umpire on any decision and not just a few case, should be the given to the field umpires and remove the appeals given to the teams whether 2 or 3 or 4.In this way, Broad would have been out! And Clarke wouldnt have felt cheated because he had no appeal left. DRS should be a the discretion of the field umpires. Fullstop.

Posted by   on (July 19, 2013, 6:05 GMT)

In this connection, I more or less endorse the views of Ian Chappell only thing is my viewpoint is slightly different. I would prefer 3rd umpire intervention for disputed decisions. For clear cut outs, it is not needed for a 3rd umpire to enter the fray. Whenever a decision seems to be disputed, he can interfere and correct the decision, with the benefit of technology. When the 3rd umpire can intervene for issues like no balls, whether the fielder has touched the rope or whether the catch has been taken cleanly etc., why can't we have the same for dismissals. 3rd umpire should have the authority to intervene and overrule, if necessary the field umpire's verdict. It is high time that ICC take some step in this direction and implement uniform policy across the globe. It is very funny that we have DRS in some places and not available or used elsewhere. ICC should convince everyone so that DRS is accepted universally and for that some tinkering needs to be done with the policies

Posted by ASHTON_WHO on (July 19, 2013, 5:53 GMT)

I also feel that DRS takes away from the immediate emotion of the game and is possibly not necessary but if we are to retain the DRS then we need it to eliminate the howler. It seems most reviews are being wasted on borderline LBWs which it was not designed for, I would make a call that teams should only be able to use one review for LBWs (they can gamble with it if they wish) and one or possibly two reviews reserved for catch decisions - as these are more likely to be a howler. I think if you miss out on a 50/50 LBW it doesn't affect the game as much and isn't as frustrating for players and fans as missing a howler.

Posted by andrew-schulz on (July 19, 2013, 3:00 GMT)

Gaindballa, did you mean 'stumped'? And I am sure you are joking. Chandra, direct intervention from a third umpire was tried in the 50-over comp in Australia last summer. It was canned because it didn't work because of abysmal error from the TV umpires. If you think about it, there must be a grey area between what is a 'howler' and what is not.

Posted by SyBorgg71 on (July 19, 2013, 2:18 GMT)

@zarasochozarasamjho - If you used DRS for every decision what's the point of the umpire? Why not just refer all decissions upstairs. If a bowler appeals then it MUST be reveiwed. Imagine how long a game would take on the subcontinent (especially SL and IND) where appeals are used to try and intimidate the umpires. If they had endless reviews we would never get 80 overs in a day let alone the 90 they're all already struggling with. Get real mate. Use the DRS when there is no doubt that the umpire has made a mistake and things will work as they should do.

Posted by Equanimous on (July 18, 2013, 21:19 GMT)

Lets get rid of referrals for run outs, stumps while we are at it.

Posted by   on (July 18, 2013, 20:47 GMT)

Gilly's views are amongst the most powerful penned words on the subject ive seen.He has both a direct and a subtle message-something has been taken away from the game by the technology although the technology is not without merit.However unless the DRS has been shown to be more accurate,is it worth the downside ie undermining umpires,spirit of the game,time delays,etc.Even hotspot and snicko are not conclusive nor are slow mo replays for inside edges.Trott looked like he edged the ball during his review,yet a magnified view suggested he did not.Cricket is a complex sport and possibly the best solution would be to hand over power to the umpires to conduct reviews if in doubt.

Posted by sweetspot on (July 18, 2013, 18:53 GMT)

Golden words from a golden cricketer, one of my all time favourites - "For the first time, I'm starting to understand India's reluctance to go with the system. It's not a remedy that seems to have cured the problem. In fact, it may even have become more of a problem".

Just what's up with limiting the usage of the DRS, AFTER it has been agreed by both sides to use it? Why only 2 reviews? If the system is there to eliminate doubt, why should it eliminate a limited number of doubts? Any number of reviews, and at the very least, it won't be a tactical nuisance.

Posted by fijindu on (July 18, 2013, 18:00 GMT)

Sporting contests cannot have rules that can possibly favour one team. Weather and playing conditions are not usually a part of rules of play other then specifying a minimum requirement for fair play. Using a flawed mechanical and electronic system to support fair play cannot have room in sports. UDRS is flawed. Humans are flawed. 2 flaws never make a right so lets keep to one flaw, the human one. You can try to justify UDRS from whichever angle you choose. Bottom line = it is not perfect. The beautiful game will remain the most beautiful game because FIFA did not give in to TV and replays after the 1966 world cup final or the "hand of god" in 1986.

Posted by zarasochozarasamjho on (July 18, 2013, 17:16 GMT)

Assuming that DRS technology is near-perfect, as accepted nearly all who compete where this system is used, the problem is solved if DRS is used EVERYTIME there is a dispute with the umpire's INITIAL decision. Because: 1. errors will virtually vanish, making the game fairer and less controversial, and hence more enjoyable; 2. umpires are no longer under any stress as they would know that any errors they make will be immediately corrected; 3. captains would not be under stress having to decide whether or not to use DRS and also cause more controversy within the team in favouring a particular bowler or batsman; 4. putting to rest the controvery on the DRS itself.

All that ICC has to do, now that they have my simple and excellent advice, is to scrap the "2 successful reviews" system; simples!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by   on (July 18, 2013, 16:53 GMT)

".D R S is to eliminate howlers". If the whole idea is to just eliminate howlers (blatant and obvious mistakes from field umpires) then probably D R S is too much of an expensive technology, which some of the poorer countries could not afford. Howlers could easily be eliminated with 3rd umpire reviewing every decision instantly and overruling the howlers!.All you need is a super slow-mo camera, Hawk-eye and producers willing to give the uninterrupted and uncensored feed to the 3rd umpires. Also, just like toss, Match referee should supervise the position of the cameras to get the Hawk-eye in right position. These are extremely inexpensive practical solutions , just for eliminating howlers. Some are for D R S and some are against, as usual because money is at stake!! So are profits !! Also, players literally questioning the Umpires judgement is not just cricket, and it is umpire who has to ask for a review (to his colleague) when in doubt, every single time!!

Posted by android_user on (July 18, 2013, 14:42 GMT)

to all those people who are saying that BCCI have refused to use DRS coz Dhoni could not use it...I would like to bring to your attention that Dhoni had 100% success rate in icc champions may now say that he has learned how to use it better now which should, by your arguments mean that BCCI should change its stance and opt in however it didnt. which proves that BCCI had it clear in their mind that this was not accurate and will only use it if when it becomes more accurate. If the errors were not made during ashes but any other tournament played by other teams it would not have been blown to this extant. ...things gota change fir let ICC decide

Posted by coldcoffee123 on (July 18, 2013, 13:16 GMT)

I like how the DRS has been hardly been used so far in the 2nd test. Makes the game so much more enjoyable. This is how it should be. No "tactical", "I-am-gambling", type of reviews. Challenge the umpire when you are 100% certain he has made a howler. I think 5-run penalty is a good idea, as it will make sure that the game runs smoothly w/o interruptions for the most part of a match. 5-run penalty will put an end to the "tactical", "I-am-gambling", type of reviews.

Posted by VB_Says on (July 18, 2013, 12:52 GMT)

100% agree with Adam. DRS is a hindrance for the run of play. Players cannot be allowed to question the umpire's decision. It should be a tool for the 3rd umpire to refer the replay and inform on-field umpires, albeit limited. In this age of technology, a hand-held device can be provided to on-field umpires to view the replay and make an informed decision thereafter.

Posted by alarky on (July 18, 2013, 12:49 GMT)

Cricinfo, Systems are made by man. And DRS is one of them. And as you know, it is the unreasonable men who use the various systems that are always the problem and not the sysetm itself. Hence, the DRS is a great system. The evidence and figures prove that. So, it is very shameful for any cricketer (past or present) to be bashing it, when they know that the system does not operate itself. Do you remember "GIGO"? This is the watch word that was given to us when computer technology was just introduced to the world. It is the acronym for Garbage In Garbage OUT - meaning that it is man who manipulate the computer and when we put garbage into it, we would only get garbage out of it. So Mr Gilchrist, please stop blaming the system and admonish your colleagues!

Posted by sreeni_u on (July 18, 2013, 12:29 GMT)

I think the better approach would be to take away DRS from captains' hands give to the umpires. Field umpires are already reviewing run-outs, catches that are not or appear to have not been taken cleanly, and these are done irrespective of whether the captain requests for it, and even when batsman gets bowled if the field umpire feels that the bowler might have crossed the line he reviews it. That leaves only LBW and edges. To address these ICC should change the rule so that the field umpires will be the adjudicators of LBWs, but, they have check for inside edges first. A quick replay of the last ball should be clear enough. Similarly for edges the field should always check whether the ball flew off the bat or not. This leaves only close-in catches or catches that are taken in front stumps but the batsman didn't hit it. These two the third-umpire should intervene and let the field umpire reverse the decision. This would restore the field umpire's stature in the game.

Posted by coldcoffee123 on (July 18, 2013, 11:40 GMT)

@Manikandan Viswanathan, Tell me you are joking. If a review decides the outcome of the match, so bet it. What is wrong with that?? You are saying that you would rather let Haddin be given out incorrectly and the match end in a disgrace, instead of having the option to review the decision (if the batsman really feels hard-done)? Of course if a batsman just uses a review as a gamble and loses the review, the batting team must be penalized 5 runs. That is the best way forward, to stop DRS abuse by players.

Posted by ladycricfan on (July 18, 2013, 11:20 GMT)

Leave the howlers to the 3rd umpire. After every out decision and every appeal by the fielding side, the 3rd umpire should look at one slow motion replay. No hawk eye, no hot spot. Just one slow motion replay. That is enough to detect a howler. And he should communicate it to the on field umpire. Keep everything else same as it is now.

Posted by Hoopers on (July 18, 2013, 10:57 GMT)

I have only this to say to Gilchrist and any other who oppose DRS, just remember how many times when we cried, shouted and abused the umpires for wrongly giving out a main batsman which totally changed the course of the match. If technology is there to help you, it should be used to avoid those major disappointments.

And finally to Gilchrist, If Clarke didn't use the reviews judiciously its his fault and not DRS. And I still enjoy the cricket (probably even more now as more correct decisions are made) since the DRS is introduced.

Posted by   on (July 18, 2013, 10:46 GMT)

@steve Pearce, These run penalties could be hilarious. Consider that Haddin needed to score 5 more runs for a win and england needs to dismiss just one wicket. And england reviews ! So, the review would decide the outcome of the match ! It would be fun to see the amount of outrage ICC receives from englishmen if aussie wins this way !

All these technological craps based on simulation is a strict no go !

Gilchrist has also got it wrong about tennis ! Even though it serves the purpose, it does act as a spoiler in championship and match points ! A celebration, a pause in the celebration, Wry Smiles and then another celebration !

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 18, 2013, 10:46 GMT)

@Rowayton Interesting point about lbw, although I think the issue there is that the lbw law specifically states the umpire is to assume the ball's trajectory at the point where it strikes the batsman's pad would continue. In the case of an inside edge it would be tough to determine the trajectory (and HawkEye is calibrating to assume the same as the law requires; that the ball's trajectory is unchanged).

Posted by tests_the_best on (July 18, 2013, 7:00 GMT)

@rohitmkiller - "umpires have become even less reluctant (from what I have seen) to give a batsman out, possibly thinking that it is safer for the bowling side to review it and so the batsman can get a bigger benefit of the doubt." I agree with this statement and think it's a good thing (although you could argue that the batsman can also review it if any reviews are remaining so there's no need to be less reluctant).

My gut instinct tells me that Aleem Dar heard the noise and thought Haddin had most likely nicked it. He would have given it out in normal circumstances. But he probably thought that if he got it wrong, Aus have no more reviews left and that would be a match-changing error. But by giving it not out and Eng having 2 remaining reviews, he thought they could always review it as they did and overturn the result. If that's what he thought, DRS certainly allowed the umpire to give more of a benefit of doubt to the batsman than otherwise.

Posted by   on (July 18, 2013, 3:56 GMT)

DRS is not wrong, its better to have DRS rather than having no DRS at all, Gilchrist has first time understood India's reluctance when Aus lost a test match. The need of day is judicial use of DRS, when u r100% sure that u r not out or when u think umpire has given a howler decision u can use DRS. the captain, wkt keeper & close fielders all needed to have a home work before test match.

Posted by   on (July 18, 2013, 3:44 GMT)

Strangely, after the umpiring howlers in the first Test, the one person in world cricket whose reputation was enhanced was Adam Gilchrist. None of the present England or Australian teams, and certainly not the umpires. I'm starting to agree that maybe India have it right, but if there is to be no DRS then there shouldn't be any TV replays of controversial moments. So... we have TV, so we must have DRS. How about two challenges per team and two challenges for the umpires to call on themselves each innings?

Posted by KrishnaRao on (July 18, 2013, 2:48 GMT)

There is no serious problem with DRS. Look at the wise way ENG has used it in the 1st Test; and Prior's comment on how judiciously DRS should be used. It's there to avoid the howlers (like Broad's wicket, unfortunately AUS did not use their 2 chances wisely). It should be there. Rather than reducing the chances from 2 to 1, it should be increased to 4. Right/correct decisions is always better for cricket. How much is likely to be wasted if two more referrals are allowed? Not much.

A captain should not complain about the additional responsibility of judiciously using DRS. It is an important part of the responsibility that comes with the glory.

Posted by   on (July 18, 2013, 2:42 GMT)

Give 2 referrals to players and unlimited to on field umpires - when they are in doubt they can refer and give the decision. if players disagree, they can contest other decisions. i can't believe you support having wrong decision for spontaneity. Imagine Hadding is not out and Aussie winning, when he had edged. Not a result anyone want.

Posted by Rowayton on (July 18, 2013, 1:47 GMT)

A couple of things - can't really agree that a 5 run penalty would achieve anything. I'd still try to get out a batsman with a 50 average out at a risk of 5 runs. Sounds like good odds to me. And one from left field, now that we have Hawkeye and DRS. Why should an inside edge stop you from being LBW - you can get bowled of an inside edge, so why not LBW? I would have thought the original reason was that once there was a nick, the umpire would have no idea where the ball was going. But if you can tell, what's the rationale?

Posted by IndiaGoats on (July 18, 2013, 1:14 GMT)

Whoever imagined BCCI would eventually be thought of as the one with the foresight!

Posted by android_user on (July 18, 2013, 1:13 GMT)

At this stage the easiest solution would be to give total control of DRS reviews to the third umpire. This would immediately remove any gamesmanship associated with its use now.

Posted by   on (July 18, 2013, 0:47 GMT)

Well, interesting comment from Gilchrist. I totally understand where he is coming fro,. I guess you can argue both ways for DRS but the fact of the matter is that ICC supports it and it will probably stay. It is porbably going to take a longer time for teams to adjust to this new technology that we had all predicted. But change is inevitable and we just have to deal with it. Just hope that the technologys gets better over the next few years.

