England v Australia, 3rd Investec Test, Old Trafford, 1st day August 1, 2013

'One of the worst umpiring decisions'

ESPNcricinfo staff
Reactions to Usman Khawaja's dismissal at Old Trafford
149

Usman Khawaja's dismissal before lunch at Old Trafford, adjudged caught behind after the on-field umpire's call was reviewed and upheld, has triggered an outpouring of furious tweets from former players and even the Australian prime minister. Here's a selection:

"I've just sat down to watch the test. That was one of the worst cricket umpiring decisions I have ever seen. KRudd"
Kevin Rudd, Australian prime minister

"Usman Khawaja has every right to knock on the umpires door over lunch & just ask HOW?"
Tom Moody, former Australia batsman

"That is a ridiculous decision by both the on & off field umpires. DRS creating yet more controversy. Any wonder players don't walk!"
Alec Stewart, former England captain

"And people say you should Walk .... No chance when you get decisions like that...."
Michael Vaughan, former England captain

"DRS was introduced to eradicate the human howlers...humans are out to prove that no technology can eliminate human errors."
Aakash Chopra, former India batsman

"Umpires protecting each other is the main reason DRS is causing controversy!"
Scott Styris, former New Zealand allrounder

"Shocking decision to give #usmanKhwaja out. What is the technology there for? Umpires may need a trip to specsavers n get a hearing aid."
Azhar Mahmood, former Pakistan allrounder

"Thing to remember is that without DRS we would still be saying that was a shocking decision. Not the system's fault but those operating it."
Steve James, former England batsman

"Don't blame the DRS for that. Blame the numpty 3rd umpire. Poor!"
Iain O'Brien, former New Zealand bowler.

"Now that's bullshit !!! Sorry ... Now you all know why I hate DRS! Bullshit."
Dean Jones, former Australia batsman.

"It's really quite obvious why we end up enslaved to robots in the future."
Jarrod Kimber, ESPNcricinfo

"just saw the khawaja dismissal. oh dear. you dream of playing the ashes and this is what you get...."
Harsha Bhogle, commentator and ESPNcricinfo columnist

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • johnathonjosephs on August 1, 2013, 18:57 GMT

    I don't understand how so many die hard cricket fans can be so clueless about the DRS system and the way it works. It is NOT Dharmasena's fault, but instead the fault of the ONFIELD umpire. The way a review works is in such a way that the Third Umpire CAN NOT say anything to the onfield umpire about the person "being out" or "being not out". They simply look at what technology gives and tells the facts. It is then up to the onfield umpire to reverse his dismissal based on what he hears. For example, in this scenario, Dharmasena probably told the umpire that "There is a noise, but no hot spot, can't confirm any thing on hot spot" and the onfield umpire then makes his decision. Only way the Third Umpire can get it wrong is if there is an ambiguous marking and he interprets it as something else. A lot of times, Third Umpires get unfairly blamed for stuff that may have not even been their fault. It is NOT the same as a review for no ball/run out which everyone seems to think it is

  • alarky on August 1, 2013, 15:56 GMT

    The DRS was invented to reduce the incredible amount of guessing made by umpires. But, I'm afraid that they still continue to guess too much, even when the DRS verdict is straight forward. The administrators of cricket need to realise that the umpires are given 'too many technological options' to utilise to come up with a single decision: Hotspot, Snicko, Hawkeye, Stump Microphones, Cameras, etc. But remember, that "IT'S POSSIBLE THAT EACH OPTION MAY PRODUCE A DIFFERENT RESULT! for the same query! So, for consistency's sake, the authorities need to give the umpires "ONE ULTIMATE DECISION ZENITH" to use to make the FINAL decision for each query that may occur. Example: For all catch related decisions it should be "Hot Spot" - if hotspot says no, let it remain no. For LBWs it should be Hot Spot and Hawkeye. For Run Outs, No balls and Bum Balls it should be vigilant Camera Work; and so on. Stump mikes should not be used as too many things in the open playing environ that create sounds!

  • on August 8, 2013, 7:24 GMT

    Umpires were absolutely right. The 2nd noise justifies that. The noise comes at 2:25 where the bat hits the ball when the bat is covered by the WK. If an inquiry is held this will be upheld and umpires will come clean for certain.

  • on August 8, 2013, 7:00 GMT

    It is the on field umpire who decides either to overturn or stand by his decision based on the 3rd umpires feedback. Why is Tom Moody and others howling about this ?

  • TheOnlyEmperor on August 5, 2013, 9:42 GMT

    The DRS system consists of the following components all of which have flaws: 1. The imperfect technology. 2. The imperfect interpretation of the results thrown up by technology. 3. The imperfect rules that govern the interpretation of the technology. 4. The imperfect implementation of the such rules by the umpires. Without the DRS the umpires would be more focused on making the right decisions and there would be lesser heart-burn on the post-mortems done. It's easier to accept human error and move on, rather than to accept technology driven errors that require a six sigma approach to minimize them!

  • alarky on August 2, 2013, 14:19 GMT

    johnathonjosephs, what you've said from a superficial perspective is quite true. But in a more profound sense, it does not completely exonerate the 3rd umpire from total blame in these matters! My understanding is that while it is true that the TV umpire CANNOT use the exact words, "he's out" or he's not out" to advise his on-field colleague, he has a duty not only to "simply look at what technology gives and tells the facts"; but to do so both ACCURATELY and TACTFULLY, in order to save them both from some of these rather embarassing situations, being seen worldwide! Most times they are the victims of genuine errors, thus the reason that the authorities have introduced the DRS to help them. Using the Khawaja incident for example, don't you think if the TV umpire had reported to his colleague as follows: "Hot spot shows there's no touch, but I heard a noise; however, the cameras show daylight between bat and ball", the onfield umpire would change the decision? the brain is key here!

  • one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on August 2, 2013, 10:11 GMT

    @Devmanus, if a drunk driver behind the wheel of a car causes an accident is the car or the driver to blame? I think any rational seven year old could answer that question and most of the simple arguments you propose to support your nationalistic agenda. The DRS and umpiring skills are separate issues. In the Khawaja case I think most people would have been able to give the correct decision using the available technology. Yes a lot of bad original decision have been given around the world under pressure and without replay, especially in India, but people are arguing that this is one of the worst decisions for two reasons: 1. There was time to review the decision and; 2. There was clear evidence (gap between bat and ball) to overturn. There will always be contentious decisions but that is no argument for burying your head. Technology cannot make every decision correct. For example the Agar Stumping he had a section of black sole behind the line. Other may argue otherwise.

  • on August 2, 2013, 10:04 GMT

    DRS is the worst system in cricket .Kevin Rudd: "That was one of the worst cricket umpiring decisions I have ever seen" it is well said because DRS can't judge a man is out or not out, but only creating problem .DRS should be abolished from cricket.

  • Devmanus on August 2, 2013, 9:57 GMT

    its the same old story... Until it didnt harm you, you will never ever oppose it. now even CA and ECB are questing decision made by DRS...

    but everyboby laughed and critisized other boards when they try to avoid it.

    Let the on field umpire make only LBW decisions...and all Other decisions should be made by the third umpire...and lets accept them and move on...

  • Sultan2007 on August 2, 2013, 9:39 GMT

    DRS should be used soley to redress umpiring howlers. It was such a pity to hear Michael Clarke taking about how his team was disadvantaged becasue they didnt get the use of DRS right and England did a better job at it. Is this the core competency required of a cricketer now? Clever use of DRS? Ridiculous. Doesnt stop here. Batting techniques have had to be reinvented. The art of pad play has disappeared. The LBW decision has become a joke. The ball can now pitch anywhere as long as it hits in line and hits the stump, its out. Used to be, when umpires would give this only if a shot wasnt played. Batsmen trained to play forward on turning pitches to take LBW out of the equation. No longer true. The art of batting is fast changing and I am wondering whether its a good thing that batting technique is now being tailored to deal with a sytem and technology rather than solely the skills of a bowler and the idiosyncracies of the cricket ball. What a sorry state for my beloved game!

