Pakistan v England, 3rd Test, Dubai, 1st day February 3, 2012

More head-scratching over DRS

ESPNcricinfo presents the Plays of the Day from the first day of the third Test in Dubai
  shares 61

Head-scratching of the day
The decision to overturn the ruling of on-field umpire, Simon Taufel, and give Mohammad Hafeez out lbw to Stuart Broad will be used by opponents of the DRS system as an example of its ills. While ball-tracking technology showed the delivery going on to hit the stumps, there was also the suggestion of an inside edge from Hot Spot. The third umpire, Shavir Tarapore, either did not see the spot - and it was tiny - or did not think the evidence was sufficient to warrant incorporating into his decision. But in essence it means Tarapore overruled Taufel - something that should only occur if the on-field umpire has demonstrably made a clear mistake. Taufel, it seems, made the right decision - quite possibly on the basis that Hafeez hit the ball - only for it to be overruled. So is the DRS flawed? Or is the problem with the individuals using it?

Shot of the day
In a low-scoring game, Asad Shafiq once again stood out while his more experienced team-mates struggled. Displaying good judgement about which balls to attack and which to defend, he contributed 45 of Pakistan's 99 and hit three of the seven boundaries they managed. One shot stood out: a flowing pull off James Anderson after the bowler dragged the ball just a little bit short. It was a high-quality stroke from a young man who appears to be growing in stature with every outing.

Catch of the day
Adnan Akmal, diving in front of first slip, clung on to a tough chance offered when Alastair Cook followed one angled across him from Umar Gul. While doubts about the consistency of Akmal's batting remain, he has demonstrated in this series he is a reliable keeper. After a few years in which Pakistan have been plagued by dropped chances, such a quality should not be undervalued.

Mistake of the day
For a man who hates giving his wicket away, Jonathan Trott's failure to call for a review when he was adjudged lbw by umpire Steve Davis was puzzling. Had he reviewed it, Trott would have been reprieved as replays showed the ball missing the stumps down the leg side. Perhaps what the dismissal illustrates more than anything is how far across to the off side Trott had fallen and, once that happens, how poor his balance can become.

Let-off of the day
The score was 77 for four when Andrew Strauss, on 35, aimed a sweep at Abdur Rehman. Pakistan appealed but not with much enthusiasm. They declined the opportunity to call for a review. Had they done so, Strauss would have been given out. The ball struck him in line and the ball-tracking technology showed it would have gone on to hit middle stump. It might yet prove to be a key moment in what appears to be another low-scoring Test.

Stat of the day
Saeed Ajmal has now sent down 32 balls to Ian Bell in this series and dismissed him four times for the cost of just 12 runs. On each occasion, it has been Ajmal's doosra that has inflicted the damage. Bell may count himself a little unfortunate on this occasion: the ball bounced off the gloves of Adnan Akmal onto the stumps. Had it been taken cleanly, it is unlikely that Bell would have been stumped. But the statistics do not lie: Ajmal's dominance of Bell is overwhelming.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY BUTT_093 on | February 4, 2012, 23:17 GMT

    There is only one problem with the DRS that I can confidently identify: the huge amount of red tape that surrounds the rules governing its use. The rules should be less black and white and the third umpire given more authority to take decisions LOGICALLY based of course on the laws of the game once the decision has been referred to them. Rules stipulating that (a) more than half of the ball needs to be hitting the stumps (b) so-called conclusive evidence needed to overturn a decision (which at times seems to defy all cricketing logic and reason); need to be abolished. The bureaucratic hegemony that is the ICC needs to take logical steps while enforcing the use of the DRS by: GIVING MORE DECISION MAKING POWERS TO THE ON-FIELD (AND OFF-FIELD) UMPIRES AND TAKE POWER AWAY FROM TECHNOLOGY. That would be my solution. Plain and simple.

  • POSTED BY shahbazhussain on | February 4, 2012, 7:47 GMT

    Well this is a real TEST series I have ever seen in my life. top teams in world cricket are fighting for pride and see this.. how this is coming along. There is no doubt England are good side. They are and Pakistan are also not letting any chance go. This is really a true passion of cricket. I did not like Test matches in last decade coz it was so boring. Now I see the TEST cricket is more exciting than any other format. I suggest ICC to remove T20s from the world cricket to make the TEST cricket live longer.

