South Africa v Australia, 1st Test, Cape Town, 2nd day November 10, 2011

The Technology Test

Of the 23 wickets to fall on the second day, four of them were given out with the assistance of DRS. Nine decisions were reviewed in total, six that were initially called not-out
61

Some Test matches produce such compelling contests, are filled with intrigue or are simply so unusual that they need to be named. Test No. 2016 played at Newlands, the first in Cape Town in November in 90 years, is one of them. It will be called the Technology Test.

Of the 23 wickets to fall on the second day, four of them were given out with the assistance of DRS. Nine decisions were reviewed in total, six that were initially called not-out. Cricket has not seen this many wickets fall on a day's play in over a hundred years, and that number would have plummeted today had it not been for the presence of technology.

The day's play was remarkable for many reasons. For three hours and 45 minutes between between the morning and evening session, the Cape Town's cricket field appeared to have been transformed into Johannesburg's high-speed Gautrain. Wickets whizzed by at the rate of one every 11 and a quarter minutes. Every ball was at risk of being appealed and referred, no batsman was safe and anyone who could bowl would have backed themselves to try and add to the carnage.

Then, technology had it say, turning deliveries that would have previously been judged as close but no cigar, into wicket-takers and showing why moving cricket into the modern age can only be a positive thing.

It started when Hashim Amla was struck on the pad by Shane Watson and on first glance, the not out decision did not appear to be obviously questionable. The replays were comprehensive in showing that the naked eye can sometimes err in the worst way possible, and that Amla was not only struck in line but the ball would have gone on to hit middle and leg. The hackneyed expression about technology eliminating the obvious errors has found a way into this piece, largely because of that.

It was the next two referrals that may become the DRS' best case studies of why the system works and should be used. Neither Jacques Kallis nor AB de Villiers would have been given out had technology, and Hot Spot in particular, not been available.

Watson was convinced that Kallis had got bat on ball when his attempt at a pull went wrong. At first glance, it looked as though the ball brushed his shoulder, which it did, and nothing else. Hot Spot knew better and the white mark showed a massive edge. It symbolises a major development for the equipment, which has now progressed to picking up when the ball has made contact with the bat, even when the bat is in rapid motion.

"Our main problem, over the last year or so, has been the blur, particularly when the player swings quickly," Warren Brennan, managing director of BBG Sports, the company who pioneered Hot Spot, told ESPNCricinfo. "On the dead bat shots, I don't think we've missed many of those. That [Kallis decision] surprised me. It still was quite blurry but he obviously smacked the cover off the ball so there was a big Hot Spot. But on the ones where they swing quite hard and get a very small tickle are hard to pick up for us. We've been trying to improve that." The Hot Spot camera was the only one at the ground that picked up Kallis' edge, rubberstamping its worth in the game.

de Villiers may not even have faced a review, had Australia not been in such a dominant position at that stage. The appeal for lbw seemed optimistic and it looked like South Africa's No. 5 had inside-edged onto his pad. Hot Spot immediately dismissed all notion of that, leading to a decision an umpire would likely had been criticised for making if there was no evidence to back it up. "It was quite clear that it hit the pad before it hit the bat," Brennan said.

Mark Boucher, later, had questioned the height of the ball that would give Watson his fifth wicket after being hit above the roll on the back pad. That time it was ball-tracking and Hawk-Eye that showed that the ball was destined for the top of the stumps and so endorsed the on-field call. Brennan said that decisions like that show that, "if you are not going to technology [fully], don't use all of it." "Hot Spot with the ball-tracking covers most of it," he said.

The absence of ball-tracking had bothered Brennan, who covered the four Test series between England and India earlier this year, with only Hot Spot. The series resulted in a renewal of the BCCI's suspicions about the DRS system as a whole and ICC U-turning on their decision for it to be a mandatory part of all Test and one-day series. It was a testing time for Brennan and his team, who felt Thursday's play in Cape Town was vindication for their work. "In the UK, in the middle of the year, we probably had a couple of bad days where we missed a couple," he said. Over the last three months, we have tried to do a lot of things to try and improve it like changing different settings on the cameras. There's a lot of pressure on us to get everything right."

Now, there is also pressure on the players to know when and how to use the technology. Shane Watson could have avoided being the first Australia wicket to fall in their second innings had he reviewed his lbw decision against Dale Steyn - replays showed the ball was going over the stumps. Ricky Ponting asked for his to go to the third umpire, which turned out to be a waste of an Australia review. Vernon Philander called for a review when he thought he had trapped Shaun Marsh lbw, only to be turned down.

With players from both sides appearing stunned at the sheer volume of events that took place on the second day of what will become a truncated Test, the one positive thing they agreed on was that the use of technology benefitted the game. "For the big inside edge or the big caught behind with Hot Spot, its working well," Michael Clarke said. Jacques Rudolph, who had a catch he had taken checked by the third umpire, agreed. "I like it [DRS], because I think if you can bring technology into the game and maybe help the umpires a bit that's a good thing."