  • johnathonjosephs on August 1, 2013, 18:57 GMT

    I don't understand how so many die hard cricket fans can be so clueless about the DRS system and the way it works. It is NOT Dharmasena's fault, but instead the fault of the ONFIELD umpire. The way a review works is in such a way that the Third Umpire CAN NOT say anything to the onfield umpire about the person "being out" or "being not out". They simply look at what technology gives and tells the facts. It is then up to the onfield umpire to reverse his dismissal based on what he hears. For example, in this scenario, Dharmasena probably told the umpire that "There is a noise, but no hot spot, can't confirm any thing on hot spot" and the onfield umpire then makes his decision. Only way the Third Umpire can get it wrong is if there is an ambiguous marking and he interprets it as something else. A lot of times, Third Umpires get unfairly blamed for stuff that may have not even been their fault. It is NOT the same as a review for no ball/run out which everyone seems to think it is

  • alarky on August 1, 2013, 15:56 GMT

    The DRS was invented to reduce the incredible amount of guessing made by umpires. But, I'm afraid that they still continue to guess too much, even when the DRS verdict is straight forward. The administrators of cricket need to realise that the umpires are given 'too many technological options' to utilise to come up with a single decision: Hotspot, Snicko, Hawkeye, Stump Microphones, Cameras, etc. But remember, that "IT'S POSSIBLE THAT EACH OPTION MAY PRODUCE A DIFFERENT RESULT! for the same query! So, for consistency's sake, the authorities need to give the umpires "ONE ULTIMATE DECISION ZENITH" to use to make the FINAL decision for each query that may occur. Example: For all catch related decisions it should be "Hot Spot" - if hotspot says no, let it remain no. For LBWs it should be Hot Spot and Hawkeye. For Run Outs, No balls and Bum Balls it should be vigilant Camera Work; and so on. Stump mikes should not be used as too many things in the open playing environ that create sounds!

  • on August 8, 2013, 7:24 GMT

    Umpires were absolutely right. The 2nd noise justifies that. The noise comes at 2:25 where the bat hits the ball when the bat is covered by the WK. If an inquiry is held this will be upheld and umpires will come clean for certain.

  • on August 8, 2013, 7:00 GMT

    It is the on field umpire who decides either to overturn or stand by his decision based on the 3rd umpires feedback. Why is Tom Moody and others howling about this ?

  • TheOnlyEmperor on August 5, 2013, 9:42 GMT

    The DRS system consists of the following components all of which have flaws: 1. The imperfect technology. 2. The imperfect interpretation of the results thrown up by technology. 3. The imperfect rules that govern the interpretation of the technology. 4. The imperfect implementation of the such rules by the umpires. Without the DRS the umpires would be more focused on making the right decisions and there would be lesser heart-burn on the post-mortems done. It's easier to accept human error and move on, rather than to accept technology driven errors that require a six sigma approach to minimize them!

  • alarky on August 2, 2013, 14:19 GMT

    johnathonjosephs, what you've said from a superficial perspective is quite true. But in a more profound sense, it does not completely exonerate the 3rd umpire from total blame in these matters! My understanding is that while it is true that the TV umpire CANNOT use the exact words, "he's out" or he's not out" to advise his on-field colleague, he has a duty not only to "simply look at what technology gives and tells the facts"; but to do so both ACCURATELY and TACTFULLY, in order to save them both from some of these rather embarassing situations, being seen worldwide! Most times they are the victims of genuine errors, thus the reason that the authorities have introduced the DRS to help them. Using the Khawaja incident for example, don't you think if the TV umpire had reported to his colleague as follows: "Hot spot shows there's no touch, but I heard a noise; however, the cameras show daylight between bat and ball", the onfield umpire would change the decision? the brain is key here!

  • one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on August 2, 2013, 10:11 GMT

    @Devmanus, if a drunk driver behind the wheel of a car causes an accident is the car or the driver to blame? I think any rational seven year old could answer that question and most of the simple arguments you propose to support your nationalistic agenda. The DRS and umpiring skills are separate issues. In the Khawaja case I think most people would have been able to give the correct decision using the available technology. Yes a lot of bad original decision have been given around the world under pressure and without replay, especially in India, but people are arguing that this is one of the worst decisions for two reasons: 1. There was time to review the decision and; 2. There was clear evidence (gap between bat and ball) to overturn. There will always be contentious decisions but that is no argument for burying your head. Technology cannot make every decision correct. For example the Agar Stumping he had a section of black sole behind the line. Other may argue otherwise.

  • on August 2, 2013, 10:04 GMT

    DRS is the worst system in cricket .Kevin Rudd: "That was one of the worst cricket umpiring decisions I have ever seen" it is well said because DRS can't judge a man is out or not out, but only creating problem .DRS should be abolished from cricket.

  • Devmanus on August 2, 2013, 9:57 GMT

    its the same old story... Until it didnt harm you, you will never ever oppose it. now even CA and ECB are questing decision made by DRS...

    but everyboby laughed and critisized other boards when they try to avoid it.

    Let the on field umpire make only LBW decisions...and all Other decisions should be made by the third umpire...and lets accept them and move on...

  • Sultan2007 on August 2, 2013, 9:39 GMT

    DRS should be used soley to redress umpiring howlers. It was such a pity to hear Michael Clarke taking about how his team was disadvantaged becasue they didnt get the use of DRS right and England did a better job at it. Is this the core competency required of a cricketer now? Clever use of DRS? Ridiculous. Doesnt stop here. Batting techniques have had to be reinvented. The art of pad play has disappeared. The LBW decision has become a joke. The ball can now pitch anywhere as long as it hits in line and hits the stump, its out. Used to be, when umpires would give this only if a shot wasnt played. Batsmen trained to play forward on turning pitches to take LBW out of the equation. No longer true. The art of batting is fast changing and I am wondering whether its a good thing that batting technique is now being tailored to deal with a sytem and technology rather than solely the skills of a bowler and the idiosyncracies of the cricket ball. What a sorry state for my beloved game!

  • on August 2, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    The featured comment by johnathonjosephs is off the mark. There was a lot more to it than the lack of a hotspot mark and a noise. The 3rd umpire took an eternity watching repays that also showed a gap between bat and ball and the bat hitting the pad (hence a noise). If you are going to call other posters clueless JohnJo. you should get it right yourself. As for the third umpire - if didn't communicate all of the above then sack him. If if he did and the umpire on the ground ignored it then sack him or send him instead.

  • brusselslion on August 2, 2013, 9:32 GMT

    Stewart and Vaughan's justifiction for not walking would be laughable, if it were not so pathetic. A real 'two wrongs make a right' piece of logic.

    @IndiaNumeroUno on (August 1, 2013, 14:21 GMT): Are you suggesting that the umpires in this series are biased? Incompetent certainly, biased I doubt it.

    @fguy on (August 1, 2013, 18:26 GMT): Two identical comments on the same thread about a series 2 years ago! Sounds like a problem to me, mate. Seek help!

  • shane-oh on August 2, 2013, 9:28 GMT

    @Mano91 - hold on...are you suggesting the DRS somehow produces less correct decisions than having no DRS? Take your blinkers off mate, think for yourself instead of letting the BCCI do all your thinking for you.

    And @Mark Cooper - you do yourself no favours by claiming that only 2 countries produce good umpires, which is demonstrably incorrect. Don't know whether you are English or Australian but seriously, come on.

    Bad decision, unfathomable decision actually. The ICC needs to be speaking with umpires after events like this to find out what was going through their heads. I have a good understanding of the DRS, and the rules around it's use are actually pretty good, Dharmasena' just failed to apply them correctly in this case, in my opinion.

  • Devmanus on August 2, 2013, 9:17 GMT

    its nice to comment on the given decision by an on field umpire or third umpire...

    my question is .."Is there any volunteer to make RIGHT use of DRS technology and gives CORRECT decision?"

    if yes then please contact ICC

  • Devmanus on August 2, 2013, 9:11 GMT

    "That was one of the worst cricket umpiring decisions I have ever seen" its pity that you have seen it now... we cricket viewers are seeing it since long time....even on Australian soil.

  • TheScot on August 2, 2013, 8:53 GMT

    DRS is taking attention away from my beloved game of cricket. That is why, my dear friends, I dislike DRS in cricket.

  • Green_and_Gold on August 2, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    @Rajesh Chopra - we blame DRS because it is set up in a way for umpires to interpret the technology in favor of the on field umpire. The system needs to change.

  • Devmanus on August 2, 2013, 8:24 GMT

    Why blame DRS? because the DRS and and operating umpire who make decisions comes as a whole package... you can not buy ony DRS without its operating umpire...someone has to use it to make decisions...

  • himsez on August 2, 2013, 8:24 GMT

    I hate the 2D's of cricket - The Duckworth Lewis Method and DRS. There reason for DL method is that it cannot take into account the abilities of different batsmen. Its just goes mathematical. Girchrist at number six is not the same as Ravindra Jadeja at number six.

