England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 2nd day July 11, 2013

Hot Spot under the spotlight

George Dobell, Dan Brettig and Jarrod Kimber
ESPNcricinfo presents the plays of the day from an historic day at Trent Bridge
40

Bet of the day

If you had placed a bet on Steve Smith being the first player to score a fifty in these Ashes, you would now be counting many dollar bills. The official announcement that Smith was in the squad came after he was in the team. No one really expected him to play. Fewer expected him to be successful. Instead, other than one barely talked about partnership, Smith made his fifty. And he did it by smashing Graeme Swann through cover in such an authoritative way that you would have bet your house, kids and pets on the fact he would top score in the innings. Or at least outscore the number 11.

Defining moment of the day

A flowing drive for four from Phil Hughes off the bowling of Stuart Broad gave Australia a first innings lead and brought up the 100 stand for the 10th wicket. It was a scenario that seemed highly unlikely 90 minutes earlier when Australia lost five wickets for the addition of nine runs in 32 deliveries and their final pair came together with England still 98 ahead. Hughes was not the dominant partner in the stand, though: Ashton Agar scored 67 of the first 100 runs the pair added, becoming the first Australian No.11 to score a half-century in his debut innings and going on to make 98, the highest score ever by a No. 11 in Test cricket. In all the pair added 163 - another record for the 10th wicket - to turn the game on its head.

Review of the day

Aleem Dar, the on field umpire, originally gave Jonathan Trott not out when he attempted to play across his first delivery - his only delivery, as it transpired - from Mitchell Starc. While there was little doubt the ball was straight enough to win a leg before appeal, there was a suspicion of an inside edge. Australia were quick to utilise the DRS, though, and delighted when the TV umpire, Marais Erasmus, decided to overrule Dar and see Trott given out. Bearing in mind the evidence available to Erasmus, it was a brave decision: there was no side-on Hot Spot available - it had been utilised for the previous delivery; the wicket of Joe Root and did not record the ball to Trott - while slow motion replays also suggested a deviation - possibly natural, possibly off an inside edge. It also felt a somewhat inconsistent decision bearing in mind the earlier episode where Agar, on 6, was given the benefit of the doubt after a very tight stumping appeal.

Throw of the day

It was hard to work out what Stuart Broad was actually doing out on the field. His external blow from James Pattinson in his innings meant that he didn't need to spend time out on the field in order to bowl. Yet there he was. Fielding, and not bowling, for hours. Even as Agar and Hughes started hinting at records, Broad stayed unmoved. It made little sense, either he wasn't fit enough to be out there, and should have been getting more treatment. Or he was fit enough and should have bowled earlier. Instead, all his arm did before Australia took the lead was a limp side arm throw that made it look like he'd never played before. Agar probably would have preferred that was all his arm was used for.

Tight call of the day

Agar had made all of six runs and Australia were 131 for 9 when Swann spun an off break past the debutant's groping bat. A utility appeal by Matt Prior for both the catch and the stumping had Kumar Dharmasena calling for the assistance of television, which showed a desperately tight call over whether or not Agar had any part of his foot behind the crease line. A combination of fortunately a placed shadow, and camera angles that were not quite optimal, left Erasmus puzzling over numerous replays. The longer he deliberated, the greater chance Agar's chance of survival, and eventually the not out verdict was relayed. At the time it did not seem to matter much, but as Agar's innings grew, so too did English scepticism.

Reaction of the day

With most of Australia - if not the world - cheering him on, Agar reached the cusp of a century. On 98, confronted by a creative field setting and Broad committed to bowling short, he swung hopefully towards the midwicket boundary, only to pick out Swann, who claimed a neat catch as he dived forward. Agar's response to the end of his fairytale was as graceful as his innings, a wistful smile and a gentle shrug. But Swann's fist-pumping celebration of the catch seemed more intent on stealing the scene than acknowledging the piece of Test match history he had been part of.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • cnksnk on July 12, 2013, 3:58 GMT

    Frankly there is too much criticism on Erasmus. His mandate is to use the tools that are at his disposal and take a call. From evidence available he went with what he saw. There was no conclusive proof of an edge , although there was a deviation. Hot spot ( the front view that was shown) at least did not show any thing and Hawkeye indicated the ball was hitting the stumps. He went with the right decision. It is not for the third umpire to speculate but mearly look at the evidence and take a call.

    Separately is there merit in the concerns that are periodically raised by BCCI. 2 decisions today and both raised queries post DRS. I personally think that BCCI should adopt DRS but may be there is merit in looking at things from their perspective as well

  • H_Z_O on July 12, 2013, 12:52 GMT

    @Rowayton Heh, excellent point.