  • POSTED BY on | February 4, 2012, 7:21 GMT

    I like the DRS but i don't like this On Field Call and off field call...

  • POSTED BY Leggie on | February 4, 2012, 7:20 GMT

    "will be used by opponents of the DRS system as an example of its ills"... Couldn't help but chuckle reading this. One point worth noting is the amount of discussion within the English ranks on DRS and how it is likely to 'improve" over a period of time. That fundamentally says that those who support DRS still believe that this is a work in progress technology. I wonder what their stance would be "now" if they had not so vehemently opposed countries that do not support DRS.

  • POSTED BY donda on | February 4, 2012, 6:53 GMT

    DRS is the winner in this series. Neither pakistan nor england deserve this series win. DRS is ultimate technology, i bet bradman would never have more than 50 average if DRS was used in his time.

    DRS is tragedy for test cricket and it will destroy test cricket for once and all.

    What a tragedy.

    It's so simple, you miss DRS win. What a technology. Even you hit, DRS gives out

  • POSTED BY waterbuffalo on | February 4, 2012, 4:49 GMT

    Bring back the Benefit of the doubt to the batsmen, no point if umpires are calling out all the time, so their on field decisions stand, but when an umpire says not out, the third umpire decides to be the "Bigger" Umpire. Either way it is wrong. If Hot spot does not work, use Snickometer.

  • POSTED BY Punters_Mate on | February 4, 2012, 4:48 GMT

    A bit of tweaking will fix the DRS usage and confusion issues. my suggestion is to as they say in baseball; tighten the strike zone. KP's LBW is case in point; when referred Hawkeye predicted about a millimetre of the ball in contact with the very top of the leg stump and the commentators commended Taufel on getting it right. What rubbish; all the parties were involved in guesswork. The human eye is incapable of detecting that fine a detail and certainly not at 20 plus metres. I would be far more comfortable with decisions being overturned when the predictive path indicates at least half the ball hitting the stumps not this coat of varnish stuff. Taufel has had a couple of decisions overturned and statistically at least some will judge his performance on the basis of original decisions upheld. Umpires must think DRS is a lottery as do the players.

  • POSTED BY m0se on | February 4, 2012, 4:39 GMT

    I don't get why the rules aren't changed so that LBWs can be referred to the 3rd umpire by the on-field umpire. DRS was meant to remove howlers not to give more LBWs. Azhar Ali's nick behind was the perfect use of DRS while all the other use of DRS was used for querying LBWs which shouldn't be tied to DRS.

  • POSTED BY RodStark on | February 4, 2012, 3:07 GMT

    How would it be if on-field umpires only ruled "out" if they were sure--i.e., give the traditional doubt in fvor of the batsman, and then DRS only overturned it if it was defintely wrong?

  • POSTED BY RogerC on | February 4, 2012, 2:24 GMT

    In spite of all the hate people have on BCCI for their clout on world cricket, I still think their view on DRS is very correct. It is difficult for technology to predict the path of a ball better than on-screen umpire. On the field, conditions change all the time. The heat, the wind direction, the ball shape, the pitch spot where the ball lands - none of these are constant for each delivery. It is much better to trust a trained international umpire who is closest to point of action than a pre-programmed computer technology like DRS.

  • POSTED BY BUTT_093 on | February 4, 2012, 23:17 GMT

    There is only one problem with the DRS that I can confidently identify: the huge amount of red tape that surrounds the rules governing its use. The rules should be less black and white and the third umpire given more authority to take decisions LOGICALLY based of course on the laws of the game once the decision has been referred to them. Rules stipulating that (a) more than half of the ball needs to be hitting the stumps (b) so-called conclusive evidence needed to overturn a decision (which at times seems to defy all cricketing logic and reason); need to be abolished. The bureaucratic hegemony that is the ICC needs to take logical steps while enforcing the use of the DRS by: GIVING MORE DECISION MAKING POWERS TO THE ON-FIELD (AND OFF-FIELD) UMPIRES AND TAKE POWER AWAY FROM TECHNOLOGY. That would be my solution. Plain and simple.