Posted by Mr_Truth on (July 18, 2013, 0:38 GMT)

Agree with Adam regarding being in the moment. But if DRS is here to stay, let's ask ourselves what it was designed for - to eliminate the truly horrible umpiring decisions. How often do they occur? The answer is hardly ever, so why do teams get two referrals per innings? One per match should be enough, and even if they use it correctly they still lose it. Eliminate howlers, and respect the umpire.

Posted by   on (July 18, 2013, 0:31 GMT)

One of the greats of the game but I would respectfully disagree with him on this one. DRS isnt the problem gilly, not knowing how and when to use it is, if Clarke had chosen to respect the umpires decision on the 50/50 decisions then the howlers could easily have been challenged and overturned.

Posted by left_arm_unorthodox on (July 18, 2013, 0:07 GMT)

Agar batted as freely as Gilchrist used to do, and with the same sort of smile -- like it was just a great adventure to be out there. Let's hope he's their best allrounder since Gilchrist in a couple of years time, but give him the time to get there.

DRS is simple. Get umpires 3 and 4 sitting together looking at all the same screens the TV commentators get and give them a walkie-talkie to contact the guys in the middle if they see something they want to review. Take it out of the hands of the players and put it into the hands of the group whose reputations hinge on getting decisions right. Done.

There'll be a few errors still, but it is all bout reducing them to a minimum, and this would do it without adding the review to the tactics used by the teams, which I think is a good thing and which is not what it was meant for but which is how it gets used.

Posted by   on (July 18, 2013, 0:01 GMT)

I agree with Gilchrist but only to a certain extent.Again the DRS referral powers to the on field umpires will worsen the situation.From then on every player starts looking at umpire with suspicion and some players will start arguing with umpires about the DRS.We have already seen players like Ponting getting in arguments with umpires even after a verdict is delivered by third umpire. DRS system has its flaws and BCCI for a change, is correct that this is not a fool proof system.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 23:58 GMT)

Well if Gilly is playing then you dont need a DRS. He will just walk

Posted by disco_bob on (July 17, 2013, 23:35 GMT)

If the DRS system is examined from a post Kuhnian philosophical standpoint taking into account all the arguments of the science wars of the 70's we really need to examine what "out" or "hit wicket" means in reality. What is a 'correct decision', REALLY? and is a 'correct decision' simply a matter of what really happened. For example. Haddin was out because in 'reality' the ball hit wicket, due to the inference we make from hot spot. But where is the extent of the bat? What if we had the technology to determine instantly if a molecule of cellulose in the wood fibre of the wicket touched another molecule. And how close does it need to be. Does the Pauli exclusion principle come into the equation?

I pose these somewhat ridiculous points in order to illustrate that someone is going to have to sit down and nut through this stuff properly otherwise, it will never end. We'll be having these same philosophical post-mortems after every match endlessly. It doesn't happen in Tennis.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 23:05 GMT)

@Dennis Dereck, I agree mate, Mike Hussey was hard done

Posted by Crikoot on (July 17, 2013, 22:37 GMT)

I cant disagree more with Adam's suggestion - its mere a selfish reflection as Australia lost. Any one who advocates against DRS has either a vested interest or don't understand the value of correctness. In the name of spontaneity, you are victimizing one side. Absence of DRS will serve the interest of bookies.

Posted by rohitmkiller on (July 17, 2013, 22:27 GMT)

I think a big problem with DRS is that umpires have become even less reluctant (from what I have seen) to give a batsman out, possibly thinking that it is safer for the bowling side to review it and so the batsman can get a bigger benefit of the doubt.

This is just what I have recently seen in Tests.

Posted by radioactiverob on (July 17, 2013, 22:11 GMT)

@ samincolumbia - "with even more howlers and bad blood than before". I think you need to check your memory. To say that is simply rubbish. Personally I think the standard of umpiring has improved because the umpires have a feedback system that they now can compare their decisions to.

@ Steve Pearce - you "completely agree" with Gilchrist, but then go on to say that the DRS shouldn't be used for 50/50 decisions, but only for 'plumb' decisions so that the correct decision is reached. I'm not quite sure if that makes sense?!

Posted by radioactiverob on (July 17, 2013, 20:47 GMT)

I utterly respect Adam as a cricketer and a person, but I don't quite agree with him on this. Yes, there may be as much controversy with the DRS as without it, but let's not forget how cricket used to be, such as the England Pakistan series many years ago that was full of horrible decisions. And, dare I say it, as a NZer there have been enough instances of Australians cheating (and I'm sure some aussies could say the same of some NZers) that I'd much rather have a more fairer controversy than unfair controversy.

Its just like football, should there be goal line technology? In a game where you score a goal in the world cup final, its disallowed, and the other team goes on to win in penalties, shouldn't we be aiming to try and set up the game so that the winner is deserved, and not because of a howler of a decision?

Yes, howlers can still happen, but less often. One of things the DRS is showing up are which players are selfish and use it for themselves rather than for the team.

Posted by tests_the_best on (July 17, 2013, 20:16 GMT)

I have high regard for Adam Gilchrist, but I totally disagree with the part of his argument where he claims that DRS has resulted in loss of spontaneity. It's easily more important that the right decision is made than whether it was spontaneous. Suppose there was no DRS and Haddin had finally scored the winning runs. That victory moment for Aus would have been spontaneous but it would obviously have been the wrong result which would have been WAY, WAY more tragic than the loss of spontaneity.

I agree with his other argument though that maybe DRS should be put on the backburner till a better system is found or the DRS is modified suitably. My gut instinct is that DRS would eventually prevail, but like any other technologies, it would probably need a few more years before all the fine-tunings and modifications make it more reliable and consistent than it is now.

Posted by samincolumbia on (July 17, 2013, 20:11 GMT)

Everyone stating that it's the umpires and not DRS to blame....So why was DRS introduced in the first place if the human factor cannot be eliminated? All we have know is an expensive system with even more howlers and bad blood than before.

Posted by Just_saying87 on (July 17, 2013, 20:05 GMT)

DRS has made a mockery of cricket. In a moment, you see fielding team enjoying a wicket and next you see the whole world looks confused and waiting to see if batsman is going to use the DRS. Also checking for no ball after every wicket is pain in the neck. What the hell umpires are getting paid for? If batsman hits the off side ball for leg glance, its his decision, we dont call it as dead ball or something. Same way let the umpire take the decision.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 19:51 GMT)

For those who want no DRS means that you are contented with wrong and unfair decision; this what 'cheaters' prefer.

An OUT should be an out, and a NOT-OUT should be a not ---- anything otherwise is to advocate for devising ways to deceive the umpire by either teams. Come with specialty quick review software. If I had my way, I will remove all on field umpires, put sensors and cameras into the stumps, sensors on the bat, and use a 'special paint' to draw creases and other 'limiting lines', and have computers analyse the plays to determine if the player is really OUT or NOT-OUT.

I remember nearly coming to blows on many occasion with opposing players and umpires when the umpire cheated.

Posted by glen1 on (July 17, 2013, 19:50 GMT)

One needs a methodical, non-impulsive approach to go about constructing a DRS appeal. If history is any indicator, the English have excelled at it. Should other teams also develop such tactical approaches or we leave the umpires to referee, with whatever technology is made available to them? This is the debate. I think, Cricket will lose its charm if DRS is put in the hands of the players.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 19:48 GMT)

@Eoin Smith yeah, I said immediately after that first innings that Rogers shouldn't have been out. But the failure there wasn't DRS. The failure there was the umpire.

I always thought it was understood that a right arm bowler, bowling to a left hand batsman around the wicket has to strike pretty much off, or middle and off at very worst, to convince an umpire there's any degree of certainty it's hitting.

Rogers was hit, what, right on leg? No way should that have been given.

But since we can't eradicate the umpires giving some of those out, and some not, a better solution, and one I've mentioned before, is to eradicate the "umpire's doubt" and actually embrace the uncertainty and margin of error. Either give all marginal "clipping" lbws out (makes sense; if you're bowled and it only clips, it's still out, not to mention how hard it is for bowlers on a pitch like that) or not out (benefit of the doubt). Same for all teams. All teams benefit or suffer the margin of error equally.

Posted by Rahulbose on (July 17, 2013, 19:42 GMT)

DRS does take the spontaneity out of match winning moments. As long as the losing side has a review left they will always use it in an end game situation. Instead of a glorious moment like Flintoff and Bret lee what we get is a controversial review by 3rd umpire. And this loss to the game comes for what purpose? DRS is supposed to eliminate obvious errors. However it has also introduced some new ways for umpires to err. People have been given out after reviews of the wrong footage, caught of shoelaces, flood of marginal LBW calls going to the bowler, and the infamous 2.5 m rules used in the world cup. Ultimately the human error factor has not been eliminated, it has simply been shifted from the on field umpire to the technology operator and the 3rd umpire. And a new technology error factor has been introduced.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 19:08 GMT)

Why when Australia don't have there way it becomes a big problem? DRS is fine when it works for Australia, but because England had the better result from it, it is not good for the game. Australia team is falling and they won't be able to compete at their best if they don't pull together. BRING HUSSEY BACK!

Posted by maddy20 on (July 17, 2013, 19:05 GMT)

Though I don't fully agree with Gilly here, there is no denying that it has become a headache for captains and umpires alike. Players questioning the umpires repeatedly would affect their confidence. Even great umpires like Aleem Dar are starting to make mistakes. A better approach would be like Haddin said , take it off the players' hands and let the umpires go for it when they are in doubt. Else if they want to go with the current method atleast they should allow 3 reviews per innings. The howlers that DRS was meant to eliminate are still a plenty and its a real shame if decisions like Broad's caught behind decide the fate of the game.

Posted by inswing on (July 17, 2013, 18:56 GMT)

There is no doubt that DRS reduces errors and makes the game more fair. But what is the best way to implement it? The whole issue of "how to use it properly" shouldn't be so important. For the batting side, it is pretty clear: IMO all 'out' decisions should be reviewed automatically. Take it out of batsman's hand. What about the bowling side? There is the problem. Giving only two chances is problematic, as this Test proved. There should be more chances, but some penalty for using them improperly What penalty? In American Football, you lose a timeout, which works perfectly, but there is nothing analogous in cricket. Runs? Doesn't work. 10 runs have different value in different situations. Maybe the captain is banned from the next match if he uses more than two incorrect reviews. In critical situations this would provide an option. Another alternative - ban the bowler for the next 10 or so overs after the first two wrong reviews. Think of a good penalty and you are set.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 18:43 GMT)

I am watching the Ashes for the first time. I am really enjoying it. I think the last wicket that was decided with DRS decided the match. Australia had a fair shot of winning if not for the DRS. But it was a fair decision in the end. If I was an Australian fan though, it would be hard to watch. What a close match!

Posted by SaintAubyn on (July 17, 2013, 18:13 GMT)

Brilliant article, I agree wholeheartedly. Umpires are now under more pressure with every LBW decision now being scrutinized by Hawkeye. They seem reluctant to even make straightforward line decisions preferring instead to defer to the third umpire when its fairly obvious on the field what the outcome will be.

Frivolous use of the DRS detracts from the credibility and spontaneity of the game, and the mistake the ICC is making is not providing a deterrent for cavalier challenges. If the first DRS challenge results in the original decision being upheld, then the the second DRS opportunity should be forfeited. If a 2nd DRS challenge is unsuccessful then a 2nd inning DRS should be forfeited. If the final DRS of the 2nd inning results in no overturn of the original umpires decision, then 10 runs should be awarded to the opposing side.

In an ODI a failed challenge should result in 10 runs for the other side. Now that would increase the drama and make the game more interesting.

Posted by True-Analyst on (July 17, 2013, 18:02 GMT)

It is unbelivable to see that people can so narrow minded. Like BCCI, when Indian captain proved stupid in referring BCCI at once rejected the system itself and samething is true for the Gilly here. What a shame, dear. Try to understand that it is not the fault of technology but the fault of the captain or in some cases fault of the third umpire who is making decissions based on the available evidences. And for team like Australia DRS should be worst. I remember a Australia Pakistan match where Gilly and Langer got out clearly twice or thrice and went onto win the game for their team. If DRS would have been there that outcome would have definitely went against Aussies..... So Gilly is right..........Hate DRS...... DRS is a fantastic system wherein, Umpires cannot make the horrible decisssions and 95% of their erroneous decissions can be corrected. I agree DRS is not 100% accurate but it is far better than horror decisions umpires make, unfortunately sometimes delebrately.

Posted by Alexk400 on (July 17, 2013, 17:57 GMT)

I am tired of hearing badaid solution , instead of fixing problem people adding more problem to problem. The problem is appeal system. I see everyone have an opinion about DRS. Problem is appeal concept and players misusing DRS and use it a tool to gain momentum in the game. Players always going to take advantage of things , thats what their job is. DRS means review umpire decision. Because umpires are humans , they make mistake. if they do not sleep well over night , their eyes may not work effectively. So thats part of fun. But we need to have options to correct howlers. If you remove DRS and make umpires 100% , it will be sydney Test all over again with better liar wins the contest. Its so easy to fix , why people do not fix is beyond common sense. I think it shows not all humans are interested in fixing things as each have their own agenda. Why not every country like singapore and decide the law in morning and implement at evening. Easy. Too many people pulling stuff from sides.

Posted by Alexk400 on (July 17, 2013, 17:11 GMT)

yo gilchrist , find another job. you were great player and i admire your honesty and bravery when you played. But stop talking nonsense about DRS. if you do not have constructive alternate suggestion , do not say stuff that make you look like are not analyst. if you analysed the drs and your goal is how to remove howlers , why do you remove DRS? you put back same flawed umpire incharge again. How does that improve the decision? Come on...think...we need DRS but in different form. :)

Posted by Alexk400 on (July 17, 2013, 17:06 GMT)

i 100% disagree with Gilchrist on DRS. DRS is good just that implementation of it is badly designed. Appeal system should be replaced by buzzer system in that 3rd umpire gets a buzzer light from each side.Point is there is no limit because buzzer can come from both sides. It only tell 3rd umpire look at the replay. He feels he need to look slowly , he can stop the game if not game can proceed. This way game will be faster and player feel they get fair judgement even field umpire makes mistake. I only care about fair justice. Howlers can tilt game to opposition easily. So howlers must be removed. Umpire will make mistake whether u have DRS or Not in current design. So change appeal system to buzzer system for 3rd umpire to review. Anything can be fixable , you just should not reject it because you do not know how to fix it. if ICC set up a panel of non associated group of 3 technical people , they will figure out where is weak links and can fix them. you must try to fix first.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 17:03 GMT)

Can't agree with Gilly here. The only time the system came up short was in Trott's LBW. That was bad, but just one error among so many correct decisions! And I don't buy the whole argument about "it evens out in the long run". As a Sri Lankan fan I can tell you that when we play India, Eng or Aus, most of the howlers are against us. That has always been the case because these cricket boards are powerful and SLC is not. If the blame game is to be played, blame the players who used DRS not for howlers but for 50-50 decisions with their fingers crossed. And definitely blame the umpires, who can't wrap their head around the simple rule that an on field decision can ONLY be overturned if there is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that it is incorrect.

