Sri Lanka v England, 2nd Test, Colombo, 1st day December 9, 2007

Vaughan critical of Pietersen decision

Cricinfo staff
  shares 24



Kevin Pietersen watches the big screen after being given out caught in the slips © AFP

Michael Vaughan says the third umpire should have been consulted over the controversial catch that ended Kevin Pietersen's innings on the opening day of the second Test in Colombo.

Pietersen edged his fifth delivery low to slip where Chamara Silva dived to his left and parried the ball up behind him allowing Kumar Sangakkara to hold the rebound. There was no doubt about Sangakkara's catch, but the problems arose around Silva's initial take with replays showing the ball may have been grounded.

When the catch was completed Pietersen stood his ground as Daryl Harper and Aleem Dar, the umpires, conferred before Harper, at the bowler's end, gave the decision. Pietersen was halfway off the field when he saw the dismissal on the big screen and halted, but the decision couldn't be overturned.

"I just think common sense has to prevail in those instances when you're not 100% sure," said Vaughan. "The technology's available and you really should use it. It's disappointing and I think the replays have proven it did touch the ground, but let's move on. We're five-down and we've got to get as many runs as possible tomorrow to put them under pressure."

Pietersen was involved in a similar incident earlier this year during the opening Test against India at Lord's. On that occasion he edged Zaheer Khan low to Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who claimed the catch, and Pietersen was given out. However, when the replay came up on the big screen Pietersen waited as the square-leg umpire intervened. The decision was overturned and Pietersen continued his innings.

"We had a similar instance of that at Lord's when Kevin was given out, they saw the screen and they [the umpires] changed their opinion," added Vaughan. "It always seems to be Kev out there. Common sense should have prevailed and I'm sure the umpires will feel exactly that way now."

The difference between the two incidents is that at Lord's there wasn't an original agreement between the umpires on Dhoni's catch, it was given immediately by Simon Taufel. However, in Colombo the umpires conferred before deciding Pietersen was out and the laws state that the third official can only be used if the view of the on-field umpires is obstructed.

What is more, criticism has been levelled at the manner in which Pietersen stood his ground, and then even began making his way back to the crease in clear dispute with the umpire's decision. "It doesn't look good, but what would you do?" said Vaughan. "We're talking about high-level sport here. The guy was given out but he says he clearly saw the ball touch the ground, and I guess he's been proven correct. The non-striker thought it had to, and they are within their rights to ask. The technology's there to make sure, so why not use it?"

It was not the only rough decision that derailed England's progress. The mainstay of their innings, Alastair Cook, was given out lbw late in the day for 81, despite replays showing that Lasith Malinga's delivery would have missed the stumps. Vaughan, however, felt that decision was an entirely separate issue, because there is no provision for lbws to be referred to the third umpire. "Those decisions happen, and I don't have any problem with them," he said. "What I'm saying is let common sense prevail, if the technology's there to use. It's pretty simple."

Sri Lanka's coach, Trevor Bayliss, admitted that his side might have got lucky with the decision, but believed that such things even themselves out over time. "In cricket that's the way it goes," he said. "By the eye the umpire gave it out, but if it [had gone] to the TV, it's probably one of those dismissals that's not out. It was too close to tell. But everyone gets luck - the good players are those who take advantage of their luck.

"It's not as if it's a real clear picture," said Bayliss. "Chamara was adamant he got a hard hit on the fingers, and from his point of view that whack left his fingers squashed between the ground and the ball. On the replays there's obviously a little bit of grass involved, but does that mean it's five or six pieces of grass? The umpire gave it out, and he thought it was out."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Sairam_iyer on December 10, 2007, 7:08 GMT

    These things have been happening for Donkeys years and really nothing has been done about it. If a decision has been given as out and in fact it is not out,then there must naturally have been a doubt in the umpires mind. The umpire can be termed as biased if he is sure in the above circumstance. It is all too easy for some one to say it evens out in the end, but it is not so. The morale of the team often gets affected and it changes the course of the game and series. It should be understood that the umpires are not beyond reproach,two or three crazy decisions can change the course of the match. If players can involve in match fixing so can the umpires. I beleive there should be a fool proof technology for LBW, No Balls,dubious catches and every other aspect of the game so that the spirit and fairness of the game is not mortgaged to human errors wantonly or otherwise.