  • POSTED BY shahbazhussain on | February 4, 2012, 7:47 GMT

    Well this is a real TEST series I have ever seen in my life. top teams in world cricket are fighting for pride and see this.. how this is coming along. There is no doubt England are good side. They are and Pakistan are also not letting any chance go. This is really a true passion of cricket. I did not like Test matches in last decade coz it was so boring. Now I see the TEST cricket is more exciting than any other format. I suggest ICC to remove T20s from the world cricket to make the TEST cricket live longer.

  • POSTED BY on | February 4, 2012, 7:21 GMT

    I like the DRS but i don't like this On Field Call and off field call...

  • POSTED BY Leggie on | February 4, 2012, 7:20 GMT

    "will be used by opponents of the DRS system as an example of its ills"... Couldn't help but chuckle reading this. One point worth noting is the amount of discussion within the English ranks on DRS and how it is likely to 'improve" over a period of time. That fundamentally says that those who support DRS still believe that this is a work in progress technology. I wonder what their stance would be "now" if they had not so vehemently opposed countries that do not support DRS.

  • POSTED BY donda on | February 4, 2012, 6:53 GMT

    DRS is the winner in this series. Neither pakistan nor england deserve this series win. DRS is ultimate technology, i bet bradman would never have more than 50 average if DRS was used in his time.

    DRS is tragedy for test cricket and it will destroy test cricket for once and all.

    What a tragedy.

    It's so simple, you miss DRS win. What a technology. Even you hit, DRS gives out

  • POSTED BY waterbuffalo on | February 4, 2012, 4:49 GMT

    Bring back the Benefit of the doubt to the batsmen, no point if umpires are calling out all the time, so their on field decisions stand, but when an umpire says not out, the third umpire decides to be the "Bigger" Umpire. Either way it is wrong. If Hot spot does not work, use Snickometer.

  • POSTED BY Punters_Mate on | February 4, 2012, 4:48 GMT

    A bit of tweaking will fix the DRS usage and confusion issues. my suggestion is to as they say in baseball; tighten the strike zone. KP's LBW is case in point; when referred Hawkeye predicted about a millimetre of the ball in contact with the very top of the leg stump and the commentators commended Taufel on getting it right. What rubbish; all the parties were involved in guesswork. The human eye is incapable of detecting that fine a detail and certainly not at 20 plus metres. I would be far more comfortable with decisions being overturned when the predictive path indicates at least half the ball hitting the stumps not this coat of varnish stuff. Taufel has had a couple of decisions overturned and statistically at least some will judge his performance on the basis of original decisions upheld. Umpires must think DRS is a lottery as do the players.

  • POSTED BY m0se on | February 4, 2012, 4:39 GMT

    I don't get why the rules aren't changed so that LBWs can be referred to the 3rd umpire by the on-field umpire. DRS was meant to remove howlers not to give more LBWs. Azhar Ali's nick behind was the perfect use of DRS while all the other use of DRS was used for querying LBWs which shouldn't be tied to DRS.

  • POSTED BY RodStark on | February 4, 2012, 3:07 GMT

    How would it be if on-field umpires only ruled "out" if they were sure--i.e., give the traditional doubt in fvor of the batsman, and then DRS only overturned it if it was defintely wrong?

  • POSTED BY RogerC on | February 4, 2012, 2:24 GMT

    In spite of all the hate people have on BCCI for their clout on world cricket, I still think their view on DRS is very correct. It is difficult for technology to predict the path of a ball better than on-screen umpire. On the field, conditions change all the time. The heat, the wind direction, the ball shape, the pitch spot where the ball lands - none of these are constant for each delivery. It is much better to trust a trained international umpire who is closest to point of action than a pre-programmed computer technology like DRS.

  • POSTED BY jango_moh on | February 4, 2012, 2:22 GMT

    so now u like DRS???? i thought u guys liked it??? oh wait, ur losing, now i get it!!!!