Posted by Alexk400 on (July 17, 2013, 16:59 GMT)

Hey, Dhoni was unable to use DRS effectively and india refused after that. Now Clarke unable to use DRS effectively and now aussies started seeing it the DRS issues. That said i am all for DRS but i do not like player appeal system . I really think you need to remove players from decision making , it should be coaches and 3rd umpire. Who initiate review if 3rd umpire sleeping , for me i get rid of appeal but will have buzzer in that , it request 3rd umpire to take a look. 3rd umpire do not have to stop the game unless he is considering it. So game can move on without any delay. We only need someone watching the umpires. 3rd umpire can be watched by coaches by BUZZER. if 3rd umpires make wrong decision or rules are not perfect , fix rules. There is always review of decisions after a year and find rule can be modified such that its easier to make decision. 50/50 rule always complex. For me DRS is not the problem , I need someone to review but players should not initiate that.

Posted by Ironman88 on (July 17, 2013, 16:58 GMT)

Gilly's suggestion that reviews should rest with umpires doesn't make any sense. There could be two scenarios 1) Umpires make a call, players show blatant dissent and umpires are forced to review, 2) Umpires review every decision like they do with run-outs these days, even when a batsman is half way down the pitch they like to review. I don't think anyone would want any of these 2 scenarios to happen.

As for the point regarding the scenes after 2005 Edgbaston test, would the scenes have been the same had the last wicket fallen through a third umpire adjudged run-out? Of course not. So should we then do away with third umpire for run-outs as well since it is a buzz killer?

I agree that DRS is a buzz kill and kills spontaneity. However, its better than having incorrect decisions deciding the match and the resentment that players and fans carry in the aftermath.

The only reason that DRS is being talked about by everyone is because the system was not available for a call. What irony!

Posted by fijindu on (July 17, 2013, 16:45 GMT)

Totally agree with Gilchrist. "DRS is now part of the problem, not the solution". Walking is reserved for the great ones who know that to have the respect of your peers in sport is greater then the sum of all other respects in sport. How do you justify putting a machine based system that has the potential to favour one team? DRS is is just that by the way it has been implemented. Leave the decisions to humans and if incorrect decisions are made (and have been in the past) then we have and must live with it. Humans are not perfect and neither is the DRS Systems made by humans.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 16:37 GMT)

Ridiculous to blame DRS..I think ever since it has started one can count the errors made by DRS on fingers of both hands but the number of wrong decisions overturned through DRS will be into hundreds. I don't understand the reference to the great Edgbaston test and the drama and emotions etc when KAsprowicz was supposedly given out incorrectly. I fail to understand how the drama would have been any less if DRS was in place and had ruled Kasprowicz not out and Australia had gone on to win the we need wrong decisions to create and savour drama in cricket???

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 16:36 GMT)

I still stand by BCCI decision not to take DRS.If after seeking help of technology there are so many controversy then we are better off not taking it , Leave it to the umpires who are neutral, We are losing the charm of the game by questioning the umpires.ICC please wake up

Posted by Temuzin on (July 17, 2013, 16:27 GMT)

Good to see people coming around BCCI's long standing point of view about DRS. BCCI and India has been sullied for not accepting DRS for long time by fans and foreign players. Now BCCI's reluctance about DRS has been proved right. DRS is not the solution. Good umpires are. Give them training and then believe in them to make right decisions. At the end of it, its just a game and we should enjoy it.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 16:23 GMT)


I appreciate that umpires are fallible, and I fully understand that a human element will result in inconsistencies, mistakes, etc.

Where I have a problem is the portrayal, inadvertent or otherwise, of hawkeye as absolutely 100% correct and inarguable. That is a simplification which brushes the uncertainty element under the carpet and, and misrepresents the technology. For example, see Rogers'first innings dismissal.

Much of the argument here is about application of the system; players, umpires, extra tv umpire, etc. I'm trying to avoid that, and instead emphasise that the limitations of the technology should be understood.

For my two cents, the denouement of the Trent Bridge test was a little disappointing. For sure, I want precision and correctness, yet simultaneously felt disappointed when the decision was referred (and that even before the result was given). Not an easy issue to resolve.

Posted by samincolumbia on (July 17, 2013, 16:16 GMT)

It's no coincidence that Dar's umpring has been downhill ever since the introduction of DRS. His confidence takes a hit everytime his decision is reviewed and then proven wrong. An umpire who used to make mistakes once every few tests now has ended up making a few in a single test. It's also telling that England' rise in test rankings has also directly correlated to the introduction of DRS as well since they have become experts in how to use it rather than cricketing skills.

Posted by Jafjaf on (July 17, 2013, 16:15 GMT)

When the third umpire can't make a confident decision to give the batter out, it seems that it's always given not out. I tend to think that it should default back to the original decision.

Posted by Jafjaf on (July 17, 2013, 16:07 GMT)

I don't like that players can choose to review decisions. I think it should be the job of the third umpire. He has the technology at hand and can usually see fairly quickly via the live footage or one replay, if a decision needs another look.

Also, having a limit on the number of reviews usually does not ensure the elimination of all obvious errors.

Posted by StatisticsRocks on (July 17, 2013, 16:00 GMT)

Vow! All these negative comments about DRS is suddenly making BCCI look very good. Even if the DRS were to be with umpires, the players will insist the umpires go upstairs and review every possible appeal for LBW, or CBW etc. So I don't think it is going to work like many believe. With or without technology bad decisions will be made. I agree with Gilly that with DRS the game has lost spontaneity and drama. Nothing beats the batsmen walking away when he is actually out.

Posted by uksar on (July 17, 2013, 15:59 GMT)

I think technology is there to administer the match in a better way. So it should be the headache of the cricket administrator ICC. It should not be how it was used by the captain. Looking at the reactions of many cricket fans, after the Trent Bridge drama, it seems that DRS has become the other important parts of cricket like Batting, Bowling & Fielding. If things continue to go like this, who knows in the near future some teams will engage coach for this !

Posted by Night-Watchman on (July 17, 2013, 15:46 GMT)

I have a totally radical suggestion. Use DRS to punish those who dont walk for caught behinds. Use DRS to punish those who claim bump catches - remember India Aus Sydney test - Micheal Clarke? Use DRS for all LBWs to check if there was a bat on the ball and for all run outs, but at the umpire's discretion.

Let us get the game back to being a gentleman's game, albeit by gentle coercion.

Posted by DaGameChanger on (July 17, 2013, 15:44 GMT)

Gilchrist have now joined Martin Crowe in understanding opposition to DRS. MS Dhoni, I believe first had call this DRS a bluff because he got it wrong everytime he called for it. Now when BCCI wanted to oppose DRS, it obviously was not going to say our captain doesnt know when to use it. BCCI came with reasons of who is going finance it and we dont trust hawkeye. DRS is honestly being used as a desperate situation to turn around things (if you have reviews left) rather than removing howlers. I definitely think, just like NFL in American sports, flag should be raised by teams sitting in dressing room within 1 minute of time rather than on field by players.

Posted by CapitalMarkets on (July 17, 2013, 15:38 GMT)

I'm grateful that Adam Gilchrist was a walker and I'm very grateful for what he has done personally to promote cricket as an entertaining spectacle. Life was never dull when he was batting! I appreciate from the players point of view that the game can live without DRS and that there's also a strong case for giving it solely to umpires to use. However, I believe from an umpire's perspective it is an absolute boon. I umpired for my firm's team and tried to be totally impartial and fair. This played havoc with relationships at work as I gave our best batsman out then he told me over drinks the wooden noise I heard came from the ball hitting his thigh-pad. I gave someone not out erroneously when they were run out but I was confused by multiple wicket markings. I gave the opposition man out when I was convinced that the ball was going to hit the stumps. He was a long way forward and not playing a stroke; he told me he was six foot four and hit above the knee roll. Support umpires please!!

Posted by crick_wizard on (July 17, 2013, 15:35 GMT)

It is sad that people blame the technology when the fault is with how people are using it. Getting more decisions right should matter far more than any effect it has on the "spontaneity and drama, the magic and intrigue". Image how England would have felt if there was no DRS and Australia had gone on to win the match? As far as people saying that DRS should be used only when it is perfect, nothing starts as perfect in this world, but everything evolves and needs to be perfected. We would still be riding in horse carriages if we had waited for the first generation automobiles to be like Ferraris.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 15:25 GMT)

@Eoin Smith the MCC did Tests. The margin for error with hawk-eye in cricket is 2.6mm in terms of where the ball pitched (an event that's already happened) and likewise for striking the batsman. The margin for error from there to the stumps was an average of 5mm, unless the batsman's 2 meters away from the stumps, where it's between 15 and 25mm.

The "umpire's call"? That has a margin of 45mm. In other words, almost twice. There's almost no doubt when the ball misses the stumps or hits them. There's minimal (5mm) doubt where the ball's clipping. Bear in mind the dimensions of cricket balls and stumps are as follows:

Law 5 States the ball must have a diameter of no less than 224mm and no more than 229mm. Law 8 States stumps must have a diameter of no less than 34.9mm and no more than 38.1mm.

In other words the "umpire's call" margin covers more than a stump width, while the margin of error is less than one. Yet you'd rather trust the eyesight of a man who missed Broad's edge.

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

I should probably also add that the contention that old test matches were better and more dramatic just because wrong decisions which fly in the face of the sporting value of fairness were allowed without scrutiny is no more than a farcical myth which doesn't really take the matter any further in relation to this debate.

The only reason why Gilly loved it back then was that the risk of a match turning decision against AUS was very low back then (owing to different factors - for an example - they would create more chances anyways and end up winning as they were dominant). However, in modern times, test cricket has become more competitive, teams more evenly matched and the stakes probably higher. A wrong decision turning a whole match on its head has become less tenable.

For these reasons, we should not stop trying to find a solution. Doing away with DRS altogether would definitely be a huge step back for the game.

Posted by Spelele on (July 17, 2013, 15:12 GMT)

In line with my earlier post, I would like to add that DRS would be effective if VERY decision was reviewed for its correctness by the third umpire using the technology. Those who say this would delay the game obviously do not understand the nature of cricket.

The cricket game already stops when a person has been given out. It wouldn't take much for the third umpire to take a few seconds to verify an out decision. In the case of not out decisions, the third umpire should be given a discretion to intervene where he suspects that the decision is manifestly wrong and probably wrong.

That would prevent the game slowing down as the third umpire would not intervene where the decision was probably correct and the game would just go on. Yes, this would probably put the umpires under a bit of a spotlight (which they probably have always been anyways) but it would do away with the element of player involvement in challenging the umpire which Gilly despises.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 15:05 GMT)

The technology used in DRS (Hawkeye, Hotspot) is not fool-proof. Some decisions can be inconclusive(Rahul Dravid's case in England series 2011). The costly hotspot technology cannot be afforded by most boards so the use lacks uniformity. Even in bilateral series where both boards agree for the usage the sole control over referrals should rest with the 3rd umpire as he has replays of each delivery at his disposal and alert on field umpires against the proverbial howlers. Great article Adamji.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 15:02 GMT)

Posted by Bouncer51 on (July 17, 2013, 12:57 GMT) "Scientifically it is not possible to get 100% correct LBW reviews, one gets close at the best if tiles but when the trajectory of a ball ibecomes the result of cyber technology there's something not right. Whatever parameters and algoritms are used to calculate what the ball would have done after the bounce is just... well... not cricket!"

No it's physics, we know the physics of projectiles and Hawkeye uses that, the alternative is to have the umpire guess! For example we know that the ball will follow a parabolic path wrt time after bouncing, we need a minimum of three positions to evaluate the future path, that's what HE gives us. The first use of digital computers in the US was in WWII to calculate projectile trajectories using the same physics, perhaps they shouldn't have bothered and just guessed instead.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 15:01 GMT)

1) Third umpires aren't perfect, even with technology. Erasmus gave Agar not out while his colleague, Bruce Oxenford, who was only prevented from umpiring here because he's an Australian (no idea why we insist they have to be neutrals; if we have one from each country, nobody's going to mind) gave Bell out in an identical case in the Champions Trophy.

2) Removing the hawk-eye element from DRS would have meant Bell was out even though the ball's missing the stumps. It might even have meant Clarke's review on Bairstow was upheld, if the on-field umpire gave it not-out based on him hitting it.

Not sure why people seem insistent on making sure more wrong decisions survive just to ensure one really bad one was eradicated. Like @landl47 says, was Haddin's a howler? Probably not. Was it the right decision? Yes (Haddin, like the class guy he is, admitted he hit it). Did it change the outcome? Probably.

It isn't a failure of DRS that Broad survived. It's a failure of Dar and Michael Clarke.

Posted by Spelele on (July 17, 2013, 15:00 GMT)

People are missing the point badly, including Gilly. The problems cited (e.g. the Broad dismissal) have nothing to do with the correctness of technology. I'm not sure why this was made to be about the system to be honest as the decision would have remained the same horrendous blunder with or without the system.

On most of the occasions (as perhaps the case was with the Broad decision), what is problematic are the laws governing the use of the technology and how they are applied. We should all get past challenging the technology itself, and perhaps start thinking of innovative ways of making use of it. Certainly, it would have been diabolical had DRS not been there, and AUS had won on after Haddin wasn't given out. I doubt we'd been seeing this article had that happened.

Let's start innovating around DRS rather than calling for its head in its entirety. Leaving the decision to intervene to the third umpire is an option.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 14:57 GMT)

I've never seen a margin of error or confidence interval applied to the projected trajectory of the ball when processing an lbw review.

I've never seen an "insufficient data" message coming from a review.

Paul Hawkins, inventor of the hawkeye technology accepts a 3.6mm margin of error for line calls in tennis. This is for processing an event which has *already happened*! How uncertain is the method when projecting the flight of a degrading cricket ball, from a scratched/uneven/degrading pitch, past a moving batsman?

There's either a widespread ignorance, or worse, a calculated denial of the uncertainty involved in the UDRS.

In the past, the absolute arbiter was the umpire. Now, the absolute arbiter is TV. It makes sense to me that any evidence to weaken this position would be suppressed by media, who provide the bulk of the money in the cricket world.

Posted by crow_eater on (July 17, 2013, 14:52 GMT)

Agree with what a lot of people are saying, DRS should be taken away from the players. It should be a tool that the umpires on the ground can use if they have doubts on a dismissal. If the umpire has a concern then refer it to the third umpire to review.

Posted by whoster on (July 17, 2013, 14:39 GMT)

The First Test had an unusually high rate of hairline decisions, and DRS is never going to make things perfect. DRS would've sorted the Broad howler, but Clarke threw away his final 2nd innings review by reviewing a Pattinson lbw against Bell, which showed the ball missing leg stump by 2-3 inches. To Clarke's credit, he's taken responsibility for his misuse of DRS in the Test, but as he himself says, it's the same rules for both sides. The Trott dismissal was down to human error, as there was no evidence to show that Trott DIDN'T hit the ball, and therefore Aleem Dar's not out decision should not have been overturned. It's a fact that more correct decisions are given using DRS, and that's what the players want. The technology is there for everyone to see, and we can't put the genie back in the lamp by getting rid of DRS. Without DRS, Broad would've still been given not out, and how much ill-feeling would that've caused? Clarke didn't use the system wisely, and paid the price.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 14:24 GMT)

It is funny how so many people see Australian team's poor use of DRS as a failure of DRS. As Clarke himself admitted, it was their (Aussies) failure. As someone else correctly pointed out "Reviews are to be availed only when you're ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that you can overrule the on-field verdict" and that can only be enforced by limiting the number of reviews available. To paraphrase NRA - DRS was not the problem, the (mis)use of DRS by the Aussies was the problem.