    @JG2704 This has been a brilliant start to the Ashes. I'm glad the Aussies are right in amongst it, a one-sided series would have been boring. At this rate England will have a tough fight on their hands, and I'm looking forward to seeing it.

    Don't think the umpiring decisions change the one crucial thing; we're not playing as well as Australia are. If we lose (as looks likely) that's why.

  • H_Z_O on July 12, 2013, 12:46 GMT

    @ScottStevo I think both teams have had some harsh calls (e.g.Rogers lbw) there's just more ill-feeling about it on our side because ours have hurt us more. But that's as much to do with how poorly we've played and how well you have.

    @Mitty2 Thank God for that! Actually, based on your previous posts, I knew I could expect a reasonable comment from you. Good on you mate!

    My take on the Trott dismissal was slightly different (I think he did hit it, but based only on the replay; in real-time I thought it was plumb). However I think the lack of a crucial piece of tech shouldn't have harmed either side, and agree that when the same situation arises in future, the correct course would be to "ignore" the review, let the fielding team keep their review and the on-field decision (whichever way it was given, out or not-out) should stand.

    I thought Agar was out, but the real issue for me is the lack of consistency. Either they're both out, or they're both not-out. They were almost identical.

  • kallis57 on July 12, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    cnksnk - Are you joking? The third umpire should overule if there is clear incontovertible evidence that the on-field decision is wrong. Aleem Dah ruled 'not out' because he either saw or heard an inside edge. Erasmus had no evidence that the ball had not hit the inside edge because the requisite camera angle was not avalailable - so his overule was a complete guess! His role as 3rd umpire is not to guess, he needs evidence to overturn which he simply did not have. His decision was utterly indefenceable. He should have umpired his last game at any level!

  • Match-winner on July 12, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    Agreed with @Stevros3 - 3rd umpire over turns a decision when there is clear proof, yet there was none here! There was enough deviation to make everyone think that there was an inside edge....So mind boggling how these umpires work at times...

  • on July 12, 2013, 11:17 GMT

    People are getting hot under the collar about some very marginal decisions. Have we forgotten that this is just the nature of sport? Hasn't it always been this way? The idea that using technology has to be 100% perfect or binned seems to miss the point that this is still a game of small margins. Both decisions were a question of the smallest of differences. Referred LBWs are no different. I appreciate the written terms of DRS and we'd all like maximum consistency but we should remember that it was never intended to be used for these kinds of intensely close calls. When it comes down to it, when it gets that close, there will simply always be this kind of controversy. Decisions will always be made and it will always be at least partially subjective. That's just life, it's just sport. DRS hasn't changed that, so in the end this is like any other decision that goes for or against a team in the heat of the moment. Those on the receiving end don't like it, but is it really worth this fuss?

  • on July 12, 2013, 10:12 GMT

    Have Aleem Dar made any mistake ? No. Have Eramus made any mistake ? No Have Clarke made any mistake ? No. But everybody is saying there is a mistake. It has to be the technology. Technology should be 100% accurate. To err is human. But To err is NOT machine. PS:- I am not advocating for BCCI.

  • on July 12, 2013, 9:30 GMT

    Snicko is not part of any DRS in any series - it takes too long to process and present the data for it to be available to the DRS umpire. However, the umpire can listen to the onfield mikes for any evidence of a nick. The problem is that there is no infallible technology to confirm that the ball was not nicked unless the video shows a clear gap between ball and bat. A nick can be so fine that it does not show on Hotspot (the big weakness with Hotspot) or make much of a noise. So the difficulty Erasmus was facing was that the best he could hope for from the technology was confirmation that the ball was nicked and hence the on field umpire was correct. My personal opinion having seen the TV coverage is that he should have let Aleen Dar's decision stand. However, this does raise the issue that appeals against similar not out decisions are statistically unlikely to succeed - something for captains to consider perhaps?

  • theamazinggem on July 12, 2013, 8:27 GMT

    In fairness to Swann, I thought it was more relief when he took the catch - particularly after he in particular had been knocked all over the place by Agar. He obviously instantly noted/regretted it, because of the way he ran over.

    Besides, he's supposed to want to get the guy out isn't he?

  • on July 12, 2013, 8:26 GMT

    Re the Trott dismissal, should a referral to the third umpire be allowed if the on field umpire thinks the batsmen has hit the ball. In my opinion the straight on camera view shows trott got an inside edge albeit only an inch or so before the ball struck the pad. Root maybe should have reviewed his dismissal, if he was batting with anyone other than Cook maybe he would have. Hopefully things will even themselves out today.

