The Investec Ashes 2013 July 16, 2013

ICC defends umpires, DRS

  shares 197

The ICC has defended the performance of the umpires and the DRS after criticism following the Trent Bridge Test between England and Australia, whilst also admitting to errors in cases involving Jonathan Trott and Stuart Broad.

The ICC has taken the unusual step of revealing its assessment of the umpires and the DRS analysis from the Test, arguing that the figures vindicate both. Some mitigation was provided for the errors that did occur, the ICC suggesting the "added intensity" of a first Ashes Test had increased pressure on the officials.

According to the ICC, the umpires made a total of 72 decisions, which is well above the average (49) for a DRS Test match. The umpiring team, made up of Aleem Dar, Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus, was assessed to have made seven errors during the match, out of which three were uncorrected decisions and four decisions corrected using the DRS.

As such, the correct decision percentage before reviews stood at 90.3% but climbed to 95.8% as a result of the use of the DRS. This represented an increase of 5.5% in correct decisions, which was the average increase from DRS Test matches in 2012-13.

The three decisions that were marked as uncorrected errors included one against Trott when a correct lbw decision (not out against the bowling of Mitchell Starc) was overturned. The others involved Broad, both the edge that carried to slip via Brad Haddin's gloves and a leg-before shout where he did not offer a stroke, but neither but these could be corrected as Australia had no reviews available.

"When coupled with the conditions, with reverse swing and spin playing an important role, and the added intensity of the first Ashes Test, it was a difficult match to umpire," read the ICC statement.

The ICC's chief executive, David Richardson, added: "The umpires did a good job under difficult conditions. This reflects the calibre of umpires Dar, Dharmasena and Erasmus who have consistently performed at a high level. Like the players, umpires can also have good and bad days but we all know that the umpire's decision, right or wrong, is final and must be accepted.

"While the ICC has complete faith in the ability of its umpires, our confidence in technology is also strengthened by the fact that there was an increase in the number of correct decisions in the Trent Bridge Test through the use of the DRS.

"Technology was introduced with the objective of eradicating the obvious umpiring errors, and to get as many correct decisions as possible. If it can help increase the correct decisions by 5.5 percent, then it is a good outcome, but we must continue to strive to improve umpiring and the performance of the DRS."

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY _Australian_ on | July 17, 2013, 4:08 GMT

    At the moment DRS is really not doing the job it is supposed to do and for that I understand India's position. We are still getting errors. For hawk-eye as it is I am not a fan. A computer graphic of a ball half hitting the stumps is not conclusive enough evidence. To me this means there is doubt as hawk-eye is not 100% accurate, as it does not know weather conditions or ball conditions. DRS should be in place to eliminate the obvious wrong decisions not probable ones. It should also be taken out of the players hands and there should be no limit in test matches. Review all decisions. We all want correct decisions not he was out but we had no reviews so bad luck. It's not like it takes too much time and for me adds to the excitement. DRS or not I think the result of this game would not have changed. But DRS does have a place in the game but we need to review how it is utilised. Currently it is not right.

  • POSTED BY Ravraju on | July 19, 2013, 9:44 GMT

    Koshy Cherian says...... DRS is like setting a field for bad bowling. If the umpires made 2 howlers and the captain reviewed it, no more reviews. what will happen if the umpire makes more bad decision?

    Dude....., if howlers are reviewed and corrected then, they wont count. The 2 count is only for unsuccessful reviews so that the players dont review every ball and waste time. As long as the reviews are successful, they can make unlimited reviews, there is no limit. But once you make 2 unsuccessful reviews (which means the umpire was right), then you cant make more later in that innings. This will discourage players from reviewing each and every decision and they will do only if they are reasonably sure.

  • POSTED BY on | July 18, 2013, 22:46 GMT

    DRS is like setting a field for bad bowling. If the umpires made 2 howlers and the captain reviewed it, no more reviews. what will happen if the umpire makes more bad decision?

  • POSTED BY _Australian_ on | July 18, 2013, 20:28 GMT

    @bobgarof. The reason it does not make sense to you is you have misunderstood what I said. I did not say hawk eye should be removed. It is being used wrong.

  • POSTED BY coldcoffee123 on | July 18, 2013, 16:56 GMT

    @Cohen, increasing the time is only going to promote "tactical", "lets-take-a-gamble" type of reviews. I say take out DRS completely from players' hands. Umpires are using it so well for noballs, run-outs. Just give the umpires complete freedom regarding LBWs, nicks etc. All this 2-review thing is nonsense. What is there are 20 howlers in a game and the teams have no reviews left? Just give full freedom to umpires. I doubt all our posts are even read by anyone concerned (ICC, commentators, players,...)

  • POSTED BY on | July 18, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    I also believe the rush of deciding whether or not to refer the decision or not could be one reason for many wrong referrals. From the time of the appeal to referring is often too rushed, the time limit should probably be increased which could possibly allow the team to discuss whether to refer or not...

  • POSTED BY aiksa on | July 18, 2013, 13:49 GMT

    In my opinion, the number of DRS appeals allowed to the teams should be increased from the current 2 to at least 5 per innings. It will certainly help increase the number of correct decisions.

  • POSTED BY coldcoffee123 on | July 18, 2013, 11:16 GMT

    @Andre117, your suggestion of "give the TV umpire the option to stop the game" is even worse than DRS. If the TV umpire has the option to stop the game, then it will further kill the spontaneity of the game. After every decision, the players would be holding their breaths, just wondering if the TV umpire is going to stop the game. DRS is good. Give unlimited reviews to players. But, penalize the team 5 runs that uses it incorrectly. That way, the teams will use DRS when they know they are 100% certain that umpire made the mistake. It will also stop the abusive "tactical" use of DRS.

  • POSTED BY coldcoffee123 on | July 18, 2013, 11:10 GMT

    @H_Z_O, that is why I am advocating that LBW must be taken out of players' hands COMPLETELY. Only in case of edges, should a batsman be allowed to review, and penalized 5 runs if reviewed incorrectly. Why should a batsman be allowed to challenge umpires calls, if he is himself not 100% sure that the umpire made the wrong call? Just freaking kills the game for 5 minutes. There is no value addition to cricket by challenging the ball's trajectory. It is promoting dissent against umpires. Not good. If you have edged the ball, then of course you can challenge the umpire. I agree, Root challenged for the right reasons.

  • POSTED BY H_Z_O on | July 18, 2013, 10:50 GMT

    @coldcoffee123 Root's issue was he hit it. Tough to be sure whether it was after or before the ball struck the pad. Don't blame him reviewing it. Had nothing to do with the pitch map or HawkEye.

  • POSTED BY _Australian_ on | July 17, 2013, 4:08 GMT

    At the moment DRS is really not doing the job it is supposed to do and for that I understand India's position. We are still getting errors. For hawk-eye as it is I am not a fan. A computer graphic of a ball half hitting the stumps is not conclusive enough evidence. To me this means there is doubt as hawk-eye is not 100% accurate, as it does not know weather conditions or ball conditions. DRS should be in place to eliminate the obvious wrong decisions not probable ones. It should also be taken out of the players hands and there should be no limit in test matches. Review all decisions. We all want correct decisions not he was out but we had no reviews so bad luck. It's not like it takes too much time and for me adds to the excitement. DRS or not I think the result of this game would not have changed. But DRS does have a place in the game but we need to review how it is utilised. Currently it is not right.

  • POSTED BY Ravraju on | July 19, 2013, 9:44 GMT

    Koshy Cherian says...... DRS is like setting a field for bad bowling. If the umpires made 2 howlers and the captain reviewed it, no more reviews. what will happen if the umpire makes more bad decision?

    Dude....., if howlers are reviewed and corrected then, they wont count. The 2 count is only for unsuccessful reviews so that the players dont review every ball and waste time. As long as the reviews are successful, they can make unlimited reviews, there is no limit. But once you make 2 unsuccessful reviews (which means the umpire was right), then you cant make more later in that innings. This will discourage players from reviewing each and every decision and they will do only if they are reasonably sure.

  • POSTED BY on | July 18, 2013, 22:46 GMT

    DRS is like setting a field for bad bowling. If the umpires made 2 howlers and the captain reviewed it, no more reviews. what will happen if the umpire makes more bad decision?

  • POSTED BY _Australian_ on | July 18, 2013, 20:28 GMT

    @bobgarof. The reason it does not make sense to you is you have misunderstood what I said. I did not say hawk eye should be removed. It is being used wrong.

  • POSTED BY coldcoffee123 on | July 18, 2013, 16:56 GMT

    @Cohen, increasing the time is only going to promote "tactical", "lets-take-a-gamble" type of reviews. I say take out DRS completely from players' hands. Umpires are using it so well for noballs, run-outs. Just give the umpires complete freedom regarding LBWs, nicks etc. All this 2-review thing is nonsense. What is there are 20 howlers in a game and the teams have no reviews left? Just give full freedom to umpires. I doubt all our posts are even read by anyone concerned (ICC, commentators, players,...)

  • POSTED BY on | July 18, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    I also believe the rush of deciding whether or not to refer the decision or not could be one reason for many wrong referrals. From the time of the appeal to referring is often too rushed, the time limit should probably be increased which could possibly allow the team to discuss whether to refer or not...

  • POSTED BY aiksa on | July 18, 2013, 13:49 GMT

    In my opinion, the number of DRS appeals allowed to the teams should be increased from the current 2 to at least 5 per innings. It will certainly help increase the number of correct decisions.

  • POSTED BY coldcoffee123 on | July 18, 2013, 11:16 GMT

    @Andre117, your suggestion of "give the TV umpire the option to stop the game" is even worse than DRS. If the TV umpire has the option to stop the game, then it will further kill the spontaneity of the game. After every decision, the players would be holding their breaths, just wondering if the TV umpire is going to stop the game. DRS is good. Give unlimited reviews to players. But, penalize the team 5 runs that uses it incorrectly. That way, the teams will use DRS when they know they are 100% certain that umpire made the mistake. It will also stop the abusive "tactical" use of DRS.

  • POSTED BY coldcoffee123 on | July 18, 2013, 11:10 GMT

    @H_Z_O, that is why I am advocating that LBW must be taken out of players' hands COMPLETELY. Only in case of edges, should a batsman be allowed to review, and penalized 5 runs if reviewed incorrectly. Why should a batsman be allowed to challenge umpires calls, if he is himself not 100% sure that the umpire made the wrong call? Just freaking kills the game for 5 minutes. There is no value addition to cricket by challenging the ball's trajectory. It is promoting dissent against umpires. Not good. If you have edged the ball, then of course you can challenge the umpire. I agree, Root challenged for the right reasons.

  • POSTED BY H_Z_O on | July 18, 2013, 10:50 GMT

    @coldcoffee123 Root's issue was he hit it. Tough to be sure whether it was after or before the ball struck the pad. Don't blame him reviewing it. Had nothing to do with the pitch map or HawkEye.

  • POSTED BY coldcoffee123 on | July 18, 2013, 10:42 GMT

    Please get rid of the lbw replays with the blue strip and the ball's trajectory. Cricket does not need this. After every lbw decision, the commentators start talking about, line, pitch, height blah blah. Just stop this nonsense and enjoy the moment, as Gilchrist has also advocated. It is as obnoxious as hearing Aussies talk about team culture, environment, group dynamics, standards, homework blah blah. The umpire makes the lbw decision, accept it, live with it. Root reviewed the decision and bloody stopped the game dead on for 4 minutes.

  • POSTED BY H_Z_O on | July 18, 2013, 10:13 GMT

    @Shan_Karthic "There has been no scientifically reviewed results"

    The MCC ran Tests. The margin of error is known and has been accounted for. The other thing to bear in mind is that the laws say the umpires are to assume the ball would carry on along the same trajectory, under law 36 (section 2b).

    The margin of error is 5mm in most cases. At most it's 25mm. And "Umpire's Call" covers 45mm, which is more than the width of a stump, just to be safe.

    @jasonmad actually the umpires are specifically not supposed to guess what the ball might do. They're supposed to assume the ball will carry on along the current path. You really need to read Law 36 (section 2b).

    @Rockers11.1 Nasser actually accepted it was pitching in line later on commentary and pointed out to Holding that a slowed down video with the pitch map (you could see the stumps so it was an accurate one) overlaid showed the ball pitching on leg, quite comfortably. More than the Hawk-Eye representation suggest, actually.

  • POSTED BY KCKCKC on | July 18, 2013, 9:14 GMT

    Apologies for the typos. That was 'tuppenny worth' not 'tulle my' and ' reaction to victory and defeat on the field' not 'fix' and it was television moment not tevision

  • POSTED BY KCKCKC on | July 18, 2013, 8:44 GMT

    As for DRS itself being a necessary 'evil', here's my tulle my worth- we live in times where everything seems testosterone induced. Appealing, century celebrations, sledging and eventually reaction to victory and defeat on the fix, in the media and off. So the time for walkers has gone and the code of conduct really is quite a confusing thing now, vaguely interpreted by players and administrators. In this winner takes all, you live and die in the moment scenario DRS seems a necessary policing device at worst. At best it adds to the 'tevision moment'

  • POSTED BY AlanHull on | July 18, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    The problems at Trent Bridge was not with the DRS but with the humans using it. The on field umpires and captains will always make mistakes as they have to make an instant decision without the chance of replays. The 3rd umpire, Erasmus in this case, had no such excuse with the Agar and Trott decisions as he had plenty of time to decide. Erasmus's mistakes were down to incompetence.