Firdose Moonda is ESPNcricinfo's South Africa correspondent

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • RandyOZ on November 12, 2011, 5:02 GMT

    Surely some Indian fans support UDRS? Why do you all jump to the rescue of the BCCI? You don't have to agree with them. It is this bandwagon support as to why your team got crushed 4-0 in England. If no one stands up nothing changes.

  • SanjivAwesome on November 12, 2011, 3:18 GMT

    They've fine tuned the technology and that has clearly improved its accuracy. Bravo. It remains to be seen if these improvements are a flash in the pan or are robust, permanent fixes.

  • on November 12, 2011, 2:04 GMT

    If the BCCI doesn't want the full use of technology in test matches it plays, so be it. In the upcoming series against Australia, Australia can use it, and India can't. Sounds fair to me.

  • TheMysteryMan on November 11, 2011, 22:18 GMT

    Actually this showed how inconsistent DRS has been in past. The Ball 16.6 where Morkel appealed is perfect example of inconsistency in the decision making. Same thing happened to Laxman in England where hot spot actually worked but didnt show edge but he was given out on the basis of sound of faint nick which was again heard here. Similar thing with dravid. But here the right decision of giving him not out and actually giving benefit of doubt to the batsman. Opposite happened in England. Unless ICC holds a in depth training session for all umpires to rule out such inconsistencies, DRS will remain questionable.

    LBWs were marginal even in yesterdays match with couple of lucky decisions going with the bowling side.

    yes, technology can reduce the mistakes, but it should not cause additional mistakes. Specially when its used to decide the fate of batsman who can be sent to pavilion again but cannot come out to bat in the same innings again. Benefit of doubt must go to batsman.

  • ajmal1988 on November 11, 2011, 22:02 GMT

    The test series between South Africa and Australia shows how important it is to have DRS in place; the pakistan vs sri lanka test series shows what happens if DRS is not in place; really poor umpiring over there (even simon taufel struggled). When ever there is a decision being given, the broadcasters always go on to show the replays and then the commentators discuss the decision. The broadcasters are going to show it anyway and if they do things like that then there has to be DRS in place. Why do a lot of commentators say " if DRS was in place this would have been given put"? stick to one thing, either you have DRS or the TV broadcasters has to stop showing replays so that there will not be a discussion all the time at every decision; GET ON WITH THINGS !

  • SRT_GENIUS on November 11, 2011, 19:52 GMT

    Wow.. this was probably the most fair and balanced article on the topic I have read till now.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on November 11, 2011, 19:34 GMT

    And why do India remain the only country against this fantastic technology? Probably because exactly what happened to Australia in this match could quite easily happen to India, especially at the moment. The BCCI, with more than enough money to fork out for hotspot etc, has no doubt estimated that this probably adds another 200 runs to any innings total that India makes. And considering how hard India find it to get past 200 these days.....

  • NaniIndCri on November 11, 2011, 19:23 GMT

    For people commenting that this match is a justification for DRS, First you are all assuming that the DRS gave correct decisions, what is the proof that the DRS made right decisions? It just gives a trajectory that it thinks the ball would be heading towards, its as good as an umpires guess. Second, some countries cannot even afford this technology (strangely they support this). Third, Some countries will always oppose what BCCI does. And finally for financial benefits of some company this technology is being forced upon all teams.

  • Shan_Karthic on November 11, 2011, 19:02 GMT

    Why is it acceptable for a pitch to assist fast bowlers to take 23 wickets but when a subcontinent pitch assists spinners then the pitch is reported and reprimanded? Anyone remember recent Aus tour of SL?

  • zico123 on November 11, 2011, 15:04 GMT

    so far Australia carry Mr old Punter and Mr Inconsistent Johnson Australia would not go forward and stay at 4-5 in ranking, both of them should have been dropped 2 years back

  • RandyOZ on November 12, 2011, 5:02 GMT

    Surely some Indian fans support UDRS? Why do you all jump to the rescue of the BCCI? You don't have to agree with them. It is this bandwagon support as to why your team got crushed 4-0 in England. If no one stands up nothing changes.

  • SanjivAwesome on November 12, 2011, 3:18 GMT

    They've fine tuned the technology and that has clearly improved its accuracy. Bravo. It remains to be seen if these improvements are a flash in the pan or are robust, permanent fixes.

  • on November 12, 2011, 2:04 GMT

    If the BCCI doesn't want the full use of technology in test matches it plays, so be it. In the upcoming series against Australia, Australia can use it, and India can't. Sounds fair to me.

  • TheMysteryMan on November 11, 2011, 22:18 GMT

    Actually this showed how inconsistent DRS has been in past. The Ball 16.6 where Morkel appealed is perfect example of inconsistency in the decision making. Same thing happened to Laxman in England where hot spot actually worked but didnt show edge but he was given out on the basis of sound of faint nick which was again heard here. Similar thing with dravid. But here the right decision of giving him not out and actually giving benefit of doubt to the batsman. Opposite happened in England. Unless ICC holds a in depth training session for all umpires to rule out such inconsistencies, DRS will remain questionable.