  • cnksnk on July 12, 2013, 3:58 GMT

    Frankly there is too much criticism on Erasmus. His mandate is to use the tools that are at his disposal and take a call. From evidence available he went with what he saw. There was no conclusive proof of an edge , although there was a deviation. Hot spot ( the front view that was shown) at least did not show any thing and Hawkeye indicated the ball was hitting the stumps. He went with the right decision. It is not for the third umpire to speculate but mearly look at the evidence and take a call.

    Separately is there merit in the concerns that are periodically raised by BCCI. 2 decisions today and both raised queries post DRS. I personally think that BCCI should adopt DRS but may be there is merit in looking at things from their perspective as well

  • H_Z_O on July 12, 2013, 12:52 GMT

    @Rowayton Heh, excellent point.

    @JG2704 This has been a brilliant start to the Ashes. I'm glad the Aussies are right in amongst it, a one-sided series would have been boring. At this rate England will have a tough fight on their hands, and I'm looking forward to seeing it.

    Don't think the umpiring decisions change the one crucial thing; we're not playing as well as Australia are. If we lose (as looks likely) that's why.

  • H_Z_O on July 12, 2013, 12:46 GMT

    @ScottStevo I think both teams have had some harsh calls (e.g.Rogers lbw) there's just more ill-feeling about it on our side because ours have hurt us more. But that's as much to do with how poorly we've played and how well you have.

    @Mitty2 Thank God for that! Actually, based on your previous posts, I knew I could expect a reasonable comment from you. Good on you mate!

    My take on the Trott dismissal was slightly different (I think he did hit it, but based only on the replay; in real-time I thought it was plumb). However I think the lack of a crucial piece of tech shouldn't have harmed either side, and agree that when the same situation arises in future, the correct course would be to "ignore" the review, let the fielding team keep their review and the on-field decision (whichever way it was given, out or not-out) should stand.

    I thought Agar was out, but the real issue for me is the lack of consistency. Either they're both out, or they're both not-out. They were almost identical.

  • kallis57 on July 12, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    cnksnk - Are you joking? The third umpire should overule if there is clear incontovertible evidence that the on-field decision is wrong. Aleem Dah ruled 'not out' because he either saw or heard an inside edge. Erasmus had no evidence that the ball had not hit the inside edge because the requisite camera angle was not avalailable - so his overule was a complete guess! His role as 3rd umpire is not to guess, he needs evidence to overturn which he simply did not have. His decision was utterly indefenceable. He should have umpired his last game at any level!

  • Match-winner on July 12, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    Agreed with @Stevros3 - 3rd umpire over turns a decision when there is clear proof, yet there was none here! There was enough deviation to make everyone think that there was an inside edge....So mind boggling how these umpires work at times...

  • on July 12, 2013, 11:17 GMT

    People are getting hot under the collar about some very marginal decisions. Have we forgotten that this is just the nature of sport? Hasn't it always been this way? The idea that using technology has to be 100% perfect or binned seems to miss the point that this is still a game of small margins. Both decisions were a question of the smallest of differences. Referred LBWs are no different. I appreciate the written terms of DRS and we'd all like maximum consistency but we should remember that it was never intended to be used for these kinds of intensely close calls. When it comes down to it, when it gets that close, there will simply always be this kind of controversy. Decisions will always be made and it will always be at least partially subjective. That's just life, it's just sport. DRS hasn't changed that, so in the end this is like any other decision that goes for or against a team in the heat of the moment. Those on the receiving end don't like it, but is it really worth this fuss?

  • on July 12, 2013, 10:12 GMT

    Have Aleem Dar made any mistake ? No. Have Eramus made any mistake ? No Have Clarke made any mistake ? No. But everybody is saying there is a mistake. It has to be the technology. Technology should be 100% accurate. To err is human. But To err is NOT machine. PS:- I am not advocating for BCCI.

  • on July 12, 2013, 9:30 GMT

    Snicko is not part of any DRS in any series - it takes too long to process and present the data for it to be available to the DRS umpire. However, the umpire can listen to the onfield mikes for any evidence of a nick. The problem is that there is no infallible technology to confirm that the ball was not nicked unless the video shows a clear gap between ball and bat. A nick can be so fine that it does not show on Hotspot (the big weakness with Hotspot) or make much of a noise. So the difficulty Erasmus was facing was that the best he could hope for from the technology was confirmation that the ball was nicked and hence the on field umpire was correct. My personal opinion having seen the TV coverage is that he should have let Aleen Dar's decision stand. However, this does raise the issue that appeals against similar not out decisions are statistically unlikely to succeed - something for captains to consider perhaps?