Posted by disco_bob on (July 17, 2013, 14:21 GMT)

DRS came about because of normal increase in the power of television's ability to use elaborate technology to increase the viewing enjoyment with high scrutiny images. This is a necessary commercial decision to create better value for the viewer and thus attract more viewers and thus increase their advertising revenue. That's is normal commercial practice and the audience for test cricket would not expect anything less than the best available viewing experience.

Alas, the rub was that this meant suddenly umpires were subject to public vilification. Make no mistake the DRS's real purpose is not to correct mistakes for the sake of the cricket, it is to correct mistakes for the sake of the umpires.

Posted by king_dhoni on (July 17, 2013, 14:20 GMT)

I am not worried about moments being lost, it is more important to get decisions right. Haddin had edged it and it would have been a shame if Australia won (which they might have) if there was no DRS. Just imagine something like this happening in a world cup final, it would change history and make the wrong team win.

Also Cook used it correctly and Clarke did not which cost them the game, so i think the current system is pretty good. Players need a way to challenge umpires as it is obvious that umpires are making mistakes so anything that reduces it is good. I think DRS has been great for the game ensuring more correct decisions and also ensure the game remains corruption free in a way.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 14:19 GMT)

Test match should be TEST of CRICKETING SKILLS. It should NOT be a test of a captain's skills to take "decision under uncertainly" !

Posted by Sarfin on (July 17, 2013, 14:13 GMT)

I respectfully disagree with Gilly. Fundamentally a traditional review and a DRS review do not differ. There are only two differences: 1. the level of technology and 2. captains power to call for a review. But basically it's all about having a second look. Numerous times the final decision, when involving a run out or stamping, of a match has come from the 3rd umpire. So, if you are fine with a traditional 3rd umpire call to end the match, what's the problem with DRS? If Haddin were run out, that decision could come from the 3rd umpire as well. I've seen many captains (including Ponting, when Gilly was VC) charged at umpires when a controversial decision was made. I think asking for a review is better than that. Moreover, DRS is under the spot light not because of itself. Rather mistakes from Clarke, Ersumus and the DRS operator created all those fuss. The only logical is question should be whether we leave it to the captains or the umpires.

Posted by ARad on (July 17, 2013, 14:12 GMT)

Gilchrist says: "I have always found it a frustration that under the DRS a player can question an umpire's decision. One of the strongest elements of the spirit of any sport is not questioning the umpires or referees." Gilchrist then contradicts himself when he says how well it works in Tennis when a player questions a call. Most American sports including Football, hockey and basketball now allow reviews. Things change... Besides, eliminating howlers is a GOOD thing and, when DRS is used correctly by the captains and when human errors by the 3rd umpires are minimized, it actually adds ADDITIONAL DRAMA to the proceedings. OTOH, the current 'walkie-talkie question & answer with the 3rd umpire' system is FLAWED. There must be a video system available near the boundary so that the umpire can jog to it CHECK THE REPLAYS HIMSELF. That will remove many of the human errors since the umpire can compare what he saw with naked eyes with what technology reveals.

Posted by Team_Cook on (July 17, 2013, 14:08 GMT)

It was an outstanding test match and just for the sake of "Spirit of Cricket" you can't rob a team of correct decisions. Imagine if Clarke and Haddin made a century and England had lost, the talk would be about using the technology thats available.

The over rate these days are slow as they are and allowing the third umpire to use DRS will slow the game down even more. DRS is fine the way it is, It is eliminating howlers most often then not. Players are the first one to know that the umpires have made a howler so it should be within players right to challenge those howlers. Just look at Chris Rogers who played so well for his half century, without DRS that wouldn't have been possible. Rogers would have been dismissed cheaply and he would have been robbed of an opportunity to score his first half century which he deserved

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 14:01 GMT)

Well, Adam Gilchrist - even in tennis (a sport I watch and follow as avidly as I do cricket - Test matches ) - there is at least one long-standing player who I think does not agree totally with the use of recent technology - and that is Roger Federer.

I think both Edgbason 2005 and Trent Bridge 2013 will be long-remembered though probably not for the same reason; personally, the former more vividly so.

Posted by sportofpain on (July 17, 2013, 13:58 GMT)

DRS should be used to correct mistakes. Haddin nicked the ball so the right decision was made. However Broad's not out cost Australia the match - EVERYBODY knew that he was out but the flawed limitation on no of reviews caused the problem. That was nothing short of a parody. The technology was correct there as well. There should be two changes: 1. The 3rd umpire reviews all decisions and if he notices something wrong he points it out to the onfield umpire for correction. It should not be based on the players judgement. 2. DRS should NOT be used for predictive path - therefore no LBW's. But it can be used to check if the batsman nicked the ball before it hit the pads. Similarly it can be used to determine nicks for catches.

Used sensibly, correct decisions will be made and players can't game the system as Broad did knowing that he was out but that the Aussies couldn't review. That was a BRILLIANT example of the flaws in current implementation.

Lastly, I prefer precision to spontaneity

Posted by futurecaptainofindia on (July 17, 2013, 13:58 GMT)

Adam, you stuck your head out for what you believed in. Respect! I would disagree though about your being judgmental about the not-walkers. They were several instances of you and your slip-fielders pressurising batsmen to follow your lead. Some of these lead to ugly on, and off-field exchanges. Coming to your point on DRS - as a club cricketer myself, we do accord a lot of respect to the umpires decisions. Isn't it better though that we are 95% correct as opposed to say, 75% in the non-DRS era? The game has a human element alright, but why should that stand at the cost of doing the right thing, or making the right decision? India's reluctance in my opinion is heavily Tendulkar-influenced. Umpires have typically made marginal decisions in the favour of the stronger party (both individuals and teams - Australia would vouch for it!). With DRS, Sachin loses that advantage. So he becomes an LBW candidate, in addition to being a potential BOWLED every time the ball supposedly keeps low!

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 13:46 GMT)

Gilly you are spot on.. I feel the review system should be used by the umpires. If the umpire feels he needs to review his decision then he should use the review system..

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 13:43 GMT)

I totally agree with Adam on this one. All decisions should be made using the available technological options. When you have the technology, it has to be used without limitations even if it means having to do away with the on-field umpires. Whatever the two on-field umpires do on the field can be done from the pavilion using the electronic audio-visual technology already in place thanks to the broadcastors. You can do away with atleast one extra umpire altogether or engage him elsewhere. Hawk eye, all the cameras (including the stump and spider), stump microphones (snicko-meter), Thermal imaging (Hot-Spot) etc shall be available for making a correct decision. The two umpires can divide the job of monitoring the live feed, consult and make the correct decision together and when in doubt the match referee can use his casting vote. It is really silly and un-professional of a sporting body to not use the technology to upgrade the game else umpires will be hit out of the game by batsmen.

Posted by Un_Citoyen_Indien on (July 17, 2013, 13:32 GMT)

@ Bob Martin: Fair enough, however, the reason why I would like to see a 5 run penalty imposed in the case of a failed review is to put greater pressure on captains like Clarke who seem to gamble away their reviews.

Reviews are to be availed only when you're ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that you can overrule the on-field verdict.

Alright, maybe a 5 run penalty is a bit harsh.

Posted by AMIT1974 on (July 17, 2013, 13:28 GMT)

Just wondering how these wicketkeepers always come out with some unique observations and great words. Examples are many including this from Gilly, Sangakkara, Dhoni (sometimes spoken not column), Dravid (though not a regular keeper), Rodney Marsh (if you guys have read his articles), Jeff Dujon (same), Alan Knott (one of the best columnist of his time though wrote less), Andi fowler etc etc.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 13:21 GMT)

@Murali Gopal, there is a family in Brazil that just lost their refereeing father due to what no-one would call "copping it and moving on." Irrespective of the events over there, football is not immune to emotions flaring up when controversial decisions are made, this also happens in rugby.

Let's look at what DRS was brought in to fix - obvious errors. The main point where this is going wrong is the ICC have not created a review system that achieves this goal, and they need to seriously re-think this.

What they have actually created is a system where a team can gamble on overturning a marginal decision as easily as they can question a blunderous one. This is a problem. India's objection to the DRS is not a correct one - they object to cost, and to the accuracy of hot-spot and ball tracking - or more to their wording "not being 100% foolproof" - whereas the review system could quite easily be improved simply taking the number of reviews out of the game and handing it to the match ref.

Posted by pat_one_back on (July 17, 2013, 13:05 GMT)

DRS is an absolute buzz killer with the raised finger no-longer final. It's simply not worth the distraction. I take Gilly's point this test has been pursuasive and seems to be swaying me. Beyond DRS this referring suspect no balls has to go as well. Call it or let it go. It seems unfair that a bowler can be creeping closer, marginal to the naked eye and then, for the ball that counts, being caught fractionally over by the slow mo replay. Invest in more better resourced and looked after elite umpires for better decisions.

Posted by landl47 on (July 17, 2013, 12:59 GMT)

Once again we have a thread full of people talking about 'howlers'. Please tell me whether Haddin's case is an example of a howler being corrected?

If it is, then howlers are any wrong decision, because that one was so marginal that even the England players (except perhaps Prior) weren't certain about it, although Haddin admitted afterwards that he knew he'd hit it.

If the Haddin decision wasn't a howler, then what you're saying is that the DRS shouldn't be used to correct a wrong decision which might well alter the result of the match, even though it is capable of doing so. That makes no sense whatever.

Forget howlers, unless you can give a definition that makes any sense. The DRS should be and is used to correct wrong decisions. As long as the responsibility for asking for a review lies with the players, they have to get smarter about using it, as Clarke admitted. It was his use of the system which was a howler- defined as asking for stupid reviews.

Posted by Bouncer51 on (July 17, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

Reviews should only be used to check on stumpings and run-outs and that's it. They should only be used when the umpire feels he needs to and should never be used on a player's request. In tennis hawkeye is not used to check on foot faults or a shot after the ball has bounced twice. In football technology should only be used to check on whether the ball has crossed the goalline, not for off sides etc. At this moment the DRS is an overkill (and a questionable at that) as it is currently being used in cricket. Scientifically it is not possible to get 100% correct LBW reviews, one gets close at the best if tiles but when the trajectory of a ball ibecomes the result of cyber technology there's something not right. Whatever parameters and algoritms are used to calculate what the ball would have done after the bounce is just... well... not cricket! Give the power back to the umpires even if they occasionally get some decisions wrong. We're only human, aren't we? Well then, accept that.

Posted by KrikIndFan on (July 17, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

I remember years back as a kid in the remote village of India, almost every men used to carry transistor listening to the cricket commentary. Hardly anyone understood the language but a bunch would still gather around that small device with a pin-drop silence. There was no other instrument for them to show what actually happened if an umpire's decision was said wrong as per the commentator. That decision in that era would be the final call, which would make those men happy, sad, exited, frustrated etc. Funny, with this "so called better system" we get more defensive, angry, fumed etc. . I am 100% with Mr.Gilchrist on this one. Let the umpires do their job, that's what they are there for.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 12:51 GMT)

What an excellent piece of writing by Gilchrist His thoughts have been cogently put. He may not have the answers but he has asked the right questions .His thinking process is so sound and his analysis of the situation is on the button. Shane Warne and Gilchrist are the thinking legends of Australian cricket who can contribute so much to the game if they were given responsibility in the ICC

Posted by Anneeq on (July 17, 2013, 12:46 GMT)

I respect ur accomplishments Gilly, especially since u were a walker and ul be THE all time greatest wicket keeper batsman in my eyes, but I COMPLETELY disagree with u both on DRS and walking. For me not walking when ur blatantly out is like claiming a dropped catch, its cheating pure and simple......

I think this format of DRS is the best we can get. Its the players that are letting it down by cheating. If Haddin and Broad were honest about edging the ball in the heat of the match and walked it would have saved us all the trouble and not much would have been said about DRS.

Also suppose we never had DRS and saw Broad's blatant edge, we'd all be shouting for DRS. I suppose the one failure of DRS thusfar is that it is supposed to promote honesty from the players, but they still cheat. Thatl take time i suppose....

Posted by 200ondebut on (July 17, 2013, 12:39 GMT)

So Mr Gilchrist why did you, and your teams mates, feel the need to appeal so exaggeratedly if you respect the umpires decision so much? You weren't trying to influence him to make the decision you wanted rather than the one he wanted to give by any chance? The game you refer to isn't also the one where you claimed the catch, that wasn't, off of KP in the second dig? I'm sorry but hot spot and hawk eye (as part of DRS) have exactly the same effect as hawkeye in tennis - the only difference is that in cricket you have a human making the decision and they sometimes get it wrong. Your logic is like blaming gun manufacturers when it is people that pull the trigger. Nothing wrong with the technology just the people who use it. I am sure the umpires support it, because I bet they would prefer the outcome of a match not to rest on a wrong decision.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 12:34 GMT)

@flashman-, I have no issues with appealing when there is doubt, that is integral to the game, it is appealing when you personally know that it is not out that is hypocritical. But I am with appealing full stop, nor is there any issue with not walking, the umpires are paid to make the decisions, whether on the field or via DRS, happy to let them. You are out if the umpire says you are, not if you are out in terms of the laws of the game. DRS reduces the errors, it doesn't eradicate them, this is evolution of the game and it is the better for it. I am sure things will continue to change, and those bits that work will stick around, and for me DRS improves the game

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 12:29 GMT)

Actually, if you look at the statistics rather than using selective memory, it does get rid of the mistakes it was created to eradicate. The success rate has been proven higher than human judgement. The tiny instances of error, like we saw last game, on which everyone's attention will focus rather than on all the successes, were down to human error, not the technology. Look at the statistics.

Posted by Jagger on (July 17, 2013, 12:26 GMT)

The time between the appeal and the umpires finger going up was the best time in a cricket match and the DRS takes it away. Get rid of DRS.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 12:15 GMT)

I don't understand cricket's obsession with DRS. Soccer which is more widely played than cricket, and where the stakes are higher(as far as money goes) has resisted efforts to undermine the decision of the referee and there are howlers on the field even in high stakes world cup matches. Fans and players just cop it and move on. One of the best part of watching sport is the mistakes that happen, the 'What if that player had been given out' makes for great discussion and even better memories.

Posted by Sigismund on (July 17, 2013, 12:10 GMT)

In 2005, I think perhaps it was a one-dayer, Gilchrist walked when he missed the ball by about 3 inches. It flew out of the footholes and went to 3rd slip - he must have figured that it could only have gone there off his bat. Walking not always a great idea. Wish people would stop saying e.g. with DRS England would not have won at Edgbaston 2005, or without DRS England would not have won at TB 2013. Total nonsense: put in or take out DRS and the entire shape of the game would have been different. The events in question would never have come to pass.