  • POSTED BY dmat on | July 18, 2013, 8:20 GMT

    One thing is certain - cricket will continue to throw up contentious umpiring decisions no matter how much we use the technology. It's too late to change anything for this series but I feel the umpires should be the sole decision maker when asking for reviews. I thought Agar was out on 6 but the third umpire ruled in his favour and the ICC have now effectively said this was a correct decision so England (more and their supporters) need to move on from that decision. Trott and Root were not out but chose not to refer the decision - perhaps the umpire would have if they considered it close enough and had the power to do so? Broad was out and was the most glaring mistake in the test. Whilst Clarke had wasted previous reviews and has no cause for complaint, it is theses types of decisions we are trying to eliminate. I know that players would pressure umpires to review decisions but they get all sort of pressure now and this process would give them back the power they should have.

  • POSTED BY KCKCKC on | July 18, 2013, 8:01 GMT

    Glass half full for me. All good things coming out of the first test. Points to consider. 1. Chappell's point of boards taking over DRS instead of broadcasters 2. Prior's point of decisions referred back to on field umpires (because hawk eye can't call it) - referral not deducted from the appealing team. OR The same call for balls marginally hitting stumps. It's either accurate or it's not. Period. Otherwise, all's well with test cricket

  • POSTED BY Andre117 on | July 18, 2013, 7:20 GMT

    I have always supported DRS as I have been one of many fans blowing fire at umpires making mistakes at crucial points in games. However, I agree with Gilchrist that it does take away from the game. Imagine the last ball in the last test match with a seriies at stake. A catch is given out and the fielding team has a huge celebration having won the series, getting ready to pull stumps out of the ground but the batsman asks for a review? I have seen some players looking unsure if they should celebrate because they know there is a chance of a review. I think it's killing the game.

    Another thing: what's wrong with 90%? DRS has only improved decisions by a paltry 5.5% I say remove the review completely and give the TV umpire the option to stop the game if he thinks a glaring mistake has been made.

  • POSTED BY S.Jagernath on | July 18, 2013, 6:32 GMT

    Forget DRS,the Broad mistake had a very slight affect on the overall outcome of the test.The main mistake was the Ashton Agar stumping,how Marais Erasmus could not see it as out is really odd.'Benefit of the doubt' is just an excuse for not doing their job properly.

  • POSTED BY Lord_Flashheart on | July 18, 2013, 6:24 GMT

    Only three uncorrected errors? I know for certain that Agar was stumped on 6. No guesswork involved - he was clearly out. Root has also said that he didn't hit the ball; neither hotspot (not very reliable) nor Snicko (very reliable) detected anything. Despite being unopposed by Root, it was still an uncorrected umpire error.

    DRS highlights the difficulty for the on-field umpires, when even with multiple replays and unlimited time, the third umpire still can't achieve the correct decision.

  • POSTED BY bobagorof on | July 18, 2013, 6:22 GMT

    @cricraz: probably because the LBW law has nothing to do with the umpire's ability to observe swing/turn of the ball. The fact that technology can more accurately register the pitch of the ball doesn't change the underlying reason for the rule - to stop the bowlers bowling outside leg and targeting batsman's stumps. It's much harder for the batsman to get his bat in the way, and you'd see every bowler bowling leg side to restrict runs. Not entertaining to watch.

  • POSTED BY bobagorof on | July 18, 2013, 6:08 GMT

    @_Australian_: "To me this means there is doubt as hawk-eye is not 100% accurate, as it does not know weather conditions or ball conditions" The human umpires are much less accurate even than hawk-eye. Arguing that we shouldn't use one system because it isn't 100% correct, and instead we should rely solely on a worse system, makes no sense.

    The issue is that the DRS is being used for a purpose it was not implemented for - reviewing close calls. A better system (for hawk-eye, at least) would be to display a 'cone of uncertainty' around the ball that illustrates scientific error inherent in any prediction. Then deem that anything that could fail due to error is Not Out. This would eliminate cases of LBWs being given where the ball is predicted to hit the stumps by a coat of varnish (as in Watson's case). I am, of course, assuming that once a decision is reviewed the final decision is taken based on evidence and without regard to the on-field umpire's original decision.

  • POSTED BY Alexk400 on | July 18, 2013, 5:54 GMT

    You can fix rules. You can fix implementation. Do not try to fix human flaws. Each one designed differently. Conman always tend to cheat because that comes naturally to them. Issue here is implementation of DRS which is flawed. Appeal system do not work in cricket like in NFL. We need buzzer system in that each team buzz 3rd umpire. No limits . But 3rd umpire can ignore on 50/50 decision in that case field umpire call stands. Also do not bring technology. Technology should not be sole criteria for DRS. Slow motion replay is more than enough. Ball tracking , hot spot helps but it should not be shown in TV for me. It confuses spectators. It can be tool for 3rd umpire at best. ICC people do not have brain to implement. You can't give all secrets and expect people to be quiet. Something is not for people to see. Because some decision 50/50 make people get analyse too much. Its not fault of DRS. DRS help 3rd umpire to stop howlers. Rest stay with field umpires. Remove appeal concept.

  • POSTED BY jasonmad on | July 18, 2013, 4:25 GMT

    The problem is with the LBW law, which is all about guessing what a ball might do, whether that prediction is made by a human umpire or a computer. Nothing can ever really completely eliminate that uncertainty. It's still a guess.

    Unfortunately the LBW law exists for a very good reason, so we're stuck with it unless someone can come up with another way to stop batsmen just padding the ball away all day..

  • POSTED BY Rockers11.1 on | July 18, 2013, 3:17 GMT

    ICC.. What about Hughes Lbw Swann? Nobody thought It pitched in line.. Michael Holding & Nasser hussain were surprised that DRS showed it pitched in line. With such huge turn, how did it pitch on leg stump and turned to hit middle? Why was it not even umpire's call? Surely Hawk eye and DRS are waste of time.

  • POSTED BY jimmy787 on | July 18, 2013, 2:27 GMT

    There is a lot wrong with the way DRS is currently administered by the ICC.

    For a start it's a joke that we (including players and commentators) are talking about which team used DRS well and which team didn't, as if it's a strategic decision.

    The game should foremost be about the spectacle of bat vs ball. Technology should play a peripheral role to the main spectacle. If technology should be used in the game, it should be used to get decisions right, pure and simple. Getting the correct decision should not be dependent on whether a team uses it "well" or not. Is it fair to deny a 19 year old debutant a wicket just because his captain had "badly" used his referrals? Or is it fairer to just get the correct decision full stop? I would suggest most cricket fans would prefer the latter.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 18, 2013, 1:56 GMT

    @cricraz on (July 17, 2013, 19:59 GMT), I'm afraid that you've made a fool of yourself there. The rule regarding a batsman not being able to be dismissed LBW if the ball pitches outside leg stump was introduced to prevent bowlers bowling a negative line. That has absolutely nothing to do with ball-tracking and the level of accuracy of ball-tracking would never be a reason to change that rule. You're talking nonsense, which is what quite a lot of people seem to do when they try to disparage DRS.

  • POSTED BY Shan_Karthic on | July 18, 2013, 1:14 GMT

    @H_Z_O: The question is not about the physics behind. The question is about limitations of a technical implementation. In many situations such as full length deliveries, there is not enough data points post the bounce point to accurately determine the course of the ball. What was tracked prior to the bounce point is immaterial. All that matters is how many data points one has post bounce point. For complex curves such as those traversed by a cricket ball, you need more than 2 or 3 data points. There has been no scientifically reviewed results showing how many data points Hawkeye is able to gather post bounce and whether that is enough to solve the aero-dynamical equations involved. That is why, it is best to leave LBW outside of reviews except for edges.

    For that, available technologies may not be perfect either but there are at least 3 that can be used simultaneously to increase the confidence of the assessment.

  • POSTED BY on | July 18, 2013, 0:09 GMT

    In reply to cricraz. The outside the legstump rule has nought to do with predicting where the ball would go. I think people who do not want DRS are those who want to be able to pressure umpires into giving lbws when the umpire is unsure.(should give not out if unsure) DRS improves accuracy overall so it should stay. Dhoni seems to have used it well in the Champion's trophy

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 17, 2013, 23:51 GMT

    @H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 20:07 GMT), couldn't agree more. People complain about HawkEye and claim that it is in accurate when their only evidence is that it looks wrong to them, even though it's a well known fact that the human eye, or at least the brain's interpretation of what the human eye sees, can be easily fooled. I think Phil Hughes' LBW dismissal is a perfect example. There are still people claiming that Hughes was not out simply because it initially looked like the ball pitched outside leg. Even without HawkEye and just a simple pitch map overlaid on a slo-mo replay shows clearly that ball pitched in line with leg stump and Hughes was therefore clearly out. Just because people's initial impression was that it pitched outside leg doesn't mean it did. That's a perfect example of peoples determination to believe what they want to believe they saw and ignore actual evidence.

  • POSTED BY H_Z_O on | July 17, 2013, 20:07 GMT

    @Shan_Karthic

    "Approach should be 1) Have only Hotspot, Snickometer, Hi-Def replay; get rid of inaccurate & unreliable ball tracking options."

    Of course. Get rid of inaccurate and unreliable ball tracking like HawkEye (where we know the precise measurements of the margin of error) and keep HotSpot, the technology we know for a fact is an unreliable indicator of edges.

    Root's caught behind. No mark on Hotspot. Noise on Snicko. But Hotspot's clearly more reliable than HawkEye. Nevermind that HawkEye is used in other sports but Hotspot isn't. Nevermind that HawkEye has been shown to be incredibly reliable.

    There seems to be this idea that HawkEye is just guesswork. It's not. It's physics. The naked eye might tell you it's wrong. Guess what? The naked eye is wrong. It's funny that people insist HawkEye is guesswork and human eyesight is better while their own eyesight is causing them to perpetuate the myth that Broad's nick went straight to slips (it deflected off Haddin's gloves).

  • POSTED BY cricraz on | July 17, 2013, 19:59 GMT

    If ball tracking is so accurate, why are they not changing LBW decision regarding ball pitching outside the legstump but swinging in to hit the stumps if not for the pads. If the rationale for LBW is that the ball would have hit the stumps if not for the pads, it should not matter where the ball pitches? So for all those people fooled by ball tracking technology, why is that rule still in place?

  • POSTED BY cricraz on | July 17, 2013, 19:55 GMT

    The ICC tries to put its "spin" that DRS was not responsible for errors at the recent Ashes but it was operational issues. If the idea was to get rid of howlers, the system failed! As far as using statistics to fool the public, ICC is making a huge assumption that ball tracking of DRS and hot spot are 100% accurate and reporting that the accuracy is increased by 5%( because the DRS IS BEING COMPARED TO ITSELF!)- how self serving is that?. There are lies, damn lies and Statistics! DRS system is a way of creating new errors. The old howlers of umpires are replaced by howlers of DRS system! I hate the Indian board's all powerful position as well but they have some valid issues with DRS. Dont use it for LBW( tracking) but use it for edges, catch and run outs. Even the MLB( Major league Baseball) does not use ball tracking to call strikes( margin of error is even greater as it is an imaginary strike zone!)

  • POSTED BY Shantul on | July 17, 2013, 18:29 GMT

    I see poeople asking for more reviews and unlimited reviews. That is not right, i believe how DRS is set now is perfect. It is utilized wrongly, which is on the captain of the team. DRS is there to take away horrible decision, not to gamble. If captains decides to gamble then let it be, but no more than 2 reviews should be allowed! It is good for the game!. If one edge the balll and given LBW, fine use the review, but if u r given LBW and u r not sure if u were outside the line or not, and still use it.. BAD REVIEW!! So again i say, it is in position to take away the obvious errors!!

  • POSTED BY Shan_Karthic on | July 17, 2013, 18:26 GMT

    Goal should be to 1) Ensure caught out decisions are not incorrect, 2) Ensure edges for LBWs are not incorrect.

    Approach should be 1) Have only Hotspot, Snickometer, Hi-Def replay; get rid of inaccurate & unreliable ball tracking options. 2) Fielding team can review only caught behind decisions ruled not out or LBWs where the umpire indicates the not out decision is because he thinks the batsman edged it. 3) No reviews for batting team; all out decisions (only the above 2 categories) are automatically reviewed by 3rd umpire as the batsman walks back. Call him back if the decision is wrong. 4) Penalize batsmen who don't walk to very clear edges just as fielders who claim very clear bumped catches are penalized. The very clear part is left to umpires & match referee; just like in the case of fielders. 5) For any reviews more than 2 by fielding team, allow it but if wrong, award 12 penalty runs and consider the team to be 1 over behind over rate. That makes them to be careful.

  • POSTED BY a328232 on | July 17, 2013, 17:10 GMT

    DRS has reduced umpiring errors considerably. So surely it is a good system. Therefore the argument cannot be whether DRS is good or not. The argument should be about how to reduce / remove the errors that are still coming.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 17:09 GMT

    I agree with ICC. The only time the system came up short was in Trott's LBW. That was bad, but just one error among so many correct decisions! And I don't buy the whole argument about "it evens out in the long run". As a Sri Lankan fan I can tell you that when we play India, Eng or Aus, most of the howlers are against us. That has always been the case because these cricket boards are powerful and SLC is not. If the blame game is to be played, blame the players who used DRS not for howlers but for 50-50 decisions with their fingers crossed. And definitely blame the umpires, who can't wrap their head around the simple rule that an on field decision can ONLY be overturned if there is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that it is incorrect.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | July 17, 2013, 17:03 GMT

    DRS is doing a great job. The following could be considered to make it better.