  • theamazinggem on July 12, 2013, 8:27 GMT

    In fairness to Swann, I thought it was more relief when he took the catch - particularly after he in particular had been knocked all over the place by Agar. He obviously instantly noted/regretted it, because of the way he ran over.

    Besides, he's supposed to want to get the guy out isn't he?

  • on July 12, 2013, 8:26 GMT

    Re the Trott dismissal, should a referral to the third umpire be allowed if the on field umpire thinks the batsmen has hit the ball. In my opinion the straight on camera view shows trott got an inside edge albeit only an inch or so before the ball struck the pad. Root maybe should have reviewed his dismissal, if he was batting with anyone other than Cook maybe he would have. Hopefully things will even themselves out today.

  • rahulkmc on July 12, 2013, 8:22 GMT

    @Bishop: Mate, so if I were go to with you, and just because snicko is not being used for this series, I should ignore that there was NO SOUND as the ball passed the bat? Ain't this double standards? Its same as nicking a ball and saying umpire didn't pick it up, so its ok to carry on. Whether you want it or not thats not fair play. I personally dont like Erasmus and some of his controversial decisions, but I would totally agree on this one. Can't say the same about the Agar decision though.

  • Stevros3 on July 12, 2013, 8:13 GMT

    cnksnk, I think you fail to appreciate the way in which Team reviews are used. The first stumping I have no problem with, the on field umpire did not make a decision, passed it to Erasmus who then made a call. I disagree with the call but can understand it and respect it. The Trott one is different, the decision had been made by the onfield umpire that Trott was not out, the Australians then referred it, in the review is to correct any serious errors. Therefore the third umpire must have clear proof that the umpire was wrong, given the system he was expecting (side on view of hotspot) was unavailable, how can he have decided there was clear evedence that a mistake onfield was made. Aleem Dar was bemused when he had to give Trott out, did Erasmus not talk to Dar ask him how sure he was if there was an edge. Replays clearly show it as inconclusive, if Dar had given him out I have seen no proof to overturn it in the other direction.

  • JG2704 on July 12, 2013, 6:59 GMT

    @H_Z_O on (July 11, 2013, 20:33 GMT) For me the umpiring decs didn't overshadow it. Even though I'm English , it has to be said it has been a great 2 days of cricket even if Aus are on top right now

  • on July 12, 2013, 6:39 GMT

    I thought Trott was not out, and Aleem Dar's reaction of a shoulder shrug when he gave Trott out suggests he was a bit embarrassed and was sure that Trott had hit it.

  • humdrum on July 12, 2013, 6:14 GMT

    For Swann, histrionics will always be an important part of on field activities. note his over the top reactions to dropped catches off his own bowling and equally wild celebrations on getting wickets. the motion picture industry may yet get a new thespian

  • Rowayton on July 12, 2013, 5:20 GMT

    I don't know whether Trott hit it or not, and as a couple of posters have said it doesn't matter now - it's in the scorebook. But if I can recite a story from my past. I was once given LBW off a nick, and in the dressing room I complained bitterly about my bad luck. My captain, a sympathetic soul, said to me, "You're supposed to hit the ball with the middle of the bat, not the edge". I wonder if anybody dared saying that to Trott.

  • rahulkmc on July 12, 2013, 5:20 GMT

    Why is this 'crying' over 3rd umpire/umpire decisions and harassing them after/during a match allowed to happen at all? Why aren't they getting punished for this? And more importantly why is it only ENGLAND that does this, time and again??. It is clearly not helping the game or their stance of agreeing with DRS. On that note, those suggesting that Trott should have been reprieved because of deflection, 'in the absence of hot-spot evidence' are making another stab at DRS themselves. I understand sniko is not a part of DRS for current series (I might be wrong on this), but did it pick up ANY sound while it passed the bat? Interestingly, it did register a neat little sound on touching the pads. Explain this please. This was NOT a howler in any respect and I do not think this was a poor decision. England supporter.

  • Gloryof96 on July 12, 2013, 3:35 GMT

    Now I see why India is opting out of DRS, there is more controversy with DRS than without it!.

    1. Without any excuses, why wasn't the side on HOT SPOT not available for Trott dismissal??

    2. IF the on-field umpire calls NOT OUT for a ball that brushes the bails on the HAWK EYE - the decision stays with the on-field umpire. HOWEVER, if the same ball is called OUT, now its OUT!! HENCE, any ball brushing the bails should be given OUT

    3. Is HAWK EYE 100% accurate? Why cant HAWK EYE, based on the same set of values and formula pick up a secondary deflection like in Trotts case which there seems to be!