    The DRS problem is more in the method then the technology. No players should be allowed to use it. Secondly, umpires must use it for their purpose. If there are any doubts the decision should be not out. These days even no balls are being checked and wrongly given. Like the Chris Broad No Ball.

    @johnathonjosephs - DRS is used to eliminate howlers. does not matter how. The third umpire must say clearly what he thinks. I do not see any edge and I think its not out. Then its documented with on field decision. If it creates a howler itself what is the use of DRS

  • PIETERFAN on August 2, 2013, 8:10 GMT

    Before DRS, Hawkeye, Hotspot days we used to watch the action on TV and feel aggrieved only at obvious outs or not outs given by the onfield umpire. So we can continue having the DRS wherein if the decision is reviewed by the fielding team or the batsman, the on field umpire simply consults the 3rd umpire who watches the replay (without any technology aid) and gives his opinion. The onfield umpire then simply conveys his decision on the field. That way the DRS will be used only to eliminate the howlers instead of the now excessive usage of tools which is confusing the TV umpire. It would also reduce the cost of employment of hotspot, snicko and hawkeye and also not confuse viewers which is the basis for all these wrong decisions.

  • on August 2, 2013, 8:07 GMT

    Perhaps it is just because we hear their analysis, but the TV commentators generally seem to agree with each other and to get these decisions right. Why then are the umpiring decisions full of surprises ? If what johnathonjosephs says above is correct, then the process is daft, the application of the technology should not be at the discretion of the onfield umpire.

  • Blade-Runner on August 2, 2013, 7:56 GMT

    The worst umpiring decision for me was Sangakkara getting out caught after the ball hitting on the shoulder in Hobart. Sangakkara was at 192 n Sri Lanka was going to win that test match. Due to Sanga's wrongful dismissal, Sri Lanka lost that match.

  • on August 2, 2013, 7:42 GMT

    Why blame DRS? Umpire made a wrong decision. DRS provided an opportunity to correc t it. Umpire decided not to! Who is at fault?

  • Dashgar on August 2, 2013, 7:19 GMT

    @Ska, the Symonds dismissal (while bad) was still a spur of the moment umpiring decision that sometimes happens. Broads non-dismissal in the first test was almost identical. The DRS was brought in almost completely because of that Symonds incident so such howlers wouldn't happen again. This is worse because after numerous replays to show the decision was a howler it still got upheld. There was no spur of the moment excuse. Dharmasena took his time, studied every replay many times, then got an easy decision completely wrong.

  • AltafPatel on August 2, 2013, 6:57 GMT

    For the decision of run-out or stumping, when third umpire is referred, rights to take the decision goes to third umpire himself, and that's followed for decades, then why same is not with the DRS system ? It would be absolutely wrong if someone says DRS system is faulty, the faulty are those who use the system.

  • rickeap on August 2, 2013, 6:56 GMT

    DRS is not at fault here...poor human application of the DRS is the problem

  • AltafPatel on August 2, 2013, 6:54 GMT

    This shows that there is no technology problem with DRS, but the way it's handled is absolutely fault and needs to be fixed asap before questions raise about continuation of the entire DRS system...

  • Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on August 2, 2013, 6:41 GMT

    Some people are saying it's umpire's fault and not of technology. That's not true , it's the inconclusiveness of technology that created doubt in umpire's mind.

    Historically hot spot has not been accurate. So field umpire didn't overrule his decision even though the edge didn't show on hot spot. You can't blame the umpire for that . There was a noise and hot spot didn't show anything. It doesn't always mean it was not out. Hot spot has been wrong so many times and that's the problem.

  • Gupta.Ankur on August 2, 2013, 6:27 GMT

    Looks like the world is finally realizing what the BCCI knew 3 years back.

  • Ekanayaka on August 2, 2013, 6:13 GMT

    Cricket is the only game in the world where the entire course of a match can be influenced by a single mistake by an umpire /referee. And there are too many bad umpires making too many bad decisions for the good of this sport. Umpires are paid well and they are not paid to make errors. As in other areas of life they must be held accountable and made to pay for bad decisions. Technology must be used to eliminate errors, not compound them as in this case.

  • on August 2, 2013, 6:12 GMT

    Today I understood why India oppose DRS.

  • on August 2, 2013, 5:56 GMT

    @darrensammy, its part of the job and if one cannot take the pressure he should find another..If people in corporate world make decisions as bad as these they will more often than not lose their jobs. I can understand the on field umpire making error in the absence of any external help but there is no justification for the 3rd umpire to do so.

  • reachdipen on August 2, 2013, 5:49 GMT

    Of'course the decision was not good however not worse ever;One shouldn't doubt credibility of 3rd umpire. its got more attention as Australia is struggling;technology was not at fault; review of DRS rules is required.

  • on August 2, 2013, 5:47 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs, so you believe that all the ex players, commentators who are blaming the 3rd umpire don't know a thing is it?? David Lloyd read the rules during the lunch break and said that the rules require the 3rd umpire to judge if there is "conclusive" evidence to overturn the decision..if based on the replays and hot spot, audio etc Dharmasena found no 'conclusive' evidence that Khwaja had not nicked it then I agree with Michael Holding that he has to be BLIND..because everyone else who saw them concluded that he was not out.

  • Go_F.Alonso on August 2, 2013, 5:45 GMT

    The worst ever has got to be the shocking Dravid's "caught-behind" off Symonds in the 2nd innings of the infamous Sydney Test of 2008. Khawaja's might be the worst since DRS but at least there was a clear sound (although it was just after the ball passed the bat) to mislead both the umpires. I guess you reap what you sow Australia. To the English saying Smith was reprieved, I did not see any evidence of that. The LBW was a marginal call which can't necessarily be given and there was no indication of Smith nicking Anderson's delivery. So there was no justice done and you still owe Australia one.

  • on August 2, 2013, 5:30 GMT

    The spirit of the game is tarnished in this instance by the umpires.So next Q should be why there's a match referee? and what he's gonna do about it.The media and the public are viewing in yr 2013. The ICC and its employee's are still in yr 2000.

  • jmcilhinney on August 2, 2013, 5:17 GMT

    @Sunil_Batra on (August 1, 2013, 19:59 GMT), while I'm not privy to the umpires' thoughts, I can only conclude that the umpire(s) decided that the evidence could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Khawaja didn't hit the ball. Therein lies the problem I think. Most people would say that the complete lack of evidence that he did hit it is, while maybe not proof, at least strong evidence that he didn't hit it. Likely the on-field umpire was going by the noise but it was clear from replays that that was caused by bat hitting pad and occurred before the ball passed the bat. If that's not considered compelling evidence by the ICC then I think that they need to change their protocol.

  • aninda_d on August 2, 2013, 5:15 GMT

    @jonathonjoseph

    You are right about the role of the third ump in a review situation. What you do not mention is that there was a gap when the ball passed the bat. Hot Spot did not register anything. Stump mic DID NOT PICK UP ANY NOISE. The click people heard is that of the bat brushing the pad. This is before the ball passes the bat. This is why people are saying that the third ump did not make a correct decision based on the facts. No problem with the DRS in this case. Ironically, it is the human element that refuses to go away!

  • helloDolly on August 2, 2013, 5:09 GMT

    Machine or no machine that is the question;if operator's eyes are crossed hearts at home and mind is useless that's when a decisions like that is made.Well!a player is fined or suspended; in other words is punished and the umpires don't even get a slap on their wrist;just in this Ashes so many mistakes have been made;Agar,Trott,Broad,Usman;Wake up ICC this game is being killed because of your's GREED!!!!!!!

  • HawK89 on August 2, 2013, 4:15 GMT

    The whole point of DRS is to have another umpire make a decision with the aid of technology, not using it to justify the original decision. The review process is already good enough with handling LBW decisions. Hotspot has already been upgraded to detect finer edges on the bat. If there isn't mark shown, then you didn't hit it.

    Snicko showed no sound off Khawaja's bat, no hotspot and no additional deviation. Similar thing with Smith later on. Play and miss and England reviewed. Nothing on HotSpot, but there was a sound. Snicko revealed later, that the sound occurred when the ball was past the bat by some distance.

    Since the hotspot upgrade, there hasn't been a case where snicko revealed sound from the bat and nothing on hotspot. Trott got neither of these supporting his claim of hitting the ball, to avoid his golden duck.

  • AllInFairNess on August 2, 2013, 4:11 GMT

    @Sunil_Batra, To protect on field umpire.