Posted by Sigismund on (July 17, 2013, 12:04 GMT)

In the question of whether DRS is good for the game, people always seem to think only of international matches. What about the damage that is done to the game as a whole by sanctioning dissent at the top level? How many games of cricket take place in a year? In England alone, it must be over 100,000. How many of those are international? 25?

Posted by Ozcricketwriter on (July 17, 2013, 11:48 GMT)

Australia were not expected to come close to winning the test, so, if moral points count for anything, Australia did very well.

But, re: Edgbaston, I can say that to the naked eye it was obviously not out and a bad decision. The Edgbaston 2nd test from 2005 was used as an example of why we needed DRS! It was such a horrible decision yet couldn't be overturned. It came off his elbow for heaven's sakes!

I have said previously my belief regarding DRS. Glenn McGrath is now agreeing with me. Get rid of umpire's call and give the benefit of any doubt to the batsmen, not the umpires, and all is good.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 11:37 GMT)

Here's what I feel the way DRS should be used.

1.3rd Umpire be given power to directly communicate to onfield umpire and inform them to overturn howlers... No need for anyone to ask. On field umpire to take his call based on the decision. 2. LBW should not be part of DRS... honestly technology does not look ready to read trajectory of the ball that well. 3. On Field Umpire can refer any decision to third umpire to check as well. 4. Players can ask for review, but if the review turns out not correct, if it's bowling team, one additional ball is added to the over, if its the batting team then 1 run is deducted for every wrong decision... Now captains will ask for only "Serious Ones". 5. A Maximum of 3 referrals is possible by captains in an innings, but umpires has unlimited referrals

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 11:35 GMT)

agree wid gilly :/ The reality and finality of seeing the umpire's finger raised has been erased, because everyone now looks to the batsman or fielding captain to see their response.! tht is really worse =/

Posted by McCricket_ on (July 17, 2013, 11:22 GMT)

@GlobalCricketLover: that was Gilly's point - commentators on both sides have agreed that Kasprowiz was technically not out, because his glove/hand was off the bat, so can't be given out under the laws. Yes, the series could have gone the other way, but so what? England were the better team over 5 Tests and deserved to win.

@Tom Beresford: is it really hypocritical if you walk, but appeal as a fielder? The Rogers, Watson and Root lbws showed that a ball hitting the same part of the stumps can be fairly judged both out or not out via DRS. The Root, Clarke and Haddin caught behinds show that edges can be whisker thick and not heard by bowlers or slips. Bell admitted that he doesnt feel all nicks. So there is doubt, and an appeal is exactly that - a question - that the umpire is obliged to answer. The only problem for me is excessive appealing or aggressive, over-the-top, demanding appeals. I'd rather cut both of those types out, than a questioning appeal.

Posted by voyager on (July 17, 2013, 11:21 GMT)

I thought that technology was to 'reduce' the umpiring errors not 'eradicating' them. There is nothing absolute... just continuous improvement. DRS has reduced the umpiring errors and yes there is room for improvement in DRS itself.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 11:14 GMT)

@TheOnlyEmperor Like I said, it's not 100%. But it's been shown to be better than the umpire using only the naked eye. I'd rather choose the more accurate one than simply cling to tradition to defend using a less accurate method.

Hawk-eye will make errors. So do umpires (Dar missed Broad's edge, after all). The probability of hawk-eye errors is less than that of umpire errors (it's been shown to be the case over and over). We'd all rather there were more correct decisions, no?

I also find the suggestions of unlimited reviews but charging penalty runs hilarious.

Given that Clarke himself thinks he hasn't used the system well, imagine how many runs he'd have gifted England with injudicious use of the reviews? Might have been more than Broad scored after his reprieve ;).

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 11:12 GMT)

Totally DISAGREE with Mr Gilchrist. Selective morality. In the Melbourne test in 2001 against South Africa he appealed vociferously when Kallis missed a ball from Bichel by nearly a foot. The West Indies umpire under pressure from an honest man like Mr Gilchrist gave Kallis, then batting very well, out and with SA's best batsman gone the course of the game was changed. With DRS this would not have happened. DRS must stay; captains must start to use it for what it is intended for i.e to get rid of howlers such as the one mentioned and I may add the Broad episode. If the captain is a gamble,r then he must face the consequences.Full stop

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 11:07 GMT)

I wonder how many of the DRS bashers would be howling for greater use of technology if the Broad decision had been made before the review system? Quite a few I'd imagine. The system works quite well. The change I would make though is to reduce it to one review per innings with the proviso that the review isn't lost if rejected for umpires call. This would force players to be a bit more circumspect and save it for the howlers.

Posted by Mandesh on (July 17, 2013, 11:06 GMT)

What use are the 3rd & 4th umpires if their services are not used. Either of them should be kept the DSR and snick-o and report to the on field umpire, if he has made a mistake. This will help to get more decisions correct. Also the teams will accept them as a decision made by the umpire like in the old days before technology came in use. The question then of have 1 or 2 referrals will not arise. This will mean that all the decisions will be taken by the umpires.

Posted by CustomKid on (July 17, 2013, 11:00 GMT)

@jmcilhinney - sorry there it didn't come across as hoped alas I don't have an issue with the DRS. No balls have been called for ever by umpires and it should remain that way. The simple solution would be to have the back foot rule brought back in. It would reduce the number of no balls, gives both the umpire and batsman more time to adjust or score, and ultimately probably reduces the number no balls in general.

As for Hawk Eye its far from being 100% accurate in it's prediction. It can't account accurately for spin, bounce, swing, or seam. It provides a guide at best but it's far from accurate it's its produced its fair share of stinkers from balls spinning the wrong way to bounce that just seem possible.

However it is what it is and it's the best we've got for now.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 10:51 GMT)

the fact that it took gilly so long to speak against it means he supported it till now. IMO third umpire should correct on field if its a howler, if that is what DRS is supposed to do. no need of DRS at all... problem solved

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 17, 2013, 10:34 GMT)

Just asking ... Has anybody felt the frustration when the third umpire looks at an incident from multiple angles unable to make up his mind, which to everybody else is a straight forward decision, only to see that the decision goes the other way and there is a collective gasp / moan from the crowd?

What good is the DRS when the third umpire is unable to decide and wonders which colored button to press?

A techie will strive to find answers of course. He will plant mini cameras, mini sound recorders, microchips, etc in the ball, stumps, bails, helmet, pads, bat, etc so that 'technology' can provide the answers. Believe me, it can be done. We can then have an entire umpire panel to review DRS while cheer girls entertain to music during the time taken to arrive at a decision.

But is that the way cricket should be played and evolve as a game?

Posted by glance_to_leg on (July 17, 2013, 10:30 GMT)

I take Gilchrist's well-argued points, but have to say that for me the DRS has simply added another level of excitement and strategy. I don't think it has solved the problems it was designed to resolve, but I do think it has added yet another level of excitement and sophistication to the complex narrative that is test cricket. For those who mock hawk eye, they should actually look at the stats that have been developed with bowlers bowling at undefended stumps. Hawkeye gets it right.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 10:28 GMT)

I totally agree with Gilly. Umpires have been the supreme authority of the game since its inception. DRS system has taken the authority of the umpires to a great extent. It should always be the priority of the umpires to use the technology in judicious manner. By the way I loved Gilly's article. It should motivate the Aussies prior to the upcoming Lords test. England are due for the famous Aussie fightback I am sure!

Posted by Stevros3 on (July 17, 2013, 10:26 GMT)

The problem with leaving it to the umpires is what if they don't realise they have made a mistake? Aleem Dar thought the deflection and noise came from Haddin's glove, if the review was for the umpire what would happen if Dar truly believed he'd made the right decision? He wouldn't review it and the Aussies would be much more likely to show dissent maybe to the point where they start trying to pressure/force the umpire to change his decison. At least in this case after the initial appeal the Aussies knew they had wasted the reviews that could have dismissed him. An Umpire would never belive they have made a howler (by definition its a complete mistake, missing the obvious) they are more likely to review the tight ones they are unsure about thus meaning the howlers remain un-reversed. Maybe cut it down to 1 free unsucessful review per team and 1 which incurs a penalty of 5 runs. That first review would be more closely guarded then you have the 2nd incase the 1st ones use was a howler.

Posted by Harmony111 on (July 17, 2013, 10:24 GMT)

Yawn !!! Once again a few confused fans here are saying that DRS is meant only for HOWLERS and not for MARGINAL cases. Till date, not one of these fans has been able to explain that if it is about HOWLERS then why do we need such an expensive and complex system? A HOWLER is a wrong decision by the umpire when in fact a Reasonable Man would have thought otherwise even with no extra tools available. so if it is like Broad's non-dismissal or a lbw given for a ball pitching outside leg stump or for a huge inside edge then why do we need DRS? Can't a simple slow motion replay be used to correct it?

The DRS supporters can't have it both ways. First they sya that DRS components are so good they can help in catching the faintest of edges and in correctly extrapolating the ball path but when such tools fail then they shrug it off by saying it was anyways meant for Howlers only.

Funny to say that the operator is not a part of DRS. Wanna sit in a top-end car that has a dumb driver?

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 17, 2013, 10:18 GMT)

IMO, the lowest point in undermining the umpire's authority was reached, when Strauss, the then English captain, spoke to Dhoni the Indian captain, during the lunch break and persuaded Dhoni to withdraw the run-out appeal on Bell, when Bell had already been declared RUN-out by the umpire on the last ball before lunch. This happened during the India-Eng Test series in England.

When the players use DRS to question the umpiring, it just undermines and disrespects the umpires authority and kills the long traditional approach to umpiring decisions that the 'umpires decisions are final and binding'.

I'm still waiting for the day when a batsman/bowler uses the DRS to question a wide-ball!

If somebody in ICC is under the mistaken notion that umpiring controversies evoke spectator interest and are good for the game of cricket then they are sadly mistaken.

Posted by Shams on (July 17, 2013, 10:15 GMT)

The DRS is designed to correct howlers, just ask the players to not use it for marginal calls and all will be good. Sure there can be some fine tuning, but overall the system is working well when used correctly. As such, the DRS would not have overturned the Kasprowicz's dismissal (under uncertainty the umpire's decisions sticks)! Player's question an umpire's decision all the time, e.g. with prolonged appeals (which Gilchrist among others have done in the past) or while expressing displeasure with an umpire's decision. Losing the spontaneity is a weak defense against knowing that a correct decision has been made - both for the fans and the players. Would a bowler prefer having a wicket he did not earn, a fielder being credited for an incorrect catch, or runs scored even though the batsman knew he was out!

Posted by GlobalCricketLover on (July 17, 2013, 10:14 GMT)

Gilly, if you have a bruised finger you dont chop it, you just treat it to become better. Just make the rules for 'overruling' the original decision much stricter. So that only where is blatant evidence that the orinigal one is wrong will there be a change in decision..unlike Trott's LBW where the original decision was not out and should have stayed so bcos there was no clear evidence to rule the other way. If we do just this, we will be fine. Most times the decisions will stay and only the blunders get corrected. But people also must understand that in some situations even the batsmen were not sure if they nicked (e.g. Finn and Clarke) and if they can be unsure, forget about the people 20-30 yards away from it the fielders or the umpires...

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 10:12 GMT)

Just because Australia used up all their reviews in vain doesn't leave the need of DRS!! Infact with evolving technology we get a better chance to correct human error and be HONEST in decisions... I still remember the Australian spirit of game during 2008 Sydney Test and rest is history for ever!!! Atleast DRS will ensure that it will never happen again... And now that Australia is loosing and loosing and loosing, stop blaming DRS...

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 10:11 GMT)

Instead of having limits on the no of reviews, if the fielding side review is unsuccessful, add 10% of runs to the batting side. If batting side review is unsuccessful, remove 10% of runs from the batting side. This would make them use drs properly and purposefully. You can even have innumerable no of reviews.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 10:09 GMT)

Utter nonsense this article. Players want the correct decisions made where possible. The time lag adds to the drama and the pace of the game is not affected too much as the limited number of reviews available mean they get used quickly and poorly or are managed sparingly and used when required. Time to grow up and move on. Gilchrist may have walked when he batted sometimes, but he certainly appealed when he knew it was not out. Ethics of professional sportsman are mixed at best.

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 17, 2013, 10:04 GMT)

@H_Z_O: "Not sure hawk-eye's projections are as inaccurate as some would like to believe."

Hawkeye too comes up with howlers. All you have to do, is to take a look at the India-Pak match in the last ODI WC with specific reference to Sachin not being given out to a Saed Ajmal delivery that Hawkeye determined would miss the leg stump which everybody else thought was plumb!

Posted by bobmartin on (July 17, 2013, 10:01 GMT)

@Purvutharahjah ...They do get penalised for injudicious use of DRS... they lose a review and in some cases it costs them more as happened in the Broad incident.. which incidentally would have had the same result had DRS not been in use...

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 17, 2013, 9:47 GMT)

@CustomKid on (July 17, 2013, 3:44 GMT), did you read your own comment? You have pretty much completely contradicted yourself. First you say that you hate it when an umpire checks for a no-ball on a dismissal and then you say that you'd be happy for umpires to take control of DRS and check for the ball hitting the stumps with their arms crossed after already giving the batsman out. How exactly can one of those be a mood killer while the other one isn't? Apart from that, are you really saying that you're OK with batsmen being given out on a no-ball? Surely that's another controversy and it has been exactly that in the past, which is exactly why umpires are allowed to check. If a batsmen is on his way back to the pavilion and sees a replay of the bowler overstepping but is unable to resume, how do you think they would feel? Better that on-filed umpires aren't responsible for no-ball's at all. They could then concentrate more on getting LBWs, etc right.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 9:43 GMT)

@twofer to be fair the only two cases where hawk-eye overturned the umpire's call were, I believe, Bell's lbw and Phil Hughes'. The Bell one was a projected trajectory but the Hughes one wasn't. Video evidence verified that hawk-eye had accurately tracked the ball, and it was pitching on leg.

If I recall correctly, Bell was struck in front of leg, so even though it was projected, there's a very slim chance the ball would have hit the stumps. It would have had to straighten off the pitch and there wasn't much evidence of seam movement as the match progressed (there was some on day 1, not much after that).

Not sure hawk-eye's projections are as inaccurate as some would like to believe. It's been tested over and over and shown to be more accurate at projecting than umpires usually are. It may not be 100%, but neither are umpires. Why not trust the more accurate projection (technology) over the less accurate one (umpire)?

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 17, 2013, 9:40 GMT)

I also take issue with Gilchrist's claim that DRS has become a headache for captains. If it's a headache it is only because they are trying to scam wickets by gambling on close calls. If using DRS is too difficult then just don't use it. Just decide that you're not going to review anything unless you're sure the decision was wrong. Hey! That sounds awfully like the point of DRS in the first place. Headache solved. If you're trying to split millimetres on an LBW then you're misusing it to begin with so the headache is of your own creation. Just look at the batting powerplay in ODIs these days. I've lost count of the number of times that I have thought that a team could benefit by taking it before over 36 but most teams seem not to even consider the option. It's too hard so they just don't bother. If DRS is too hard then just don't bother. I'm sure even then it would be used to overturn a decision like that for Broad, which is what it's for anyway.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 9:34 GMT)

Too much debate is spent on DRS. The ICC put it there as the governing body and we must just use it. If you touch it you should be out. If it is hitting the two outside stumps more than 50% it should be out as ball tracking is 99. whatever % accurate and that 50% hitting will account for that. Paying for all this should be the ICC and to recover this cost they should increase the affiliation cost to test members. I don't want to see players get a 100 when he was out cheaply and got away with something.