  • Gav16 on December 10, 2007, 5:47 GMT

    Its not the fact it was that one decision, it was the fact that we have not had any decisions go in our favour e.g. Alsitair Cooks LBW, Sidebottom at Kandy lbw, Kevin Pietersen 'caught' by silva and sangakkara. Its not Sri Lankas fault the ICC have appointed inept umpires that are not really up to international standards, the majority of good umpires in England do not want to be away from their families e.g. Jeremy Lloyds and Peter Willey. I am not sure whehter the better umpires in othr countries are the same?

  • MasumKhan on December 10, 2007, 4:55 GMT

    Vauhgan is correct when he suggests the umpires should take advantage of technology when it is available. When the 1st umpires needs to consult the 2nd umpire it is obvious he is in doubts. Why don't go to the 3rd umpire to dispel the doubts ?

  • Upali_Arambe on December 10, 2007, 4:48 GMT

    Standard of umpiring deteriorating fast. The Technology,a strong tool, widely used in many crucial applications with high accuracy, could have been used by the umpires in this instance too. Otherwise benefit of the doubt should have been given to the batsman. Umpires, please don't be shy to call for technology when in doubts.

  • Dishanstc on December 10, 2007, 3:28 GMT

    Yes voughan could be right but the law say that "if the umpires are not sure they should confir with the third umpire", may be they were sure that chamara took a clean catch in the first instence.besides as professional cricketers I don't understant why they(English)can't take as a part of the game further when Kumar Sangakara was given out at Hobart on 192 and having the oppetunity to take his team to a series leveling win under tough circumstances both Sangakara and Mahela never complained why can't the English take a leaf out of the srilankans book and keep their mouths shut.

  • Cricket_Fan_007 on December 10, 2007, 3:28 GMT

    Poms do seem to make a fuss about everything. While Vaughan brazenly quoted from the Dhoni incident, did he count how many times Tendulkar was given out when he clearly wasnt. Understood that not all decisions are challengable under ICC rules (wonder why?) but umpires make decisions and players have to take it - right or wrong. Stop whining and move on.

  • Chanaka on December 10, 2007, 3:22 GMT

    The manner in which Kevin Peitersen was given out was bad.It is time the ICC gave each team a limited number of challenges similar to what is done at some Tennis tournaments. This will help to prevent a lot of heartburn amongst players and also reduce the number of bad decisions.

  • rappedonthepads on December 10, 2007, 2:08 GMT

    Feel for Kevin Pietersen and that he was probably undone by a wrong call. Clearly technology should be used and the law that the umpires can only call for the 3rd umpire if their view is obstructed makes no sense.

    However, TOTALLY DISAGREE with Kevin Pietersen standing his ground after an umpire decision asking him to march back and getting away without a reprimand. Rules need to apply uniformly to everyone. Recently, in one of the India-Pak ODIs, Yuvraj Singh was given caught behind even though the ball came off his shoulder, a very crucial juncture of the game, Yuvraj expressed his frustration by standing his ground gazing at the umpire and got fined by the match refree.

    There are many other instances where Indian players have been fined because they looked at the giant screen after a decision against them. Can't believe Vaughan comments baout players having the rights to ask (SINCE WHEN?)and cricket being a high level sport. What're you on skipper?

  • wips on December 10, 2007, 1:14 GMT

    Sometimes umpires make poor decisions too. You got to accept them all. Sanga was on 192 but he respected the umpire's wrong judgment. Match referee should fine on him for arguing for an out, if Cricket is a gentlemen's game then he should fine. Is it only for white players can ask, argue or comment on outs? Cricket should be equal to every nation and the rules are for every one. Fortunately the decision was made by DJ Harper, otherwise if it would have been a Sri Lankan umpire then the scenario would have been different issue.

  • Dubby49 on December 10, 2007, 0:42 GMT

    The Poms have made an art form of complaining about umpire's decisions. Especially contesting close catches. The technology and camera angles invariably create doubt and 95% of such catches are given Not Out on the principle that the benefit of doubt always goes to the batsman. To avoid this you need everal cameras close to the ground.

    Sunil Gavaskar when comentating has always railed aginst Indian batsmen for accepting the fielder's word instead of standing their ground. This is in sharp contrast to their English counterpart who now want to come back after being out. Why hasn't Pietersen been fined for showing dissent? And what about action against Vaughan for brining the game into disrepute by his comments.