  • jmcilhinney on August 2, 2013, 4:03 GMT

    @simon_w on (August 1, 2013, 20:53 GMT), I disagree. While it was a mistake, I have no issue with the on-field umpire giving Khawaja out because there was plenty of indication that he was. My issue is that what seemed like strong evidence on review that he didn't hit the ball was considered insufficient to overturn that decision. With regards to the incidents involving Smith, I'd say that only the last one was a mistake. The first LBW one was almost certainly out but it was close enough that the umpire was justified in giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt and, according to the laws of DRS, the decision could not be overturned on review, which I have no issue with. The caught behind was definitely not out anyway, although I'm surprised that it wasn't given out on the field with such a loud noise. Replays show the noise came after the ball passed the bat though. The second LBW was obviously out and that's an umpiring mistake but England had used their reviews so c'est la vie.

  • jmcilhinney on August 2, 2013, 3:55 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs on (August 1, 2013, 18:57 GMT), if the third umpire told the on-field umpire that there was a noise but did not mention the fact that it was before the ball passed the bat and that it coincided with the bat obviously hitting the pad then it is the third umpire's mistake. If the third umpire can only answer questions asked by the on-field umpire then that's a protocol issue. The third umpire should simply say what he sees and hears. In this case, that would be the bat hitting the pad and an accompanying noise, then the ball passing the bat with no noise and no HotSpot. I also wonder whether the third umpire reported seeing a deviation because thought there was at first but realised that it was an optical illusion after watching the replay several times.

  • on August 2, 2013, 3:41 GMT

    I was live watching the Usman Khawaja's dismissal at Old Trafford but the DRS is not working it should be abolish from next test on wards.Because no touch of ball and bat.but 3rd umpire is also the culprit .The snickometer is the best one for cricket for reviewing what i think by my self. Usman was very disturb and suddenly saying "i am not sure " i read his lips within no time.

  • SugarFoot on August 2, 2013, 3:38 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs - You said " It is NOT Dharmasena's fault, but instead the fault of the ONFIELD umpire." The onfield umpire Tony Hill was 100% wrong but to say the 3rd umpire Dharmasena should be released of blame is a further tragedy. DRS can only reverse a decision if there is conclusive evidence that supports a decision reversal. That information is relayed to the onfield umpire to either give it out or not out based on the findings of the DRS review. Which brings me to Dharmasena. This man would know the difference between 3 inches of daylight between the bat and ball - and a conclusive edge. The fact there was no hot spot, a "sound " that was heard but could not be confirmed where it came from, 3 inches of daylight between the ball and bat plus the ball not changing trajectory after passing the willow is clearly enough evidence alone to reverse an onfield howling decision. Dharmasena is at 100% fault. I have not forgotten you Tony Hill - you are ordinary.

  • Andross on August 2, 2013, 3:30 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs Oh yes it IS Dharmasena's fault. I would have thought that a large chunk of Prior's leg visible between bat and ball as they passed would be evidence for even the most crooked defence attorney, but evidently not for the third umpire. On the later Steven Smith review, they used a split screen which didn't really help, but had they used the same thing for Khawaja, they would have seen that the ball was a good 2-3 cms away from the line of bat until after it had passed his left knee. All these factors combine to prove clear evidence, that it IS Dharmasena's fault that he ignored.

  • SugarFoot on August 2, 2013, 3:19 GMT

    @Simon - Hmmm - I don't know mate. It will be a hard sell to say Smith's 3 not out decisions are worse than the Kwahaja blunder. A big call indeed. Your comment has the faint aroma of an Englishman :)

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:53 GMT

    I cannot believe people still defend Hot Spot. Steve Smith was definitely out caught behind and yet hot spot shows no nick. This is going to cost England dearly. Exactly what the BCCI said would happen

  • AjaySridharan on August 2, 2013, 1:27 GMT

    A change in rule could help avert such howlers. I'm sure Dharmasena felt it was not out. So he would have told the on-field umpire that has no conclusive evidence one way or the other. The rules say the on-field umpire's original call stays in that case. If the rules are changed such that once the matter is referred to the third umpire, it is his decision to uphold or overrule and the matter doesn't go back to the on-field umpire we'd be ok...just like the run-out situations. Also, one needs to think of the incentives in play here. Today the on-field umpires can make a call casually knowing that they can fall back on technology, putting the onus on players to refer. Umpires have nothing to lose. ICC should dock the umpires' ratings or earnings for every incorrect on-field decision that is overturned by technology. How to break the umpire to umpire nexus though, because they would tend to watch each other's backs? That's thought for another topic!

  • on August 2, 2013, 1:24 GMT

    They should use both DRS and sniko meter before giving out in cases of very close decisions

  • on August 2, 2013, 1:21 GMT

    This is slightly different to the other DRS controversies. I can see how there was doubt in many of the other DRS decisions, but in this case there was NO evidence that he had hit the ball. I also don't know what conclusive evidence you'd need in this case to turn it over, if the evidence provided wasn't enough! Does that mean you appeal everytime the ball gets close to the bat and you hear a noise?

    They've complicated the whole issue. yes if there is doubt go with the umpires original decision,but surely the umpire on the field and the third umpire should be able to discuss the thought process here.

    On field umpire: I heard a noise can you confirm it was bat on ball. third umpire: OK the noise looks like bat on pad. no hotspot of ball on bat. hotspot of bat on pad. i'd say he has not hit the ball. onfield umpire: call reversed . Not Out.

    The Steve smith stumping in the first test had doubt. Umpires call. This had no doubt. Third umpires call.

  • Edwards_Anderson on August 2, 2013, 1:09 GMT

    Clarkey fought his way clear at no. 4 of all places, he is an exceptional talent. Smithy cashed in down the order, a lucky but can play. Nice pull shot I didn't know he possessed.500 plus hopefully and reputation restored.Khawaja dudded. Dharmasena was an offie wasn't he? Probably never spun one, so probably couldn't believe a ball could turn that much so reasoned he must have hit it despite all evidence to the contrary, Khawaja will come strong for us next time around, he is a fantastic talent.. Hill also needs to improve his umpiring.Interesting looking at Trott at slip, appeal half hearted at best

  • on August 2, 2013, 0:56 GMT

    The worst call in history ? People have short memories. Doesn't anybody remember the Aleem Dar/ Stuard Broad one ? I find it amazing that everytime we have a contentious umpiring decisions we betlittle the umpires so much and the latest one is "the worst of all time." What a load of rubbish. The best thing to do is do what they used to do and just except the umpires decision and move on. As is the case with all refereeing, too much exposure is placed upon the umpire with replays on tv making them look foolish by ex players who are probably seeking revenge for some injustice they copped during their career and the poor umpire is afraid to make decision. Solution, eliminate the replays on tv and let the umpire umpire and let him enjoy the game not be berefed by confidence. Rather than bag him/her out. Also, if you can do better, take up umpiring, there is a shortage of umpires, let alone "quality umpires."

  • Paul_Rampley on August 2, 2013, 0:26 GMT

    When your Prime Minister speaks up against a decision you know something is wrong, well done Mr.Rudd. Khawaja deserved better.

  • Gurudumu on August 2, 2013, 0:05 GMT

    johnathonjosephs' comment is misleading. Dharmasena heard and saw what everybody saw. The noise was Khawaja hitting his thigh pad! The replay's showed this - there was daylight between his bat and the ball!!There's absolutely no means of justifying this extremely poor decision. He should have reversed this decision full stop.

  • on August 1, 2013, 23:43 GMT

    While clearly the wrong call, it seems to have gone a bit unnoticed that it was the on field call by the umpire. Without DRS it still would have been out. Similarly the plum LBW for Smith, that was also given not out. Bigger issue for me is the amount of incorrcet decisions from the on-field umpires in this series.

  • nakihunter on August 1, 2013, 23:41 GMT

    ICC should ask Indian cricketers (past & present) to advise them on why they object so strongly to DRS! All other boards & ICC officials did not support India and accused India of bully boy tactics when India refused to accept DRS. Now you see why.

    The big problem that the Indian team faced in 2008 was that none of anil Kumble's appeals were being given LBW! DRS showed that the ball was bouncing over the top like a seam bowler's. It was was not programed to take into account Kumble's overspin which causes the ball to dip at the top of the bounce.

  • one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on August 1, 2013, 23:25 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs, Dharmasena was at fault ...the only information that he needed to pass to the original decision maker was that there is an obvious gap between bat and ball. The decision was not a DRS error and could have clearly been overturned without Hotspot or Snicko as the video footage was conclusive. Those suggesting that the Smith (there was only one) decision was worse are kidding themselves, but, it would not have been an issue if Khawahaja was still batting.