I will always remember the 100 Tendulkar scored at cape town for the wrong reason or this test win by England for the broad incident.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 17, 2013, 9:33 GMT)

I have to disagree with quite a bit of what Gilchrist says. Firstly, if it's taken this long for him to understand India's reluctance then I don't think he understands India's reluctance at all. They said from the get-go that they didn't trust the technology. There's nothing that happened in this game that casts any specific doubt on HotSpot or HawkEye. Gilchrist is talking about spontaneity and magic, which I don't recall the BCCI ever mentioning. As for his claim that the game would have been better had it finished on an undisputed on-field call rather than the review of Haddin's dismissal, that seems rather ridiculous. The furore over DRS generated by this game is from two incidents: the missing HotSpot angle on Trott's LBW and the fact that Australia had no reviews when Broad was given not out. If not for those two incidents, noone would be talking about anything else related to DRS because everything else was a non-issue.

Posted by GlobalCricketLover on (July 17, 2013, 9:31 GMT)

I disgree here Gilly. Imagine if Kasprowiz had not nicked that ball in 2005! What if he had nicked but the umpire gave it not out? That entire series could have gone in a totally different direction. I understand the pleasure in sponteinity, but at what cost? Was it more important that everyone in the stadium instantly celebrate/cry or wait for 30 secs to correct if any wrong decision was made earlier? DRS should definitely be there for sure, but yes some of the decisions for overruling could be made better..

Posted by Un_Citoyen_Indien on (July 17, 2013, 9:23 GMT)

I like the idea of a penalty of 5 runs for the fielding side for an incorrect review. Clarke just misused his reviews thinking he could get away with it. That is the chief reason why Australia lost.

Posted by RogerC on (July 17, 2013, 9:17 GMT)

DRS will never be accurate as technology simulation can't always precisely predict the effects of atmospheric conditions at the moment of action in an open space sport. Gilly is right that DRS is a problem rather than a solution. In a lighter note, if ICC pays the money used for DRS to the umpires as performance bonus for each right decision, they will be doing their work with higher motivation.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 9:09 GMT)

I think I have a solution. May sound silly. But, regarding importance of the umpires, completely agree with Gilly!

Give the umpire a device where he can check whether there is a nick or not. He should have a software installed in his device which would help him to decide about LBW!

Let the third umpire decide about stumping and run outs!

Posted by py0alb on (July 17, 2013, 9:08 GMT)

The system worked perfectly, DRS was completely vindicated. A number of howlers were overturned, and the team that attempted to use the system inappropriately was punished.

Posted by twofer on (July 17, 2013, 9:04 GMT)

Cricket is such a great sport. No other could tolerate a system that allows players to officially question the umpire's decision under the DRS, and similarly have a Code of Conduct that will penalise a player for "misconduct" of various types for showing "dissent" at all other times. Hawkeye works well in tennis as it tracks where the ball has been, and does not project future trajectory. Keep the technology, but put it solely in the hands of the umpires. Television broadcasters will show multiple replays of anything controversial because it makes for good "viewing".

Posted by Rockwin on (July 17, 2013, 9:03 GMT)

I like and admire Gilly but I think that DRS if anything has added more drama to the game. People want clear justice. Once T/V replays became available for the spectators Umpires could easily look foolish when bad decisions were there for all to see. The review system gives them back their authority. It also offers another challenge to captains to get it right. However I think we need the third umpire to be allowed to reverse "Howlers" throughout the game. But it has to be a "Howler". Fortunately these are pretty rare so it would not do much to hold up the game. Not only must justice be done it must be seen to be done and cricket needs to speak the language of each new generation.

Posted by John-Price on (July 17, 2013, 9:01 GMT)

@moase - the odd thing about the Kasper dismissal, is that I'm not sure he would have reviewed it. I don't think it occurred to him or, indeed anyone else, that there was a problem with the dismissal until some techie started looking at the footage from behind the wicket - and that was some time after everyone had left the pitch.

Posted by applethief on (July 17, 2013, 8:59 GMT)

The interim solution needs to be harsher penalties for teams that use the DRS for marginal calls. If you're not using it to eradicate a howler, such as leathering the ball into your pads and being given out lbw, then you shouldn't be using it. Some form of penalisation for teams making speculative use of DRS could help get it back to fulfilling its purpose, instead of trying ot give another life to certain players.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 8:55 GMT)

@Steve Pearce Clarke's massively learnt from his mistakes though - Cook/Strauss made the same mistakes early on in the existence of DRS, which is exactly how they learnt to use it properly.

I guarantee you that Clarke will be far more conservative with his reviews in the next test and consequently, is far less likely to fall foul of the limited number of reviews.

I don't think there's much wrong with the system at all (although slightly better technology in the form of multi-track recordings would have helped Trott), I simply think that it needs captains to learn from their mistakes.

Posted by Surajrises on (July 17, 2013, 8:52 GMT)

I so agree with you Gilli.. Using technology just for the sake of it always creates a problem. DRS is not at all good for the game of Cricket.. Let the Umpires take the decisions. Lets not get technology into the Cricket Field please..

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 8:47 GMT)

@moase totally agree. I'm an England fan and even I can acknowledge; there's no way DRS would have let that Kasprowicz decision in 2005 stand. It was not out. I'd have rather that Test continued, who knows, we might still have won, or we might have had an epic tied Test, or we might have lost and had to fight back from 2-0.

I wouldn't leave the DRS in the hands of the umpires, Dar obviously thought Broad was not out (how I don't know), we have no idea if Erasmus thought differently. He thought Agar was not out while a similar incident was given out by Oxenford in the Champions Trophy final against Bell. Not saying either was right or wrong, but one umpire will see it one way, another a different way.

The thing that probably undermines umpires is the "umpire's call", paradoxically. If you're constantly on the wrong end of those (your batsmen given out, your bowlers denied wickets) you're bound to question the umpire's integrity. If it didn't cost you a review, maybe that would lessen.

Posted by Green_and_Gold on (July 17, 2013, 8:43 GMT)

@ STaylor100877 - did you just read the same article that i did - didnt read that Gilly was moaning and groaning - sounded like he accepts and enjoyed the games that he lost. Sounds like you have to let the 90s go man!

Posted by bobmartin on (July 17, 2013, 8:38 GMT)

Whichever way you lean, whether you are for DRS or you are against it...statistics prove that it corrects mistakes..It has reprieved many batsmen who had incorrectly been given out, which is exactly what it is designed to do. On very very rare occasions it has resulted in a batsmen being given out when he should not have been. In almost all cases it was not DRS that was at fault, but operator error...That is not the fault of the DRS.. The Laws have taken many many years to evolve to where they are. and even now, there is still the odd anomaly which crops up from time to time... Consequently it is unreasonable to expect DRS to be perfect in its relatively short lifetime. Furthermore, it will never get any better if it is not used.. Therefore if DRS is the future, you have to live with it whilst it evolves. The alternative is to throw it out completely and go back to what we had. One thing you can be sure off. neither sytsem will ever be 100%..

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 17, 2013, 8:35 GMT)

When the game's fortunes are determined by how 'wisely' the DRS is used by the two teams, then there is something definitely wrong in the way technology is used, when its broader purpose is to 'help umpires take better decisions'. When technology is available to make the game better, its use cannot be limiting, and it's usage defined such, that it can rob the game of a fair result!

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 8:34 GMT)

"One of the strongest elements of the spirit of any sport is not questioning the umpires or referees."

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. In Tennis, the players can challenge line calls. In American Football, teams have challenges. Heck, in football (soccer to some) there are calls to introduce a system of reviews per half.

It isn't getting rid of the mistakes it was created to eradicate? How about Bell's lbw where the ball's missing the stumps? What about Rogers given out caught when he hadn't hit it? Good thing both were able to review.

Yes, one big mistake got missed. It didn't get missed because of DRS. It got missed because Michael Clarke reviewed an lbw against Bairstow where the ball was about as likely to hit the stumps as I am of being the next Prime Minister of Australia.

There are tweaks that need to be made, I would say teams shouldn't lose a review if the final decision is "umpire's call", but the system mostly works if captains apply some common sense.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 8:32 GMT)

Adam It is fair to say that in the modern era of test cricket you and one or two others are not just a minority but a breed nearing extinction. For me personally (a club walker) I will be sorry, but I will get over it and do not feel cricket will be worse for the evolution. The biggest benefit of DRS as I see it is not reducing bad decisions but reducing the opportunity for biased decisions. It is a fact that even the best umpires can get pressurized by the crowd or fielders - Warne was the worlds best at umpire manipulation as I am sure you know - one wonders how many he would have lost or indeed gained with DRS? So this to me offers at least a semblance of a level playing field and for that we should be glad. I was disappointed with Broad but no more than Haddin. An edge is an edge and too many people are forgetting that. Thank you for years of entertainment BTW

Posted by ramli on (July 17, 2013, 8:24 GMT)

Cricket has always favoured batsmen ... Look at the way Ramdin was reprimanded so severely by match referee (or Chris Broad to be precise) when his act of jumbling a catch (cheating as he concealed grounding the catch) was deemed as an offense and punished ... 2 match ban. And comes Truant Broad ... edges it ... stands still ... everybody knows ... but not out ... most important "no punishment" ... what an unequal set of standards for bowlers/fielders and batsmen. Ridiculous

Posted by viracs2013 on (July 17, 2013, 8:20 GMT)

Here it comes...I see lot of same Australian players (some people commenting here) telling that BCCI is useless in understanding technology and just using its financial muscle against implementation of DRS without any proper study , saying now that DRS shud be in umpire hands, it is creating further problems by delaying game and it is not eradicating problems that were existed before its implementation. People should understand BCCI never said its against introducing technology for betterment of game, it only questioned the said technology (DRS) genuineness and capability to eradicate umpiring mistakes. Is was always of view that current technology is not even 90% foolproof and it creates furthur problems than eradicating.That too it siad after using same and analysing same by committee of analysts. Now Australians suddenly who supported the system is feeling it is creating more problems.

Posted by vxttemp on (July 17, 2013, 8:17 GMT)

Though BCCI is aganist, it indeed helped India. Imp ones I remember are, DRS judged Sachin not out 3-4 times during last WC match against Pak. Also in the recent champions trophy, India got decisions in their favor using DRS. Gilly is partially right. I too think 2 decisions to captain is not the best way to go. Let the on-field umpire talk to 3rd umpire under such circumstances.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 8:07 GMT)

DRS must stay - but I totally agree with recent comments in the media that it should be utilised by the umpire.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 8:04 GMT)

Great article from Gilly. I think any cricket fan will always take time to listen to what he has to say. However I believe the DRS is here to stay. I would prefer to limit it at 1 use per innings, to reinforce the point that it should only be used for howlers. At the moment (especially Clarke) teams are using it for 50/50 calls and are getting burned. It is, and should be, there only to overturn a terrible decision. If you waste the review, then that is no ones fault but your own. Umpires has to make many tough calls each game, the DRS is there to help them out when they've made a huge error, not for teams to exploit for a cheap wicket.

Posted by moase on (July 17, 2013, 8:02 GMT)

Gilly, I love ya and always will, and take your point about DRS but not your argument.

1. Kasper wasn't out in 2005, he gloved the ball and his glove wasn't touching the bat. Replays show this. DRS would've given the correct decision and the entire series could've had a completely different result had Aus made the remaining 3 runs.

2. Haddin did hit the ball and was given not out. If DRS wasn't used, the wrong decision would've been made, Aus may have won the game when in fact Eng deserved to. If that robs the game of 'sponteneity and drama', well it's perhaps unfortunate, but still the right decision was made.

I agree with you though that DRS should be taken out of the players hands, and particularly that players shouldn't be able to question an umpire the way they can. It does take credibility away from the umpire, and I'm sure some umpires find it slightly humiliating.

Posted by HansonKoch on (July 17, 2013, 7:58 GMT)

Why is it only now that Ed Cowan is "under pressure?" Surely, he's been under pressure and failed. Enough already. Despite the endless hype that's followed his entire career Watson hasn't exactly done enough to demonstrate he's turned some kind of corner either.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 7:58 GMT)

Why are you all saying DRS is wrong?

The umpires were wrong, Michael Clark used his reviews unwisely, but DRS did nothing but help overturn some wrong decisions, at no point was it wrong.

Players have always challenged umpires decisions, players have been under team orders not to walk for decades, DRS at least gives us a chance to overturn bad decisions, if used wisely. Don't blame DRS, don't blame Broad, blame Michael Clark and the umpires.

Had there been no DRS, would things have been different? Yes, there would have been more howlers, but Broad would still not have been given out.

Posted by Romanticstud on (July 17, 2013, 7:58 GMT)

Another thought ... Let the umpire make his decision ... and while the batsman is being given out or not, have the third umpire analyzing the delivery and let him inform the on-field umpire to correct the decision if there is a glaring error ... No more DRS ... If the umpire has no appeal to work on ... there should not be a referral ... He should be the only one making decisions, reviewed by the 3rd umpire ... LBW has always been a bone of contention ... Let the LBW decisions all go for referral before an on-field decision can be made ... Also extend the rule to say all balls that would have hit the wickets not clipped the wickets regardless of where the ball pitched ie. more than half the ball must be hitting the wickets otr the bails ... This will eliminated the useless idea of padding the ball away down the leg side ...

Posted by Rahul_78 on (July 17, 2013, 7:55 GMT)

ICC can come up with all the statistics supporting DRS as they want but it is ridiculous to see the technology overruling a correct call made by on field umpires with a incorrect one. Icing on the cake is the whole world is witness to it. Hot Spot is the biggest guilty party here. Its inventor has acknowledged that the technology is not full proof and is prone to errors depending on the weather. Also we have seen it is prone to human errors too. Players are getting cheeky and trying to use the technology to their advantage knowing its loop holes to over come calls made by on-field umpires. It is very unfortunate to see the umpires being undermined by the players with the use of technology. ICC needs to restrict the technology to run outs, the exact spot where ball was pitched and the impact it has on the pads. For rest we need to wait till better technology being invented. In case of howlers which are obvious to all the third umpire should intervene and correct the decision.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 7:54 GMT)

How hard would it be with modern technology to equip an umpire with an iPad mini or similar, and have the umpire who made the call actually analyse his decision with DRS being streamed straight to his onfield device?? It's really not THAT difficult to get that in place! The umpire would still be the only person with the power to make the decision, and have the advantage of the on-field view and then the DRS to base his final decision on.

Posted by STaylor100877 on (July 17, 2013, 7:49 GMT)

Now Gilchrist adds his name to the long list of ex-Aussies moaning and groaning because they lost another Test match. As an Englishman who suffered through the 90s, we have dreamed of this time. Long may it continue.