    1. Change the DRS to Independent DRS. Irrespective of what tge umpire thinks, a decision needs to be independently reviewed by the third umpire.

    2. There should be no hesitation for anyone to review a nick.

    3. A batsman should have his own review. This will remove the issue of one person using teams review.

  • POSTED BY neiljturner on | July 17, 2013, 17:01 GMT

    I really don't get why people are complaining about DRS. Without it, there would have been 7 umpiring errors in the match. With it, there were 4. That's 3 mistakes that the system fixed - great! Complaining that it didn't fix EVERY error is like complaining about your car because it doesn't drive at 200MPH; well, you can choose not to use it, but the alternative is going back to walking, and how fast will you be going then?

  • POSTED BY VickySuperXI on | July 17, 2013, 16:58 GMT

    DRS should be there. There's no questioning it . The number of review request for teams can be increased to 5 or 10. Each DRS decisions takes about 2 mins to decide. That would solve more wrong decisions.

  • POSTED BY stumpedlloyd on | July 17, 2013, 15:06 GMT

    This is the ICC doing what it does best: Making excuses for mediocrity. The ICC has proven over the years that it's an entirely incompetent organization that cares more about raking in the dough than the sport itself, that clearly has double standards - why was Ramdin punished (by Stuart Broad's father, no less) and not Stuart Broad? - and will whatever it can to remove all enjoyment of this great sport.

  • POSTED BY Fluffykins on | July 17, 2013, 14:58 GMT

    The trouble isn't with the tech its the way humans are using it .Instead of trying to eliminate the howlers, its being used by other officials to get their opinion of the right decision.Its farcical to keep looking at all the evidence over and over again (except in nicks) in a review, as this clearly shows that the decision is marginal and not a howler. Personally Id keep it as, but ensure that the ICC lay down clear directives that unless it is immediately evident that the decision is a shocker,it stands....

  • POSTED BY symsun on | July 17, 2013, 14:57 GMT

    There should be No limit for DRS. Penalty runs is not good idea. If the bowling team fails in DRS, reduce their match fees for each failure. If fails twice of the same bowler, then the bowler should not be allowed to bowl further in the innings. And if the batsman fails in DRS, reduce teams match fee for each failure and obviously he is going to walk out. Justice should not be prevented for next coming batsman or bowler by keeping limits.

  • POSTED BY noodles787878 on | July 17, 2013, 14:52 GMT

    @benny_l, I think you are spot on! I assume, you mean hawkeye when you say 'DRS'. For the sake of hawkeye's credibility, the ICC would do well to inform the casual viewers the success rate for deliveries that went past the batsman. The measurement can be done by conducting tests during first class matches in all test playing venues and each venue should be tested for at least 100 consecutive deliveries for pace and another 100 consecutive deliveries for spin. If we discover that hawkeye is correct for at least 95% of the deliveries bowled, then it is fit to be used during DRS.

  • POSTED BY vipravara on | July 17, 2013, 14:38 GMT

    Just counting the correct % and patting on the back of the umpires is not a correct way of defending the current inept usage of DRS facility. Looking at the margin of the victory/loss of the 1st Ashes Test, anybody can say that one critical error that goes uncorrected at a crucial stage of the match, that too in a blatant way can change the outcome of the match itself. Sad that certainly ICC is not going to think in this direction to see how they can better utilize DRS.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | July 17, 2013, 14:28 GMT

    A Improvement, easy way of dealing with LBW for Umpires and be more consistent Batsman can tell were a ball pitched, why not have Stumps out lined all the way down the pitch? After all Umpires have to watch foot, elbow, bowlers position on crease, where the ball has pitched all while trying calculate a own prediction of path ball will take, poor impire isnt told what is being bowled out swinger in swinger, all this with speeds at 150kph, why not trial such option in T20 and see if it improves our game

  • POSTED BY disco_bob on | July 17, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    "...This represented an increase of 5.5% in correct decisions..." No one cares about the correct decisions it is the reduction of incorrect decisions not the increase in correct decisions that should be noted. So a reduction of incorrect decisions from 7 to 4 means that due to DRS there has been a 42% reduction in incorrect decisions.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 13:23 GMT

    i found Watson's decision a bit of strange too .. i was surprised to see him out..

  • POSTED BY benny_l on | July 17, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    The way DRS success rate is calculated is meaningless. They should make predictions for deliveries that went past batsmen but tracking only until it reaches the batsmen. Then they should compare it against observed trajectory of the delivery. The success rate should be published as percentage of correct predictions and margin of error in cms or meters whichever unit is suitable.

  • POSTED BY Mutukisna on | July 17, 2013, 12:09 GMT

    Reviewing the ICC assessment, I do not think Erasmus could be blamed on the Trott incident as the broadcaster was reviewing the previous ball and the shot of Trott's bat edge was not available to him. Erasmus can only make his decision on what was made available to him! Aleem Dar is a very good umpire but admittedly, it was not his best day and Dharmasena's very marginal error was corrected by DRS. There is only one other "neutral" umpire on the elite list and I must admit on past experience that I do not have much confidence that he would do a better job if called upon to officiate. So the Ashes have got to make do with only four umpires available. Given India's refusal to adopt DRS and their implied faith in umpire decisions, I am surprised that there is not a single Indian on the Elite list and cannot recall even one other in the past. Am I right here? Why is this so?

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 11:46 GMT

    The bottom line is Australia used the DRS as asort of '"LUCKY DIP"where as England used it intelligently.Nothing in life or science is 100%.Computers,cars,planes etc break down,rockets and satelites and everyday machinery malfunction.Umpires and DRS to get 100% correct? Come on get real

  • POSTED BY H_Z_O on | July 17, 2013, 11:44 GMT

    @hyagu5432 how many lbws were given in this match where the ball hadn't clearly beaten the batsman? None that I can recall.

    I have no problem with there being one rule for clipping, that it's either always out or always not-out. The tradition would be not-out but with the game already tough enough for bowlers, the more I think about it, the more "out" seems fairer. But the idea that we should change that and at the same time give the power to review to umpires seems utterly illogical. "We can't trust umpires, marginal decisions should go in favour of the tech. But we can't trust players to review, we should trust those very same umpires we think are incompetent to review their own decisions."

    Let me remind people, again, that two different third umpires, using technology, reached two different decisions in two almost identical cases (Agar's stumping in this match and Bell's in the Champions Trophy final). Giving third umpires powers to review isn't the panacea people think it is.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 11:43 GMT

    If DRS is handed over to umpires. Players should be charged for false appeals and not walking away (even if there was a knick) for wasting time

  • POSTED BY wibblewibble on | July 17, 2013, 11:31 GMT

    @OrangTan - hawkeye is not predictive, it is a ball tracking technology. It tracks where the ball is, and where it came from, right up until the point of impact. It then uses that data to determine the height, direction and speed of the ball at the moment of impact. Note that nothing so far is "predicted", it is measurements of reality. After impact, umpires have to assume the ball continues on it's current trajectory, this is exactly what hawkeye projects, based upon its measurement of where the ball is and had been before impact.

    A swinging ball may have swung more if not impacting the pads, but this is not relevant - both the umpires and hawkeye have to only go on what it does before impact.

    @tusharkardile - if they did anything to Broad, they would need to do the same to Haddin - both nicked a ball, both stood their ground, it is irrelvant one nick is bigger than another - and they can't do that. The real problem was doing anything to Ramdin in the first place.

  • POSTED BY Krish_00 on | July 17, 2013, 11:21 GMT

    _Australian :

    Very good comments . Fully agree

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 11:07 GMT

    Sorry unlimited reviews is not the way to go. Can you imagine that ? Already with only 2 reviews at your disposal , captains are taking a pun, some absolutely bad ones. Just because THEY CAN. Sure it does not take too much time to get a decision reviewed but its just going to be over the top. Also umpires are going to mighty frustrated if a bowling team goes for a review of say , an obvious inside edge.

    Two is enough. Umpires by themselves churn out the right decisions 90% of the time. So thats one in 10 games, you have reviews for that use it. DO NOT USE reviews for tactical reasons.

  • POSTED BY Thyagu5432 on | July 17, 2013, 10:54 GMT

    LBW as one of the means to get the batsman out, as it is done today, is in itself farce. In my view, LBW comes to the context only when the batsman is clearly beaten by the ball. All this pitching outside the leg, hit inline with the stump all look so artificial. LBW just doesn't give you the same satisfaction as getting somebody out bowled or stumped or even caught.

    Now add to this the DRS angle where an LBW is upheld even when the ball is barely hitting the stump. If there is so much doubt in the ball tracking mechanism, why should the call go back to the on field umpires decision? It is basically saying, whatever he thought should be fine.

    DRS itself came into the picture because the Human umpires in the middle can make mistakes. Now if the DRS also can make mistakes, we just need to accept both the mistakes and move on with our lives rather than saying the field umpires mistake is acceptable.

  • POSTED BY reddawn1975 on | July 17, 2013, 10:53 GMT

    Oops speaking of tech hit the button a little early.The DRS system is causing way to many problems and thing's like hawk-eye is not 100% accurate i just think the umpires should be making the decisions it will make them better not lazy and if they make a mistake so be it.

  • POSTED BY H_Z_O on | July 17, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    @_Australian_ Thing is the ball half clipping the stumps isn't conclusive evidence, nor is it used as such. When the ball's clipping, it stays with the umpire's original decision, as would have been the case without DRS too.

    There wasn't a single case of a ball clipping where the umpire's original decision was changed. If DRS wasn't involved, those decisions would have remained exactly as they were. I fail to see how that argument undermines the DRS one iota.

    What would you change about that? If it's not conclusive evidence, and the umpire gives it out, should it stay out? What if they give it not-out?

    I don't think it should cost the team a review. But you can't, on the one hand, argue for the umpires being given the power to review instead of players and at the very same time argue that "clipping" reviews shouldn't be decided by the umpires. Not to mention third umpires often reach radically different decisions (Agar stumping vs Bell stumping in Champions Trophy).

  • POSTED BY cyborg89 on | July 17, 2013, 10:47 GMT

    DRS should be continued.Its a great equipment to reduce unthinkable lame decisions during the most important moments of a game.Cricket is a long battle and after all the fight just because of some fault of another person(umpire) if you end up in the loosing side......its really heartbreaking and highly unfair.We can understand few decisions which are really critical but thats not the whole thing.You can get 1 or 2 wrong decisions by DRS where you will get maximum of them right.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 10:43 GMT

    Why can't just umpires cross-check with 3rd umpire (using DRS) whenever there is a really close call or teams are convinced that there is a howler. Umpires do not need to wait for players to refer for DRS. And all these number games (95% accurate, 97% accurate) by ICC regarding umpire accuracy is just total rubbish. You do not need to be a professional to see an outfield player holding a catch and you just raise your finger.

  • POSTED BY Dead_Badger on | July 17, 2013, 10:39 GMT

    IndiaNumeroUno is exactly right - by counting the incorrect DRS overrule as an "uncorrected decision", they're flattering DRS. The percentage of decisions that were initially correct is 91.7%, not 90.3%, and the improvement due to DRS is thus 4.1%.

    Nitpicky maybe, but you can't credit DRS for all of its corrections without debiting it for its mistakes. Regardless, I still think it's a great thing on balance. One match doesn't make or break it - at best we've learned that Marais Erasmus needs a reminder of the level of evidence needed to overrule the on-field decision.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 9:52 GMT

    Why not increase the no. of the Reviews to every team it will also increase the fairness of the game

  • POSTED BY ChandraaR on | July 17, 2013, 9:22 GMT

    Pathetic to see ICC's reaction. Point one, there is no need to come out with such clarifications. Point two, they sound like a junior worker trying to bumble ridiculous excuses to his superior. Are they saying umpires focus more or less depending on which teams are playing?? "...but we all know that the umpire's decision, right or wrong, is final and must be accepted". Sack Dave Richardson immediately, please !! Is he even conscious of what he is saying?

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 9:20 GMT

    The DRS can be better but not by its omission as propagated by BCCI and others..but with addition of more features which will make it closer to foolproof..One should not forget that the game was really in a mess without DRS with even reputed umpires giving horrendous decisons and get undeserved credit for giving lucky decisions..The truth is that human umpiring(without tech) is simply incapable of reception and instant analysis of stimuli..those defending umpires also project this human factor..but then dont we deserve something better...and shouldnt the players get more justice?..and shouldnt the game be really competitive without anyone needing to worry about the 'invisible' factors.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 9:17 GMT

    Could the ICC explain to me how Rod Tucker is still an elite umpire and got rewarded for poor performances in the Champions Trophy with the final.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 9:16 GMT

    We should look at this holistically. DRS is needed for the game but its flaws have to be fixed. Many comments were made towards having no limit on number of reviews. I think this will not be in the spirit of the game. If a team has a chance to review any and all decisions given by the umpire, then why need an umpire on the field? We can have all of them seated alongwith the 3rd umpire and let the player slug it out in the middle!! The term cricket being a game of glorious uncertainties would cease to exist if reviews are not limited. I would rather the umpire have the authority opportunity to review with the 3rd umpire when he is in doubt about a call. Also the third umpire should also have the authority to provide feedback to the on field umpires when they have missed noting a no ball etc., and a dismissal has been effected. Cap the reviews to say 4 (1 for each powerplay and 2 during non powerplays) per team from existing 2 reviews

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 9:02 GMT

    The bottom line is that DRS has made the game fairer than before. It's a useless argument that it is not 100%, or mistakes are still happening. Even if there is an improvement of 5% (and the stats suggest, it is well-over it), we should stick with it. The smaller teams do feel that umpires tend to favour the bigger teams when it comes to close decision. At least it wont frustrate them while playing, when every close decision seems to be going against their way. I know an international umpire personally, and he confided that umpires do fear giving decisions against the bigger teams. I remember how DRS helped Pakistan so much against the last home-series against England, when they beat them 3-0.