  • POSTED BY johnathonjosephs on | February 4, 2012, 1:23 GMT

    @Jimmers UDRS does not make 2 day tests. England falling to spin does. Lets not blame the UDRS for England's loss as doing so is folly

  • POSTED BY johnathonjosephs on | February 4, 2012, 1:21 GMT

    The DRS system is quite easy. UDRS SHOWED that there was a nick, whether it was a small nick or not, the DRS proved there was a nick. So in essence, the DRS PROVED that the Umpire was right and Hafeez was not out. The problem is the umpires who look at it. The edge was there, but why the umpire did not spend more time to see it, I do not know. In the end, it was not an error by technology, but by the umpires.

  • POSTED BY on | February 4, 2012, 0:53 GMT

    DRS only good for smart people not like indian cricket team.They never workes like a team so it is very hard to get the right decision on DRS.

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 23:03 GMT

    People- DRS is electronic information provided by some sophisticated equipment that is according to experts 99% accurate. I have been following this series and how the DRS is used by the third umpires.. It is not the technolodgy but the human beings using this technolodgy need to be trained properly. I do not care if all 10 batsmen are given LBW if thats what happens.. I know its helping the bowlers mostly in LBW decisions and I am glad.. We have always given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman but why?? Any way, I am all for DRS and I hope we Use it always.. What needs to happen now is that we spend some time training the umpires and captians in this area.. This is technolodgy age, get use to it !!

  • POSTED BY Jimmers on | February 3, 2012, 22:46 GMT

    I've always hated the DRS. Absolutely despise everything it represents, and everything it's now doing to the game. If it isn't enough that it totally kills the atmosphere of a wicket falling and the traditional crowd roaring as the batsman trudges off, it's now also wormed its weasly way into the minds of the batsmen and now apparently the umpires who are giving just about every straightish ball out. Ban the wretched thing and let's go back to the way things were before, otherwise we're heading for a string of 2 day Tests - which may actually lose enough in ticket sales to make the ICC realise what a waste of space this thing is. Hate to agree with the BCCI, but they're right on this.

  • POSTED BY cricpolitics on | February 3, 2012, 22:30 GMT

    Let's not muddy things here. It was a judgement error from an inexperienced third umpire rather than the fault of the technology. DRS is there to stay and it will just take some time once everyone is fully trained on it. Once it is made mandatory then there will be no such criticism either.

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 21:16 GMT

    i agree with stephen holloway

  • POSTED BY MWaqqar on | February 3, 2012, 20:41 GMT

    Why dont people understand simple thing that DRS is to eliminate howlers, which is happening 100 percent. If one odd decision like Hafeez is controversial, it is tolerable. But we cant go back to the days of ball pitching down leg side, batsman getting inside edge and given lbw. Howlers are eliminated by DRS other things will improve with time. We cant go back, Dhoni Srinivsan notwithstanding.

  • POSTED BY SanjivAwesome on | February 3, 2012, 20:28 GMT

    I think that when we talk about "DRS" we mean the total system - the technology, the umpires, the training of umpires, and the ICC rules of interpretations. Until this total system is sorted out, DRS will remain dodgy.

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 20:14 GMT

    The 3rd umpire needs to use every bit of information at his disposal. And rule on the evidence that is provided to him. In this case there was a white spot shown on hot spot thus indicating an inside edge. Even if he didnt think that was the case based on the information provided by technology the benifit had to go to the batsman. In this case the third umpire made a poor decision. The fault is not with the technology it is with the thrird umpire which is inexcusable.

  • POSTED BY Narkovian on | February 3, 2012, 19:22 GMT

    I am English. Sorry . I have begun to really dislike DRS. We seem to spend so much time waiting for decisions etc it is boring. Plus.. they way it is used for LBWs is ridiculous. Not only can we not trust the ball - tracking, but the umpires on field are giving far too many OUT in the first place. Thereby making the slightest snick on the stumps OUT. Batting is being reduced to farce. Never thought I wuld say this, but I now support BCCI in their refusal to use it. Test Matches will be reduced to 2days at this rate.