    LBWs were marginal even in yesterdays match with couple of lucky decisions going with the bowling side.

    yes, technology can reduce the mistakes, but it should not cause additional mistakes. Specially when its used to decide the fate of batsman who can be sent to pavilion again but cannot come out to bat in the same innings again. Benefit of doubt must go to batsman.

  • ajmal1988 on November 11, 2011, 22:02 GMT

    The test series between South Africa and Australia shows how important it is to have DRS in place; the pakistan vs sri lanka test series shows what happens if DRS is not in place; really poor umpiring over there (even simon taufel struggled). When ever there is a decision being given, the broadcasters always go on to show the replays and then the commentators discuss the decision. The broadcasters are going to show it anyway and if they do things like that then there has to be DRS in place. Why do a lot of commentators say " if DRS was in place this would have been given put"? stick to one thing, either you have DRS or the TV broadcasters has to stop showing replays so that there will not be a discussion all the time at every decision; GET ON WITH THINGS !

  • SRT_GENIUS on November 11, 2011, 19:52 GMT

    Wow.. this was probably the most fair and balanced article on the topic I have read till now.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on November 11, 2011, 19:34 GMT

    And why do India remain the only country against this fantastic technology? Probably because exactly what happened to Australia in this match could quite easily happen to India, especially at the moment. The BCCI, with more than enough money to fork out for hotspot etc, has no doubt estimated that this probably adds another 200 runs to any innings total that India makes. And considering how hard India find it to get past 200 these days.....

  • NaniIndCri on November 11, 2011, 19:23 GMT

    For people commenting that this match is a justification for DRS, First you are all assuming that the DRS gave correct decisions, what is the proof that the DRS made right decisions? It just gives a trajectory that it thinks the ball would be heading towards, its as good as an umpires guess. Second, some countries cannot even afford this technology (strangely they support this). Third, Some countries will always oppose what BCCI does. And finally for financial benefits of some company this technology is being forced upon all teams.

  • Shan_Karthic on November 11, 2011, 19:02 GMT

    Why is it acceptable for a pitch to assist fast bowlers to take 23 wickets but when a subcontinent pitch assists spinners then the pitch is reported and reprimanded? Anyone remember recent Aus tour of SL?

  • zico123 on November 11, 2011, 15:04 GMT

    so far Australia carry Mr old Punter and Mr Inconsistent Johnson Australia would not go forward and stay at 4-5 in ranking, both of them should have been dropped 2 years back

  • bumsonseats on November 11, 2011, 15:00 GMT

    if u are an armchair watcher of cricket, the udrs makes good viewing, watching all the stages i find, does not bother my viewing. people who say it takes to long, i would say if it get the decisions over 90% right thats better than the men with white coats. i watch super league ( rugby league ) in the uk the ozzie new zealanders watch similar in their own countries. other than forward passes, anything in doubt goes to video referal and i think in that sport its very near 100% right and if they cannot after many viewings, may give it benifit of doubt. similar in cricket the batter should get the benifit of doubt, and that built into the udrs. i just think the eng.aus/sa use it better than others. and india refusal to use it is because they have not worked how to use it. is it that they appeal more than most maybe. but i cannot understand how they can stop the will of the majority. dpk

  • on November 11, 2011, 14:49 GMT

    1) Technology certainly helps. But, as one post said, 3-dimentional view of naked eye is more reliable than the 2-dimensional view in the screen. 2) Ball-tracking: Projection beyond is just that-- projection. All projections entail error. Longer the distance greater the error.Inventor himself admits. 3) Snicko & stump microphone: Even if the ball does not touch the bat, the air friction of two moving objects ( ball & bat) generates noise (Like the sudden jump in noise of two fast moving cars crossing each other) 4)Hot Spot: Even if there is an impact of two objects, it needs a minimum grammes per square inch (a unit to measure impact) for hot shot to show up. Use the technology, for heavens sake, but keep these in mind. I can mention many instances, where sound judgement of good umpires were reversed, which made them look foolish. Check with them. I have, with one. But they dont come out in the open. fearing (a) being labelled as regressive, or (b) getting dropped from the ICC panel

  • on November 11, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    Australia 2nd Innings: Ball 16.6 Bowler M Morkel. Batsman P Siddle: Cricinfo:16.6 Morkel to Siddle, no run, South Africa have asked for a review for a caught-behind appeal that was given not out. Morkel is certain, but only he appealed. Siddle had backed away and come down the pitch to swat the ball through the off side. He missed and the ball was collected by Boucher, who did not appeal. Hot Spot will be needed. The slow motion replays don't reveal an edge, there is a small noise, very faint. There are no Hot Spot replays available for some reason. TV commentators say because "it is out of range". It remains not out, Siddle can bat on. This aspect should also be looked into. what do you say??