    Vaughan would earn a little sympathy if he were to recall a batsman after watching a live replay instead of applauding his batsmen for walking back to the crease. Thing Ganguly and Tendulkar on the last tour.

  • Sairam_iyer on December 10, 2007, 7:08 GMT

    These things have been happening for Donkeys years and really nothing has been done about it. If a decision has been given as out and in fact it is not out,then there must naturally have been a doubt in the umpires mind. The umpire can be termed as biased if he is sure in the above circumstance. It is all too easy for some one to say it evens out in the end, but it is not so. The morale of the team often gets affected and it changes the course of the game and series. It should be understood that the umpires are not beyond reproach,two or three crazy decisions can change the course of the match. If players can involve in match fixing so can the umpires. I beleive there should be a fool proof technology for LBW, No Balls,dubious catches and every other aspect of the game so that the spirit and fairness of the game is not mortgaged to human errors wantonly or otherwise.

  • Gav16 on December 10, 2007, 5:47 GMT

    Its not the fact it was that one decision, it was the fact that we have not had any decisions go in our favour e.g. Alsitair Cooks LBW, Sidebottom at Kandy lbw, Kevin Pietersen 'caught' by silva and sangakkara. Its not Sri Lankas fault the ICC have appointed inept umpires that are not really up to international standards, the majority of good umpires in England do not want to be away from their families e.g. Jeremy Lloyds and Peter Willey. I am not sure whehter the better umpires in othr countries are the same?

  • MasumKhan on December 10, 2007, 4:55 GMT

    Vauhgan is correct when he suggests the umpires should take advantage of technology when it is available. When the 1st umpires needs to consult the 2nd umpire it is obvious he is in doubts. Why don't go to the 3rd umpire to dispel the doubts ?

  • Upali_Arambe on December 10, 2007, 4:48 GMT

    Standard of umpiring deteriorating fast. The Technology,a strong tool, widely used in many crucial applications with high accuracy, could have been used by the umpires in this instance too. Otherwise benefit of the doubt should have been given to the batsman. Umpires, please don't be shy to call for technology when in doubts.

  • Dishanstc on December 10, 2007, 3:28 GMT

    Yes voughan could be right but the law say that "if the umpires are not sure they should confir with the third umpire", may be they were sure that chamara took a clean catch in the first instence.besides as professional cricketers I don't understant why they(English)can't take as a part of the game further when Kumar Sangakara was given out at Hobart on 192 and having the oppetunity to take his team to a series leveling win under tough circumstances both Sangakara and Mahela never complained why can't the English take a leaf out of the srilankans book and keep their mouths shut.

  • Cricket_Fan_007 on December 10, 2007, 3:28 GMT

    Poms do seem to make a fuss about everything. While Vaughan brazenly quoted from the Dhoni incident, did he count how many times Tendulkar was given out when he clearly wasnt. Understood that not all decisions are challengable under ICC rules (wonder why?) but umpires make decisions and players have to take it - right or wrong. Stop whining and move on.

  • Chanaka on December 10, 2007, 3:22 GMT

    The manner in which Kevin Peitersen was given out was bad.It is time the ICC gave each team a limited number of challenges similar to what is done at some Tennis tournaments. This will help to prevent a lot of heartburn amongst players and also reduce the number of bad decisions.

  • rappedonthepads on December 10, 2007, 2:08 GMT

    Feel for Kevin Pietersen and that he was probably undone by a wrong call. Clearly technology should be used and the law that the umpires can only call for the 3rd umpire if their view is obstructed makes no sense.

    However, TOTALLY DISAGREE with Kevin Pietersen standing his ground after an umpire decision asking him to march back and getting away without a reprimand. Rules need to apply uniformly to everyone. Recently, in one of the India-Pak ODIs, Yuvraj Singh was given caught behind even though the ball came off his shoulder, a very crucial juncture of the game, Yuvraj expressed his frustration by standing his ground gazing at the umpire and got fined by the match refree.

    There are many other instances where Indian players have been fined because they looked at the giant screen after a decision against them. Can't believe Vaughan comments baout players having the rights to ask (SINCE WHEN?)and cricket being a high level sport. What're you on skipper?