    Unfortunately, like most things in life that have deteriorated, it will never go back to how it used to be... Umpires on field should make decicions. End of. Possible exceptons being run out and stumping. N

  • POSTED BY OhhhMattyMatty on | February 3, 2012, 19:19 GMT

    Ajmal may have got Bell 4 times, but two of those were pure luck and hardly great bowling. If that is dominance, then I'd love to know what you'd call Swann to left handers!

  • POSTED BY khurramsch on | February 3, 2012, 19:13 GMT

    i think people using or in simple word 3rd umpire is the problem with drs as umpires are not consistant in decisions on drs.& that is making a good technology weaker as oposition to drs will say this.

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 19:13 GMT

    Tarapore is below average Umpire. As DRS improves and rules become more standard. ICC needs to screen out below average Umpires. I consider Tarapore one of those who makes decisions based on instinct rather than evidence. He should be removed from the Panel. He has single-handedly changed the complexion of this game.

  • POSTED BY Indus11 on | February 3, 2012, 19:03 GMT

    DRS WORKS - period ! (Full Stop) - keep the umpires for saying "over" and let the DRS make all the decisions concerning all outs/not outs - simple ! Thank GOD for technology !

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 18:50 GMT

    To me DRS is quite absurd, so to make it a bit interesting & rewarding, a team should be awarded on extra chance for a correct review meaning if a team get it right and they have 2 review the number of reviews available should be increased to 3 and so on upto maybe 5, whereas only 1 review should be deducted as usual for the wrong referell.

  • POSTED BY cricket_fan_1980 on | February 3, 2012, 18:49 GMT

    So is the DRS flawed? Or is the problem with the individuals using it? Well posed. I think that if its use is limited to 1 review an innings and no more, then it is a single tech bonus that either side can get. The umpires can still use 3rd umpire for run outs and confusing scenarios. However, majority of decisions should go back to the on field uumpire, right or wrong, trust his judgement the way it has been for years. Hafeez was clearly not out. I think that there should be a panel of 3 independent tv umpires to decide the call

  • POSTED BY indianpunter on | February 3, 2012, 18:44 GMT

    1. Take out the predictive pathway. Goodness me! which game in the world uses " predictions" for critical decision making? Use DRS only till the point of impact. 2. The on field decision should stand, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. ( which means Hafeez should have been ruled not out). 3. Maybe there is merit in getting the umpires to call for it ( rather than letting teams have 2 reviews per innings) DRS is as flawed as the people operating it.

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 18:38 GMT

    The 3rd umpire making a mistake is nothing new. It has nothing to do with DRS. I think it is important that the 3rd umpire is experienced. However, age may be a concern. In the 2008 India-Australia test series down under, Andrew Symonds was given not out by Bruce Oxenford when stumped despite his foot being on the line. The technology is certainly not an issue. The ICC should probably start training 3rd umpires specifically for use of the technology. Lets not forget that this match also demonstrated that the players have no idea when to use the DRS.

  • POSTED BY xylo on | February 3, 2012, 18:29 GMT

    Whatever, this has been one heck of a series!

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 18:16 GMT

    It was a terrible day for batsmen...and Simon Taufel.

  • POSTED BY ARad on | February 3, 2012, 18:15 GMT

    LOL @correctcall. Strauss who was at the other end was partially responsible for Trott's non-review. COnsidering that Strauss is the captain, it is unpardonable. I can understand the on-field umpires making mistakes since they do not have the benefit of replays but TV umpires who make mistakes don't have that excuse. Players must be able to report umpires to the match referee (just like umpires are able to report ill-behaving players.) Umpires should be given bans and penalties just like the players!

  • POSTED BY Smithie on | February 3, 2012, 18:05 GMT

    Part of the Woolfe recommendations are that the ICC should control all aspects of international cricket. Therefore appoint Simon Taufel to become fully responsible for all aspects of DRS implementation. Starting with sponsorship to finance it/ researching and testing equipment to maximise accuracy/ managing a technical team to operate (or audit host broadcasters) the equipment/train the third umpires in useage. First step is make DRS mandatory and India may vote for that if such a regime was instituted under Taufel.