  • Mitty2 on July 12, 2013, 2:38 GMT

    Re swann, I think it's as simple as his reaction being over the top, he realised this, and then went over to agar to congratulate him. Regardless of the initial reaction, him doing that to agar is credible and respectful; well done swann.

    Re the trott decision (here comes my bias), there was absolutely no evidence that trott hit the ball and there most definitely wasn't a "clear" deviation. Snicko showed that he didn't hit it - as there was no sound when the ball passed the bat. Erasmus had every right to give him out. However, due to the lack of the side on hot spot, I believe that the most appropriate course of action was to disregard the review, but not let us lose the review because of the lack of definitive evidence - who agrees?

    Re agar, I watched the bell dismissal and agreed with it straightaway. There was no part of the foot behind the line - much like Agar's. That definitely should've been given out.

  • jmcilhinney on July 12, 2013, 2:12 GMT

    @H_Z_O on (July 11, 2013, 20:33 GMT), I don't agree. The team and management need to accept what happened and move on for the sake of concentrating on winning the game at hand, yes. For the sake of cricket in general and the future of DRS, someone needs to push the ICC to clear up the procedures and the public's understanding of those procedures that have been sullying DRS for quite some time, which I've always said is the case. Also, the fans don't have to let anything go if they don't want to. If England lose this game, I won't be blaming that decision specifically but there's no doubt that it will have been a factor.

  • on July 12, 2013, 1:57 GMT

    Lets get things clear, first of all there is nothing in the rule book that says a batsman gets the benefit of the doubt. Secondly, it is out or not out. If there is not conclusive proof of either then its out or not. Agar could not be given out as it was clearly not conclusive he was out of the crease. Trott, although given initially not out on field did not have 100% proof he hit the ball and the ball was going to hit the stumps. No hot spot proof, no snicko proof, nothing to stand up against his claim. If people want to talk about this decision then they need to decide if Rogers was more out with his LBW which according to DRS had less of the ball hitting than the NOT OUT decision of Anderson. If any part of the ball is deemed to be hitting the stumps, and hitting the pads in line then it should be out. Interesting that Damien Martyn should comment on this with his 2005 dismissals being so bad at the time, Bucknor was and Bowden are jokes as umpires. For the record Trott is OUT!

  • musquito on July 12, 2013, 1:08 GMT

    I agree that Swann's reaction to the catch was strange. Considering he wasn't able to get Agar out himself he should have showed more humility. It's an example of a wider issue that has gradually crept into cricket - players who can't control their emotions and act like excited schoolgirls over the slightest thing. There was a dignity in the way players in the old days celebrated. England are not the only offenders however. Players in general these days often carry on like pork chops with all the fist pumping and screaming when they get a wicket or take a simple catch.

  • spindizzy on July 12, 2013, 0:45 GMT

    This is where the difference between two frames of video is catching out people with no technical understanding and a poor grasp of physics. Trott didn't hit the ball - the movement is just the result of displacement of the ball on hitting the pads. It's dragged to the right of screen as a result of moving into a denser medium. It looks like an edge simply because there is a jump between frames.

    Stop trusting your eyes - there a thousand ways they can easily be deceived. In this case Erasmus was totally correct.

  • EthylMormon on July 11, 2013, 23:51 GMT

    Terrible decision for Trott. As Ed Morris says, the reason front-on Hot Spot didn't show anything is because at no point - not even in the follow-through - was the inside edge of the bat visible. It's not that there was no white mark, we simply couldn't see whether there was or not. Had the original decision been out, and Trott had reviewed, then it'd be more bearable, but it's staggering to think that the not out decision was *overturned*.

    Re snicko - I'd have liked to have seen the next few frames. All we got was frame 1: ball not quite past bat, no sound. Frame 2: ball just touching pad, a sound. Nothing in between, nothing after. I don't have enough experience of snicko to know conclusively which event that snick came from, bat or pad. I'd be more reassured if there was nothing on the frame *after* the one we saw, after the ball had had chance to properly hit the pad. Anyway, that aside, snicko isn't used by the 3rd umpire anyway. Even more reason why Erasmus made a bad call.

  • jmcilhinney on July 11, 2013, 23:41 GMT

    As they have done before, England seemed to expect the last wicket to take itself. Agar may have been a little lucky with that stumping but England, and Finn in particular, did bowl some rubbish at him. The thinking must have been that he would just wilt under the pressure and get himself out but he didn't appear to notice any pressure at all. Not only have England squandered about 150 in letting that partnership go on much longer than it should, they have also allowed Phil Hughes to gain form and confidence, which could hurt them later in the series too.