  • wips on December 10, 2007, 1:14 GMT

    Sometimes umpires make poor decisions too. You got to accept them all. Sanga was on 192 but he respected the umpire's wrong judgment. Match referee should fine on him for arguing for an out, if Cricket is a gentlemen's game then he should fine. Is it only for white players can ask, argue or comment on outs? Cricket should be equal to every nation and the rules are for every one. Fortunately the decision was made by DJ Harper, otherwise if it would have been a Sri Lankan umpire then the scenario would have been different issue.

  • Dubby49 on December 10, 2007, 0:42 GMT

    The Poms have made an art form of complaining about umpire's decisions. Especially contesting close catches. The technology and camera angles invariably create doubt and 95% of such catches are given Not Out on the principle that the benefit of doubt always goes to the batsman. To avoid this you need everal cameras close to the ground.

    Sunil Gavaskar when comentating has always railed aginst Indian batsmen for accepting the fielder's word instead of standing their ground. This is in sharp contrast to their English counterpart who now want to come back after being out. Why hasn't Pietersen been fined for showing dissent? And what about action against Vaughan for brining the game into disrepute by his comments.

    Vaughan would earn a little sympathy if he were to recall a batsman after watching a live replay instead of applauding his batsmen for walking back to the crease. Thing Ganguly and Tendulkar on the last tour.

  • HarpaZaniddyot on December 9, 2007, 23:28 GMT

    laggan, I hope you were being sarcastic about the bias being against Asian teams ! There is no way that Pietersen could have been out if an English bowler had "bowled" it, for the simple reason that it would have been called a no-ball. The Cook LBW decision, whilst very poor from an "elite" umpire, would not have got much of a mention, if it was not for the increasing paranoia, stoked by what has gone before. It doesn't help that Silva is still claiming that he took a fair catch. He might lose part of his match fee if he owns up; but at least he could restore a little of his integrity.

  • Warnesie on December 9, 2007, 23:16 GMT

    I disagree with you all. We prepare featherbed pitches; we shorten boundaries; we do all we can to make a match go for the five days and make it increasingly more difficult for a team to take 20 wickets.

    You can't bowl short at a batsman who keeps coming forward to you, and if you do let a bouncer go, you can't bowl another on at him, even if he creams it to the fence (or over it as it's probably only 50 metres away).

    Most referrals to the third umpire for catches (did it carry?) are turned down. The technology to decide LBW's accurately DOES NOT exist; run outs and stumpings referred to the third umpire are given not out becuase the replay is inconclusive. The game is played by humans and should be adjudicated by them.

    Perhaps the ICC can dip into its coffers and make umpiring more attractive to ex-players? If we have ex-players umpiring, I'm sure you will find the standard of umpiring improve. Technology is nice for those of us sitting at home.

  • priyalal on December 9, 2007, 22:38 GMT

    I absolutely agree that cricket must a give more room to technology. Imagine the decision of umpire against Kumar Sangkkara at Australia. He deprived him of a sensational double hundred and possibly a win for Sri lanka.What surprise me is all this hype begins when a umpire's decision goes against Engalnd and Australia. As long as they are not affected they are silent . The moment it affects them then comes the blasting of umpires.Still the racism prevails in the cricket.All this time umpires were human beings subjected to errors now all of a sudden they are not human and introduce technology.The decision that went against Kumar's is visible to any blind person,but this Umpire was double blind. the first his physical sight defect second the manupulation of umpires by Australia. The decision in the current test matches between SL and ENG are very difficult for the human. I think they are reasonable. That is the way it goes Sir. Shut up critising umpires, & try to win. You hypocrits.

  • Sri-Lankan_Lion on December 9, 2007, 20:28 GMT

    Well, I think I agree with comments made by Vauhgan, cause the same incident happened when Sangagakarra was given out by one of the umpires in the final test match that happened between Australia and Sri-Lanka.If the umpires have the technology, I think they should use it.Although I am not sure why Sangakarra was not allowed to play again because when the similar incident happened before to Pietersen he was given out by Taufel, then after the reply he was aloowed to play.Why didn't that happen to Sangakakarra, when it was only one of the umpires that gave him out?I think it's time that the ICC looks closely at these decisions, one same mistake, could be like domino effect, can cause huge effects on the match itself.