  • mpsudhir22 on August 1, 2013, 22:50 GMT

    I sincerly hope that Australia beat England by an inning and some! That will provide some justice to the shocking decision by the third umpire. Very interested to know how the third umpire can to the decision, when very other person watching it didnt!!

  • funkybluesman on August 1, 2013, 22:47 GMT

    I thought it funny that the commentators said Australia might feel some justice for Khawaja after Smith getting given not-out caught behind. But all they would have felt is relief at not getting the wrong end of a dodgy decision twice. Smith clearly didn't hit the ball. There was a single noise, which, yes, sounded like an edge, but came when the ball was about 1m past the bat, meaning it clearly couldn't have been from the bat.

    So, easily discrediting the sound as being from the edge, everything else pointed to a clear not-out. The sad thing is that despite those replays all being clearly not-out, the way the umpires go, if Smith had been given out there they probably wouldn't have overturned it either despite replays clearly showing no edge.

    It has to change, regardless of the onfield decision, there has to be clear evidence of an edge to give the batsman out, otherwise it has to be overturned.

  • web_guru2003 on August 1, 2013, 22:38 GMT

    ICC should pay attention to fixing error than saving on field umpire's reputation. If protocol is that 3rd umpire can ONLY answer the question of on-filed umpire, then its pathetic.

    Common sense tells me that once decision has been refereed, it should be like a clean slate and 3rd umpire's decision to make irrespective of what decision on field umpire has made. If there is any doubt in mind of 3rd umpire, he should give benefit of doubt to batsman just like on filed umpires do.

  • Mary_786 on August 1, 2013, 21:54 GMT

    khawaja is the most unluckiest player in the world. He should have replaced Hussey but his spot was given to cowan and hughes and couldn't got game against srilanka and wasn't given a chance in india due to the homework joke. Now he gets a chance scores a fighting 50 in last innings and is given out despite having reviewed. I heard dharmasena is gonna get umpire of the year award. i think this may change now.

  • hycIass on August 1, 2013, 21:48 GMT

    I said this before and Khawaja's dismissal emphasises it. The point of the DRS isn't to give the player the benefit of the doubt, if there is doubt, the umpire's decision stands.With Khawaja's dismissal there was no doubt in that he completely missed the ball and which is why the third umpire is under scrutiny. There's nothing on the hotspot, no evidence of a nick like in this case, it should be not out. Khawaja should have been bought back to continue his innings. And also I don't get this idea of checking for a noise. If you're not allowed to use Snicko because it's not accurate enough, then why can you check for a noise - which is just an even more inaccurate version of snicko.

  • Sprojy on August 1, 2013, 21:46 GMT

    While the fact UTK's dismissal was upheld is a problem and everyone knows it was a horrible decision, the fact that the team was penalised a review is just as big. This is even more so for England. Smith's caught behind was not out and did not even up the ledger because both he and UTK clearly did not edge it so there is no real complaint there. However, the Smith not out referral could have gone either way. Hawk Eye certainly justifies England reviewing it but the fact it remained umpire's call is harsh on a team to be penalised a review for it and especially given the Smith plumb one that should have been given later. Why can't there just be a change to the law that means umpire's call equals no loss of review?

  • simon_w on August 1, 2013, 20:53 GMT

    Khawaja shouldn't have been out, that is obvious, but all three of the not-out decisions for Steve Smith seemed like worse calls to me...

  • Rahulbose on August 1, 2013, 20:49 GMT

    DRS protocol needs some common sense please, top priority should be on making the right decision not on saving reputation of on-field umpires. One way could be to remove the 3rd umpire and replace him with a computer. His job of watching and relaying the obvious from hot-spot and other technologies can easily be done by a computer system. And a computer will not be worried about hurting the on-field umpires ego. If you need a 3rd umpire I have never understood why they don't rotate the umpires between sessions and give them a rest, its impossible to concentrate on the game for 5 days straight and keep the same level of decision making.

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:21 GMT

    Umpires are under a microscope and therefore are under huge stress, imagine your boss has a camera at your desk with one focusing on the your computer screen, another on your face and a sound system to capture all your phone calls, would anyone not feel stressed???

  • Alexk400 on August 1, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    There are humans of various flavors. Thats why NCIS show runs 11 years and 24 runs 8 years. :). Anyone who is against DRS are clueless. For me repeat of sydney TEST should not be allowed to happen what ever the cost we endure in DRS implementation. DRS is not the issue. Its operators of that DRS are incompetent. Meaning operators may complain rules and laws are vague. I agree. Its like chicken or egg comes first , god exists and not exist. Both sides true and false. :) So if i were ICC , I will fix the rules meaning simplify it such that even kid can give judgement if not do not show all the technology tools result to every one. It brings more confusion to minds of spectators. 3rd umpire try to be safe and hide field umpire skirt should be punished. I probably think he followed stupid rules. DRS is implemented badly by ICC , do not blame DRS , its implementation of DRS is indecisive in many ways as possible.

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:14 GMT

    @Jonathanjoseph tony hill could see the replay himself on the large screen as well that there was no hot spot.....and the noise was much before the ball passed the bat....then why did the muppet not reverse his decision....too proud to admit he messed up????no amount of real time replays can help such state of umpiring!

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:14 GMT

    @Iwerneanffontmell

    "I suspect that Smith got away with the Prior catch off Anderson so it has probably levelled out already." - the fact that there was no hot-spot on that one means he wasn't out!

    I don't think DRS is the problem, nor even the 3rd umpire - it's the protocols involved in making decisions. We need to cut it back to basics. On LBW decisions - was the ball going on to hit the stumps? Yes? Then you are out. None of this half-the-ball garbage. If it is going to hit, that's out. For the Khawaja incident, it is even more simple - is there a hot-spot? If not, then he can't be out. There may be one in a thousand times that an edge doesn't register on hot-spot but that's better than we have now. Including "snicko" could help but I think hot-spot is the best proof.

  • Sunil_Batra on August 1, 2013, 19:59 GMT

    Worse call in history goes to Khawaja's dismissal, can someone explain to me how that was given out.

  • Flemo_Gilly on August 1, 2013, 19:49 GMT

    The worse thing about this blunder by the third umpire is that it robs the young man of a big innings at a time when he is trying to knock down the number 3 role. Coming back from a good 50 in Lords he was set up for a big knock today on a good batting track and despite all evidence the third umpire found a reason to press the red button.

  • Beertjie on August 1, 2013, 19:34 GMT

    Spot on @Graham Down on (August 1, 2013, 14:11 GMT) Agree with Styris about running a protection racket. Dharmasena has joined Erasmus and Hill in the howlers competition. Sack the lot of them like ICC did with Asoka and Hair. @Sam Korn on (August 1, 2013, 13:45 GMT) If you are going to ignore technological evidence, why have it at all? Big money is spent on it to get things right. It's there to assist in making correct decisions, not upholding forgivable or unforgivable mistakes.

  • Edwards_Anderson on August 1, 2013, 19:30 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs let me explain you something on the DRS. I agree that the third umpire's job is to only over turn a umpire's decision if there is evidence to support it and in this case there was. There was no hot spot to show an edge, there was at least a inch between ball and bat, and thirdly the noise made came before the edge when the bat brushed his back pad, so all evidence was there for the third umpire to over turn the decision, i am assuming you have not seen the replay of the decision otherwise you would not make your comments. The DRS was meant to take out the howler and in this instance in failed misreably.

  • on August 1, 2013, 19:28 GMT

    worst decision given by umpire. He can see there is no evidence.

  • Edwards_Anderson on August 1, 2013, 19:26 GMT

    I can easily say its the worse call i have seen made, just read that Sutherland has asked the ICC for a explanation on it, we need answers, its not accepatable that a young player has been robbed of a big innings by what was not a DRS blunder but by the third umpire's mistake.

  • poms_have_short_memories on August 1, 2013, 19:24 GMT

    One thing is certain, this series has been plagued by bad umpiring decisions, of which, the australians have had the greater share. But, I think that Khawaja would probably got out to Swann sooner rather than later, as an australian it is frustrating to see such a talented batsman struggling against quality off spin.Could anyone imagine players like Mark Waugh and Darren Lehmann finding Swann on this pitch as anything more than a nuisance?

  • RohanMarkJay on August 1, 2013, 19:21 GMT

    I wonder what has happened to if there was absolutely even the slightest doubt. The benefit of the doubt no matter how small should go to the batsman. Umpires in this series seem to have forgotten this rule.

