New Zealand v England, 3rd ODI, Auckland February 23, 2013

McCullum seeks more clarity on DRS

ESPNcricinfo staff

Brendon McCullum has said New Zealand will seek clarification about the lack of evidence on Hot Spot, when Ross Taylor was given out caught behind in the final ODI in Auckland. McCullum stressed Taylor's dismissal was not the reason New Zealand lost the match, and with it the series, but he said there were issues with DRS that needed to be resolved.

In the 25th over, Stuart Broad appealed for a catch against Taylor, and the on-field umpire gave it out. Taylor seemed to indicate to his partner, McCullum, that he hadn't felt an edge, and subsequently asked for the decision to be reviewed. Though there was a clear sound as the ball passed the bat, replays using Hot Spot did not reveal a definite mark on the bat. The on-field umpire's decision was upheld, and Taylor's exit left New Zealand on 67 for 5. They were eventually dismissed for 185 in the 44th over.

"We are looking at a clarification about the lack of an edge on Hot Spot. I would have thought that was conclusive enough evidence," McCullum said. "I don't know the technology behind it, but to me if you nick the ball it shows up on Hot Spot, and if you don't nick it, it doesn't … I think the [audible] sound was the reason [it] was given.

"I guess it has its good days and bad days," McCullum said of DRS. "Provided it's used properly, and there's some consistency in it, and it makes the right decisions, then I think it's a really good tool. I think there are still some issues that need to be resolved, and today was probably one of those cases."

New Zealand went down 1-2 in the series after losing in Auckland by five wickets, and McCullum said the "overall feeling is that of [a] missed opportunity".

"After going 1-0 up in the series, and on the back of such good performances against South Africa as well, the guys were determined to [win] the series. We had our opportunities in the last game, but we never grabbed them, and in this game we never really got out of second gear with the bat. There's disappointment in the dressing room, but we did some good stuff throughout the series, too. I still think we are [going] in the right direction, albeit without the series win."

New Zealand now take on England in the first of three Tests, in Dunedin from March 6.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • John on February 25, 2013, 9:03 GMT

    @Leggie on (February 24, 2013, 19:58 GMT), how is that a howler? It was a thin edge in a position that the HotSpot camera didn't have a good angle on. There may well have been a mark on the bat but if the camera is unsighted then that's hardly a howler.

  • John on February 25, 2013, 4:12 GMT

    @Crock55 on (February 25, 2013, 0:43 GMT), GOOD GRIEF! Have you not read any other comments? The on-field umpire gives benefit of the doubt to the batsman (by convention, not law) while the third umpire gives benefit of the doubt to the on-field umpire BY LAW. It's no wonder that there's still confusion about DRS when people like you ignore what's been stated over and over by commentators and commentors alike. If Taylor had been given not out by the on-field umpire then the third umpire would have stuck with that decision UNLESS there was conclusive evidence that it was incorrect. That is how DRS works and that is how DRS has always worked. If Taylor was given not out and England had reviewed then he would have remained not out unless the third umpire saw conclusive evidence that he was out. Whether the noise and the potential smudge on HotSpot would have been considered conclusive is academic at this point but, given some previous decisions, it may have been.

  • David on February 25, 2013, 0:43 GMT

    I always thought it was benifit of doubt to the batsman, would the 3rd umpire have overturn a not out call had The England team gone for DRS. Just saying

  • Sudhakar on February 24, 2013, 19:58 GMT

    @jmcilhinney, the DRS howler here is that the Hot Spot failed to show the nick. I guess you know this already.., the snick-o-meter technology is somewhat rudimentary in that it involves a manual process where the sound and the audio have to mixed separately to get an outcome. This is one of the reasons why you would notice a delay before getting a snicko feed is shown to the audience. Snicko came into picture long (1999) before Hot Spot was brought in (2009?). The Hot-Spot was "supposed" to supplement Snicko, and not the other way around.

  • John on February 24, 2013, 12:03 GMT

    @Leggie on (February 24, 2013, 10:08 GMT), you say that every game has at least one DRS howler. Which one was it in this game? Are you actually claiming that Taylor wasn't out?