    I think all critics of DRS should read Matthew Prior's article and his suggestions, and also check ICC stats regarding DRS.

  • POSTED BY Green_and_Gold on | July 17, 2013, 8:34 GMT

    Currently DRS is taking the first 2 howlers off the umpire and giving them to the captain - Clarkes 2nd review was a howler!. Why not give the teams 2 strategic reviews that can be used on LBW prediction and unlimited reviews on the other appeals such as catches off the bat. You can have the 3rd umpire automatically start the review on each appeal as an edge is generally quickly visible on tv replay. Still have the on field umpire make the decision however the 3rd umpire can quickly review the incident and relay a message back to the on field umpire if he thinks there may be an error or needs more time to review.

  • POSTED BY IndiaNumeroUno on | July 17, 2013, 8:28 GMT

    "orrect decision percentage before reviews stood at 90.3% but climbed to 95.8% as a result of the use of the DRS" - is nonsense because the "correctness" of the decision is being gauged based upon a a flawed DRS system!! - with its flawed ball tracking and hot spot. Sorry but ICC needs to "review" DRS!

  • POSTED BY Biggus on | July 17, 2013, 8:16 GMT

    @svearike:-I'm against the idea of extra referrals with a 5 run penalty for the following reason:-That the relative penalty you pay for that referral depends on whether the game is a high or low scoring one, and I don't think that's ideal. Also, in a game where one side had a substantial lead there would be little incentive not to review even the most marginal and/or speculative decisions, so in my opinion, whilst this idea appeals in some ways at first it doesn't take much imagination to see where it could fail badly, and so should be rejected and a better solution looked for. I'm also not wild about the idea of gambling runs on those reviews since we're surely just looking for the best way to get the most accurate decisions, not to introduce reasons for captains to play 'chicken' with the review system.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 8:08 GMT

    if umpire have any doubt in mind about their decision, they must use DRS, in broad's case Aleem Dar may use DRS after strong australian appeal, if a team use full quota of their DRS, umpire must insure that team don't hurt due to their bad decision. ICC must give umpires full authority to use DRS when they have any doubt in making decision. DRS in not 100% correct but its useful to make decision to umpires.

  • POSTED BY wakaPAK on | July 17, 2013, 7:57 GMT

    Criteria should be devised for the umpires and they should make decisions according to that criteria. Every caught behind decision should go in favor of the bowling side in case batting side has reviews left. That is because the batsman knows if he has nicked it or not. He wouldnt dare waste a review if he knows he's right. If batting side has no reviews left, decision should favor the batsman. That is when umpire is 50 % sure about a decision. There should be no review for LBWs except hawk eye for the height and batsman could review if he's nicked it. This is just my criteria. Anyone can come up with the most logical criteria for decision making for umpires.

  • POSTED BY svearike on | July 17, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    I sent a similar response yesterday to another article dealing with DRS. There are two changes that would solve a lot of problems. First, in reviews of LBW decisions, Hawkeye should have more than 50 % of the ball hitting the stumps for the batter to be given out; this would remove the current inconsistency where more than 50% of the ball must pitch in line or hit in line (outside the off stump) to be given out. The second change would be to give the player an unlimited number of referrals, but if the decision is not reversed then five runs is awarded to the opposing team. This would make teams reluctant to make speculative or "gambling" referrals.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 7:44 GMT

    As a non-expert, I feel the ICC should not be stubborn, but listen to Brad Haddin and Daryl Harper and make DRS a tool for umpires and not for players. There should not be a limit to the number of referrals. The Third Umpire should correct any inadvertent wrong decisions by on-field umpires, obviously.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 7:44 GMT

    the ICC are using DRS wrong. it should ONLY be used for LBW's! BUT an edge is an edge, its a rule in cricket that if you touch the ball with your bat then you are out if caught! How stupid is it that a match ref sees a batsman hit a ball to slip and cant give him out! RIDICULOUS!!!!!!

  • POSTED BY Sarfin on | July 17, 2013, 7:43 GMT

    I don't think penalizing a team for taking unsuccessful extra reviews is a very good idea. Because at the end of the day cricket is all about runs and wickets. DRS is not a fundamental concept of the game. It's only a helping tool. Imagine a team is penalized 5 runs for unsuccessful review and lost by 1 runs. DRS should not dictate the course or result of the game. I am not buying a ticket to watch how DRS (or umpires) performs. Leaving DRS to umpires is a better idea if you can prevent prolonged appeal from fielders to pressure umpires...

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 7:36 GMT

    Two biggest problems with the DRS:

    1) It's left in the hands of the players to use as a tactical device. 2) It's implementation supports inconsistent 50/50 decisions. This is best evidenced through 'umpires call' LBW rulings.

    If these two problems can be addressed, which isn't all that difficult, DRS would work a whole lot better.

    ICC appear too stubborn to acknowledge these as issues so we're unlikely to see change any time soon.

  • POSTED BY CustomKid on | July 17, 2013, 7:25 GMT

    @orangtan - no because it's a flawed system. Regardless of who you support I'm sure there have been many times where you've watched your team and said that is clearly out, then hawk eye says it's going over, or missing leg. It's massively inaccurate based on predictions that it simply cannot calculate, spin, bounce, swing etc.

    Like my example below on one of the Aus players (maybe hughes) being given LBW against SRI or IND ( I can't remember) playing a sweep to a full ball. It pitched just before hitting the front pad but clearly spinning toward leg after pitching. On slow mo you could clearly see it turning toward leg with the revolutions on the ball, but hawk eye showed it spinning toward off and it was given out. It may well have still hit leg and been out regardless but how can it be so wrong? Even the commentary team said nothing as it was so wrong. Unfortunately its the best we've got at the moment despite it's flaws which are many from accuracy to who uses it.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | July 17, 2013, 7:22 GMT

    Funny if Agar was, why was no conclusive evidence found too show his foot infront of the line? after all Third umpire look.at it for an eterinty, but I guess Some people just cant accept the facts. Sure DRS isnt perfect and ICC have now confirmed this, lets just be positive search for better system, improve on the flaws, why not ask for Input, ask what the players fans want. One option and every Captian would agree, either get the review right or lose runs. That means all Incidents wether stumping or run outs, No more going to third umpire, this will be considered a review and have Implications for incorrect revue -10 runs

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 7:09 GMT

    If this is the ICC's attitude, there is no way the system is going to improve. I can understand them defending the umpires, but there are obvious problems with the DRS system, and one aspect they need to quickly address is the unfair system of umpire's call. The ICC needs to go beyond platitudes and come up with something concrete.

  • POSTED BY Biggus on | July 17, 2013, 7:06 GMT

    @5wombats:-The thing about where the Hughes LBW was pitching is that it wasn't predictive but was exactly where the system said it was at that point in time, allowing for whatever inaccuracies are inherent in the system. I couldn't tell whether more or less than 50% of the ball was in line but I'm assuming that the umps have HD monitors which give a sharper image than my TV so if they're happy it pitched in line I have to accept that. Broad not walking isn't something we Aussies should be making a big noise about since our guys see no shame in hanging around when they get a lucky break so I'm not stressed about that either. We did get the worse of the umpires call luck but that's statistically unlikely to happen all that often, nevertheless perhaps other ways of handling that should be at least discussed. All part of the process IMO, and it should be borne in mind that the laws of the game have changed greatly during it's evolution, precisely what will happen as we sort out DRS too.

  • POSTED BY orangtan on | July 17, 2013, 7:00 GMT

    I am no scientist, but just can't fathom how Hawkeye can possibly capture and depict the exact amount of swing/turn in a particular delivery especially when you have bowlers like Malinga,Ajmal, Narine, to name just a few, who can produce all kinds of variations. Can someone explain this in a nutshell ?

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 6:43 GMT

    As usual ICC has no perspective about the game! When the bad decisions for one side is reversed and for others it weren't then it shifts the balance of the game! People who understand why there is an umpire in the game would understand what I am saying. This sport has no hope until the game is governed by the modern day cricketers!

  • POSTED BY Biggus on | July 17, 2013, 6:40 GMT

    In the end using DRS and working through these difficulties is the way those same wrinkles will be ironed out, not by sitting on the sidelines and waffling on about some fantasy 100% system. Likewise I think this discussion on the best rules regarding the usage of review systems is healthy and will lead fans to a better understanding of what they want to see, filtered through the pragmatic insights of ongoing usage. Even military weapons that spend years in development and cost billions of dollars to design and build reveal unexpected flaws once put into service. In the end DRS will become universal, it won't be 100% (nothing is) and all that will have been achieved is that India will have sat out the testing and fine tuning process. Supporters of the BCCI claim that their reticence regarding DRS will drive the improvement in the systems involved but I think it's pretty obvious it's the nations using it who will drive the development and learning process forward.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 6:35 GMT

    The DRS needs just a minor tweak to get the sequence right. Its upside in providing better decisions is unquestionable.

    Today the sequence is 1. Players Appeal 2. Umpire Decides 3. Players Challenge Umpire 4. DRS Comes in play.

    How about 1. Players Appeal 2. Umpire Unsure 3. Umpire Orders Review 4. Umpire makes informed decision

    This way there are no decisions to review; only technology that aids the umpire

  • POSTED BY archivedowl on | July 17, 2013, 6:26 GMT

    As an internationally qualified umpire, I believe the majority of umpires are in favour of DRS. In my opinion teams should have ONE referral per innings. This would mean saving the DRS for the occasional howler and prevent tactical or speculative abuse of the system for which it is not intended. I am not in favour of removing the player's option to refer because there are cases when a fielder or batsman sees or hears something that an umpire can miss. Further, I believe that the on-field umpires should consult with eachother to clarify doubt, where appropriate, AND that this process should include the Third/TV umpire.

  • POSTED BY 5wombats on | July 17, 2013, 6:00 GMT

    @Biggus. I def agree that the DRS calls are a storm in a tea cup and that many people here are using the issue to their own nefarious ends. This is why I am somewhat cheekily referring to the Agar stumping. If something as glarring as the Broad "not walking" one was missed by the Umpire on the field, then how much worse is it when a 3rd Umpire with multiple replays misses a stumping? Sure - it was a close one - but one of the Aussie LBW outs in the second dig had the ball landing precisely on the edge of the on the "in line with the stumps" line (I think it was Hughes??). Now that was mighty mighty close but it was given on predictive technology by a millimeter. If you are pinning a batsmans (teams) fortunes on those kinds of margins in a computer simulation- then surely an Umpire in a room with multiple angle replays with his own 2 eyes can make a clear call about a run out (ie Clarke 2009) or a stumping (Agar 2013). I don't mind agreeing to differ with you on this one mate! :-)

  • POSTED BY Mr_Truth on | July 17, 2013, 5:51 GMT

    @Simon Appleby - certainly if the review structure was reset when the new ball was taken that would give the tail some sort of a chance of getting some justice, given that the top order rate themselves a bit too much. Would certainly make it interesting on when to take the new ball - the bowling team would be inclined to use up their quota of reviews before getting the new rock, or else be quite happy to stick with the old ball if the batting team has no reviews left. Having said that, it would add a new tactical element to DRS and the players are still struggling with the concept as it is. Might not be a good idea - think about the amount of whinging it causes already.

  • POSTED BY Amarjitmadan on | July 17, 2013, 5:48 GMT

    Arguments given in support of umpires/DRS by ICC lack substance. Surely the umpires in question are better than average ones but unless Dar had dozed of for a sec he should not have missed the catch. Trot's decision was a criminal mistake and one cannot say Broad getting away served as a leveler. DRS should continue, no system is going to be 100% fool proof but it can certainly eliminate howlers and should be increased to 3in Tests,2in ODIs and 1in T20. What we all want is ,to have fair game as far as possible.

  • POSTED BY Alexk400 on | July 17, 2013, 5:47 GMT

    ICC run by incompetent people.

  • POSTED BY motulal on | July 17, 2013, 5:45 GMT

    Why are we forgetting incorrect decision of Alas Agar in the 1st innings. Agar was definitely out (stumped) but don't know what different 3rd Umpire was seeing.. that was a blunder of a decision, there should be a DRS for that too :D

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 5:43 GMT

    Why should we debate on DRS?? Why cant we debate on spirit of a player??

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 5:35 GMT

    We could take a leaf out of tennis's book - teams start out with two reviews but gain additional reviews / reviews are reset at a certain point, maybe when the new ball is given?