  • Bishop on July 11, 2013, 23:29 GMT

    Those people saying there is no evidence that Trott hit it are completely right. There isn't any. However that is not the issue. For Erasmus to overturn the decision, he needed evidence that Trott *didn't* hit it, and there isn't that either. You just can't tell from the replay, and benefit of the doubt should have gone, not to the batsman, but to the onfield umpire.

    I think Aleem Dar's reaction when the decision was overturned was telling; that little hopeless shrug as if to say "I know you're not out, but what can I do?"

  • ScottStevo on July 11, 2013, 23:17 GMT

    @R_U_4_REAL_NICK, Martyn should know a bit about that too as he copped about 3 of those sort of calls in 05! No reviews then though unfortunately. Twice in two days DRS system has had a shocker. I've been really against India's plight against DRS, we all know exactly why they opt against it in home series, but the last two days have indicated an alarming truth: the application of DRS requires a serious overhaul. And I'm sick to death of hearing, "It's to eradicate the howler". Actually, it's not, it's to ensure the correct decisions are made as often as possible. Clearly this hasn't been the case in the last 2 days - and so far, England have definitely been on the receiving end of some harsh calls.

  • footy_99 on July 11, 2013, 22:13 GMT

    I'm surprised there is any controversy at all about the Trott decision. It seemed clear at the time. We got the full circle of the bat on hot spot numerous times. There was nothing there. It was later put beyond any doubt when snicko didn't even flicker past his bat, but granted Erasmus couldn't use that. Still, no one could question the correct decision was ultimately made.

    Agar really could have gone either way. We saw so many replays from so many angles and just nothing was conclusive. When it comes down to the video umpire dead set having to toss a coin because there is less than a millimetre in it either way, the batsman tends to get it.

    In the end, England certainly couldn't play victim to the umpires given all 3 50-50 LBW decisions went their way. Australia will be happy with the 2 that went their way. None of which matters now. England effectively 2/15 starting day 3. Should be a cracker!

  • Nutcutlet on July 11, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    Something came to light today from J Agnew on BBC comm. I had not heard this before, but it's as well to post it here so that everyone is aware of it. My point is this: the technology that is used in referrals is not funded by the ICC. The ICC piggy-back on the Sky TV coverage, refusing at the same time to pay for it themselves. For this reason they cannot exercise full control over its use, or monitor its reliability. Once again, the ICC is shown not to be up to the job of leading world cricket & this also explains, does it not, one reason why the Sky team have been refused entry to India by the BCCI. Work that one out. I am weary of the incompetence of the ICC & its representatives -- & after today's performance from Umpire Erasmus (as the latest example), I would suggest that their elite panel is, on evidence, far from elite these days. Get a grip, ICC! You are not enhancing your reputation, very far from it. And if you want technoolgy, pay for it, to be used everywhere.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on July 11, 2013, 21:21 GMT

    It was a new page in the history of Hot Spot today. For the first time the camera needed for the successful judging of Jonathan Trott's first ball was out of action. Because, as the official excuse goes, it was still being used to show Root's wicket, who himself was unluckily caught strangled down the leg side and controversially so in itself. The replays and snicko showed a massive inside edge. That's what the technology is there for. Amazing.

  • JG2704 on July 11, 2013, 20:46 GMT

    Re "Reaction Of The Day" - May I also point out that I noticed Swann specifically ran out of his way to congratulate Agar by shaking his hand on the way off. Also the reaction of Agar after he got out in a "Oh well , just one of those things manner" and with a calm/rueful smile on his face was something to behold. I fully agree with Sky in that the guy has won over alot of cricket fans today.

  • H_Z_O on July 11, 2013, 20:33 GMT

    That said I agree with Shan156, England (the fans and the management) have to let it go, move on and try and win the Test. There's an issue to be resolved by the ICC, no doubt, but it can wait.

    It's a shame this is overshadowing a brilliant day's cricket and a fantastic debut knock from a 19 year old kid. It was great watching that, even as an England fan and knowing it was killing us in the game. I was willing him on to get those two, willing it to drop short of Swanny. Gutted. But he made history today and if he keeps batting like that, his maiden century will come sooner rather than later.