  • on August 1, 2013, 19:09 GMT

    The players deserve better? Come on supporters, players and officials deserve better. Common sense please!

  • Kak-mal_Khan on August 1, 2013, 19:07 GMT

    Where was the fourth umpire when you need him?

  • Amith_S on August 1, 2013, 19:03 GMT

    I said it on another article that the blunder made against Khawaja was not a DRS issue, it was a human error by the third umpire and is not acceptable. I mean there was no hot spot, a inch between the bat and ball and somehow he thought it was out. Glad to see both english and Australian commentators saying the same. David Lloyd summed it up, its not acceptable.

  • KallisTheGreatest on August 1, 2013, 19:00 GMT

    Onfield umpire decision can't be overturned without enough evidence..People who critizising 3rd umpire here are doesn't know anything about umpiring rules ! I doubt these people haven't even seen the footage.seems like just going with the flow here..

  • BozoSri on August 1, 2013, 18:28 GMT

    What more technology have you guys got in the store room. Bring it on.. we will show how it will fail. Respect for on field umpire took a big dive some years back now respect for third umpire is not on the downward trend. Why not have a jury of neutral umpires every match standing like the slip cordon opposite the batsmen and some running through the field like football refrees and they all come together and make a decision. That would be fun.

  • leave_it_to_the_umps on August 1, 2013, 18:27 GMT

    @ palavadisuresh you got th end of that wrong.. it should read... Erasmus: was there a noise? Dharmasena: yes but it was when the bat clipped the pad. Erasmus: but was there a noise when the ball passed bat? Dharmasena: No Erasmus: Ok then not out? Dharmasena: Correct Not out.

  • fguy on August 1, 2013, 18:26 GMT

    so now there's a furore. ONLY bcoz it was a player from Aus/Eng that is at the recieving end. how come no one denounced it when Dravid was given out similarly on more than 1 occassion during the 2011 Eng tour. atleast here Khwaja was given out by the on-field umpire (so even if there was no DRS he would've been out), Dravid was given NOT OUT by the onfield umpire but shockingly decision was reversed by DRS without a shred of evidence which could've been the basis to overturn the decision

  • tickcric on August 1, 2013, 18:22 GMT

    In the present scenario, even when a decision is referred, technology is not fully taking over the decision making process. The on-field umpires call continues to given some special weightage. As a result DRS is indirectly pitting umpire against umpire (on-field vs 3rd) in a battle of non-equals. Not surprisingly then, that we are seeing 3rd umpire's reluctance to over rule decisions. Tennis, can be a case point here. Once the chair umpire's call is challenged, they just use technology and decide according to the evidence provided by it.

    My point is, in cricket we no more need the 3rd umpire. If we have giant screens why do we need a tv umpire? In case of a referral, let the decision be taken by the on field umpire after seeing the giant screen. It will simplify the DRS a lot.

  • BozoSri on August 1, 2013, 18:21 GMT

    This dismissal alone has given enough for the BCCI to refute DRS system for another 2 years.

  • on August 1, 2013, 18:17 GMT

    You can't blame DRS here, DRS Show result 100% accurate. DRS Says Not out, there was no hotspot. the sound was from the upper corner of the pad.

    So Why you blamming drs.

  • bhanuma_nagadeep on August 1, 2013, 18:10 GMT

    Onfield umpires are prone to make mistakes because human errors does happen....Players definitely need a system to challenge howlers

    In today's case, Problem is not the technology,not the third umpire...... its the rule that says onfield umpire decision cant be overruled without evidence.....Rules of DRS should be framed properly

  • on August 1, 2013, 18:07 GMT

    I think now i can proudly say well done BCCI and Team India for never accepting the DRS.

  • Nutcutlet on August 1, 2013, 18:02 GMT

    I have said it before, but it needs to be said again & again: the only genuine problem with the technology is the human element. Dharmasena's error in giving Khawaja's dismissal was diabolical. There are no mitigating factors that can be raised in his defence. DRS is an excellent system & has already improved since its inception, but all the hundreds of thousands of pounds that has been spent on its development & refinement count for nothing if the umpire is overwhelmed in attempting to understand the technology he is given to work with. Ultimately, the ICC has to take responsibility as Dharmasena's elite umpire status is granted, presumably after a rigorous & lengthy training in the use of DRS besides other matters, by the world governing body. By universal opinion, the best umpires available are English & Australian & if they were asked to serve in Ashes' series I have no doubt that they would be completely acceptable to both the ECB & CA. We've had enough of sub-standard umpiring!

  • on August 1, 2013, 17:59 GMT

    I can now appreciate the stand of the BCCI against the DRS System. As Geoffrey Boycott would say "it's ruuubish"

  • Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on August 1, 2013, 17:57 GMT

    The only way to have an acceptable DRS is to use slo-mo replay only. If it is not clear enough in slow motion on field umpire decision stays. That's the only thing you need to eliminate howlers. If you can't detect it in slow motion it's not a howler. For LBW decision , third umpire can give his opinion on umpire's call and let the main umpire take a final call.

    Get rid off :

    - Hawk eye (Controversial path projection) - Snicko (Wrong sparks) - Hot spot. (Not so hot when detecting edges)

  • the_blue_android on August 1, 2013, 17:57 GMT

    To everyone saying without DRS, the decision would still have been out, then what on earth is the DRS for? So if Umpires have a 50 % accuracy rate, and DRS just withholds all the decisions made by the umpire, isn't DRS useless?

  • on August 1, 2013, 17:51 GMT

    Let me just say that I support the technology. We need more of it but used in a sensible and simplified manner.

    The DRS should be simplified: Out or Not Out. The Umpire's call should be irrelevant. The game is not about the Ump. So until the ICC get this right, all kinds of foolish issues would arise.

  • indikalocal on August 1, 2013, 17:51 GMT

    Dharmasena has already proved that he is an excellent umpire. Probably, he has gone wrong today. It's because he is another human. Many comment on this with personal grudges. It's quite obvious that they have forgotten the man's reputation.

  • on August 1, 2013, 17:51 GMT

    Take away DRS and rest assured you are in for even more controversy. I think we are forgetting the situation before the advent of DRS system. Umpire were often called cheats by the aggrieved party. Now at lest they call it human error. DRS has corrected thousands of wrong decisions and saved the careers of many promising players. We should not make an issue of a very few decision where DRS has come under criticism. Of course it is not the system's fault when a wrong decision is made. ICC needs to improve the system and it should be fully implemented in all the international matches conducted by ICC. If we take a step backwards then we may end up in stone age after a few years.

  • Narkovian on August 1, 2013, 17:50 GMT

    QUESTION Why do we need a third UMPIRE( as such) to look at the technology? What we need is a qualified technician, who can interpret the Hawkeye and Hotspot. All that needs to be decided is.. did he hit the ball. or not. Or is the ball going to hit the wicket, Did the bat cross the line etc etc.. We don't need an umoire for that. Just someone who knows what he/she is doing.!!

  • on August 1, 2013, 17:38 GMT

    Usman Khawaja's dismissal must be joke

  • on August 1, 2013, 17:32 GMT

    Whenever u get this type of decision its always obvious of such reactions. Still need to go on with this great game of cricket. U never know what's next, hope it's better and encouraging for all the fans of cricket.

  • mk49_van on August 1, 2013, 16:57 GMT

    Never thought I would have said this in any context ever - but here goes. GO BCCI! You were right after all....

  • Alexk400 on August 1, 2013, 16:54 GMT

    DRS is fine people. Every technology has its resolution. Also third umpire has his own resolution. The failure here not DRS its third umpire resolution. Meaning these things always will happen because the technology is not adequate enough , decisive enough. I strongly believe common people should not know all secrets because if they know riots would be in streets every day. Same thing here , spectators should not be allowed to see all technology results. Because that is what is causing all the problems. Some people in ICC made a mistake of showing stuff to spectators in the name of entertainment and transparency messed up DRS. DRS should assist umpires at giving best decision possible not to give a cushy feeling to spectators. Do not make spectators as a judge. Do not show snicko , hotspot , hawkeye to spectators. Only slow motion to spectators. This way if bad decision happen people assume may be 3rd umpire has reason to give decision because he "Had" proof. :) Its all tricky methods.

  • on August 1, 2013, 16:54 GMT

    Feel bad for Khawja. Here is a kid trying to cement his place in the side and gets a bad decision. This will only add pressure during the second innings and he may end up messing that as well.