  • POSTED BY kowalski on | July 17, 2013, 5:34 GMT

    I dont understand why people are bringing BCCI's stand into this argument. For all that I have seen in last 3 years, India ( Dhoni) has used the DRS best among all the teams. During world cup, Yuvraj getting LBW after MSD agreed to refer.. Even during champions trophy. Its very simple. I love use of technology, but this is a sport. You win some you lose some. Move on, dont cry over it. If one decision changes the game so much, perhaps your team is not good enough.

  • POSTED BY RJHB on | July 17, 2013, 5:27 GMT

    So by that reasoning, all intense test matches can expect to involve a higher level of umpire incompetence and in turn showcase the inadequacies of the DRS? The other problem is that this defence of those umpires does not take into account the timing of the mistakes and the massive impact they had on the match result. But ultimately there can be no defence of that Broad decision, that's the worst mistake I've seen in over thirty years of watching cricket. That includes what used to happen in India!

  • POSTED BY Mr_Truth on | July 17, 2013, 5:26 GMT

    @AllIinFairNess - that is a superb idea for a penalty system when the quota of reviews becomes exhausted. I'm also inclined to say that a team should get a limited number of reviews and that's it, no matter whether the review is upheld or overturned - given that DRS iwas originally intended to eliminate terrible decisions, I would say that any team that wishes to continually defy the umpire when he makes a ruling deserves to cop the wrong end of a howler. It's just plain disrespectful.

  • POSTED BY Wefinishthis on | July 17, 2013, 5:23 GMT

    I'm sure most would agree that the third umpire has been outstanding for run outs in the hands of umpires - I don't see why it can't remain in the hands of umpires for ALL decisions. Yes the umpire on the field will be under pressure to use the DRS for all close decisions, especially for all of those lbw shouts, but there are not THAT many close appeals in a day of cricket even in the Indian dust-bowls. DRS could easily be sped up(eg have multiple simultaneous analysis of super-slow mo, hotspot, ball-tracker and snicko rather than sequential, introduce a no-ball hawk-eye with an ear-piece to the umpire etc). The field umpire could get on the mic to the 3rd umpire and have a correct decision within 20 seconds - not much more time than a bowlers walk back to his mark. Fact is that howlers will always remain as long as the 2 referrals system remains in place. At the very least I agree with garr, it shouldn't be a tactical part of the game and it shouldn't be limited to two decisions.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 5:23 GMT

    If DRS is put in the hands of the umpires, they could use a similar type of question which is used in rugby for TMO's. So the question from the umpire to the DRS after an appeal would be, "Is there any clear evidence why I cannot give him out?"

    Just a thought - it works for international rugby.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | July 17, 2013, 5:20 GMT

    5% is a big improvement, imagine what it would be if all questionable decisions could be reviewed. Obviously time wasting anf frivalous reviews would be contrary to the spirit if the game but if players insist on relying on umpire even in thd most obvious cases (broad) then we have no choice. also why shoukd teams have the drs power surely its an umpires job ! can even play on and exclude runs / wickets taken if concerned about timing but 3rd should be able yo report howlers after the fact

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 5:19 GMT

    I don't wish the DRS method becoz i feel this is not a trusted one. But that is ICC's wish to continued that facility to all matches. Please consider my points showing below. 1.All the decision should be taken by umpires. 2.If that umpire having any doubts, he must be consider with TV umpire 3.At that time the main umpire wont be take any decision without consult with other umpire. 4.If that umpire misses that 3rd point(limited 3 times per 3 matches) then he should be punished by ICC. If all the points are followed in all the matches that is no need to DRS method. These are my opinion only. Thanks & Regards, R.Veeramanikandan

  • POSTED BY Surajrises on | July 17, 2013, 5:12 GMT

    @ AllInFairNess Now why would you wanna make Cricket boring by penalising runs? Already things are complicated enough by the use of technology and upon that you want penalty to be a part of Cricket! Man we have to make Cricket interesting and not boring. Plus I can't understand why ICC wants to use technology just for the sake of it! Had it been accurate, I don't think anybody would have had a problem with it. But instead of improving the technology, ICC is defending it and the Umpires.

  • POSTED BY AllInFairNess on | July 17, 2013, 4:29 GMT

    The ultimate purpose of having DRS is to eliminate the howlers. So in this regard if you have restriction on the number of referral then it defeats the purpose of URS. To remove this glitch what need to be done? then how we eliminate the improper usage? the solution can be made very simple by imposing penalties. Let me put down the same.

    1/ Let the number remain 2 per innings. 2/ If the challenge is successful no issue 3/ If the challenge is unsuccessful, penalize the teams as follows after the team left with no reviews. a) for 1st unsuccessful review add 5 penalty runs to the opposite team b) for subsequent unsuccessful reviews double the penalty runs of the previouslly awarded c) so on the 2nd attempt 10 runs, 3rd attempt it will become 20 and so on

    By this way, ballant howlers like Stuart Board decisions would have been avoided. And also team left with no review will not be affected when they are 100% sure that the batsman is out and they cannot do much as they do not have any

  • POSTED BY CustomKid on | July 17, 2013, 4:17 GMT

    I've got no issue with DRS but I doubt its accuracy. The fact that it is based on a prediction makes it very inaccurate. A year or so ago one of the Aussies was given LBW to a spinner maybe against Srilanka to a ball that was very full but it hit just before pad and was turning clearly toward leg. On review hawk eye gave it our spinning to off stump in the complete opposite way - total rubbish.

    Tennis is a good example now, you are never shown slow-mo line call replays it's simply the hawk eye version. I've been told by an acquaintance who works in the broadcast industry that slow-mo V's Hawk eye often has very different outcomes but officials now just say run with HE or it will get to complicated and political.

    When swing, inconsistent bounce, spin, etc provide such variables I just don't trust Hawk Eyes predictive nature, it is a flawed system on that front.

  • POSTED BY CrankyofCroydon on | July 17, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    72 decisions? What constitutes a decisions? Answering an appeal? 6 of those appeals were for bowled and 1 caught and bowled. Apart from "was it a no ball"? what decision is there? and they can call for a review of that in any case!

    10% of the job is a no brainer. Take them out and the % of stuff ups isn't so clever.

    Can the ICC try to put some intellectual rigor and perhaps a smidgeon of honesty into the claptrap they purvey by way of administration?

    7 bad decsions among 65 "live" decisions is a 10% error rate. I wicket per innings is wrong! Perhaps DRS should just review everything and be done with it.

    Fortunately it evened out in the end (Trott wasn't out, Broad was, either way England were probably going to get the runs) but heaven's, these guys are paid to get it right, not mostly sort of ok.

  • POSTED BY garr on | July 17, 2013, 4:02 GMT

    5 wombats if and big If Agar was plainly out then the Broad definitely OUTS make no difference to the result. Alas Agar was not plainly out so said third umpire , yet the third umpire was denied chance to fix a Howler because DRS isn't used for every decision. Yet Umps forever checking no balls so why not obvious Outs whenDrDRS is used up. No lint on DRS would mean more correct decisions. Oh, and gee maybe "the worst Aussie team sincere 89" as Hussein and Botham claim would lead one nil.

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 3:59 GMT

    Please give the DRS system to the umpires to use whenever they want to check a decision. Please enable the third umpire to talk to the umpires and also have the ability to ask them to call for a review. Please remove the DRS from the players while this system is trialled. If it works then keep that system. If it does not work perfectly then allow players one DRS per innings only...

  • POSTED BY jaguar7777 on | July 17, 2013, 3:55 GMT

    if the idea of using neutral umpires and aiding them with technology is to eliminate errors in umpiring ,then, why only two reviews? with so much money and prestige involved I would like the reviews raised to 4. is everybody concerned not interested in getting a result by fair play rather then by the clever use of drs

  • POSTED BY garr on | July 17, 2013, 3:33 GMT

    Surely the DRS should not be limited to two decisions. Lets get every decision right. Broad was out twice, if the aim is to avoid howlers then the system failed. English fans remain delighted, they won. Broad goes when he should have Australia win. DRS should not be a tactical part of the game it should be used to ensure correct decisions. Why doesn't the third umpire tell Aleem Dar ( who is as bad an umpire as Koetzen and that show long Kiwi) " hey Aleem you have made a howler Mr Broad is OUt.". No controversy just umpires working in unison to get the RIGHT decision.

  • POSTED BY venbas on | July 17, 2013, 3:28 GMT

    Its surprising how people line up to bash DRS at the slightest pretext. ICC absolutely did the right thing for once by revealing the data about this test match. DRS is no better than Powerplay over system where teams struggled with it initially only to master their use eventually...the most successful example being Srilanka's mastery of Powerplay to win the WC 1996. In a similar vein Teams/Captains need to go for a calculated use of DRS as per the match situation and hard evidence. If at all there has to be a concession, it can be to increase the number of DRS reviews for Test Matches since Test match innings span multiple sessions and days.

  • POSTED BY pruffhill on | July 17, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    trott was plumb LBW. no bat whatsoever

  • POSTED BY thebarmyarmy on | July 17, 2013, 3:22 GMT

    Maybe instead of whinging for days and days and days, the Aussies should start preparing themselves for the battering they will receive at Lords.

  • POSTED BY pixiek on | July 17, 2013, 3:13 GMT

    I just wanted to remind Mr Erasmus of his father's advice to him: "He told me, the less people know about the umpire the better for the game. So when nobody talks about the umpire then they actually have had a good day," How apt!

    It was a bad day for umpires! It was a bad day for cricket!! A Broad who didn't Trot made it worse!!!

  • POSTED BY on | July 17, 2013, 3:11 GMT

    Any of my fellow Indians trying to take advantage of the incidents during the first Ashes test, are missing an obvious point. DRS with all its minor anamolies, still makes a huge improvement in correcting obvious errors. What is interesting is that people against DRS wants it to be perfect when without being perfect it still makes for huge improvements in decision making. If at all there needs to be a debate it should be about leaving it to the umpires to refer (third umpire could prompt the on field umpire when they sense any mistake) Vs having a fixed number of reviews given to the players.

  • POSTED BY Ozcricketwriter on | July 17, 2013, 3:06 GMT

    I counted 8 errors actually. It'd be good to see which errors they thought were wrong, and why they were wrong, and what the right decision is etc. It'd be good to do this for every test match and then umpires can be reviewed for their accuracy.

  • POSTED BY Dave1970 on | July 17, 2013, 2:47 GMT

    Statistics can be twisted to suit the opinion of their author so they hold little credence.

    The DRS fails when even one HOWLER n is not overturned; which is why the technology was introduced in the first place. HOWLERS continue so system is not working.

    A couple of things need to happen:

    1. Bring in a code of conduct that puts the onus on players to behave honestly & where it is obvious that they hit the ball (Broad's is a good example) & the umpire makes an error, & the batsman does not approach the umpire to sort it out, then a penalty should imposed. In the case where a batsman is not sure, he can approach the umpire & say so.

    2. Put the DRS in the hands of the umpires, & allowing third umpire to intervene if he believes an error has been made initially and check. If the on field umpire is not sure then refer it to the third. Players have no part in a referral.

    3. Harsher penalties for excessive, unrealistic appeals.

    Or

    Scarp the system, just accept good & bad decisions

  • POSTED BY Andross on | July 17, 2013, 2:27 GMT

    @Christopher Van Twest Your statistics are misleading, while your figure is grounded in fact, that is only on the decisions that the umpire got wrong in the first place, & does not count the times that DRS agreed with the umpire, or was not called for.Therefore, it has a ~95% success rate according to those figures. Further more, 2 of those decisions WOULD have been overturned if Australia had been able to review them, which makes it 98.61% accurate. Quite a different story no?

    @Front-Foot-Lunge I would say it was par for par. Trott was culpably not out, & Broad was culpably out. There were a few more borderline decisions through the match, but I suspect they would be about even too.

    The main message here, is that AUS needs to stop reviewing LBW decisions unless they KNOW they've hit it. We throw far too many reviews away in this manner. And if you're bowling, don't even bother unless the batsman is practically STANDING on the stumps anyway. Anything else is gunna be 50/50.

  • POSTED BY lillee4PM on | July 17, 2013, 2:26 GMT

    The Agar decision was a 50/50 one and could have gone either way; it was not plainly out. In contrast, the Broad decision was a howler and probably the worst in recent Ashes history, and those extra runs tipped match in England's favour. The video umpires should be allowed to over rule the on field umpires at any time and especially when there is such an obvious error.

  • POSTED BY Glottalpoly on | July 17, 2013, 2:15 GMT

    Well done to the ICC for acknowledging the data that Australia was actually the beneficiary of the DRS process.

    There was only one error that couldn't be corrected (i.e. was actually created by the DRS process), and that dramatically benefitted Australia.

    Any other problems were created by Australia's poor judgement in not using it for its intended purpose, and were NOT a problem with DRS itself. This has at least been acknowledged by the captain.

    This is also a huge wake up for the BCCI that still has no valid reason to reject DRS; time for the BCCI to join the rest of the world in the 21st century.

  • POSTED BY landl47 on | July 17, 2013, 2:11 GMT

    I keep on reading about 'obvious errors' and 'howlers'. Please explain what the definition of an obvious error or howler is and apply it in this game.