  • Philip_Gnana on December 9, 2007, 19:48 GMT

    I agree that technology should be used to the fullest not just in part. All caught behind and bat pad decisions should be automatically referred to the third umpire.

    There is adequate time for the third umpire to intervene. By the time the bowler gets back to the his bowling mark the third umpire could have made the decision thus saving time.

    Sri Lankans did not have the rub of the green in Australia. They never whinged about it either. They just took it on the chin. Pointing was out - did he walk? Oh no.

    In the case of LBW decisions. The tramlines should be used to guide the umpire. As viewers and spectators we see what the umpires and not privy to. It is the attitude of these umpires that stink. They should press for techonology to be introduced via the third umpire. The umpires need to change their attitude (apologies to Dicky Bird) instead of being dinosaurs.

    Major nations usually are given the benefit of the doubt these days. That's not Cricket. PhilipGnana Surrey

  • AaronOtang on December 9, 2007, 19:40 GMT

    My Thoughts on today's play were,England were unlucky to be 5 down at end of Play.Vaughan played quite superb for his score,only to be caught by a freak catch,But they all count..KP desicion Astonised me,If there are two Umpires talking to one another before the desicion is made,It cant have been 100% clear cut..You go to the 3rd Umpire...Simple, Cooks lbw Desicion also was quite Unbelievable,Missing by another stump...Gladly Ian Bell walked before the finger even went up..A rare but nice touch.The ball Bopara got was a corker.But then Malingas Bowling sling is so low anyway its ridiculous.I Just get a bit tired of these Umpires making shocking calls...It also does not help when every slow delivery sent down has the cries of OHHHH Catch Arghhh!!! even when the ball is 2 foot wide of the crease.well they say some calls even out.I doubt if those calls could ever even out

  • power-hitter on December 9, 2007, 19:08 GMT

    Technology has to be used. What is the use of the third if he is there only to decide on run outs? If it is there then it should be properly utilised otherwise vacate third umpire's room for some other purpose on the ground. Rudi Koertzen gave Sangakkara horrendous out against Aussies recently when things could have easily changed if they had allowed 3rd umpire to intervene and Sanga could have won Test match for SL and levelled the series. Now Sri Lanka would restrict England under 300 and probably this decision would play big part in it. Sorry there is a fire out there and firebrigade as well but we cannot use it because they want controversy and some hurtful faces in the end. Well done ICC!

  • sunnyv1987 on December 9, 2007, 19:05 GMT

    i think the umpire decision was wrong and they should have referred it to the third umpire before they gave it because they got the technology so they should use technology and let the third umpire decide if he was out or not which he wasn't they got this very wrong which could prove first innings total for england.

  • laggan on December 9, 2007, 18:24 GMT

    Technology should be used for 100% of the lbw decisions. Also on tip & slip catches and run outs when contested by the batsman. Argument against such use of available technology such as hawk eye, hot point, and even now common video replays have been based on the time element.

    We know that many umpires chosen by ICC give decisions where the "luck" falls on the England team specially when playing with Asian sub continent teams. Asian teams have to grin bear this well known phenomena when playing with Australia, England and South Africa. It would be interesting to see how often Sanath Jayasuriya and Kumar Sangakkara of Sri Lanka team have had bad luck with decisions.

    Perhaps now that the captain of England team is complaining ICC might consider introducing technology and making the playing field level

    It would be interesting t watch the developments as if an Asian team captain spoke openly of a bad umpiring decision he would no drought be in trouble with lts of establishments

  • Gihan on December 9, 2007, 18:17 GMT

    There is no excuse for the umpires, 1st, 2nd or 3rd to not reverse the decision. The "right" decision should be made, irregardless of the ICC rules, especially when confronted with unequivocal evidence (albeit after the fact, but still when the batsman is still on the ground). Cricket is not a game played at such a pace that it cannot accommodate a few minutes of "quality" time to make the "correct" decision. Common sense should prevail, and umpires so bold enough to make decisions which may force the ICC hand to recognize its high handedness and change rules that are non sensical. My comments are in in the interest of fairness, in a contest where a single decision is likely to alter the course of a match.