  • POSTED BY tinkertinker on | February 3, 2012, 17:56 GMT

    All systems are only good as the person who runs them, in this case it wasn't drs that failed but a poor umpire who didn't use it correctly.

  • POSTED BY Rezaul on | February 3, 2012, 17:52 GMT

    Its problem with the individual who uses the DRS technology. It is given to hlp you on decision making. I would say, in this case its definitely the mistake of umpire Tarapore who failed to count the inside edge. I saw him making some gross mistakes while he was umpiring in Bangladesh Tests. So, the issue is with individuals/officials.

  • POSTED BY Sakthiivel on | February 3, 2012, 17:17 GMT

    DRS is a Failure.. So shut down the DRS,,

  • POSTED BY ZsZs on | February 3, 2012, 17:09 GMT

    Tarapore is an awful on-field umpire and and a third umpire as well. Look at the BD-WI test recently. Hopeless...

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 17:08 GMT

    There is nothing Wrong with UDRS. i can't understand the headline of the article. Credit to the bowlers for bowling straight on a favorable pitch

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 17:01 GMT

    I like the idea of the DRS but it is being seriously misused by the umpires both directly and indirectly. The decision to overturn Taufel's decision was clearly incorrect and is rather embarrassing for Tarapore who does not appear to understand the guidance. But the main issue is that the age-old "benefit of the doubt" seems to now lie with the bowler not the batsman - an upheld appeal for a ball only clipping the bails or stumps is clearly incorrect as it does not give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman and umpires are incorrect is now presuming contact from marginal decisions. A few years ago those sort of appeals would have been turned down, after all, a batsman can only be out once in an innings.

  • POSTED BY voyager on | February 3, 2012, 16:41 GMT

    When did Ian Bell scored 12 runs?? let alone on Ajmal!!;)

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 16:40 GMT

    Too bad - the bowlers have something to smile about too now! So much for thick bats, small outfields and flat decks. The battle of techniques is much more even now.

  • POSTED BY HawK89 on | February 3, 2012, 16:36 GMT

    DRS should only overturn a decision if the evidence is clearly favouring it. Too often there is little evidence and its marginal, and then the original decision is overturned. Most likely is the fact that the 3rd umpire who is looking at it, isnt a very good umpire, which leads a bad decision to the ground umpire. Doesn't matter if players get to call for a review or not, when you have an idiot for a 3rd umpire.

  • POSTED BY achohan2 on | February 3, 2012, 16:35 GMT

    There are flaws with the DRS system. No one can say that it is perfect, but it will get there eventually. The problem that we are seeing here is with the 3rd umpire making decisions which are not consistent. I guess after this series there will be more rules out there for the third umpire on how to make their decision. I do not think that either England or Pakistan are on the wrong side of DRS. It just seems like England is haunted by DRS as they are losing. There have been some bad decision made by the 3rd umpire against both the teams. But yes DRS has made test cricket more interesting and bringing results. If DRS was not in use, the umpires would not be giving any doubtful decisions while they see it live.... but when the crowd will see that in the reply and if the umpire made a wrong call it would look bad on the umpire. So if the technology is there and everyone else is able to see that, but the umpires can use it; would not be good for the umpires or the game.Mak DRS compulsory

  • POSTED BY yorkshire-86 on | February 3, 2012, 16:14 GMT

    1 week course is not enough. The '3rd umpire' should not be an umpire at all, but a video technician with a minimum 4 Years at a recognised university in a relevant course and 10 Years relevant experience in the industry before being allowed to be the 'video referee' at Test level. Someone whos career involves playing cricket and on-field umpiring cricket does not have the relevant university education or experience to use the DRS technology.