    The most critical decision in the whole game was Haddin's dismissal in the second innings. That was, as Haddin very honestly admitted later, correctly ruled by the 3rd umpire as out. But was it a 'howler' or an 'obvious error'? People on these pages were divided about whether it was out or not until Haddin settled the issue.

    There were two incorrect decisions involving Broad. Everyone has talked about one of them, but the other is to my mind more important. He was given not out to Agar when padding up. Neither umpire had a good angle to see whether the ball would have hit the stumps and nor did any of the fielders, so it wouldn't have been reviewed. Yet on the replay it was clearly out. That kind of error is why all decisions must be left to the 3 umpires- because that's the only way to get the best possible decision every time.

  • POSTED BY Andross on | July 17, 2013, 2:09 GMT

    @5wombats I think the thing with Agar, was that due to the fact that his shoe had a pick black sole, it was impossible to tell exactly where his foot ended and shadow began. Therefore, the umpire quite rightly gave him not out. When we came to the Trott decision, there was a similar lack of clarity, and the 3rd umpire should have reported back to Dar, that it was going on to hit the stumps, but that it was not clear whether he hit it or not. In that case, the decision would have stood, and who knows how many Trott would have made? I think the thing to learn from this, is that all those pretty high speed camera that the TV coverage uses, could, and should be available to the 3rd umpire for making decisions, and maybe with the dependence on technology, it's time we started looking a little bit at what the players are allowed to wear given inherent limitations of some technology, like std definition, std speed film.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 17, 2013, 1:53 GMT

    @rajcan on (July 16, 2013, 20:05 GMT), you're just making things up. "When a naked eye and a replay confirm there was no nick from the bat or glove and Umpire has given not out, but the DRS tells out, IT IS A BIG JOKE". When did that happen in this game? Please tell me you're not talking about Haddin's dismissal.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 17, 2013, 1:47 GMT

    @Kodiveri Sreenivasan on (July 16, 2013, 18:08 GMT), as an England fan, I have no issue with Root's dismissal. It was obviously a fine edge but Root himself said that he heard a noise and Cook was clearly not convinced that it was an obvious mistake. Maybe he would have been reprieved if he had reviewed or maybe the noise would have been enough to uphold the original decision but he didn't review so he has no grounds to complain. It's interesting that the noise on Haddin's dismissal was probably louder than the one on Root's yet Root was given out while Haddin originally was not. That's noise from the stump mic though, which the on-field umpire does not have the benefit of. No doubt there was more crowd noise when Haddin was batting. The Australian appeal against Root seemed more confident than the English appeal against Haddin.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 17, 2013, 1:10 GMT

    @CricFan78 on (July 16, 2013, 16:08 GMT), um, no. The purpose of DRS is to increase the number of correct decisions so the percentage of correct decisions without DRS is obviously relevant. If the purpose of DRS is to increase the percentage of correct decisions and it did so in this game, can you say that DRS is not a good idea based on this game?

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 17, 2013, 1:01 GMT

    @Sanjiyan on (July 16, 2013, 15:55 GMT), if you still don't understand that then it's because you haven't bothered to read or listen to anything over the last several years. In tennis, what you're seeing is where the ball actually landed. There is no prediction involved. In cricket, when HawkEye is used to determine whether the ball would have hit the stumps on an LBW, there IS prediction involved. The tennis ball actually did bounce on the court while the cricket never actually hit the stumps. When you predict the path of the ball you can never be 100% sure that the path you predict is the exact path that the ball would have taken. That's why there is an in-built margin for error and that's why the "umpire's call" rule. That said, when judging whether the ball pitched or hit in line, there is no prediction involved. "Umpire's call" makes less sense in then and that's exactly why there's no justification for complaining about Phil Hughes dismissal: the ball really did pitch in line.

  • POSTED BY David_Bofinger on | July 17, 2013, 1:00 GMT

    If we're evaluating DRS then IIUC the on-field umpires were 53/59 and the DRS was 10/13. DRS was 4/6 when the umpires were wrong and 6/7 when the umpres were right. Not disgraceful, by any means. I'd like to see the overall statistics.

  • POSTED BY Mr_Truth on | July 17, 2013, 0:42 GMT

    A better balance for DRS would be one referral available to each side per innings, but an unsuccessful referral is not lost if the final decision is an umpires calll. Having the extra one to gamble with simply makes players feel as though they can abuse the system - they are only human.

  • POSTED BY Dashgar on | July 17, 2013, 0:30 GMT

    I don't think DRS actually got anything wrong in this match (Trott was clearly out as vindicated by snicko) but the way it is used means it doesn't prevent all this controversy. We don't want a system where borderline lbws are challenged constantly, we want one where the howlers are removed. Take DRS away from the players, scrap hawkeye from the system and just look for the mistakes involving nicks not being heard and balls pitching outside leg. Umpires can see the trajectory of the ball as well as anyone. What they can't see is the strike zone or hotspot so lets just help them with those two areas and be done with it.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 17, 2013, 0:03 GMT

    I think that it's interesting that the ICC are calling the decision against Trott a mistake. I'd be interested to know whether that's because they believe that he was actually not out because he edged the ball into his pad or rather that the on-field decision should simply not have been overturned due to lack of evidence.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 17, 2013, 0:01 GMT

    I really do think that people are too hard on umpires sometimes. I'm quite sure most people don't appreciate how difficult a job it is. These elite umpires are trained, practised and paid, so we have a right to expect a high standard from them but even a high standard is going to involve a few mistakes. While giving Broad not out was a genuine mistake, I think that some people are making too much of that as well. It's not like Broad hit the ball to Clarke at first slip. The deflection of the bat was actually relatively small and it was the deflection of Haddin's gloves that took the ball to Clarke. Obviously Aleem Dar though that it was just straight off Haddin's gloves. To be frank, Australia's misjudgement in calling for a review against Bairstow for an LBW that was missing by miles was significantly greater than Dar's misjudgement regarding Broad. If Australia hadn't misjudged that LBW so badly then they could have corrected the mistake that reprieved Broad.

  • POSTED BY yoogi on | July 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT

    The number of reviews should be able to cover most of the matches, not average of the matches. ie, if 72 umpiring decisions were made during a test, then probably that test must be given more reviews, i.e players should have atleast 3 reviews per 50 overs.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | July 16, 2013, 23:56 GMT

    @5wombats on (July 16, 2013, 15:50 GMT), I have to agree with some others that you're making too much of Agar's potential stumping. I believe that it was probably out but I also believe that there was insufficient evidence to give it so in a world where a 50/50 decision really should be given in the batsman's favour. Bell's dismissal in the CT final had certainly created a precedent for giving Agar out but I really don't think that Bell should have been given out either. It's tempting to focus on Agar's let-off because of the significant change of fortune that allowed but I really don;t see how that can be considered a mistake by the umpire or DRS.

  • POSTED BY Shaggy076 on | July 16, 2013, 23:37 GMT

    Other than these DRS calls there were umpires call such as against Rogers and Watson clipping leg stump that if they were given Not Out - highly probable Cook would be in the same position as Clarke. Where as the Australian batsman were given out in this situation, the English were given Not-Out. If the situation was reversed would Cook review these decisions. Please front-foot-lunge stop spouting your England were robbed tripe.

  • POSTED BY jgs2709 on | July 16, 2013, 23:36 GMT

    @5wombat:- I can't believe how much the poms are banging on about the Agar stumping. It went to the 3rd umpire who looked at it about 50 times. They switched from frame to frame over and and over but could not find a conclusive image to show he was out. He was probably out but if the 3rd umpire can't find conclusive evidence after that much scrutinizing then it is fair to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt. Trott was stiff, Broad should buy a lottery ticket and the Aussies will never be as flippant with their reviews again.

  • POSTED BY Shaggy076 on | July 16, 2013, 23:35 GMT

    I'm not in favour of the DRS purely because I believe it is not a cricket tool but an umpiring tool. With regards to this game there seems to be some ludicrous calls that England got the rough end of the stick. Firstly the Agar dismissal you get the feeling he may have had no part behind the line but the evidence we saw on the TV was quite inconclusive. A worn line and grainy vision, I cant see how they gave that out. I'm aware Bell was given out similar in champions trophy but that was also a mistake. I'm still not convinced Trott hit it but believe there was enough doubt and that shouldn't have been overturned. However, that hotspot could be turned off at that time is an indictment on the DRS system in itself. If that tool is available for umpires it must always be available otherwise you could find host nations taking advantage of this situation (Im not for one minute suggesting England did this). Then the much discussed Broad incident. (TBC)

  • POSTED BY PrathameshYamgar on | July 16, 2013, 23:06 GMT

    the icc should increase the DRS rewiew to four per team

    only then will the DRS be more effective. also the ICC should have a line umpire, who will only look for the no ball of a bowler like a tennis linesman. He can wave a red flag if the ball is a no ball so that the main umpire can concentrate on other decisions. plus they can fine a batsmen by banning him for next two matches for not walking if he has convincingly nicked the ball,

    also two LBW per innings should be reviewed by the main umpire to the third umpire.

    to accomodate time for these rewiews, the matches should be reduced to 45 overs or 40 overs per side in odis, and 80 overs per day in test matches.

    that way all decisions can be 95% accurate. And we can have 95% results for test matches

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 22:58 GMT

    DRS is too advanced for these old umpires. You need fresh eyes. I'd suggest getting a automated system or something and completely take it out of human's hand.

  • POSTED BY balajik1968 on | July 16, 2013, 22:50 GMT

    The panel of umpires stands at 10, a small figure. This December we are going to have South Africa India, England Australia series. Just supposing one more series is scheduled. 9 of 10 umpires are busy. Add a bilateral one day series; the ICC is screwed. Point I am making is ; the umpire panel is too small. So the workload on these guys increases tremendously, and errors are bound to increase. So the ICC has to find ways to increase the number of umpires. Reg the DRS system, the ICC is creating a divide; I doubt if Pakistan, NZ, SL, WI can afford it. Also before any system to be put in place,it has to be trialled extensively in the domestic arena. I doubt if the DRS has been trialled. The way I see it, the broadcasters seem to be calling the shots. By the way, the BCCI is financing much of world cricket; they have prevented SL cricket from going belly up; give them some credit. If they have concerns, why not address them?

  • POSTED BY tamperbay on | July 16, 2013, 22:46 GMT

    From what I saw, the Trott case was OUT. He hit his pad strap and thought that he hit the ball. He was beaten by a great conventionally inswinging ball from Starc and deserved to be OUT anyway.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 22:41 GMT

    Now Australia will join India to support "No DRS", since they too failed to use DRS properly. As an average mature human of the present world even with an average commen sense, don't you agree DRS ( technology ) is better than umpire decisions ( human error) at least by some percentage.,

  • POSTED BY Fieryorc on | July 16, 2013, 22:17 GMT

    @ Front-Foot-Lunge. I'm surprised you would think that "England had more bad reviews go against them."You are usually so neutral in your opinions. What makes you so sure that England got the wrong end of the stick? Was it the Broad decision?

  • POSTED BY Fieryorc on | July 16, 2013, 22:13 GMT

    @ rajcan I don't think you understand how DRS works. You wrote "When a naked eye and a replay confirm there was no nick from the bat or glove and Umpire has given not out, but the DRS tells out, IT IS A BIG JOKE.."

    DRS did not "tell out," or dismiss Trott. An umpire did. An umpire made an incorrect decision. Nothing more, nothing less. Umpires do make incorrect decisions. In Trott's case it was the TV, or 3rd umpire who made an incorrect decision. That rarely happens. However, the fault is the umpire's. Off the field or on the files, umpires make the decision.

    DRS is a set of tools used by umpires. DRS is almost exclusively used to confirm a good decision or overturn a bad decision. Occasionally, the umpire reviewing the DRS tools makes an error. The outcome from using DRS remains an UMPIRE's decision, so you are effectively saying that the umpires are a big joke.

  • POSTED BY garibaldi on | July 16, 2013, 22:08 GMT

    @BMayuresh - your argument doesn't really hold water. Let's imagine DRS hadn't been in place in this match. Which decisions would have been different? Not Broad's or Trott's - the 2 most obvious errors. But Haddin wouldn't have been given out - thereby in all probability handing the match to Australia on the basis of an error. Please explain how that would have been a better result for cricket? There are certainly ways it can be improved, and I hope the ICC consider them, but the controversies you mention all stem from human error - eg Dar missing an obvious edge, or Erasmus failing to use the hotspot system properly - not the system itself.

  • POSTED BY Blokker on | July 16, 2013, 22:04 GMT

    DRS is completely unnecessary, series featuring India are great these days without it. It doesn't improve the actual game in any way, frankly. Who cares if umpires get a few wrong? It all evens up over time, and always has. Now we have DRS errors evening up over time instead. Get rid of the ridiculous lottery of the 'half stump' rule and things will improve, though.

  • POSTED BY the_blue_android on | July 16, 2013, 21:45 GMT

    To everyone who says DRS is meant to only remove the howlers. I just have two words for you. Third Umpire. Why a third umpire isn't use to remove howlers from the game is just beyond me.

  • POSTED BY Buggsy on | July 16, 2013, 21:42 GMT

    @BMayuresh, the Indian stance on the DRS is NOT correct. DRS, for all its faults, is still far more accurate than on field umpires alone.