  • taraka911 on December 9, 2007, 17:10 GMT

    Yes..technology is there to be used. What is the sense in not using it here while it's used in medicine, communication..etc. BUT the problem is when you use it. Is it only when countries like Austrailia or Englan complain? We didn't hear this sort of talk when Sangakkara was given out erraneously on 192! Why is there still a gross devide betwen "White"/"powerful" Vs Other gap allowed to occur. Why did Austrailaia scream (there will be bad thoughts/ diplomatics problems etc. etc.) when murali told the fact that tests reported that mcgrath was bending the arm more than the legal limit but when they say the same to murali the world stays silent? So really it is not the technology use that needs probing but the fact that it is requested only when decisions against certain countries go wrong!

  • ashe20 on December 9, 2007, 17:03 GMT

    I quite agree with Michael Vaughan@s comments about making use of technology. It will definitely help the lesser players to get more justice. Issues like this are highlighted because someone like KP playing for England is the victim but probably get hardly noticed if it was a Kenyan or Bangladeshi playing against the countries whose captains are as well informed about the rules of the game as Vaughan.

  • Kulaputra on December 9, 2007, 16:55 GMT

    Is it obvious that technology should be used where relevant and there is certainty that technology is better than the naked eye. This is true in case of stumpings and run outs. I am not sure technology is a great way for catches or LBWs and umpire's impression is the best way of decisions. Technology should be used to determine if ball touched bat or glove in case of close in catches, if it is foolproof. Snickometers are t be used if they can believed.

    Moreover, I feel that cricketers should become more honest and not appeal for catches that are not. There should be no repeat of Michael Slater incident with Rahul Dravid. A fielder knows the truth.

    Lastly, I do not what Vaughan is fussing about. This English team must stop whinging and get on with the game. I am not sure that this is a wrong decision and even if it were, it is not the first one that England will get nor the last one.

    Stop fussing. Get on with the game.

  • Mahesh_Sharma on December 9, 2007, 16:33 GMT

    The instance happened with Peterson today is happened several times in world cricket. In my openion we have good and enough technology, If umpires should consult 3rd umpire before giving any decision. It will be better for cricket and 3rd umpire who just do wait nothing else. Also cricket is taking help of technlogy while in run/stum out then why not in lbw or others. It will be good for a players as well as for cricket.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Mahesh_Sharma on December 9, 2007, 16:33 GMT

    The instance happened with Peterson today is happened several times in world cricket. In my openion we have good and enough technology, If umpires should consult 3rd umpire before giving any decision. It will be better for cricket and 3rd umpire who just do wait nothing else. Also cricket is taking help of technlogy while in run/stum out then why not in lbw or others. It will be good for a players as well as for cricket.

  • Kulaputra on December 9, 2007, 16:55 GMT

    Is it obvious that technology should be used where relevant and there is certainty that technology is better than the naked eye. This is true in case of stumpings and run outs. I am not sure technology is a great way for catches or LBWs and umpire's impression is the best way of decisions. Technology should be used to determine if ball touched bat or glove in case of close in catches, if it is foolproof. Snickometers are t be used if they can believed.

    Moreover, I feel that cricketers should become more honest and not appeal for catches that are not. There should be no repeat of Michael Slater incident with Rahul Dravid. A fielder knows the truth.

    Lastly, I do not what Vaughan is fussing about. This English team must stop whinging and get on with the game. I am not sure that this is a wrong decision and even if it were, it is not the first one that England will get nor the last one.

    Stop fussing. Get on with the game.

  • ashe20 on December 9, 2007, 17:03 GMT

    I quite agree with Michael Vaughan@s comments about making use of technology. It will definitely help the lesser players to get more justice. Issues like this are highlighted because someone like KP playing for England is the victim but probably get hardly noticed if it was a Kenyan or Bangladeshi playing against the countries whose captains are as well informed about the rules of the game as Vaughan.

  • taraka911 on December 9, 2007, 17:10 GMT

    Yes..technology is there to be used. What is the sense in not using it here while it's used in medicine, communication..etc. BUT the problem is when you use it. Is it only when countries like Austrailia or Englan complain? We didn't hear this sort of talk when Sangakkara was given out erraneously on 192! Why is there still a gross devide betwen "White"/"powerful" Vs Other gap allowed to occur. Why did Austrailaia scream (there will be bad thoughts/ diplomatics problems etc. etc.) when murali told the fact that tests reported that mcgrath was bending the arm more than the legal limit but when they say the same to murali the world stays silent? So really it is not the technology use that needs probing but the fact that it is requested only when decisions against certain countries go wrong!