  • rustyryan on August 1, 2013, 16:51 GMT

    So BCCI is rite after all.. This is what we have been tryin to explain and whole world acted jus to bash BCCI and when it comes to them, they act as if they have been treated unfairly.

  • Sagay-Ed on August 1, 2013, 16:33 GMT

    Why former English cricketers are talking about walking here? Trying to justify the Stuart Broad incident?

    Batsmen are expected to walk only when they know for sure that they nicked a delivery and it is caught cleanly. DRS has nothing to do with that.

  • Green_and_Gold on August 1, 2013, 16:26 GMT

    Make the 3rd umpire use technology to make the decision without knowing what the onfield umpire has already said - put em i a box so they dont see the test. When they are needed they get the footage and make it so they dont know if it was given out or not - they can make a fresh decision rather than review the existing one.

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on August 1, 2013, 16:17 GMT

    Last week i read an article about -how drs works- in espncricinfo. I forget author name. name starts with venkata.. Something like that, i forget. By using that article, the conversation between erasmus and dharmasena could had been like this.

    Erasmus: is there any heat on the bat? Dharmasena: no! Erasmus: is there any deviation? Dharmasena: no! Erasmus: is there any noise? Dharmasena: noise.., might be from..! Erasmus: no, no, no. you donot have any right (by drs rule) to say **may**, you have right only to SAY **yes** or **no**. Now tell me, whether there is a noise or not. Dharmasena: yes Erasmus: that's enough.

    OUT.

  • Nmiduna on August 1, 2013, 16:13 GMT

    If it's in the rule that 3rd umpire can't overrule the on-field umpire without being absolutely sure, then strictly speaking, isn't what dharmasena did pretty understandable? i know i'm in the minority here, but all what Dharmasena did was(to me at least) played it safe. and he didn't have sniko. After all the flak that came umpires' way, it's understandable he plays\ed it safe. If we all just think a bit slowly and comment fairly, i think it'd help all of us. in a twitter-dominating world it's not so easy, is it?

  • aplomb on August 1, 2013, 15:58 GMT

    BCCI did provide reason for technology and unreliability factor for non-acceptance but Dhoni once famously said that "adulteration of technology with human thinking is bad". Now you can anyway you were out as on field umpire has given out but imagine if you are batsman in a high pressure situation to perform and previously your team mate didn't use DRS wisely, also you are certain that you didn't hit the ball , if no DRS you would accept the decision as per tradition (obviously you feel bad) but technology is there to support you and then third umpire says you are liar and you also wasted one chance out of two. You would be tremendously upset ans so are the fans. Instant TV replay while preserving umpire tradition in which player accepts the marginal decision should be applied now as we are not believing either hot spot(Dharamsena didn't take this as evidence) or snicko (not part of DRS even). Don't pressurize the umpire too much where they will feel always in microscopic view.

  • on August 1, 2013, 15:57 GMT

    dave Richardson comes up with %age figures and says DRS is perfect...lol

  • on August 1, 2013, 15:40 GMT

    to Dean Jones, Alex Stewart et al. How many times were you given not out in your careeer when you knew in your heart of hearts you were out?

  • CricLook on August 1, 2013, 15:34 GMT

    Dharmasena always seems to be indecisive umpire...I was really surprised when he was chosen as the best umpire last year...he had replays, DRS and his own brain still he could not see the thing that was crystal clear to all...Absolute shcoker..!

  • Iwerneanffontmell on August 1, 2013, 15:32 GMT

    Everybody can bleat on about DRS etc but that was given out before it went to DRS. People have been getting sawn off ever since this wonderful game has been played and DRS ensures that it happens less than it used to. It will never be perfect and what goes around comes around. I suspect that Smith got away with the Prior catch off Anderson so it has probably levelled out already. They really have to bring snicko to the party now that it takes so little time.

  • BraggFan on August 1, 2013, 15:27 GMT

    Bad decision? Yes. Worst ever? No Mr Rudd, no worse than Trott's. Both bad decisions, these things even out eventually. But granted, very annoying when it happens to you.

  • DaGameChanger on August 1, 2013, 15:24 GMT

    You cant Blame BCCI for not paying for DRS from their pocket. They are like if you like it, you pay from your pocket.

  • sunny_us on August 1, 2013, 15:17 GMT

    It is not the wheels, It is always the man behind the wheels causes the problem. I am neither for nor against DRS but if it is getting used then use little bit of your brain too. One thing for sure if using DRS they are going to make these kind of errors then I'd rather stay with the on field umpires as it is much easier to give them the benefit of the doubt then to the one who after the fact has looked at everything and then gives this kind of decision.

  • on August 1, 2013, 15:16 GMT

    DRS was intended to get rid of poor umpiring decisions. Hill made a very poor decision wihich was a "naked-eye" decision. hence, the tv ump with various aids available to him, and by extension to the erring on-field umpire could and should have done the correct thing i.e. tell Hill no mark according to Hotspot and no deviation according to slowmo ergo, not out mate.if we had no DRS, then we'd have no choice but to accept Hill's error but WE DO HAVE DRS ,so Dharmassena must be blamed fully for the Howler. and Hill also made an error as the tv umpire(Smith's catch). Dar,Davis, Hill,. Erasmus, damassena are all making numerous mistakes. bring back Bowden. he cant do any worse!!!

  • djy1 on August 1, 2013, 15:11 GMT

    @UbiquitousWALL I guess I'm in the category you refer to as I'm English and I think there is nothing wrong at all with the technology or the system itself. This is quite simply a bad decision and very unfortunate for Khawaja. I'm still not sure why snicko can't be part of the technology they use - maybe the time it takes? Anyway, as a whole, I think that more decisions now are got right than wrong than ever before with DRS, although that won't mean alot to Khawaja right now.

  • on August 1, 2013, 15:11 GMT

    @RJHB is tennis it is Hawkeye is showing EXACTLY where the ball landed. There is no doubt. Whereas in cricket Hawkeye can only show up to when the ball hit the pad. After that it predicts the path that the ball will take. Since it is a prediction and not 100% correct there must be room for error. Just remember cricket is using DRS to eliminate Howlers rather than something probable.

  • milepost on August 1, 2013, 15:08 GMT

    With respect, anyone trying to defend this decision is is crazy! It was not out, by a certainty factor of 100%. In just a few tests I have gone from an advocate for the DRS to wondering why I didn't look at the BCCI reasons for not having it. It is worse than before and is changing how cricket is played. Less sweeps, more marginal LBW's, using it to 'chance' marginal decisions, umpires second guessing themselves. I hate it. If Smith was given LBW I wouldn't have had a problem, it looked right. However, if he had been given out and reviewed it he would be on his way in what may have looked a tight decision (but the umpire still has no doubt?). DRS in its current use is awful.

  • wnwn on August 1, 2013, 15:01 GMT

    There is nothing wrong with DRS. The 3rd umpires don't have a clue how to use it correctly. There should be a professionally qualified person to judge these DRS reviews.

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:58 GMT

    @ blade, ur assertion is rediculous, third umpire is there to rectify any onfield mistake using technology but in this case he dd the oposite. He upheld a clearly wrong decision....

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:44 GMT

    Without DRS and slowmo TV you nor the batsman would have known and just accepted the umpires decision. Even watching the slowmo you cannot rule out that he did not have a faint touch. The umpires are only human and like all humans make decisions on what they see or hear. Knock it off or play cricket without umpires and technology and just walk.

  • Micky.Panda on August 1, 2013, 14:38 GMT

    If Hotspot is going to be used as a device to detect nicks, then if it shows nothing, that is a clear not out. If Hotspot is going to be ignored, then why have it at all. It makes little sense. A hot spot mark he would have been confirmed out. No mark and he is still confirmed out. How illogical can that be?

  • Blade-Runner on August 1, 2013, 14:36 GMT

    This absolutely outrageous how everyone is pointing their fingers at the 3rd umpire here. I'm pretty sure that the most of these people haven't even seen the footage. They are just going with the flow here. :) On field umpire didn't ask 3rd umpire to check it but batsman did. On-field umpire called it out. There was a NOISE. And, the 3rd umpire couldn't find enough evidence to rule that the noise came from bat clipping the pad or nicking the ball. So the 3rd umpire rightfully upheld the on-field call. There was nothing else 3rd umpire could do but to follow the protocols. I don't know whether on-field umpire made the right call or not. But the 3rd umpire shouldn't be held accountable for what ever the errors have been made by on-field umpires. There are rules n regulations people, You can't blame somebody for following 'em.