  • amitgarg78 on November 11, 2011, 10:51 GMT

    @synex Mate, we are all allowed to believe what we want to, so you can go on believing this. BCCI's record as flag bearers of the game may cost them the support of ppl like you but they are well entitled to reject something if they are not convinced of its accuracy. That's democracy for you. If other boards are convinced they can always overrule an objection in the ICC meetings. But that does call for more spine, less greed from other boards. It also calls for proof to counter the argument BCCI makes. We all know the blame is easy to assign to others than look inwards!

  • ARad on November 11, 2011, 10:23 GMT

    @avitalks: If unpredictability is good for the game, how about adding a toss at a random time once per session that may give the batsman who would face the next delivery out? ;-) Unpredictability is indeed part of what makes sports appealing but that we should try to reduce it coming at the expense of the FAIRNESS to those who play the sports. DRS is not perfect. NOTHING IS. Nitpicking its imperfections and faults will not change the fact that it does REDUCE UNNECESSARY UNPREDICTABILITY AND MISTAKES when it is combined with the prudent decision making efforts of both the on-field and TV umpires.

  • satish619chandar on November 11, 2011, 9:08 GMT

    @Synex_SL -: Well said but you yourself agreed that India are on the receiving end of most of the howlers from DRS.. Then how come the world expect them to pay for it(Even if ICC pays, it is India's money).. There is nothing wrong on their part to demand a solution which will be feasible and consistent for all the nations.. Make some rules which MUST be followed. .Either technology or human.. Dont induce common sense with technology.. And regarding the minor scratch in Rudolph's dismissal, it can be anything.. You cant assume a scratch as an edge as Hotspot has the tendency to show minor scratches every now n then even if ball doesnt hit the bat.. All BCCI asks is a reliable technology and consistent usage of it!! Why not provide it to the highest stake holders of the runners of the game??

  • Clint_ZA on November 11, 2011, 9:07 GMT

    @satish619chandar : There is no way a third umpire can make a call on a possible edge by just reviewing normal replays. Even for other decisions the 2 dimensional effect of viewing on a TV screen makes a call more difficult than seeing it with the naked eye so I fail to see how mere use of a normal TV replay will substantially improve things.

    Why not use hot spot or ball tracking? I really fail see see the merit in the arguments against it. You agree that a 3rd umpire watching a normal replay would be acceptable but if you consider an LBW appeal they are going to exactly the same as ball tracking in their heads. They will be "predicting" the track of the ball and making a decision on this but without the accuracy afforded by technology and science.

    What's the point in showing TV viewers that the ball would have hit the wickets but not sharing this with the people that really matter, the umpires?

  • indianpunter on November 11, 2011, 8:53 GMT

    DRS is neither the magic potion nor the best thing since sliced Bread. Of course, the peddlers of this technology will say that !! I have a huge issue with the predictive path, but am all for using Hawkeye and Hotspot till the point of impact to decide inside edge/ pitching in line or not/ pad or bat first etc. Give the prediction to the on field umpire.

  • Synex_SL on November 11, 2011, 8:45 GMT

    @satish619chandar I saw all the reviews on TV and I'm sure I saw a tiny scratch on Rudolph's bat via the hot spot.

    I think it's high time people who opposes this embrace the technology fully and see how it goes without saying I need this part I need that part. I said it one and will say it again India do not like UDRS because they have been in the receiving end in all cases from the first time it was tested in SL. Other than one person who talked physics in some sense all the others believe what BCCI says and say NO just for the sake of saying it. I would like to ask the people who always chant NO would the mankind ever send a rocket to the Moon if we were looking for 100%.

    Cricinfo please publish this.

  • satish619chandar on November 11, 2011, 8:00 GMT

    Even on this day's play, we cant be sure of the Hawk eye or the Ball tracker.. I would still go with pitch map and the third umpire making the decision using the replay.. Keep it simple to avoid any inconsistency.. let the umpires be honest and follow the same rules for everyone.. Let us not jump over incorrect and inconclusive technologies!! Review is good thing to happen.. Can avoid howlers.. Howlers can surely be found by the third umpire using the normal replays..

  • satish619chandar on November 11, 2011, 7:57 GMT

    @landl47 - It could be the best possible but not every appeal can be discussed by the umpires.. It would take more time.. The onus should be a DRS where you go by rule book.. Just like leg side wide.. Even if just outside, it is out.. Likewise, if you depend on technology(Hot spot), give it out even if you hear sound or see deflection.. Same applies to the Haw keye too.. Don't put limitations like 2.5 m.. If technology cant provide correct solution it, don't embrace it..