  • POSTED BY Biggus on | July 16, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    @5wombats:-Maybe I just don't stressed out enough about the cricket since I regard this whole 'controversy' as a bit of a storm in a teacup. I agree that many are playing this up to fit their own agenda and there are also always those who will whinge when they lose or any time a close one goes against them. In the end England won and I think they deserved to despite some erratic umpiring, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the Agar call. Due to quirks in the light at the time I couldn't see conclusive evidence that his foot wasn't grounded as the bails came off. It's tempting to imagine that the foot wasn't grounded but I just couldn't see definitively which is what Nasser Hussein was getting at IMO. The problem IMO is that Trott's reversal decision didn't seem to be governed by the same stringency with regard to evidence. I'm not too fussed about our bad luck with the umpires call stuff. DRS is a work in progress and you have to use it to find the flaws, something the BCCI forgets

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 20:39 GMT

    ICC for once is correct. The DRS element is a red herring, when implemented sensibly by the players, as England did by and large, and applied correctly by the third umpire, not in the case of Trott, it works well and keeps the game flowing and umpiring errors down. I prefer that players who are out, when batting, and desperate for a wicket, when bowling, taking a punt on the system letting them off get caught. The penalty is that Broad got away with one. In other games Haddin would have got away with one two, and that would have been the test match to Australia. DRS is a positive element in the game and I fail to see that any alternatives proposed would improve the game.

  • POSTED BY BennieLovesCricket on | July 16, 2013, 20:31 GMT

    Blimey! Get over it will you all! DRS is a good thing - there are no two ways about it. Overall there are fewer bad umpiring errors with DRS than there were before it. That you still get the odd "howler" is down to poor use of the system and this is a skill that will develop over time.

    The ICC do their analysis in a cold, analytical manner which is kinda what makes life work, rather than the knee-jerk, emotional responses that people are spewing out on here 'cos their team of choice didn't get the rub.

    I also find it hilarious that India, a nation desperate to brand itself as a nation of IT experts, would rather back the fallible human eye to make the big decisions than a computer-aided system.

    Oh well.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 20:16 GMT

    The biggest error in terms of what ACTUALLY happened and can be QUANTIFIED had nothing what-so-ever to do with DRS. It was a straightforward umpires referral of Agar's stumping. He was clearly out and went on to make another 92 runs - and over 150 for the partnership with Haddin - effectively doubling the aussies score inthe 1st innings in the process.

    Broad's none walk meant he scored another 28 and added 56 for the partnership with Prior.

    The one mistake which no-one seems to want to talk about was QUANTIFIABLY - OBJECTIVELY and MEASURABLY almost 3x more costly to England than Broad's none walk was to the Aussies.

    Getting a batter with an average of over 50 out with a mockery of an overturned LBW decision adds to the mess (but cannot be measured - who knows how many Trott may have made - out next ball anyway? Or a dogged 150 off 300 balls, who knows?).

    Fact is all this journalism is directed to "oh poor old Australia" when they DEOMONSTRABLY had far the better of the deal.

  • POSTED BY rajcan on | July 16, 2013, 20:05 GMT

    Common ICC, are you joking????. It is ok for Umpires to make one or two mistakes, they are human. But, technology (DRS )can correct the errors umpires made, in this case 4 errors were corrected by DRS.

    To turn around Umpire's decision, there should be enough proofs. When a naked eye and a replay confirm there was no nick from the bat or glove and Umpire has given not out, but the DRS tells out, IT IS A BIG JOKE.

  • POSTED BY BMayuresh on | July 16, 2013, 19:58 GMT

    I hope now that this fiasco has taken place, people across the world would now agree that BCCI's stand on DRS was correct. Yes, the system is good but needs a lot of work before it can be satisfactorily implemented. Not sure why ICC is in such a haste to enforce this mechanism and creating unnecessary controversies.

  • POSTED BY 5wombats on | July 16, 2013, 19:22 GMT

    @Biggus - mate, people are getting very carried away with the DRS thing, Trott and Broad not walking etc. TBH the DRS debate just plays straight into the hands of the Indians who want to see DRS blocked in any event. The point I was trying to make is that those DRS "errors" (if they were errors) were as nothing compared to the impact of the non-stumping of Agar - which has nothing to do with DRS and is a straight Umpire referral. IMHO Agar was plainly out. The fact that Australia more than doubled their score from that incident shows that if any extra care needs to be taken anywhere - then that extra care needs to be taken with the line of the crease, not the predictive/hot spot technology of DRS. If you remember the 2009 Ashes (and I'm SURE you do..!) Clarke was given out run out at the crease at the Oval in an extremely tight one. Agar's case was much clearer and he was not given. You know I'm not antagonising - I'm just saying it how I see it.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 18:56 GMT

    De minimis non curat lex. - The law does not concern itself with trivialities. The stats say that the DRS system is right approximately 50% of the time. The margin of error is not statistically insignificant.

  • POSTED BY Jeppo on | July 16, 2013, 18:24 GMT

    I would be most interested on what the ICC counts as an "umpire's decision". Do they include, for example, decisions on whether to award runs off the bat or legbyes? Or is it just the decisions on whether a batsman is out or not out? Do they count batsman being out bowled as an "umpire's decision" as well?

    I'm not reading too much into these figures. As the saying goes, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 18:08 GMT

    People are forgetting that Root was given out when he was not. This resulted in acutally Trotts out as well. Actually aussies got two outs for Broads not out. Two for one. So rest in peace. Mistakes do happen and aussies should be the last one to conmplain

  • POSTED BY Biggus on | July 16, 2013, 18:07 GMT

    @5wombats:-The consensus of the commentary team regarding the Agar non-stumping seemed to be that it was ultimately the correct one. The English commentator at the time, Nasser Hussein I think, said that it was probably out but that there wasn't sufficient evidence to give it and that's how I felt as well. I'm surprised you've chosen to make a big deal over that one mate since I didn't think it was bad decision. The Trott not out reversal was poor in my opinion since I didn't see conclusive evidence to overturn it, and I was surprised as hell when we got that wicket.

  • POSTED BY Front-Foot-Lunge on | July 16, 2013, 17:58 GMT

    Poor and good umpiring existed throughout this match, but I think it's fair to say that England had more bad reviews go against them. Haddin himself knew he'd nicked that last ball, as did everyone else down to the drinks stand next to the car park, but he still stood his ground. Broad's unpopular and highly questionable decision to stand his ground in the first innings does not make up for England's bagful of bad decisions, including Trott's which was an abomination. England still won despite all this.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 17:54 GMT

    These so called statistics will not justify the match turning events that took place due to these Bad Decisions. Dar and Dharmasena were clearly not up to their standards. ICC just trying to cover up for the bashing it is getting from the media.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 17:50 GMT

    Marais Erasmus was the umpire who made the worst decisions. Firstly he has all the equipment to review and re-review the action on the pitch. He gives a batsman (Agar) not out when his foot was on the line in a stumping decision (The line belongs to the umpire) Then he overturns a good decision by Aleem Dar in the Trott LBW affair. I'm sure this last decision had an affect on Dar as he threw his hands up in disbelief after having to reverse his decision on Trott! The Australians were also unlucky but had used up their two referrals poorly. That's part and parcel of the review system. Don't blame Dar or Broad but Erasmus and the Aussies use of the review system!

  • POSTED BY TestsRDaBest on | July 16, 2013, 17:38 GMT

    I still think its better with drs than without, having said that i think they should change the number of reviews a team gets per innings in a test match.

    In T20 each team gets a review and in ODIs its two per innings in other words 1 in 20 overs and 2 in 50 overs, but when it comes to tests its 2 per innings, the innings could be 50 overs or 150 overs but it still stays 2 per innings, so in my opinion it should be the same for tests i.e. each team should get 2 reviews and then if and when the new ball is taken by the bowling side it should go back to 2 reviews.

    It will give some sort of consistency to the review idea and it will also bring some excitement in the decision of the captain to get the new ball as it will come with a bonus of reviews as sometimes the decision is prolonged by captains when the pitch isn't doing much so it will entice captains to do so.

    Just my opinion but DRS is better than no DRS.

  • POSTED BY Barnesy4444 on | July 16, 2013, 17:21 GMT

    DRS was brought in to eliminate howlers. There was only 1 howler in this test, Broad, and the rules didn't apply. DRS rules need reviewing.

    1) Take umpiring decisions out of the hands of players who are using it as a tactic. 2) Allow the 3rd umpire to intervene for obvious errors. This is how both umpires and players want it. Fans too judging by the response to the Broad decision.

  • POSTED BY Cereshamish on | July 16, 2013, 17:15 GMT

    There should be unlimited reviews available to either side but there should be a penalty for excessive reviewing similar to that of excessive appealing.

  • POSTED BY whatawicket on | July 16, 2013, 17:14 GMT

    the 3 decisions that stick in my mind, the agar stumping and the trott lbw were the worst as these went through 2 levels of decision makers and the correct decision were still not arrived at which i find so puzzling. the 3rd, broads was in the 1st place just a bad decision made by the on field umpire which can happen and has happened since the games birth. the ICC have cleared the umps of any malice. but at lords when a revue goes upstairs it must come back to the umps as correct no matter how long it takes.

  • POSTED BY Herath-UK on | July 16, 2013, 16:50 GMT

    Dar had a bad match but Dharmasena did excellent. However the errors from the third umpire should not be excused as he has time & technology to make his decision.Why not the fourth umpire too join to make a combined decision to lessen the errors. Ranil Herath - Kent

  • POSTED BY Iddo555 on | July 16, 2013, 16:42 GMT

    Umpires need to concentrate on getting the decision right in the first place and then all DRS will do is confirm they got it right and make them look good.

    DRS is there for when umpires get it wrong and in the first test the umpires made too many mistakes, it's as simple as that.

    I think Aleem Dar is a good umpire on the whole but he had a shocker this test. Erasmus also had a shocker, he doesn't seem able to look at screen in slow motion and get it right so he has no excuse

  • POSTED BY landl47 on | July 16, 2013, 16:40 GMT

    If you asked the Australian side before the game started whether they would rather get Trott out or get Broad out, what do you think they would say? Trott, of course. So if Trott is mistakenly given out and Broad is mistakenly given not out, who wins that exchange? The other error, the Broad not out when padding up to a ball which hit him more than a foot outside the stumps, those are rarely given because the umpire simply can't judge the angle from where he stands. I'm willing to bet it wouldn't have been reviewed, either, for the same reason.

    As for the people saying that this shows the DRS shouldn't be used because it causes controversies, there would have been more controversies without the DRS than with it, so that argument fails.

    We have independent umpires who do the best they can. We have a system which corrects errors and improves decision-making. Only one decision in 20 is wrong, which I think is pretty darned good. Let it go, for Pete's sake.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 16:18 GMT

    It would be a huge mistake to get rid of DRS. At least we can eliminate some of the real howlers where one of them normally changes a game. The Broad decision had nothing to do with DRS - the Aussies wasted their appeals, one not even a close call. They obviously were desparate for a wicket and took a chance which cost them dearly full stop. The last Indian tour of South Africa saw a number of bad decisions which mostly benefitted the Indians. I recall one caught behind off Steyn involving ST. It change the course of the Cape Tonw test. Good for them, but the saying goes: "what comes around, goes around". I think we all want the correct decisions made. But DRS is not perfect, none of us or system is.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 16:15 GMT

    Its a good idea to use technology and I am sure with time we will reach 100% results using DRS. Why don't ICC allow more than 2 reviews in test matches.

  • POSTED BY CricFan78 on | July 16, 2013, 16:08 GMT

    ICC is defending DRS by including decisions in its Maths which has nothing to do with DRS

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 16:05 GMT

    I think DRS made a good positive impact in the match excluding Trotts decision. England might have lost if not for DRS in the end, how unfair that would have been? It is not DRS's fault, but captains need to use it properly. I favour the current system where captains have the decision to use DRS, it should not be with the same umpire who makes the initial mistake

  • POSTED BY Sameer-hbk on | July 16, 2013, 16:04 GMT

    I think a lot of people forget the fact that DRS is there to eliminate howlers. The problem is that both captains and batsmen are using it as part of 'strategy'. They are willing to gamble with it. Sure, the Broad decision was horrible. But the fact remains that Clark used up his 2 reviews. In other words, there were 2 occasions on which Clark used his reviews to gamble on what he felt were 'iffy' decisions that could go both ways. He got it wrong twice! It is this fundamental difference in mindset that is the problem. DRS is not a part of cricket strategy. If you gamble on your 2 DRS reviews, you run the risk of getting a howler. To his credit though, the Aussie captain was pretty graceful about it.

  • POSTED BY Sanjiyan on | July 16, 2013, 15:55 GMT

    Umpires should NOT be getting 90% right. That % should be much higher, upwards of the 95%. The remaining 5% is for the so called howlers, or when the fielding team or batsman have received a wrong decision. In this match the umpires(Aleem dar mostly) got 7 decisions wrong..thats too much. I dont care if this is the first ashes and the way the pitch was playing, or the intensity of the match in general, these umpires are supposedly the best of the best. No excuses for having such an appalling % of wrong decisions, regardless of technology. As for the DRS, i still dont understand that tennis allows hawkeye to make the calls up to 1mm and yet in cricket, the ball has to be hitting the wicket for more than 50% for a decision to be overturned, or vindicated. If the ball is hitting the wicket, the batsman is out plain and simple.