  • Dummy4 on February 24, 2013, 11:09 GMT

    McCullum is funny. He claimed there might have been fireworks in Grey Lyn at the precise moment that the ball went past Taylor's bat. That was at around about 3:45 pm on a very sunny Saturday afternoon. Fireworks... that none of the fans heard.

    What people forget is that the DRS is there to remove shocking decisions. It means that there has to be a justifiable reason for the decision to be overturned. A definite sound at the point of the ball going past the bat is not a reason to overturn a decision. Even though hot spot didn't show anything. The sound suggested that it had been hit. Something the on-field umpire had originally decided. The DRS only doesn't work when the third umpire makes a mistake. Not overturning a decision where there was more than enough to suggest that it was the correct decision is not a bad thing. And it seems that McCullum was, despite his protestations to the contrary, making excuses.

  • Sudhakar on February 24, 2013, 10:08 GMT

    Glad to see some support coming up for BCCI's stance on DRS. I am not a fan of BCCI (in fact hate many of their policies), but on DRS, they are quite right. Like McCullum says, DRS has some good days and bad days, and that's not really what is expected out of a costly system that's supposed to eliminate it. Every match has at least one DRS howler and unless there is a drastic change in policies, I would continue to support BCCI.

  • Srinivas on February 24, 2013, 8:19 GMT

    At last, I can see that the tide is turning for sure. It is now up to ICC to come off their high horses and come to the table with honest proposals, plan of actions and encourage debate. ICC and all the boards have to be one family. If any of the family members raises a doubt, ICC has to go and ask the outsider (inventor) for proofs, numbers, data and ask the inventor to get their invention verified by a neutral entity. But what we see here is that ICC made up its mind even before it came to the table and tried to impose its partisan decision. If somebody comes to me with such an arrogant attitude, it's not at all my duty to propose an alternative as the guy who is talking to me is not asking me, he is telling me. Yeah right! He is Omniscient and I'm a gullible. Get a life! That's how BCCI dealt with ICC's partisan behaviour. I'm sure there's something, in the lines of what I'm assuming about ICC's behaviour regarding hot-spot and tracker, that must have ticked-off BCCI and rightly so.

  • Srinivas on February 24, 2013, 7:42 GMT

    @Bishop, agree with you completely here. It's a shame that ICC doesn't have a person who is as diplomatic as you. Let me take it a little futher. It's ICC who brought up this issue of hot-spot and tracker along with ECB and CA and started making bold claims about how accurate they are, thinking that others are idiots to buy those claims. Well, if somebody comes with such claims, it's not the opposing person's job to propose alternatives. ICC has to first admit that yes they were wrong in their claims and propose to scrap hot-spot and tracker then propose the acceptable/logical/simple form of DRS. BCCI wouldn't oppose it. I'm sure. It isn't BCCI's duty to propose alternatives when the guy (ICC) who comes to the table talks like a know-all. You can't come to the table and 'propose' your decision. In fact, ICC still keeps saying they are very convinced with hot-spot and tracker. I don't see how a board which is correct all along will care any less if that is ICC's 'know-all' behaviour.

  • John on February 24, 2013, 4:09 GMT

    To me Hotspot is the least satisfactory element of technology being used in the DRS. When there is a hard nick or contact with the gloves it's fine, but for faint contact it's not definitive. Jmc pointed out, as I said yesterday, that the contact was with the face of the bat right at the toe, which is a very difficult area for Hotspot to pick up. Snicko, which is not presently used in the DRS because it takes too long, clearly showed the sound exactly when the ball passed the end of the bat. It was out and the on-field umpire was right.

    If the automated Snicko, currently under development, can be used in conjunction with the other tools available, it will help. What would REALLY help, however, is just to leave the decision to the 3 umpires, using whatever technology is available, and their decision, rendered by the on-field umpire, is final. I have never heard any argument against doing it this way and I can't understand why it isn't already the standard procedure.

  • No featured comments at the moment.