  • We_Win_All on November 11, 2011, 7:56 GMT

    @Amit 23 wickets falling in a day and no one crying hoarse about the quality of the wicket?? Why? Because the wickets fell to seamers??!!.... I support u fully on this man.... But the only reason they are not reporting is the pitch is in SA. others are jealous about Subcontinent's financial clout and hence they make such silly comments

  • satish619chandar on November 11, 2011, 7:56 GMT

    @landl47 - It could be the best possible but not every appeal can be discussed by the umpires.. It would take more time.. The onus should be a DRS where you go by rule book.. Just like leg side wide.. Even if just outside, it is out.. Likewise, if you depend on technology(Hot spot), give it out even if you hear sound or see deflection.. Same applies to the Haw keye too.. Don't put limitations like 2.5 m.. If technology cant provide correct solution it, don't embrace it..

  • on November 11, 2011, 7:45 GMT

    I felt this is very biased article in order to support DRS.

    1. Hawk Eye has a lot of limitation. To me, Hasim Amla was not out. DRS turned a good umpiring decision to a wrong decision. Same applies to AB Deviliers. 2. Hawk Eye was not available to last wicket apeal done by SA. When technology was not available, he was turned not-out and yet SA lost the review. Was it there fault that Hawk-Eye not available?

  • atuljain1969 on November 11, 2011, 7:42 GMT

    Using Ball tracking technology for LBW decisions, I am not aware whether top players have been made to see its accuracy on sample basis with regard to the height a ball attains while crossing the stumps. Also one is not convinces about the line ball follows after it lands on the pitch as per this technology.

    Yesterday, with the kind of decisions given after usage of DRS, one is tempted to ask such questions. S. African pitches are supposed to be bouncy, much bouncier then Indian wickets and this technology yesterday hinted at the ball hitting the stumps even when it struck quite high on pads. So personally I am not convinced about its accuracy unless a sample referral check is made on the ground before each test match starts and is used as base for decision making in that test match.

  • avitalks on November 11, 2011, 6:09 GMT

    For all the supporters of technology, here's a question. Do we want DRS to make it easier for us to accept a result? I thought unpredictability is what made watching a game so much fun. And umpiring errors (not howlers) is part of that unpredictability. Then again, I guess I will be labelled old-fashioned...

  • mak102480 on November 11, 2011, 5:49 GMT

    Apart from getting a few correct decisions, DRS has shown a lot of flaws as well - in the past 6 months as well as even in this match. The Watson dismissal in the 2nd innings showed that the ball was going over the top...it hit him way below the knee roll (he didn't review it though) and shouldn't have been anywhere near the top. And if DRS gets half wrong/half right, well, then a human can do that as well. Agreed that DRS should be used to get rid of the howlers, but some of the decisions (AB De villers' dismissal for example) are borderline and even those are getting overturned.

  • dr.jha on November 11, 2011, 5:37 GMT

    for the last wkt of aus innings... hot spot was " out of range " ... that was bizzare and should have been mentioned in the article... however ... good job drs... really commendable

  • chiko123 on November 11, 2011, 5:29 GMT

    Who guarantees that the decisions "corrected" by technology were correct? Umpires being wrong on so many occasions in unbelievable. As well, how come the bowlers were right with their calls for review - they don't have the best judgement for the wicket to wicket line because they are running at an angle. I still think there is something wrong with the UDRS and I this day supports my hypothesis.

  • on November 11, 2011, 5:18 GMT

    The Same Hot Spot was giving blunders in the English summer and after just one supposedly good day, they feel vindicated!! More than technology it was the dilution of it with human mind which was the main reason for the blunders in England. Simple logic dictates that if you accept that a white mark on hot spot signifies a edge then a white mark missing should signify an edge missing. The latter was not followed in England and resulted in couple of dubious decisions where in inspite of hot spot missing the batsman was given out on some freak visual deviation which is contentious to say the least!!

    The article failed to mention one of the reviews by Morkel against Siddle I think right at the end when the hot spot could not provide anything as it was out of range..

  • hris on November 11, 2011, 5:11 GMT

    Umpires make mistakes like players do. There will be good umpire and bad ones. mistakes happen. Thats why we need tech to help the umpires. As long as we get more correct decisions with tech. as compared to not having it, then its justified. And thats exactly the case here. Even in the Odi series, the technology proved its worth.Two decisions in the 3rd odi were overturned. Its not about whether it is perfect or not. It will never be perfect. The question to be asked is -- is it better than not having it? and the answer is surely YES. The only issue worth debating is the cost. And India, OZ, SA, NZ, Eng have no problems there. Only in matches involving Westindies, SL and pak- we should consider playing without it.

  • ebbie-qld on November 11, 2011, 5:06 GMT

    Interesting to see again comments from Indian supporters , telling us what an evil technology DRS is, yet it is the same supporters who scream "blue murder" when a certain indian player gets a dodgy decision. Wake up, DRS is here and the BCCI needs to grow up and realise it helps improve the chance of getting umpiring decisions right most times. It ain't perfect but it helps a hell of a lot more than its hinders.