  • Gihan on December 9, 2007, 18:17 GMT

    There is no excuse for the umpires, 1st, 2nd or 3rd to not reverse the decision. The "right" decision should be made, irregardless of the ICC rules, especially when confronted with unequivocal evidence (albeit after the fact, but still when the batsman is still on the ground). Cricket is not a game played at such a pace that it cannot accommodate a few minutes of "quality" time to make the "correct" decision. Common sense should prevail, and umpires so bold enough to make decisions which may force the ICC hand to recognize its high handedness and change rules that are non sensical. My comments are in in the interest of fairness, in a contest where a single decision is likely to alter the course of a match.

  • laggan on December 9, 2007, 18:24 GMT

    Technology should be used for 100% of the lbw decisions. Also on tip & slip catches and run outs when contested by the batsman. Argument against such use of available technology such as hawk eye, hot point, and even now common video replays have been based on the time element.

    We know that many umpires chosen by ICC give decisions where the "luck" falls on the England team specially when playing with Asian sub continent teams. Asian teams have to grin bear this well known phenomena when playing with Australia, England and South Africa. It would be interesting to see how often Sanath Jayasuriya and Kumar Sangakkara of Sri Lanka team have had bad luck with decisions.

    Perhaps now that the captain of England team is complaining ICC might consider introducing technology and making the playing field level

    It would be interesting t watch the developments as if an Asian team captain spoke openly of a bad umpiring decision he would no drought be in trouble with lts of establishments

  • sunnyv1987 on December 9, 2007, 19:05 GMT

    i think the umpire decision was wrong and they should have referred it to the third umpire before they gave it because they got the technology so they should use technology and let the third umpire decide if he was out or not which he wasn't they got this very wrong which could prove first innings total for england.

  • power-hitter on December 9, 2007, 19:08 GMT

    Technology has to be used. What is the use of the third if he is there only to decide on run outs? If it is there then it should be properly utilised otherwise vacate third umpire's room for some other purpose on the ground. Rudi Koertzen gave Sangakkara horrendous out against Aussies recently when things could have easily changed if they had allowed 3rd umpire to intervene and Sanga could have won Test match for SL and levelled the series. Now Sri Lanka would restrict England under 300 and probably this decision would play big part in it. Sorry there is a fire out there and firebrigade as well but we cannot use it because they want controversy and some hurtful faces in the end. Well done ICC!

  • AaronOtang on December 9, 2007, 19:40 GMT

    My Thoughts on today's play were,England were unlucky to be 5 down at end of Play.Vaughan played quite superb for his score,only to be caught by a freak catch,But they all count..KP desicion Astonised me,If there are two Umpires talking to one another before the desicion is made,It cant have been 100% clear cut..You go to the 3rd Umpire...Simple, Cooks lbw Desicion also was quite Unbelievable,Missing by another stump...Gladly Ian Bell walked before the finger even went up..A rare but nice touch.The ball Bopara got was a corker.But then Malingas Bowling sling is so low anyway its ridiculous.I Just get a bit tired of these Umpires making shocking calls...It also does not help when every slow delivery sent down has the cries of OHHHH Catch Arghhh!!! even when the ball is 2 foot wide of the crease.well they say some calls even out.I doubt if those calls could ever even out

  • Philip_Gnana on December 9, 2007, 19:48 GMT

    I agree that technology should be used to the fullest not just in part. All caught behind and bat pad decisions should be automatically referred to the third umpire.

    There is adequate time for the third umpire to intervene. By the time the bowler gets back to the his bowling mark the third umpire could have made the decision thus saving time.

    Sri Lankans did not have the rub of the green in Australia. They never whinged about it either. They just took it on the chin. Pointing was out - did he walk? Oh no.

    In the case of LBW decisions. The tramlines should be used to guide the umpire. As viewers and spectators we see what the umpires and not privy to. It is the attitude of these umpires that stink. They should press for techonology to be introduced via the third umpire. The umpires need to change their attitude (apologies to Dicky Bird) instead of being dinosaurs.

    Major nations usually are given the benefit of the doubt these days. That's not Cricket. PhilipGnana Surrey