  • on July 11, 2013, 20:33 GMT

    I don't understand it when people say there was no evidence that he hit the ball so he should have been given out. There was clearly a deflection on the slow motion reply, and the all important hotspot camera side-on angle, as we know, wasn't working. So to say there wasn't any evidence to support that he hit it is misleading, because on the basis of the evidence available, it was not possible to determine that from the angle of the hotspot camera available at the point of review. Due to, what we now know as being Sky TV's fault for holding the previous ball's dismissal of Root on the camera for reply disabling the ability to record further pictures (how is that equipment designed if it can't store pictures and take them at the same time?), the fact that the edge of Trott's bat that contacted the ball never turned towards the available hotspot camera means the third umpire should have said he had insufficient evidence to make the call.

  • H_Z_O on July 11, 2013, 20:30 GMT

    @JMassive I thought they were supposed to use the video evidence? That's what is used for stumpings. The front-on video showed a deflection, which clearly Dar saw and that's why he reacted that way when he gave it out.

    @Nick Locke the front-on video was the issue. If video evidence is used to decide stumpings, why not contact? Most professional batsmen who've commented on it say they reckon Trott hit it and the video is the evidence they're using.

    The issue with Agar's stumping was the exact same thing happened to Bell in the Champions Trophy final and the opposite result was reached. I've no issue with a decision going against us, but when it happens both ways against us there's every right to ask for more consistency. Either that's out or it's not-out, but it has to be the same for everyone. Not one rule for Bell against India and another for Agar against England.

    I don't begrudge Agar his knock (I wish he'd gotten the century, actually) but this issue is broader than that.

  • Shan156 on July 11, 2013, 20:06 GMT

    England have to let the Trott dismissal go. It has happened before and it will happen again. All is not lost yet. I would rather have Trott there than Bell but we have to remember that it was in this very ground that Bell made that 159 against India to turn the TB test in Eng's favor. Then, as now, the opposition had a decent lead and England had lost 2 early wickets. Out strode Bell and, along with KP, helped Eng. to a decent total before the lower order threw their weight in and helped convert a good total to an excellent one. We can still do that. Patience is the key. Wear the Aussie bowlers out. I cannot imagine anyone better than Cook in doing that. It was good to see KP show restraint. These two have to bat at least till late into the 2nd session. I don't expect too much from Bairstow and I think Prior is out of form. So, Bell has to come to the party now. I think a 350 target would be tough for the Aussies to chase.

  • on July 11, 2013, 20:03 GMT

    I don't see what the big deal is with the DRS. In the case of Agar, the footage was inconclusive and dismissed on that basis. For Trott, there was no evidence to suggest he had hit the ball. There wasn't a slight noise on snicko, or a questionable hot-spot marking to confuse the matter. The umpire made the correct decisions based on the evidence before him. The fact Agar went on to score so well is the only reason the is being brought to question.

  • JMassive on July 11, 2013, 19:33 GMT

    Trott didn't hit it. Simple as. There was nothing on snicko and Erasmus didn't have a single bit of evidence that he hit it. It was hitting the stumps. Out. There wasn't any doubt. The English are getting their moan on early.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 11, 2013, 19:17 GMT

    Gutted for young Agar - deserved the ton. I think Swann's celebrations on the catch were more relief than "stealing the scene." After all, he did go over and shake hands with young Agar.

    Regarding Trott's dismissal: Trott is a nice, honest bloke who is not the sort of character to 'claim an edge to discount a LBW shout' if he didn't think he'd hit it. His reaction alone, never mind the inconclusive video footage, convinced me he was not out and got a shocking decision. Damien Martyn on commentary said he thought Trott had hit it, but said that "Trott and England just have to move on and let it go." This will always happen in cricket. Well said Martyn.

  • 2.14istherunrate on July 11, 2013, 17:38 GMT

    On Sky text I think I read about there having been an edge on the inside edge of hotspot or something. Anyway we did not see it, and personally I was convinced there had been an edge. Anyway it was Trott which made it doubly hard to bear under the circumstances.

  • Hatter_Mad on July 11, 2013, 17:20 GMT

    The call against Trott was embarrasing. It's not Marais Erasmus' job to do that and the batsman should get the benefit of the doubt.

  • Hatter_Mad on July 11, 2013, 17:20 GMT

    The call against Trott was embarrasing. It's not Marais Erasmus' job to do that and the batsman should get the benefit of the doubt.

  • 2.14istherunrate on July 11, 2013, 17:38 GMT

    On Sky text I think I read about there having been an edge on the inside edge of hotspot or something. Anyway we did not see it, and personally I was convinced there had been an edge. Anyway it was Trott which made it doubly hard to bear under the circumstances.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 11, 2013, 19:17 GMT

    Gutted for young Agar - deserved the ton. I think Swann's celebrations on the catch were more relief than "stealing the scene." After all, he did go over and shake hands with young Agar.