  • landl47 on November 11, 2011, 4:29 GMT

    All the decisions that were reviewed received the correct verdict. My only complaint is that there's not enough rechnology being used; Watson was given out and didn't want to risk wasting a review, so he went off. A review would have reversed the decision. ALL decisions should be decided upon by the 3 umpires working together- just as happens for run-outs or stumpings. The fielding side appeals, the 3 umpires confer and the decision is given and that's it. No need for either side to think about whether to review, because the best decision possible will be given every time. Give the control of the game back to the umpires, the only difference being that now there are 3 of them.

  • Longmemory on November 11, 2011, 4:18 GMT

    I'm all for the UDRS and Hotspot and other technologies available - but for a different reason from the ones given by most. I am sick and tired of the ways in which cricket has changed to the advantage of the batsman - helmets, pads all over the body, covered pitches, one bouncer an over, balls a fraction outside leg stump called wide (in ODIs and 20/20) - you name it, every change has benefited the batters, who should more accurately be called batterers. This technology has a clear bias in favor of bowlers. It also seems to influence umpires into upholding more appeals and daring the batter to reverse the decision. Frankly, its lovely to see so many wickets fall in a heap - and to see bowlers so obviously enjoying themselves. Bring it on ! Here's to a more even balance between batsman and bowler!

  • on November 11, 2011, 4:15 GMT

    23 wickets falling in a day and no one crying hoarse about the quality of the wicket?? Why? Because the wickets fell to seamers??!! What are the odds that the pitch might have been reported as under-prepared had 23 wickets fallen to spinners on a subcontinental pitch??

  • satish619chandar on November 11, 2011, 4:13 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs - The issue with BCCI is, they bring the 70% revenue to ICC.. Why not ICC get the same amount of money from all the nations and run the body? If u need 70% money from one partner to run a company, he MUST be the boss.. They do have valid reasons to be against technology.. Could u be so sure ABD and Punter decisions are perfect? DRS showed it marginal but with its flaw in accuracy, i cant be so sure of the decision.. How about the hotspot of Rudolph dismissal? Ans Siddle's referral?

  • Gupta.Ankur on November 11, 2011, 4:13 GMT

    More than people justifying the use of DRS.....people must ask why so many decisions had to be reviewed in the 1st place?

  • satish619chandar on November 11, 2011, 4:03 GMT

    I do agree DRS is benefit but it has its own flaws.. Did anyone notice Rudolph's wicket and the hot spot replays? It was a clear edge and good deflection but HOTSPOT showed none!! What should an umpire do if it was reviewed? Use common sense or rely on technology? I would say get rid of the overexpensive and not foolproof technology and live with common sense of the third umpire..

  • Meety on November 11, 2011, 2:56 GMT

    Yep UDRS is here to stay. Why? 'cos the fact is with that many wickets tumbling, there would of been disputes by some fan somewhere & (if India had been playing this website would of crashed with blogs of hysterical complaints), the fact is nobody is talking about the umpires making howlers. Fair is fair 23 wickets in a day & no conplaints!

  • MasterClass on November 11, 2011, 2:44 GMT

    For faint edges or lbw I can see one standing his ground. But with a massive edge and hotspot in place one has to wonder why a batsman doesn't just walk? One would think he would care about his reputation of not being labeled a cheat. Seems a pretty straight-forward decision.

  • on November 11, 2011, 2:11 GMT

    The problem is the dilution of technology with human thinking. If more than half the ball is predicted to hit the stumps, it should be OUT and not left to the on-field umpire/third umpire/technicians call. The equipment operation and manipulation of ball tracking and hot spot should be done with qualified technical representatives of both teams present. We have seen wrong data being used as input to ball tracking, hot spot, no-ball replay. The qualification required for on-field umpiring could be reduced and local umpires could be used.

  • W2NTED on November 11, 2011, 1:53 GMT

    Great example of DRS and why it is important. People are right ICC should make the use of DRS compulsory for all cricketing nations regardless if they oppose it or not. You are right only countries with dead pitches are against it. DRS is here to stay!!!!

  • johnathonjosephs on November 11, 2011, 1:39 GMT

    BCCI needs to watch this match 10X over. Or maybe just the wickets that fell along with the reviewing. I have not seen a match so far that has tested almost all aspects of the UDRS system as this one

  • on November 11, 2011, 1:30 GMT

    If the ICC had listened to the mindless BCCI and removed the DRS, we would have seen Amla, AB and Kallis batting all day without the huge collapses and excitement following and we (Aus) would have had to bend our back and work the whole day ruefully. The DRS saved the day yet again and shows why it should be here! Those who oppose it just fail to live in the practical world of justified imperfections!

  • Chris_Howard on November 11, 2011, 1:21 GMT

    I support the UDRS for the obvious mistakes, but something doesn't feel right for these line-ball ones. I know we can't have it both ways, so we will just have to go forward with UDRS and accept that one of the subtle human factors will be gone.