  • Gayannishi on August 1, 2013, 14:33 GMT

    Sri Lanka's Tour of Australia 2007/08 :K.Sangakkara made magnificent 192 and given out by Rudy Kourtson for Caught Behind..That time DRS wasn't there to rectify the error...also the Tweeter...so Game Goes like this.at the end of Day Umpires also Human.it doesn't matter which system they are using..

  • UbiquitousWALL on August 1, 2013, 14:32 GMT

    Dharmasena, is a good Umpire, but this decision was his worst yet in his short career as an umpire. Everyone takes a dig at the Indian players and the BCCI when they don't implement the DRS in series' involving them. Its now evident WHY! This isn't the first time the system has come under the scanner in the past couple of weeks. If anything, its only creating more controversies and reducing the trust that players place on the umpires. And, if this decision were against an English team member, I would have loved to have seen the reactions of certain people in England, who advocate and vouch by the system.

  • RJHB on August 1, 2013, 14:30 GMT

    It shouldn't have even gone to DRS, that was as blatant a not out as Broads was out in the 1st test. It's a great pity that the umpires in this series are joining Australia's top order in disgracing themselves, with the madness that is DRS exacerbating the problems. Have to say the decision to not give out Smith lbw was almost as bad. I HATE that silly half the ball has to hit the stumps thing! In tennis the ball only has to clip the line for it to be called in so why does the ball have to annihilate the stumps in cricket for it to be given out???

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:28 GMT

    DRS is a good system. Wrong decisions happen sometimes .India ( we ) had also got poor decisions in Perth against AUS. so always be cool ....

  • SuperSharky on August 1, 2013, 14:26 GMT

    Shocking, that was bad. It felt dull afterward and I had to switch over to the Zimbabwe and India ODI for a while. The first time I saw that live on tv I said: 'not even near', before any decision was made. Even thou Hot Spot showed nothing, you can clearly see that the direction of the bat, and the direction of the ball, couldn't meet in the evidence of the timing and shadows of the ball and bat. No chance that Khawaja could nicked that ball. I would rather like to see a deduction or penalty for the future of those umpires than Khawaja's future.

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:24 GMT

    For those who are saying 'in good old days' it'd still be a howler by the on-field umpire and we didn't have third umpires - agreed. But that's no reason to mess up today! In 'good old days' we didn't have toothpaste - doesn't mean we let our teeth rot today. Today we HAVE a TV cam, hotspot and snicko and prediction technology to work with. (And the rules which state, any benefit of doubt must go with the batsman).

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:22 GMT

    that pathetic decision from umpire would just cause Usman Khawaja his carrer...........Feel damn sory for Khawaja who was just finding his way into australian top 11.........Poor Khawaja

  • IndiaNumeroUno on August 1, 2013, 14:21 GMT

    @Mark Cooper: " lack of good umpres outside England and Aus is the problem".. Don't know about umpres but there are a lot of excellent umpires outside Aus and Eng. We need to look at the selection panel and who is calling the shots there, and whether its providing a fair and unbiased selection.

  • samincolumbia on August 1, 2013, 14:20 GMT

    BCCI and the Indian players were right from the get go...DRS is seriously flawed! Blaming the human factor won't cut it since that's part and parcel of the DRS implementation.

  • disco_bob on August 1, 2013, 14:19 GMT

    The rear camera view showed unequivocally that the ball was missing the bat by a couple of inches. Is it any wonder there was no sound or hotspot.

  • RichardHeade on August 1, 2013, 14:19 GMT

    Yeah, but, just a moment here, the 3rd umpire doesn't have access to the snickometer, so, only gave his call on the hot spot camera, which was wrong, if you're going to make an important decision, have all the tools available to stop howlers such as this.

  • Mano91 on August 1, 2013, 14:19 GMT

    have anyone thought DRS is computerised so in past the moreover a marginal decision cause an wrong desicion now a days very easy desicion go on wrong how many wrong desicion in IND ZIM vs ASHES??? IS BCCI is right......??

  • Barnesy4444 on August 1, 2013, 14:18 GMT

    DRS was brought in to eliminate howlers, not overturn 50-50 decisions. This was another howler not eliminated.

    It was a bad decision by the on-field umpire. Surely he was aware Swann gets huge spin away from left-handers. Didn't he watch Lord's where he repeatedly beat the edge?

    But the non-decision by the third "umpire" was even worse because he had the benefit of video clearly showing daylight between bat and ball.

    DRS needs fixing. Take reviews away from players and actually train umpires how to use technology.

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:15 GMT

    Bad decision, yes, but time to go to bed now Kevin. You got a country to run in the morning!

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    Before DRS the benefit of the doubt rightly went to the batsman and the umpires were more careful about giving players out. With DRS the on-field umpires seem to be quite arbitrary, relying on a backup from DRS which it seems is now run by an umpire without a clue.

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:03 GMT

    Don't blame DRS. In the good old days if given out by the standing umpire you were out. The standing umpire gave it out and the third umpire could not find a clear cut reason to overrule. The laws are the laws. DRS is not to blame. PS in the good old days we didn't even have a third umpire.

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:58 GMT

    Sack the umpire. This is ridiculous. How the hell was that out!

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:55 GMT

    Yeah, it was a bad decision. Without DRS it would have been out, something Dean Jones failed to notice.

    DRS is fine; lack of good umpres outside England and Aus is the problem.

    @Big_Chikka Who exactly would be whispering in the third umpire's ear?

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:46 GMT

    Who was the on field umpire?

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:45 GMT

    There was an evident second noise. My first impression was that it *might* have been the shoulder of the bat as it passed. That was plainly the reason why it was given out.

    Obviously it was a poor decision. It was wrong. The third umpire made a mistake. But it was an understandable mistake. It's a pity that everyone seems to enjoy attacking umpires. After the Trott decision, it's understandable that the third umpire doesn't want to overturn what ultimately turns out to be a correct on-field decision.

  • spindizzy on August 1, 2013, 13:44 GMT

    Here's an idea for the journalists - ask the umpires what they were thinking.

    They should be accountable as well.

  • slow.mo on August 1, 2013, 13:44 GMT

    "Umpires protecting each other is the main reason DRS is causing controversy!" Scott Styris- sound about right.

  • kohomban on August 1, 2013, 13:32 GMT

    Dharmasena should sack from cricket umpiring,He is a very poor umpire.

  • Big_Chikka on August 1, 2013, 13:16 GMT

    rare to have such unanimity on a subject, but what makes me utterly distraught is that we'll never know what the 3rd umpire was thinking or what was being whispered in his ear piece at the time. massive mistake on his part, forgivable yes!

  • Big_Chikka on August 1, 2013, 13:16 GMT

    rare to have such unanimity on a subject, but what makes me utterly distraught is that we'll never know what the 3rd umpire was thinking or what was being whispered in his ear piece at the time. massive mistake on his part, forgivable yes!

  • kohomban on August 1, 2013, 13:32 GMT

    Dharmasena should sack from cricket umpiring,He is a very poor umpire.

  • slow.mo on August 1, 2013, 13:44 GMT

    "Umpires protecting each other is the main reason DRS is causing controversy!" Scott Styris- sound about right.

  • spindizzy on August 1, 2013, 13:44 GMT

    Here's an idea for the journalists - ask the umpires what they were thinking.

    They should be accountable as well.

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:45 GMT

    There was an evident second noise. My first impression was that it *might* have been the shoulder of the bat as it passed. That was plainly the reason why it was given out.

    Obviously it was a poor decision. It was wrong. The third umpire made a mistake. But it was an understandable mistake. It's a pity that everyone seems to enjoy attacking umpires. After the Trott decision, it's understandable that the third umpire doesn't want to overturn what ultimately turns out to be a correct on-field decision.

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:46 GMT

    Who was the on field umpire?

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:55 GMT

    Yeah, it was a bad decision. Without DRS it would have been out, something Dean Jones failed to notice.

    DRS is fine; lack of good umpres outside England and Aus is the problem.

    @Big_Chikka Who exactly would be whispering in the third umpire's ear?

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:58 GMT

    Sack the umpire. This is ridiculous. How the hell was that out!

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:03 GMT

    Don't blame DRS. In the good old days if given out by the standing umpire you were out. The standing umpire gave it out and the third umpire could not find a clear cut reason to overrule. The laws are the laws. DRS is not to blame. PS in the good old days we didn't even have a third umpire.

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    Before DRS the benefit of the doubt rightly went to the batsman and the umpires were more careful about giving players out. With DRS the on-field umpires seem to be quite arbitrary, relying on a backup from DRS which it seems is now run by an umpire without a clue.