    Regarding Trott's dismissal: Trott is a nice, honest bloke who is not the sort of character to 'claim an edge to discount a LBW shout' if he didn't think he'd hit it. His reaction alone, never mind the inconclusive video footage, convinced me he was not out and got a shocking decision. Damien Martyn on commentary said he thought Trott had hit it, but said that "Trott and England just have to move on and let it go." This will always happen in cricket. Well said Martyn.

  • JMassive on July 11, 2013, 19:33 GMT

    Trott didn't hit it. Simple as. There was nothing on snicko and Erasmus didn't have a single bit of evidence that he hit it. It was hitting the stumps. Out. There wasn't any doubt. The English are getting their moan on early.

  • on July 11, 2013, 20:03 GMT

    I don't see what the big deal is with the DRS. In the case of Agar, the footage was inconclusive and dismissed on that basis. For Trott, there was no evidence to suggest he had hit the ball. There wasn't a slight noise on snicko, or a questionable hot-spot marking to confuse the matter. The umpire made the correct decisions based on the evidence before him. The fact Agar went on to score so well is the only reason the is being brought to question.

  • Shan156 on July 11, 2013, 20:06 GMT

    England have to let the Trott dismissal go. It has happened before and it will happen again. All is not lost yet. I would rather have Trott there than Bell but we have to remember that it was in this very ground that Bell made that 159 against India to turn the TB test in Eng's favor. Then, as now, the opposition had a decent lead and England had lost 2 early wickets. Out strode Bell and, along with KP, helped Eng. to a decent total before the lower order threw their weight in and helped convert a good total to an excellent one. We can still do that. Patience is the key. Wear the Aussie bowlers out. I cannot imagine anyone better than Cook in doing that. It was good to see KP show restraint. These two have to bat at least till late into the 2nd session. I don't expect too much from Bairstow and I think Prior is out of form. So, Bell has to come to the party now. I think a 350 target would be tough for the Aussies to chase.

  • H_Z_O on July 11, 2013, 20:30 GMT

    @JMassive I thought they were supposed to use the video evidence? That's what is used for stumpings. The front-on video showed a deflection, which clearly Dar saw and that's why he reacted that way when he gave it out.

    @Nick Locke the front-on video was the issue. If video evidence is used to decide stumpings, why not contact? Most professional batsmen who've commented on it say they reckon Trott hit it and the video is the evidence they're using.

    The issue with Agar's stumping was the exact same thing happened to Bell in the Champions Trophy final and the opposite result was reached. I've no issue with a decision going against us, but when it happens both ways against us there's every right to ask for more consistency. Either that's out or it's not-out, but it has to be the same for everyone. Not one rule for Bell against India and another for Agar against England.

    I don't begrudge Agar his knock (I wish he'd gotten the century, actually) but this issue is broader than that.

  • on July 11, 2013, 20:33 GMT

    I don't understand it when people say there was no evidence that he hit the ball so he should have been given out. There was clearly a deflection on the slow motion reply, and the all important hotspot camera side-on angle, as we know, wasn't working. So to say there wasn't any evidence to support that he hit it is misleading, because on the basis of the evidence available, it was not possible to determine that from the angle of the hotspot camera available at the point of review. Due to, what we now know as being Sky TV's fault for holding the previous ball's dismissal of Root on the camera for reply disabling the ability to record further pictures (how is that equipment designed if it can't store pictures and take them at the same time?), the fact that the edge of Trott's bat that contacted the ball never turned towards the available hotspot camera means the third umpire should have said he had insufficient evidence to make the call.

  • H_Z_O on July 11, 2013, 20:33 GMT

    That said I agree with Shan156, England (the fans and the management) have to let it go, move on and try and win the Test. There's an issue to be resolved by the ICC, no doubt, but it can wait.

    It's a shame this is overshadowing a brilliant day's cricket and a fantastic debut knock from a 19 year old kid. It was great watching that, even as an England fan and knowing it was killing us in the game. I was willing him on to get those two, willing it to drop short of Swanny. Gutted. But he made history today and if he keeps batting like that, his maiden century will come sooner rather than later.

  • JG2704 on July 11, 2013, 20:46 GMT

    Re "Reaction Of The Day" - May I also point out that I noticed Swann specifically ran out of his way to congratulate Agar by shaking his hand on the way off. Also the reaction of Agar after he got out in a "Oh well , just one of those things manner" and with a calm/rueful smile on his face was something to behold. I fully agree with Sky in that the guy has won over alot of cricket fans today.