  • on November 11, 2011, 1:13 GMT

    Technology helps. But as an ex-student of Physics, let me tell you that both Hotspot and Stump microphone could give wrong and unfair decisions. For Hotspot, the impact should be sufficient enough to show the spot. So a batsman who had a feather touch of the bat into WK's glows will get a jail break -- wrongly. Snoicko goes in the other wrong direction. When the ball passes the bat close enough , but without any touch of the bat, it creates noise. Though not out, stump microphone will wrongly say out. Snicko will also wrongly say out. Ask any good elite umpire, he would say that they have experienced such wrong results after the review. Yes, for obvious errors the tech is good. Then such umpires should be dropped by ICC at the earliest opportunity. Let me assert, I am not against Technology, per se. But am aware of its limitations

  • on November 11, 2011, 0:43 GMT

    i hope BCCI is watching this test match and might learn from it.

  • Rowayton on November 11, 2011, 0:41 GMT

    The de Villiers one made me a bit nervous - I am an umpire and had a decision just like that a couple of weeks ago. Gave the batsman not out and said to the bowler 'he hit it', but I suspected it had hit the pad first. Fortunately we have no DRS in Australian Grade cricket!

  • Sulaimaan91 on November 10, 2011, 23:46 GMT

    If Cricinfo could give a statistical comparison, on this match/series with the Pak-SL series(where no DRS was used), it would become quite obvious as to how important technology is to cricket.

  • Ropsh on November 10, 2011, 23:14 GMT

    Wrong. Hawkeye's predictive path has not been proven to be accurate, and until they start showing confidence intervals around the predictive path there is no basis for believing that the predictive path is anything but a random guess.

  • Raju_Iyer on November 10, 2011, 22:50 GMT

    The article missed two points - when Morkel was convinced he had Siddle caught behind, Hot Spot could not come on being "out of range". Also as the reviews started increasing the umpires seemed to be more "trigger happy" raising their finger for LBW much more easily. It was also funny to hear the boss of hotspot saying they had a couple of bad days when they missed a couple! So then if nothing is perfect, either we should leave it to umpires and accept some bad decisions or have the technology for them to ask for assitance. This drama of players appealing for a review does not help as we saw in the examples mentioned above - do players now need to develop a new skill for deciding when to review and when not - maybe each team to have a UDRS coach??!!

  • on November 10, 2011, 21:22 GMT

    Intersting article... however, I wouldnt think a ball shaving the outer half of leg stump or the top of a bail...would/should be out for a LBW decision. Nice to advertise about the technology...but I guess it has a long way to go before it is foolproof.

  • on November 10, 2011, 21:03 GMT

    Great example of DRS and why it is important. ICC need to watch this match.

  • ThKhan on November 10, 2011, 21:03 GMT

    Learn from this INDIA!!! i hope they will not argue for DRS against their series with AUS

  • on November 10, 2011, 20:53 GMT

    the issue is not about how many times a certain DRS technology was used or how many decisions were changed because of it. The issue, on the other hand, is if the technology ended up giving the right result; in other words, did it lead to recreation of the reality. That is where BCCI stands against the use of DRS, it's not against the use of technology.

  • libinbond on November 10, 2011, 20:52 GMT

    We just finished a Test in India which was just as much a show for NOT having too much technology interfere with decision making. Outs were met with batsmen walking off, and Not Outs had bowlers walking back to their marks and bowling the next ball. I'm probably gonna get panned as an "Indian supporter", but I did enjoy not knowing the ball was gonna clip 2mm below the left bail, or that a batsman was hit 2.53255 mts away from the stumps. What you saw, was what the umpire saw and no one cribbed or complained. Was refreshing.. I am not proposing either of them, all I can say is awesome technology does not a great test match make.

  • kabe_ag7 on November 10, 2011, 20:03 GMT

    I am in favor of using technology. I would definitely go for hot-spot even though it failed on a couple of occasions in India-England test. But I have slightly more doubts about ball tracking. A viewer can judge the correctness and accuracy of Hot-Spot because of accompanying evidence by slow-motion camera and snicko. However there is no way to judge the accuracy of ball tracking. How do we know whether the ball shown to be hitting would have actually hit? A viewer in most cases has little evidence to confirm either way. And he might challenge its accuracy only when it is very obviously wrong. Which it was in the case of lbw of Hughes by Dilshan when it was apparent even by the naked eye that ball tracking had got it wrong. Point being, there is a case of confirmation bias when it comes to judging the accuracy of ball tracking. It could be making mistakes which viewers can never really spot. Unlike Hotspot,it's accuracy can't be judged in real-time and can only be tested by experiments

  • Baundele on November 10, 2011, 19:48 GMT

    Technology is a blessing, cricket should use them properly.

  • on November 10, 2011, 19:26 GMT

    I agree with the technology is good but I believe it also highlighted something which we are ignoring which is umpiring standards with umpires getting so wrong. Also, I think technology does bit really work on sharp turning wickets on sub continent and tricks by clever spinners with their fingers and wrist. Hughes dismissal in Srilanka and Saeed Ajmal's delivery in word cup to Tendulkar how do DRS an offspinner has bowled a dossra just by changing his wrist position and also how does it know that it has hit a crack just outside off stump outside to turn very big instead of conventional turn. If technology cannot take tricks of this game, then I am sorry it does not work.