Posted by Romanticstud on (July 17, 2013, 7:48 GMT)

The system is only a guide it is not a robot saying yes you're out ... It is human's making the decision ... I commend Adam for his sportsmanship over the years and say that he is a role-model that I would like the following generation to take seriously ... Having said that ... DRS is a good tool to have ... but ... it robs sometimes from the batsman's concentration ... if the DRS was solely an umpire thing i would support it completely ... but giving the captains limited opportunity to question decisions, which in previous years a batsman had to walk or vice versa ... is not the answer ... It should be made that the captain can ask for a review on any decision, for howlers to be minimized ... Howlers will never be total eradicated until robots become umpires ... Everyone has their own opinion so to walk or not is on the batsmen's conscience ... Accept the final decision and get on with the game ...

Posted by MuftiOfTufnellPark on (July 17, 2013, 7:45 GMT)

Dear Adam. as someone who played with Ricky Ponting and Shane Warne, I'm surprised to hear you say that. it is under the DRS that a player can question an umpire's decision. Those two spent a lot of time questioning and challenging umpires. The review system has actually removed a lot of that. "If you think I got it wrong, review it. if you''ve blown your reviews wishing on a prayer, tough luck"

Posted by MuftiOfTufnellPark on (July 17, 2013, 7:40 GMT)

Dear Adam. as someone who played with Ricky Ponting and Shane Warne, I'm surprised to hear you say that. it is under the DRS that a layer can question an umpire's decision. Those two spent a lit of time questioning and challenging umpire. The review system has actually removed a lot of that. if you think I got it wrong, review it. if you''ve blown your reviews wishing on a prayer, tough luck

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 7:30 GMT)

then there is another thought of keeping the DRS only with umpires. I don't think that will work because DRS helps in situations where umpires are convinced about their decisions but players are not. So, when an umpire is already convinced about his decision why would he go for DRS? the 3rd umpire needs time to go through the reply so its not wise to make him accountable as well. For once, I give credit to ICC for bringing this system and disagree with BCCI for opposing it.

Posted by Harlequin. on (July 17, 2013, 7:26 GMT)

I can understand where Gilly is coming from there, but it is a little naive. He was one of the few players of recent times to play the game fairly but he is living in cuckoo-land if he thinks modern players are not going to question the umpire, or brush off a poor-decision because it doesn't slow down the game.

If cricket was full of Gilchrist's (and what a sport that would be!) then we would do fine without DRS. But now it is cricketers who need to make a career, with a scrutinous media picking apart their every move, and an ill-timed wicket could potentially cost a player thousands of £'s. The decisions need to be as correct as possible and the DRS, whilst still imperfect, is an improvement in this regard.

Posted by PanGlupek on (July 17, 2013, 7:21 GMT)

Hmm, this latest DRS talk started as an interesting point, that maybe umpires should review, not players, but the more anti-DRS remarks that come after the last test, especially by Australians, is starting to sound more & more like sour grapes.

I don't agree with Gilly at all with the example he gave about 2005 at Edgbaston - that would have probably been given out even with DRS (it was obvious that it hit Kasprovitch's glove, it was only quite a lot later that someone somewhere remembered that the hand has to be on the bat for it to count, plus Aus would have used their reviews up by that stage anyway, especially if Watson was playing).

He has a point that questioning umpire's decisions doesn't sit well in cricket, but all umpires are human & make mistakes. You can't react with dissent to them, but having the option to get a very poor decision reversed must surely be a good thing?!

Posted by noodles787878 on (July 17, 2013, 7:19 GMT)

The very same people who were unanimous in condemning India for its opposition to the DRS are now saying that the DRS is not the right way to go. India refused to go with the DRS after having used it injudiciously in a test match against Sri Lanka. Back then, analysts (a lot of Australians among them) pointed out that the Indians simply were not smart enough to use the system more effectively. Now that the Australian team was not able to use it effectively, some among them have suddenly changed their position on the DRS. What these people fail to realise is that any new system is bound to go wrong at times when it is first introduced. The system evolves with time before it works to its full potential. Instead of saying that we need to get rid of the DRS and adding to the problem, these people would be better off providing constructive suggestions on how the issues can be ironed out. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to get rid of umpiring errors which sometimes mean the differe

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 7:17 GMT)

Yes I fully agred with Gilly as he is popularly addressed. The DRS system has been fully exposed in the trent bridge test match which I had the privilege to watch. In one particular instance Umpire Alim Darr first gave not out (dont remember the batsman) which was promptly challenged by Australian captain. The DRS did not show clearly there was a nick in the bat. whereas the umpire was fully convinced it did hit the bat first and then pad. However the batsman was given out. Umpire raised both his hands in sheer disbilievemnent. His expression said it all. And rightly so for if we start doubting umpires decision on the field who undergo severe training and are subjected to various tests and finally pass out as an Umpire , My point is why go thru all this? Umpires are to be trusted and in case of doubt, let the 3rd umpire thru the microphone tell the umpire that this decision needs to be reviewed. Technology has to be positively used rather that doubting the man on the spot(read umpire)

Posted by LegendofLebanon on (July 17, 2013, 7:07 GMT)

DRS should be part of the game as it improves the number of correct decisions.However it should be the sole responsibility of the umpires, who should work as a team as a ref works with linesmen in footbal. Why did Dharmasena not tell Dar to refer the Broad decision?

The big problem with DRS is the same ball can get 2 different decisions (LBW). This is absurd and should be corrected immediately

DRS was also introduced to reduce the number of umpires who could be susceptible to a bribe as every decision is now scrutinised and discussed in detail.The amusing incident I find is the Trott dismissal. He is not known as a walker so how do we know if the decision was right or wrong? It is automatically assumed by the UK press that he hit the ball with no proof to back it up.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 6:57 GMT)

Interesting comments from Gilly!He holds a rare position within cricketing world and will be remembered for the honesty and integrity with which he played the game. I agree that 'challenging the umpire' doesn't sit pretty within the astute of the 'gentleman's game'. However, technological advances can still be utilised for fair decision making to preserve the interest of the audience. No one wants to see a howler decide the fate of a keenly contested match (in any format). I recommend the use of DRS/ hotspot/ snicko/ any new technology for that purpose. The decision to 'avail' of such technology in close situations should lie with the umpires (I agree with Ian Chappell on this), for it is their domain to ensure 'fair and accurate' decisions on the field. Umpires need all the help to keep pace with a fast, modern game where players defend their effectiveness and combativeness over aesthetics. The game needs to evolve, but not at the cost of traditional values just yet.

Posted by JoieDeVivre on (July 17, 2013, 6:39 GMT)

Excellent article. The other problem with DRS is the ball tracking thing which is simply not good enough nor is ever going to be accurate. The issue as I see, is most teams are trying to buy a wicket with DRS when the idea behind the DRS is to eradicate the howlers. If the idea is eradicate the howler empower the 3rd Umpire or if the on field Umpire has doubt he can ask the 3rd Umpire to take a call just like they do for Run Out or Stumping. By giving only 2 reviews to the teams the ICC is in fact "encouraging" teams to buy a wicket by taking few chances. ICC, on hand says they want to eliminate howlers but what happened with Stuart Broad incident, it's cost Australia a Test Match. The biggest issue as I see the way the administrators are running the game, every time there is an incident ICC is quick to defend it's stance without admitting the flaws.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 6:38 GMT)

I think Gilly and the rest are missing the point here. DRS is never meant for close decisions, it is meant to eradicate howlers. The reason why Clarke and co are having a headache is because they are using it on gut instinct. Instead DRS must be used when your are sure of the decision being wrong or in other worlds in case of howlers. As far as the beauty of test cricket is concerned, I doubt if tempers would have boiled in the Sydney test when India toured Australia, if the DRS had been used to negate the inefficiencies of the umpires, maybe in turn negating the nasty incidents that took place during the test match

Posted by JoieDeVivre on (July 17, 2013, 6:37 GMT)

Excellent article. The other problem with DRS is the ball tracking thing which is simply not good enough nor is ever going to be accurate. The issue as I see, is most teams are trying to buy a wicket with DRS when the idea behind the DRS is to eradicate the howlers. If the idea is eradicate the howler empower the 3rd Umpire or if the on field Umpire has doubt he can ask the 3rd Umpire to take a call just like they do for Run Out or Stumping. By giving only 2 reviews to the teams the ICC is in fact "encouraging" teams to buy a wicket by taking few chances. ICC, on hand says they want to eliminate howlers but what happened with Stuart Broad incident, it's cost Australia a Test Match. The biggest issue as I see the way the administrators are running the game, every time there is an incident ICC is quick to defend it's stance without admitting the flaws.

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 17, 2013, 6:34 GMT)

Then there is a question of reconciliation - reconciling between technologies and reconciling between technologies and the human system. What happens to the verdict when the Hotspot shows and the Snick doesn't or vice-versa? What happens when there is no Snicko in use and the Hotspot doesn't show but the stump mic carries the sound of a nick.. or if the fielding side and the umpire have heard the nick? What happens if a catch taken low cannot be clearly decided on because of insufficient camera angles even though everybody else is certain of the catch What happens if technology cannot tell if a bat has been grounded during a stumping or runout.. or if the bails are out when the batsman is at the line?

Who says technology is perfect or even to acceptable levels of tolerance? If cricket decisions are run by technology then the whole charm of umpiring goes away with cricket with the game of cricket none the better!

Posted by S.h.a.d.a.b on (July 17, 2013, 6:32 GMT)

Good but what about no umpires in the game? Every decision should go to TV umpire but it should be taken asap. 1% chance of error will still remain because nothing is perfect.

Posted by colsa123 on (July 17, 2013, 6:28 GMT)

Surely the bottom line as regards DRS is that more correct decisions are reached. Taking only the final incident in the latest Test match, Haddin admitted he hit the ball so there was no dispute over the ultimate decision and had DRS not been in place the 'wrong' team may have gone on to win the match. I accept that it was an unfortunate way for a game to end although referrals create their own drama, memorable in a different way.

As for the game as a whole, DRS was not to blame for the Broad decision. In fact it was a particularly good example of how DRS could have been especially beneficial. Neither was DRS to blame for the Trott decision which was down to human error by the operator. Under normal circumstances both these decisions would have been corrected by the system.

There are issues over how DRS should be used and it's interpretation on umpires call situations but, is anyone seriously saying they would rather scrap it and have more wrong decisions ?

Posted by Advin on (July 17, 2013, 6:27 GMT)

If all cricketers thought and behaved like Gilchrist,we would not be needing DRS. They don't and the DRS is required to stop people from remembering games for umpiring decisons.In an era when every decision is shown from all possible angles,an umpring howler tends to get magnified and it is better that an onfield umpire gets an opportunity to correct mistake.Let not the last test take away from the merits of the DRS.The Champions trophy that preceded it is a great example of a DRS system effectively used thereby ensuring a controversy free tournament.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 6:26 GMT)

Umpiring is not an easy job by all means, you have to focus not only on each and every ball for the entire day but also on some other off & on field issues. It is quite a draining job and when you get humiliation in return of all the hard work nobody will aspire to be a cricket umpire. Either let the umpires control the DRS system or put away with it altogether.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 6:24 GMT)

aussies have a problem only when things go against them. I did'nt see Mr.Gilchrist complaining after the infamous Sydney test where umpires gave verdicts based on Ponting's "honest-in the spirit of the game" inputs. Where grounded catches were shamelessly claimed and players refused to walk in spite of big edges. lets think why DRS came into existence in the first place. once the technology started improving, everyone started witnessing big umpiring errors which at times had big enough impact to alter the course of an entire match. Some have the biggest impact, for eg. Courtney Walsh's world record 500th test wicket of Kallis was infact a big inside edge on to the pad which was given out LBW. In such cases instead of beating the umpires to death with criticisms or making them look ridiculously stupid by showing multiple replays on the big screen, isn't it better to use DRS to improve the quality of decisions? btw, Mr.G became a "walker" only after reaching the fag of his career :)

Posted by Thegimp on (July 17, 2013, 6:21 GMT)

I'm with you Gilly, there is nothing more frustrating when you have a system in place that is meant to eliminate conjecture for it only to create the same amount of conjecture. I disagree with the walking issue though. I have played cricket for nigh on 30 years and although I have never walked on LBWs (I think they tend to even themselves out over time and I have bowled deliveries the batsman has missed which have also mysteriously missed the stumps of which had it hit a pad I would have sworn it was LBW ) however I have always walked when I have known I've knicked it. To not do so is a batsmans perogative however it is still cheating. Cricket is a test, not only of skill but also of integrety.

Posted by venkatesh018 on (July 17, 2013, 6:04 GMT)

Spontaneity of emotions is a very small price to pay for getting the correct decision 'everytime'.

Posted by jackthelad on (July 17, 2013, 6:02 GMT)

Gilchrist's basic point is not a criticism of DRS (nor is it sour grapes on behalf of a losing Australia side). He is indicating the difference between the traditional mentality of cricket, that the Umpire's decision is final, to the newer one where, under certain circumstances and a limited number of times, that decision can be challenged by the players. In my heart, I agree with Gilchrist, but in my head I fancy DRS (or some form of it) is here to say, and we just have to learn to make the best of it.

Posted by 2929paul on (July 17, 2013, 6:02 GMT)

Regrettably it is the players who have brought this upon themselves. They are the ones who have put intolerable pressure on the umpires by appealing incessantly when they know there has been no edge. They are the ones who have reacted petulantly when given out and then stood their ground believing they are not out. When people talk of the "Spirit of Cricket" this is what is meant.

DRS could still work in its current format if captains said to batsmen "You can use it but only if you have definitely hit it for an LBW or definitely NOT hit it for a catch. Speculative reviews are a no no." And for the fielders, cut down the time they have to make the decision to review. If it takes more than 10 seconds to decide, it must be a bit speculative and not that obvious.

Bottom line, DRS isn't working because if the lack of integrity from the players over the years.

Posted by Yarms on (July 17, 2013, 5:55 GMT)

Well Said Adam and TheOnlyEmeror... This is absolutely the right way to go. No DRS except for run outs stumpings and boundry decisions. Leave it to the on field umpires. The spirit of sport as Adam says is being destroyed. Take Broads catch to 1st slip... He played the system ... knowing full well he had hit it to first slip. but that is his choice - a poor one in my opinion - There are so many good decisions made by umpires which unfortunately do not get any air time .. because they are not contensious. I think if we had a scorecard of good and bad decisions the Good ones would substantiall outweig the poo ones. No mess with the game - the human element makes it the best individual team sport in the world

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 5:53 GMT)

Saying that DRS should be removed is a knee-jerk reaction.I still feel it does more good than harm.The only change in the present system must be that marginal LBW decisions must be consistently given out or not out.

Even in the recent test the much maligned system gave all the decisions correctly except the Trott one which was a result of human error rather than system error.

Giving DRS control to umpires would never work like now-a-days most obvious stumping & run outs are referred the same thing will happen with the most blatant edges & plumb lbws as no umpire would like to become an overnight villain by giving a crucial decision wrong at crunch time especially when technology was available.Then the same critics who are now advocating giving control to umpires would lamb blast them.

