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

England seek clarity over Trott dismissal


The ECB have requested clarification from the ICC on the chain of events that led to Jonathan Trott being adjudged lbw in England's second innings at Trent Bridge.

Andy Flower, the England team director, went to see the ICC match referee, Ranjan Madugalle, after the TV umpire, Marais Erasmus, overruled the on-field umpire, Aleem Dar, following Australia's review of Dar's decision to give Trott not out.

Erasmus took the decision to overrule Dar despite conflicting TV evidence and without the chance of inspecting Hot Spot from the crucial side-on position. Sky Sports, the host broadcaster who supply the Hot Spot cameras, told Erasmus the technology was not available as the delivery to Trott was not recorded because the technology had been cued to show the previous delivery, the dismissal of Joe Root to a catch down the leg side.

In a comment posted on ESPNcricinfo, Warren Brennan, Hot Spot's inventor, said the issue was down to "operator error".

"Here is the absolute truth from our perspective in regard to the Trott incident," he wrote, "it was operator error. My operator did not trigger the system in order to cater for the Trott delivery. Instead the operator sat on the Root delivery in order to offer a replay from the previous ball and did not realise until it was too late that he should have triggered the system for the Trott delivery as the priority. Simple mistake, something that anyone could have made but my Hot Spot operator has worked on the system since 2007 and to my knowledge this is the first serious mistake he has made."

England have asked the ICC to explain the protocol whereby a TV umpire can overrule despite an absence of the expected technological aides and asked for those protocols to be reviewed.

"It's very frustrating," James Anderson said afterwards. "Trott has hit the ball and been given not out. He did hit it. It is frustrating that it got overturned. We're all for technology because, since it came in, more decisions have been given out correctly than wrongly, so we want it."

While replays suggested a deviation before the ball hit Trott's pad - perhaps from an edge, perhaps in the air - there was no evidence of an edge on Hot Spot from the front-on angle. The Snickometer, a visual representation of the noise made as the ball makes contact with the bat, is utilised by Sky for the purposes of entertainment, but is not currently among the approved ICC aides. It did not suggest an obvious edge.

The England team management were also perplexed after Ashton Agar was given the benefit of the doubt by Erasmus following a very tight stumping appeal when he had scored just 6. Agar went on to score 98 - the world record contribution from a No. 11 batsman in Test cricket - and added 163 for the tenth wicket - another world record - in partnership with Phil Hughes.

"I thought the stumping was out, but I saw it on the big screen so it's hard to tell," Anderson added. "Matt Prior was pretty confident it was out."

It may also be worth noting that, had Root utilised the DRS, he may well have been reprieved. There was no evidence of Hot Spot following his dismissal to a leg side catch but, after consultation with his captain, Alastair Cook, Root did not call for a review. Those who suggest that the technology does not currently support the DRS, may feel they have further evidence for their case.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • retiredpretoriaumpire on July 15, 2013, 12:07 GMT

    its a case of a south african trott complaining about a south african umpire erasmus to a zimbabwean flower who moans to another south african richardson . obviously has nothing to do with australia versus england

    look in the score book , thats what counts .

  • dummy4fb on July 15, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    Remember Damian Martyn in the 2005 ashes? same deal

  • dummy4fb on July 13, 2013, 10:45 GMT

    @spinkingkk. The real culprit is the technology whereby humans became addicted to such a faulty system. It is said "to err is human". After all, the technology is also developed by humans. Too much dependancy on technology gives rise to more errors as "too much is too bad"

  • harshthakor on July 13, 2013, 10:07 GMT

    One of the most ridiculous decisions I have seen by a third umpire who overruled a correctdecision.In this case technology acted against the correct decision when the umpire clearly saw the batsman had touched the delivery.Is it not contrary to the rules that if there is no conclusive evidence that the batsman has not touched the ball the original onfield decision cannot be reverted?In both ways the third umpire went wrong.

    It is ironic that the same 3rd umpire saved Ashton Agar when the score was only 131 and morally his foot appeared online seeing the replay.

  • BHAARATVARSH on July 13, 2013, 8:49 GMT

    Just a thought... all this wouldn't have happened if there was no DRS :) However the disregard to the Spirit of Cricket will continue to happen if teams play like this... nothing new with England especially.. started from Bodyline.

  • dummy4fb on July 13, 2013, 7:54 GMT

    Let's go back to the old days where umpires decisions were final. They're all human being and if errors are made so bve it. We call it a gentleman's game let's leave it to it name shake. Much better that way.

  • MadhushaDmendis on July 13, 2013, 3:44 GMT

    I think when turning down a decision made by a great umpire like aleem dar .they should have enough evidences.

  • spinkingKK on July 13, 2013, 0:16 GMT

    I wish everybody have a proper thinking when they are the beneficiaries of bad third umpiring. Not just when they are the victims. This is not a case of insufficient technology for the DRS. It is a case of bad third umpiring. It keeps happening. If there was not enough technology to overrule an on-field umpire's call, how on earth can they overrule the original decision? Just blame the third umpire. Not the technology.

  • brittop on July 12, 2013, 21:56 GMT

    Further to @Dick Skinner's post (12th @ 15:05) the whole tenor of the ICC's DRS protocol is that the on-field umpire makes the decision following information given to him by the 3rd umpire. I can't spot anything that says the 3rd umpire can overrule the on-field guy. However, I can understand that the on-field umpire maybe reluctant to oppose technology, but in this case if he was told that side-on hotspot was not available, and he didn't give Trott out because he thought he hit it, then he could have stuck with his decision.

  • H_Z_O on July 12, 2013, 18:22 GMT

    @Jono Makim that said, I've said before, and I'll say it again; England haven't been the only ones undone by this issue. Australia have had some bad decisions too (for my money Rogers should never have been given out by the on-field umpire, far too much doubt). And obviously the Broad decision, which was an awful decision which was precisely what the DRS was meant, we're told, to prevent.

    It's just been a bad match by the umpires all-round.