  • POSTED BY bobmartin on | July 16, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    There's one thing that can be guaranteed when DRS is being discussed, the Indian contingent will be out in force to condemn it... If it achieved 100% they'd still rubbish it...The figures prove that DRS improves the percentage of correct decisions by some considerable margin... It would be interesting to see how many might have been corrected had the Aussies made better use of their reviews. You can argue all you like...but the fact is that many batsmen have been reprieved by DRS... and only a very few have been incorrectly condemned by it... and every one of those was not the fault of the system, but the fault of the umpire using the system...

  • POSTED BY 5wombats on | July 16, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    Never mind DRS - What about the stumping of Agar when on 6?!?! This single mistake had huge consequences for the match and made it very much closer than it would otherwise have been. Instead of being All Out for 131 Australia made 280 in their first dig, that's a difference of 149 runs!!! So Australia's aggregate score came to 576 when it should really have been 427. That one mistake amounted to over 25% of the total of Australia's runs. An amazing statistic for what looks like a small mistake. And it nearly cost England the match....

  • POSTED BY JPrats on | July 16, 2013, 15:47 GMT

    Great, it is very well understood! When the ICC says that the teams/players should accept the Umpire's decision as final, why did aoplogise it to the England team for Trott's dismissal. The England team too did a big fuss about that and never spoke a word for Broads non-dismissal.

  • POSTED BY alarky on | July 16, 2013, 15:43 GMT

    I know that all of England is now cock-a-hoop having won the first match in the 2013 Ashes Series; even though it was the result of a set of blatant umpire errors! But I hope that they accept the decisions when the unfortunate shoe is on their foot! I know how petty and annoying they get when their players are the victims of similar circumstances - they sometimes even request the reinstatement of their players who're dismissed fairly! You remember the Dhoni-Bell incident? England, especially their coach, Mr Andy Flour who is alwys darting around the offices and dressing rooms to seek all sorts of petty clarifications, when they are on the wrong end of the stick should know that England alone can't expect to have the rules bended just to suit their cause! Mr Flour has already been dashing around to seek clarification on Trott's dismissal, when the umpire sent him packing based on what he saw, but the said Mr Flour did not encourage Broad to walk after he square cut a ball and was caught

  • POSTED BY milepost on | July 16, 2013, 15:41 GMT

    I hated that Broad didn't walk but..... He's entitled to and the Aussies actually backed him in the press. You could probably swap Trott's shocker for Broad and call it even (arguably we were luckier to be rid of Trott who I feel is in for some big runs). It did highlight that players using DRS is not great. I'm an Aussie and the 2005 Ashes (that I lived in England for) was the best series I ever saw, despite losing. Point being, winning isn't as great tight contests of quality for me. DRS should be used to make sure the cricket is fair, that the shockers are gone so we see the best cricket. This had shockers galore and apart from Agar's remarkable debut and Anderson's true magic with the ball, was pretty low quality cricket

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 15:37 GMT

    The ICC statement says they use technology to get as many correct decisions as possible, so why do they cripple this goal with their arbitrary maximum of two incorrect reviews? As the article states, 7 wrong decisions out of 72 is 90.3% correct and DRS reduced this to 3 wrong decisions (95.8%) but could have made it just 1 incorrect decision (98.6%) if common sense prevailed. Clearly 95.8% is good enough for the ICC.

  • POSTED BY Iddo555 on | July 16, 2013, 15:35 GMT

    @amanroy

    Getting decisions wrong diminished the credibility of umpires. DRS corrects them on the whole.

    In many cases DRS actually confirms the that the umpire made a good decision so it isn't there just to make them look bad

  • POSTED BY coolerking on | July 16, 2013, 15:25 GMT

    The point is that umpires have *always* made mistakes but there are fewer of them now thanks to DRS. There will occasionally be games where a combination of circumstances (e.g. Dar missing Broad's nick but the Aussies having no reviews left) will conspire to grab headlines but the system is basically working as it should.

    100% consistently correct decisions is an impossible dream, but we're closer to it today than we were 10 years ago. We could do with more elite umpires though, and from a wider range of countries.

  • POSTED BY amanroy on | July 16, 2013, 15:22 GMT

    DRS should be banned. It is diminishing the credibility of umpires.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 15:18 GMT

    DRS will never work as players and umpires go into extra pressure and watched the Trent bridge test start broad didn't walk and he knew that Australia don't have a review left and stayed at the crease and than it is the hot spot and that's rubbish and let the on fields umpires do the work .

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 15:15 GMT

    These stats of 90% correct decision and inc. of 5% looks very good on paper but what effect those 5% had on the whole match and what kind of howler they were are the basis of how bad umpires were during the match.There stats are no excuse for pathetic umpiring standard in the first test.Every one had criticized BCCI for not supporting DRS but now we know what they have been concerned about that.The team which is favored by in case of incorrect DRS(England in this case ) will say its part of match but team which is on receiving end will oppose it(Australia).If situation is reversed only roles will be reserved but controversies will remain there until the DRS is full proof.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | July 16, 2013, 15:10 GMT

    well ICC might have had its % but viewer's faith which won't be something not complied with stats, but results with desperation!

  • POSTED BY SollyOlly on | July 16, 2013, 15:07 GMT

    That's all well and good. However, the fact remains that Dar's error regarding Broad was a match-defining and possibly series-altering one. The system does need to be looked at, as the error was a howler and there was 'no way' to correct it...Let's wait and see if England behave so magnanimously when the wheel turns, and they get a succession of match and potentially series changing bad decisions.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | July 16, 2013, 15:07 GMT

    Sorry David, but Aleem Dar had one of his lesser performances. He is not up to the standard he set a few years back. Personally, I would have no issues with English umpires for this series. We never had issues in the past & I believe without them in Ashes contests, the umpiring standards have dropped.

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | July 16, 2013, 15:00 GMT

    Interesting read but comes across as more of a whitewash over the situations that occured than anything else.

    While ashes contests are often intense especially the first one in a series with both sides trying to find weakneses and get the upper hand.

  • POSTED BY Hatter_Mad on | July 16, 2013, 14:57 GMT

    A fair enough assessment from the ICC but one that is at odds with what a lot of people have been shouting about on here. Interesting that they don't mention the Agar stumping.

  • POSTED BY stumpedlloyd on | July 16, 2013, 14:55 GMT

    This is the ICC's excuse? "When coupled with the conditions, with reverse swing and spin playing an important role, and the added intensity of the first Ashes Test, it was a difficult match to umpire," read the ICC statement.

    That's what these umpires are supposed to do, are paid to do, regardless of the "intensity" of the match. That's why the ICC has bestowed upon them the grand title of "elite panel umpires." If they cannot handle the intensity, then don't umpire.

    Hey, ICC, quit making excuses for mediocre umpiring and hold these people responsible for the poor decisions they made on the field. Part of the issue is that there are only four "elite" umpires to choose from - Dar, Dharmasena, Erasmus and Tony Hill - for The Ashes. I say have both captains agree and then bring in Paul Reiffel, Richard Kettleborough, Richard Illingworth. How on earth Dar could have missed the edge from Broad I have no idea. That was a horrible, horrible mistake.

  • POSTED BY tusharkardile on | July 16, 2013, 14:54 GMT

    So, ICC has nothing more to say about Broad's dismissal, especially disparity between the treatment given to Ramdin and Broad?

  • POSTED BY PFEL on | July 16, 2013, 14:53 GMT

    DRS was fine, umpires very ordinary. Just because you have a back up doesn't excuse terrible decisions that every player, man and his dog sitting at home can tell are wrong immediately.

  • POSTED BY GeoffreysMother on | July 16, 2013, 14:48 GMT

    On field /split second wrong decisions are excusable. Ones involving the third umpire are much less so - it shows an umpire (in this case Erasmus) going through a faulty process. I am also not convinced that the decision not to give Agar not out stumped was the correct one. Having said that these calls tend to be balanced out (in this match) by some tight leg stump LBW calls going one way then the other, so I don't think they unduly affected the result of the match. Time to put this issue to bed and focus on the exciting issues that the second test will raise. Can Bairstow and Root play match defining innings? Have Hughes and Smith really improved? Was Agar a flash in the pan or will he be the player who makes the difference? Will Australia negate Swann's spin as much as Amla or Kallis dis? Can Finn take more wickets with the ball than his knee? Will Pattinson and Starc cope with the Lord's slope?

  • POSTED BY ReverseSweepIndia on | July 16, 2013, 14:46 GMT

    we need a change big time how DRS is implemented. This limit of 2 reviews will not work and we already are having enough problems and still seeing howlers. We can find fault with Clark for not using it judicially, but we still had howlers. Didn't we. I think we can let go the cap of 2 reviews. We can just have penalty in turn of runs, that will make captains cautious and will work as deterrent where they just 'try their luck'. If they stand to lose say 5/10 runs on each failed decision, we won;t have howlers because everyone will have equal right to use DRS if they are sure that they had been wronged. And this penalty clause: don't we have 5 runs when ball hit helmet? I don't think this can be bit out of league.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | July 16, 2013, 14:44 GMT

    icc defending its umpires and its technology whereas it shud improve it

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 14:44 GMT

    Can't really argue with that now can we

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 14:43 GMT

    I do not understand why rules are created only when something happens. Why can't every decision be kept on 3rd umpires hand. Why can't 3rd umpire give all decisions and if it is not possible then why can't 3rd umpire or match referee call the batsmen back if they come to know that decision of giving out was wrong. And vice versa also, can give a batsmen out if they come to know that on-field umpires decision was wrong when batsmen was really out and not given out.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 14:43 GMT

    I do not understand why rules are created only when something happens. Why can't every decision be kept on 3rd umpires hand. Why can't 3rd umpire give all decisions and if it is not possible then why can't 3rd umpire or match referee call the batsmen back if they come to know that decision of giving out was wrong. And vice versa also, can give a batsmen out if they come to know that on-field umpires decision was wrong when batsmen was really out and not given out.

  • POSTED BY on | July 16, 2013, 14:44 GMT

    Can't really argue with that now can we

  • POSTED BY android_user on | July 16, 2013, 14:44 GMT

    icc defending its umpires and its technology whereas it shud improve it

  • POSTED BY ReverseSweepIndia on | July 16, 2013, 14:46 GMT

    we need a change big time how DRS is implemented. This limit of 2 reviews will not work and we already are having enough problems and still seeing howlers. We can find fault with Clark for not using it judicially, but we still had howlers. Didn't we. I think we can let go the cap of 2 reviews. We can just have penalty in turn of runs, that will make captains cautious and will work as deterrent where they just 'try their luck'. If they stand to lose say 5/10 runs on each failed decision, we won;t have howlers because everyone will have equal right to use DRS if they are sure that they had been wronged. And this penalty clause: don't we have 5 runs when ball hit helmet? I don't think this can be bit out of league.

  • POSTED BY GeoffreysMother on | July 16, 2013, 14:48 GMT

    On field /split second wrong decisions are excusable. Ones involving the third umpire are much less so - it shows an umpire (in this case Erasmus) going through a faulty process. I am also not convinced that the decision not to give Agar not out stumped was the correct one. Having said that these calls tend to be balanced out (in this match) by some tight leg stump LBW calls going one way then the other, so I don't think they unduly affected the result of the match. Time to put this issue to bed and focus on the exciting issues that the second test will raise. Can Bairstow and Root play match defining innings? Have Hughes and Smith really improved? Was Agar a flash in the pan or will he be the player who makes the difference? Will Australia negate Swann's spin as much as Amla or Kallis dis? Can Finn take more wickets with the ball than his knee? Will Pattinson and Starc cope with the Lord's slope?

  • POSTED BY PFEL on | July 16, 2013, 14:53 GMT

    DRS was fine, umpires very ordinary. Just because you have a back up doesn't excuse terrible decisions that every player, man and his dog sitting at home can tell are wrong immediately.

  • POSTED BY tusharkardile on | July 16, 2013, 14:54 GMT

    So, ICC has nothing more to say about Broad's dismissal, especially disparity between the treatment given to Ramdin and Broad?

  • POSTED BY stumpedlloyd on | July 16, 2013, 14:55 GMT

    This is the ICC's excuse? "When coupled with the conditions, with reverse swing and spin playing an important role, and the added intensity of the first Ashes Test, it was a difficult match to umpire," read the ICC statement.

    That's what these umpires are supposed to do, are paid to do, regardless of the "intensity" of the match. That's why the ICC has bestowed upon them the grand title of "elite panel umpires." If they cannot handle the intensity, then don't umpire.

    Hey, ICC, quit making excuses for mediocre umpiring and hold these people responsible for the poor decisions they made on the field. Part of the issue is that there are only four "elite" umpires to choose from - Dar, Dharmasena, Erasmus and Tony Hill - for The Ashes. I say have both captains agree and then bring in Paul Reiffel, Richard Kettleborough, Richard Illingworth. How on earth Dar could have missed the edge from Broad I have no idea. That was a horrible, horrible mistake.

  • POSTED BY Hatter_Mad on | July 16, 2013, 14:57 GMT

    A fair enough assessment from the ICC but one that is at odds with what a lot of people have been shouting about on here. Interesting that they don't mention the Agar stumping.

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | July 16, 2013, 15:00 GMT

    Interesting read but comes across as more of a whitewash over the situations that occured than anything else.

    While ashes contests are often intense especially the first one in a series with both sides trying to find weakneses and get the upper hand.