DRS MUST BE USED as ultimately it gets 95% decisions correct while on-field umpires get 90% decision right.Both the % are very high but any improvement in the no.of right decisions help the game.

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 17, 2013, 5:51 GMT)

In principle, I think modern cricket can live and function smoothly without the DRS by leaving it to the on field umpire and the 3rd umpire to decide on the use of technology.

I can understand it if the batsman feels he has been given a bad decision and decides to appeal against the decision. But if the batsmen begin to start using the limitations of the various DRS technology for his own benefit, then he needs to be sent to the pavilion.

Egs of such instances : 1. When a batsman knows that a catch taken is extremely low and deliberately uses the technology 'advantage' of the fact that there aren't enough camera angles and this will cause enough doubt in the umpire's mind to give him not-out.

2. When the batsman deliberately steps far outside the crease and pads a ball knowing the limitations of hawkeye path prediction.

Posted by vswami on (July 17, 2013, 5:47 GMT)

"Did BCCI actually give a reason as to why they oppose to the use of DRS? " Srinivasan had given an extensive interview to Cricinfo where he had stated he didnt want the on field umpires to merely become traffic lights signalling red, yellow, green amongst many other reasons including financial, accuracy etc. Plenty of these arguments are on record. At the moment, reactions to DRS are reflexive .. we must oppose whatever BCCI proposes.

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 17, 2013, 5:36 GMT)

If there's an appeal to the umpire, it's because of the batsman's failing. It's because an improper shot has been played which has caused doubt and hence the appeal.

I'll be happy if batsmen learn to use the bat a lot more than they use the pad. I've always looked at ALL batsmen who have played spin by hiding the bat behind the pads, as a bunch of cowards with poor technique.

I think, we should do away with the rule of declaring a batsman not out on an lbw appeal when the ball pitches outside the leg stump line. We need to keep things simple. Is the ball hitting the stump? Is the pad in the way? If yes, then the verdict is OUT.

Leave it to the umpire to decide if the ball is hitting the stumps or sailing over / missing them. They will get it right 97% of the times and that's acceptable. The batsman need to accept that and not behave like cry babies. The very reason for neutral umpires was that they wouldn't succumb to nationalism and crowd pressure, so let them do their job!

Posted by satishchandar on (July 17, 2013, 5:30 GMT)

Honestly, the way they use DRS is more problematic than DRS itself. Why not the supreme body the ICC advice all its umpires - just a dozen of them to use ti i nsaem way for all the games? The decisions to Trott and Ajmal in UAE were clearly not out and they were given OUT following the rule book.. While, the decision of Haddin was not a howler but still was over turned without concrete evidence but based on common sense.. Why should rule book used in certain places and common sense in some places? Yes the technology is flawed and works different everytime as it can't be told what to do everytime but we humans can do it well.. What is stopping ICC to keep its official act uniformly?

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 17, 2013, 5:25 GMT)

I've always felt that for the good of cricket all on-field appeals should be left to the umpires. The replays and slo-mos would help in run-outs as also decisions at the boundary. LBWs and Snick related appeals should be left solely for the on-field umpire to decide. The Hawk-eye, Hotspots and Snicko technologies can be used by the host broadcaster to entertain the television audience so that the TV commentators have something meaningful to talk about when nothing much is happening on the field.

If there are poor umpiring decisions then the captains' reports on the umpires will spell it out and the umpire panel will work on those umpires who need to improve and perform consistently. It's for the umpiring body of the ICC to maintain that umpiring quality is kept up. There will of course be good decisions just as there will be mistakes...but then it's ok.

Posted by peter.suen on (July 17, 2013, 5:25 GMT)

Did BCCI actually give a reason as to why they oppose to the use of DRS? It seems that people just say they understand why India is against it whenever DRS has issues.

Have to agree with AG, the moment is lost with the DRS, and this aspect of the game is poorer with the review system. Of course, having more decision made correct will make the game fairer. It's hard to define what makes the game better or poorer from a holistic point of view.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 5:22 GMT)

From what I have read/heard most Umpires are in favour of the DRS system. There is conclusive evidence that it gives more correct decisions. This is the reason why technology is being introduced in many sports, not just cricket. It also adds a little extra drama to proceedings at times. This article is yet another example of yet another Australian ex-player/journalist/supporter whingeing about the DRS system because they lost the first test and are looking for excuses as to why. Roll on tomorrow....

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 5:22 GMT)

So once its not in fav of Aussies it becomes a problem?

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 17, 2013, 5:13 GMT)

"For the first time, I'm starting to understand India's reluctance to go with the system."

Eastern wisdom seems to be at last dawning on the West!

Posted by jango_moh on (July 17, 2013, 5:11 GMT)

finally, ppl r waking up to the DRS fiasco!!!! as an indian fan, i dont have a problem with DRS as long as it stays with the umpires, and it eliminates howlers... if there are howlers still happening, then whats the point?? the most irritating part is the ball tracking system which goes with umpire's call even if ball is just scraping the wicket, its horrendous.... give umpires the call (third umpires can interject on howlers) and remove lbws out of drs, i think that can make it work.....

Posted by katuss on (July 17, 2013, 4:50 GMT)

i find it really amazing to see people criticize DRS for one or too wrong decisions that occur mostly due to human error and the lack of technology used but always forget the number of times it has helped in providing the correct decision which in fact has increased the quality of cricket.

in reason matches when i see how many times the umpires miss a front foot no ball makes me wonder why do people still hate technology? because it's not complete and it still has some issues to be resolved? why don't people see it as a step forward?

if it was a complete failure i would have agreed else if the result being most wrong decisions, i would have agreed but when we can clearly see it being an advantage

just having few bugs does not mean it is useless or should not be used. as we can see some good decision, why not improve it while it being on use

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 4:50 GMT)

Sorry to say, but one of my favorite wicket-keeper batsman, a sportsman of high quality , wasnt able to convince me with this article. While you have debated about the feelings and the atmosphere created by Old (Non DRS) system. I cannot see one suggestion or technical weakness in making the game Fair and Improved.

Half of the article suggests how u miss the old times when you were playing (I would too, If I had such a great Record) latter half is directed towards the Trent Bridge match and Agar.

At the end of the day, the game is getting fairer. Lesser people will come to you after a century and say " Ahh.. but you got lucky around 2 times in there " Players are earning it now. And still the added power is with the umpires as their initial call holds a key even when reviewing it.

Lastly, questioning the umpire has been there. But questioning for the sake of questioning is wrong. Game is getting even longer. A limit must be set on that. You cant take cricket to Olympics like that.

Posted by AidanFX on (July 17, 2013, 4:46 GMT)

@ icfa "(1) the technology is not mature enough to give 100% accurate results" - Humans cannot make God Almighty. So the discussion about the merits of DRS can never be when it will be 100%. In terms of the opinion posed here. I have not fully formed my opinion yet. I don't enjoy seeing clear wickets happen only to remain my excitement as I wait to see if the umpire checks for a no-ball - I hate it. And Gilly is right about nicks and LBW's - now we look at the batsmen or the captain almost expecting a review. I don't know what the solution is. It is not as simple as some make out so I am refraining from dogmatics for now. I think the use of DRS can be improved.

Posted by Barnesy4444 on (July 17, 2013, 4:42 GMT)

DRS was brought in to eliminate the howler. That terrible umpiring decision that humiliates the on-filed umpire because he's gotten it so wrong. That terrible decision that infuriates players and fans because they can see the replay.

The way DRS is being implemented has turned it into a tactic captains can use as a way of overturning 50-50 decisions at critical moments of games.

When DRS rules were being drawn up years ago the umpires asked for control of referrals. They were right. The ICC needs to get on board.

Posted by AjaySridharan on (July 17, 2013, 4:40 GMT)

Well put Gilly! You have always been a champion. I absolutely loved Ashton Agar - that innocent smile when he got out at 98 and a sense of joy that he brought to bear were great to watch! hope the kid goes on to do some great things on the field

Posted by fullawareness on (July 17, 2013, 4:35 GMT)

Although I am against the present DRS I am unable to agree with Gilchrist. His opposition to DRS stems from some utopian idea of climax in cricket. Cricket is far more professional today than ever before and it is paramount to get the results right. Having said that, DRS fails on that count. There has not been a single independent high quality study done by the ICC or outsourced that supports the projection system of DRS. A tool primarily developed for broadcasting is being used for decision making with some improvements!! wat nonsense !! and India is a bully for opposing this travesty!! BALL TRACKING IS NOT REQUIRED FOR correcting howlers. Throw out ball traking, throw out hot spot (useless and very expensive), use pitch map, slow motion, snicko and take out line decisions out of the umpires purview completely including no balls so that he can focus more on the other end. Invest in umpire development and bingo!! we will have much better decision making and no HOWLERS...

Posted by cricket_ahan on (July 17, 2013, 4:26 GMT)

Great article Adam, but I'm not sure everyone shares your view on "accepting" and enjoying the spontaniety of an umpire's decision. Take the example of the recent Australian team, whose prospects are hanging on such thin threads, that they need every bit to go their way. Take the example of the India-Australia series some years back where Langer, Symonds and Ponting were given not out from clear edges. When "spontaniety" materially impacts on the result of a game, and "howlers", as we call them now, are too prevalent, then the spirit and enjoyment of the game gets lost amidst players and teams feeling they are being dealt with unjustly. From a technology point of view, I believe DRS is fine - Hotspot, pitch maps etc all terrific tools providing great evidence. Some element of uncertainty will always exist, especially for LBW decisions, since by definition this mode of dismissal relies on prediction. It just requires proficiency by who is using it!

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 4:14 GMT)

@chitti-cricket, I think you've misunderstood what Gilly is saying. He's not really got a problem with the technicalities of the system as such. He's referring to the fact that the game loses it's flow by giving the players a right to pose questions off the umpires. I think Gilly's is talking about the system from purely entertainment point of view. And he has a point. That said, I think Ian Chappell had the best solution. Just let the Ump's have control over it. Use hot-spot for LBW/Catches the same way you use Slow-Mo for run-outs. It has to be the solution. Then the umpire would feel safer referring marginal decisions rather than getting them wrong and later being found out and embarrassed later on. I mean, give the two men a break! The literally have a fraction of a second to a) Check for a no-ball. b) Check if ball pitched in line/struck in line. c) Check for a fine edge off the bat. d) Check trajectory. That they get more than 90% decisions correct is amazing!

Posted by parvez_asad on (July 17, 2013, 4:00 GMT)

I suggest DRS fully controlled by the umpires is the right solution at this moment.

Posted by chitti_cricket on (July 17, 2013, 4:00 GMT)

Gilly, there is nothing wrong with this DRS mate. As you said there are some moments which we thoroughly miss out of cricket because it takes time to review. One thing we all must agree is Mr. Clarke used DRS as gamble but not wisely. Any way without discussing that I would like to put one thing on this test match mate. Ausies lost the match more than England won the match. The top order failures and Clarke's non attacking captaincy were to majorly discussed. When this new guy Agar was bowling that well why the field was set to release pressure? Don't you think your current Captain has become bit more defensive compared to your previous captains. Mostly this will be realized sooner than later and rest of the matches in this series be more competitive.

Posted by vikpai on (July 17, 2013, 3:45 GMT)

Good article and makes the point well.

The current DRS system is not healthy, with players being able to question an umpires decision, which would never happen in Rugby where players don't dare to question an umpires decision for fear of being sent off.

Additionally 2 reviews make little sense if the idea is to arrive at the right decision. Ravichandran Ashwin made a good point of this when he responded to a question related to a bat pad catch appeal against Micheal Clark in the first test between India and Australia in Chennai earlier this year.

Posted by CustomKid on (July 17, 2013, 3:44 GMT)

Gilly if you decide to create a political party for the upcoming Australian Federal election you've got my vote. Such a balance view full of wisdom.

If only we had you and Hussey in the side on the weekend (wishful thinking given your age) but such quality players. As the target was whittling down I sent a text to a friend and said only if we had Hussey to guide us home. He wrote back and said yes I agree and we should have placed him in carbonite (for the star wars fans) and defrosted him on occasions like this lol.

I don't dislike DRS, but the one thing I hate is when a wicket is taken and the umpire then kills the moment by checking for a no-ball. That is the one that really gets me. I wouldn't mind the umpires taking control of DRS either.

Example they have a close LBW, raise the finger, then cross their arms on their chest just to confirm it was out. If it is hitting any part of the stumps it's out. That way they're still making a decision but are just confirming it.

Posted by crick_sucks on (July 17, 2013, 3:42 GMT)

At last some one is seeing sense in India's take on the DRS. It is really simple, (1) the technology is not mature enough to give 100% accurate results. (2) the DRS should not be in the hands of the players but should be an added tool with the on field umpires. I guess when ENG is on the receiving end of the DRS better sense will prevail upon them as it did on AUS this time around.

Posted by crkt4evr on (July 17, 2013, 3:41 GMT)

superb article! completely agree with you gilly.....please stop using drs its really irritating

Posted by landl47 on (July 17, 2013, 3:35 GMT)

AG was a great cricketer, but this is a very muddled article. Is he seriously suggesting that the match is poorer for the right decision being given in the Haddin dismissal? And what about Broad's (non) dismissal- is that a good thing because DRS wasn't used and the on-field umpire gave the wrong decision?

Some adjustments do need to be made and will be made, but to suggest that DRS be shelved is ridiculous.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 2:57 GMT)

As usual Adam, you speak with the true wisdom of past Australian cricket. I just wish you had been given the captaincy reigns in 2003, world cricket would be a much better place if you had. I agree with every single word you wrote.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Adam GilchristClose

    We need to think about the role of the bouncer

Mukul Kesavan: To refuse to consider the pros and cons of a ban in the wake of Phillip Hughes' death is unwise

    Back home in Adelaide, boiling in Brissie

Diary: Sidharth Monga takes in experiences familiar and new on the first leg of India's tour down under

    Switching captains, and birthday bowlers

Ask Steven: Plus, best ODI batsmen in Australia, most hours spent batting in Tests, and players of the 1990s

    It's not the plan, stupid

Ed Smith: Good performances make all plans look good. The better team on the day always wins, irrespective of what was strategised in the dressing room

The charm of the Boxing Day Test

Jonathan Wilson: It's special not just for the cricket, but also because it satisfies one of the tenets of Christmas - bringing people together

News | Features Last 7 days

What ails Rohit and Watson?

Both batsmen seemingly have buckets of talent at their disposal and the backing of their captains, but soft dismissals relentlessly follow both around the Test arena

Hazlewood completes quartet of promise

Josh Hazlewood has been on Australian cricket's radar since he was a teenager. The player that made a Test debut at the Gabba was a much-improved version of the tearaway from 2010

Vijay 144, Ganguly 144

Stats highlights from the first day of the second Test between Australia and India in Brisbane

Vijay unburnt by Brisbane furnace

Brisbane was hot and humid and the insides of the Gabba even more so. M Vijay battled the hostile conditions and a testing attack to make a memorable hundred

'Forget about no-balls. Just bowl fast'

When Wasim Akram swung Pakistan to their first global title

News | Features Last 7 days