  • POSTED BY ihaq1 on | February 3, 2012, 16:07 GMT

    well duckworth lewis has different obvious flaws but DRS clearly shows where teh ball is going and teh third and teh umpire on teh field can clearly give teh right decision...taufel today seemingly made too many mistakes although at least two lbw's on DRS showed that they had been nicked...however in DRS the decision is still with the umpire and small dots at least should be noted...in one decision the ball seemed to hit the glove but DRS showed it hit the pad...in duckworth lewis there is no umpire involved...in some cases DRS shows a different flight of teh ball than at first thought... however one thing seems obvious that all decisions should be referred to teh DRs for honesty and similar treatment of all batsmen...one thinks that runouts, caught behinds, caught at teh wicket and lbw's should all be referred to teh DRS...It was not teh DRS that made the mistakes but teh third umpire...but it does create interest in teh game and teh trajectory of teh ball

  • POSTED BY Chicagocric on | February 3, 2012, 16:00 GMT

    Mr.Dobell or someone please clarify. I thought the rule (or etiquette) is that the third umpire can review the situation and give his opinion to the on-field umpire, who may or may not reverse his original decision. The third umpire does not (should not) make the final decision. So why was Mr. Tarapore allowed to give Mohammed Hafeez out? Moreover as you write above, "the third umpire should only overrule the on-field umpire if he has demonstrably made a clear mistake". Mr. Taufel, who ranks pretty much at the top of ICC rankings, had not made a "clear mistake". This poor decision by Mr. Tarapore, who has very limited experience in international matches compared to Mr. Taufell, can be the match decider.

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 15:55 GMT

    Third umpires must be trained properly by ICC to be consistent all the time otherwise a very useful system like DRS would become useless...good umpiring by Simon Taufel though... giving batsman(Hafeez) benefit of doubt...!!

  • POSTED BY jackiethepen on | February 3, 2012, 15:36 GMT

    Two out of Bell's dismissals to Ajmal were freakish. Not to say he wouldn't have been out to him eventually, but why pretend otherwise? Sometimes batsmen can just be unlucky. If lucky then they sometimes recover and go on...

  • POSTED BY bestbuddy on | February 3, 2012, 15:33 GMT

    The technology (while not perfect) is not as flawed as the people who use it...hence why we've turned to technology in the first place!

  • POSTED BY KarachiKid on | February 3, 2012, 15:31 GMT

    @Kashif Muneer !!! I think you have made good points. Here is how I will order them 1) officials should know exactly what they need to do while reviewing decision, on this count, Hafeez decision would NOT have been overturned. 2) I have some doubts about ball tracking technology. Somehow its does not make sense like in case of Tendulkar, Misbah and Kevin Peitersen in last match in Abud Dhabi 3) Finally hot spot is not perfect, it might miss hot spots sometimes, however, here I would just say that if there is a any dbout about hotspot than decision should be referred back to umpire.

  • POSTED BY Morfi on | February 3, 2012, 15:15 GMT

    Clearly, on the Hafeez occasion, it was Mr. Tarapore who failed to read the laws of DRS correctly: "you need convincing evidence to overrule the decision of the on-field umpire" - if the hotspot on hafeez was convincing evidence of no edge, then Boycott should eat his hat!!! This is not the first time Tarapore has been an average umpire - Pak vs Sri lanka he was the worst umpire by a fair margin. DRS has its flaws, but on this occasion it was the person using it!

  • POSTED BY wrenx on | February 3, 2012, 15:12 GMT

    Do you think it would be possible for cricinfo to do a piece at the end of this series about the experience of DRS in the UAE? something about it seems distinct from its use elsewhere, even the graphics have looked shoddy and unprofessoinal - do we know if they are using different software/equipment to the rest of the world? Or have the calls just been unusually poor?

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 15:12 GMT

    Mohammed Aloi You are right Drs Making test matching very interesting ...and the technology is very good....that is the beauty of cricket when u blowed out on 99 and then u fight back.......good test match

  • POSTED BY foursandsixes on | February 3, 2012, 14:56 GMT

    DRS will eliminate howlers of one kind but create another! Eng will lose this test anyway, don't worry!

  • POSTED BY AmmarAshraf on | February 3, 2012, 14:56 GMT

    Stop blaming DRS its the umpire who dont know how to use it.