  • SnowSnake on November 10, 2011, 19:11 GMT

    I believe that Umpires do a poor job in presence of technology. Also, towards the end of Aussi 2nd innings when Morkel called for a review, the entire game changed into a academic debate because ball was out of range for hotspot technology. While I see that technology is giving an impression of fairness, it is ruining the game to a certain extent. Also, in one case (pointing?) the ball was just touching the bails. While Ponting was given out, the decision was only by few centimeters. I am not sure about that level of accuracy! In either case, no complains because teams decide whether to use technology or not. In the end, I respect the joint decision.

  • Hamza_1 on November 10, 2011, 19:08 GMT

    Today, UDRS slapped all those opposing the use of it.It should be mandatory atleast in subcontinent ( Only they are opposing it) where getting a batsman out is much more difficult because of unresponsive tracks.UDRS is a winner and it's here to stay.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Hamza_1 on November 10, 2011, 19:08 GMT

    Today, UDRS slapped all those opposing the use of it.It should be mandatory atleast in subcontinent ( Only they are opposing it) where getting a batsman out is much more difficult because of unresponsive tracks.UDRS is a winner and it's here to stay.

  • SnowSnake on November 10, 2011, 19:11 GMT

    I believe that Umpires do a poor job in presence of technology. Also, towards the end of Aussi 2nd innings when Morkel called for a review, the entire game changed into a academic debate because ball was out of range for hotspot technology. While I see that technology is giving an impression of fairness, it is ruining the game to a certain extent. Also, in one case (pointing?) the ball was just touching the bails. While Ponting was given out, the decision was only by few centimeters. I am not sure about that level of accuracy! In either case, no complains because teams decide whether to use technology or not. In the end, I respect the joint decision.

  • on November 10, 2011, 19:26 GMT

    I agree with the technology is good but I believe it also highlighted something which we are ignoring which is umpiring standards with umpires getting so wrong. Also, I think technology does bit really work on sharp turning wickets on sub continent and tricks by clever spinners with their fingers and wrist. Hughes dismissal in Srilanka and Saeed Ajmal's delivery in word cup to Tendulkar how do DRS an offspinner has bowled a dossra just by changing his wrist position and also how does it know that it has hit a crack just outside off stump outside to turn very big instead of conventional turn. If technology cannot take tricks of this game, then I am sorry it does not work.

  • Baundele on November 10, 2011, 19:48 GMT

    Technology is a blessing, cricket should use them properly.

  • kabe_ag7 on November 10, 2011, 20:03 GMT

    I am in favor of using technology. I would definitely go for hot-spot even though it failed on a couple of occasions in India-England test. But I have slightly more doubts about ball tracking. A viewer can judge the correctness and accuracy of Hot-Spot because of accompanying evidence by slow-motion camera and snicko. However there is no way to judge the accuracy of ball tracking. How do we know whether the ball shown to be hitting would have actually hit? A viewer in most cases has little evidence to confirm either way. And he might challenge its accuracy only when it is very obviously wrong. Which it was in the case of lbw of Hughes by Dilshan when it was apparent even by the naked eye that ball tracking had got it wrong. Point being, there is a case of confirmation bias when it comes to judging the accuracy of ball tracking. It could be making mistakes which viewers can never really spot. Unlike Hotspot,it's accuracy can't be judged in real-time and can only be tested by experiments

  • libinbond on November 10, 2011, 20:52 GMT

    We just finished a Test in India which was just as much a show for NOT having too much technology interfere with decision making. Outs were met with batsmen walking off, and Not Outs had bowlers walking back to their marks and bowling the next ball. I'm probably gonna get panned as an "Indian supporter", but I did enjoy not knowing the ball was gonna clip 2mm below the left bail, or that a batsman was hit 2.53255 mts away from the stumps. What you saw, was what the umpire saw and no one cribbed or complained. Was refreshing.. I am not proposing either of them, all I can say is awesome technology does not a great test match make.

  • on November 10, 2011, 20:53 GMT

    the issue is not about how many times a certain DRS technology was used or how many decisions were changed because of it. The issue, on the other hand, is if the technology ended up giving the right result; in other words, did it lead to recreation of the reality. That is where BCCI stands against the use of DRS, it's not against the use of technology.

  • ThKhan on November 10, 2011, 21:03 GMT

    Learn from this INDIA!!! i hope they will not argue for DRS against their series with AUS

  • on November 10, 2011, 21:03 GMT

    Great example of DRS and why it is important. ICC need to watch this match.

  • on November 10, 2011, 21:22 GMT

    Intersting article... however, I wouldnt think a ball shaving the outer half of leg stump or the top of a bail...would/should be out for a LBW decision. Nice to advertise about the technology...but I guess it has a long way to go before it is foolproof.