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 14:55 GMT

    All it is doing is correcting poor umpiring but it does not help if the third umpire lacks common sense... Drs is making test cricket interesting now batsman have to use their bats instead of their pads :)

  • POSTED BY correctcall on | February 3, 2012, 14:26 GMT

    Perhaps the Indian 3rd ump is against DRS and has had a "free" driveway cemented recently.

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 14:07 GMT

    its not drs that is the problem its people who are supposed to be using it correctly that are the problem.... it almost seems that they have there own ideas???? lack of consistency really annoying!

  • POSTED BY KashifMuneer on | February 3, 2012, 14:07 GMT

    I believe there are 2 problems with DRS:

    1. The DRS technology flawed as it doesn't capture edges all the time and more worringly, the line of the ball seems to be different in Hawk-eye view compared to the actual replay. Super impose the 2 for Misbah's 1st test dismssal (or Sachin in WC2011 Semi) and you will see what I mean.

    2. The people using it are inconsistent. Ajmal was clearly not out in 2nd test (1st innings) yet it was not over-turned. What more evidence does the TV umpire need? Yet Hafeez was given out today. The TV umpires need to be consistent. They should all attend an ICC 1 week course on getting their decisions consistent. I'd be happy to conduct that course :)

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 14:01 GMT

    like the way duckworth and lewis method chokes south africa...england are haunted by DRS.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 14:01 GMT

    like the way duckworth and lewis method chokes south africa...england are haunted by DRS.

  • POSTED BY KashifMuneer on | February 3, 2012, 14:07 GMT

    I believe there are 2 problems with DRS:

    1. The DRS technology flawed as it doesn't capture edges all the time and more worringly, the line of the ball seems to be different in Hawk-eye view compared to the actual replay. Super impose the 2 for Misbah's 1st test dismssal (or Sachin in WC2011 Semi) and you will see what I mean.

    2. The people using it are inconsistent. Ajmal was clearly not out in 2nd test (1st innings) yet it was not over-turned. What more evidence does the TV umpire need? Yet Hafeez was given out today. The TV umpires need to be consistent. They should all attend an ICC 1 week course on getting their decisions consistent. I'd be happy to conduct that course :)

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 14:07 GMT

    its not drs that is the problem its people who are supposed to be using it correctly that are the problem.... it almost seems that they have there own ideas???? lack of consistency really annoying!

  • POSTED BY correctcall on | February 3, 2012, 14:26 GMT

    Perhaps the Indian 3rd ump is against DRS and has had a "free" driveway cemented recently.

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 14:55 GMT

    All it is doing is correcting poor umpiring but it does not help if the third umpire lacks common sense... Drs is making test cricket interesting now batsman have to use their bats instead of their pads :)

  • POSTED BY AmmarAshraf on | February 3, 2012, 14:56 GMT

    Stop blaming DRS its the umpire who dont know how to use it.

  • POSTED BY foursandsixes on | February 3, 2012, 14:56 GMT

    DRS will eliminate howlers of one kind but create another! Eng will lose this test anyway, don't worry!

  • POSTED BY on | February 3, 2012, 15:12 GMT

    Mohammed Aloi You are right Drs Making test matching very interesting ...and the technology is very good....that is the beauty of cricket when u blowed out on 99 and then u fight back.......good test match

  • POSTED BY wrenx on | February 3, 2012, 15:12 GMT

    Do you think it would be possible for cricinfo to do a piece at the end of this series about the experience of DRS in the UAE? something about it seems distinct from its use elsewhere, even the graphics have looked shoddy and unprofessoinal - do we know if they are using different software/equipment to the rest of the world? Or have the calls just been unusually poor?

  • POSTED BY Morfi on | February 3, 2012, 15:15 GMT

    Clearly, on the Hafeez occasion, it was Mr. Tarapore who failed to read the laws of DRS correctly: "you need convincing evidence to overrule the decision of the on-field umpire" - if the hotspot on hafeez was convincing evidence of no edge, then Boycott should eat his hat!!! This is not the first time Tarapore has been an average umpire - Pak vs Sri lanka he was the worst umpire by a fair margin. DRS has its flaws, but on this occasion it was the person using it!