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

England seek clarity over Trott dismissal

George Dobell at Trent Bridge

July 11, 2013

Comments: 173 | Text size: A | A

Mitchell Starc gives Jonathan Trott a bit of a send off, England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 2nd day, July 11, 2013
Confusion reigned as Jonathan Trott was given out on review © PA Photos

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

RSS Feeds: George Dobell

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by 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 .

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 3:25 GMT)

Remember Damian Martyn in the 2005 ashes? same deal

Posted by   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"

Posted by 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.

Posted by India_ANY_track_bully 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.

Posted by   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.

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 12, 2013, 18:01 GMT)

@Jono Makim yeah, that's exactly why I think he didn't refer it. Captain at the other end, inexperienced player. Apparently he heard a noise, didn't feel anything, either thigh-pad or bat, but didn't think he'd hit it. Asked Cook and was told not to review it unless he was 100% certain. Looking back, I bet Clarke wishes he hadn't wasted a review on that Bairstow lbw that was clearly sliding down the leg-side, and could have reviewed the one real howler we've had (Broad's edge).

My question to you is this. You say hotspot not showing an edge for Root doesn't mean he didn't hit it and isn't enough evidence to overrule the on-field umpire. If the side-on hotspot for Trott hadn't shown an edge, would that have been enough for the third umpire to overrule it?

I just think if we're going to use hotspot we can't hedge our bets. Either we trust it or we don't. We can't say "hotspot showed no edge, so he didn't hit it" for one then say "hotspot showed no edge, but he hit it" for another.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 16:24 GMT)

Same thing happened couple of years back in WI. When Dhoni was out caught, Umpire reached out to TV umpire for checking no-ball. He ruled Dhoni out. Next day they said they referred some other ball and not the one which dismissed Dhoni. At that time I guess its Chris Broad the referree was saying the umpire admitted to that and termed that as "Honest Mistake".

Posted by aracer on (July 12, 2013, 16:10 GMT)

@Jono Makim - apparently Root heard a noise, which is why he didn't review immediately - he didn't think he had hit it.

Posted by David_Boon on (July 12, 2013, 15:59 GMT)

Personally, I think the DRS has no place in cricket. Its just a bunch of fancy toys the broadcasters have brought about. It's a game, the contention about decisions is part of the romance of the game. I also don't get all the carry on about this, to me he was clearly out, no visible edge. No edge on the front on hotspot, and no evidence on snicko.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 15:05 GMT)

Marais Erasmus has made some very, very poor decisions here. It's the level of inconsistency and NOT FOLLOWING ICC rules that makes his position as the third umpire untenable.The ICC rules are very clear:

If despite the available technology, the third umpire is unable to answer with a high degree of confidence a particular question posed by the on-field umpire, then he should report that the replays are 'inconclusive'. The third umpire should not give answers conveying likelihoods or probabilities.

In circumstances where the television technology (all or parts thereof) is not available to the third umpire or fails for whatever reason, the third umpire shall advise the on-field umpire of this fact but still provide any relevant factual information that may be ascertained from the available television replays and other technology.

As the above was the case and the technology was unavailable, the replay was inconclusive, and therefore the decision should have gone to the batsmen.

Posted by krvij on (July 12, 2013, 14:53 GMT)

Use of technology is good without any doubt. May the way it is applied & the rules around it needs to be revisited. I feel all the tools such as hotspot, ball tracking, snickometer etc should be available for on field umpire for use when they are in doubt ( like the way it is used to check whether a catch is clean, and whether player touched boundary rope while fielding etc). Umpires should decide after using all available tools as needed. Players should still be able to review and it that case third umpire or match referee should reassess umpires decision.

This will improve decision making but no guarantee that it will eliminate all howlers, and everyone should be clear & accept that.

Posted by thebrotherswaugh on (July 12, 2013, 13:22 GMT)

No system is fool-proof, as poor old Erasmus has illustrated. It was a very strange one given he over-ruled the original decision. Hot spot isn't the 'be all and end all' for the decision-making process - some fine edges will not show up, even though there is a definite noise. Some batsmen play the percentages with a fine edge, as Finn tried in the 1st innings - maybe it was karma. All we can hope for is that no more similar incidents mar an enthralling game, and that consistency applies - I hate it when a decision like Agar's not out is given and then later on in the series an almost identical incident occurs and the batsmen is given out. Personally, with two neutral umpires I'd be happy to leave it in the middle, but that's just living in the past. Funny that we still seem to have constant debate over 'poor' decisions each & every test, even with the aid of all that technology. Nothings really changed, has it? The umpires still get the vast majority right.

Posted by ihaq1 on (July 12, 2013, 13:07 GMT)

well there is always a chance on referral...in the first referral the player was out but the ball hit the wickets partially...in roots case he seemed to hit the ball as teh ball went into a spin...in trotts case the bat moves over the ball after it hit the pads and front hotspot clearly showed no touching of teh bat...root could have been repreived even though he said he had not touched teh ball but cook refused to refer.....the available technologies have to be used

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 12:38 GMT)

The DRS system is of great benefit in eradicating howlers on the field. The 3rd umpire is capable of making howlers as well but hopefully he will apply his mind in a less pressurised environment.

The Agar referral was by the on-field umpire. On balance of probability I think he was out but there was an element of doubt. Erasmus gave him the benefit of the doubt - fair enough if applied consistently.

Trott seems to have squeezed the ball onto his pad with the rear-edge of his bat thus showing no hotspot on the front; the deviation as the ball hit the pad was visible. This should have caused Erasmus some doubt. The side-view was not available to remove or confirm that doubt and Erasmus should have gone with Trott (and the on-field umpire). The absence of the side-on view means that Australia should not have lost a review for that (as if the side-on view had shown no hotspot then the case for overturning the decision would have been stronger). DRS works; the umpires not always...

Posted by 200ondebut on (July 12, 2013, 12:34 GMT)

This is nothing like the Rahul Dravid incident - DRS wasn't used on that decision. The point here is about the process. The decision was not out and as such there needs to be irrefutable evidence that the decision was wrong. There wasn't any - and on the contrary there was visible evidence that the ball deflected - hence why England have asked for clarification from the ICC.

Posted by Jimmers on (July 12, 2013, 12:30 GMT)

Operator missed the ball, fair enough - unfortunate but genuine mistake. But without all the technology to make the decision, the 3rd umpire should have left the decision with the onfield umpire's call. Very very bad day for Erasmus

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 12:30 GMT)

@H_Z_O, I think it is pretty well established that Hot Spot is unable to pick up every single feathered edge. Just the fact that Root didn't call for a referral straight up, or at all for that matter, must surely indicate that he has got some sort of feather onto it. Otherwise why not? Do you think Cook told him he'd save the referral's for himself, KP and Trotty? It just makes no sense whatsoever.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 12, 2013, 12:24 GMT)

@dgcov Let me be clear, I'm not saying Trott did hit it. I'm saying there was clearly a reason Dar didn't give it out (and of the three umpires, including Erasmus, he has probably been the best in this match). There was some movement, whether it was swing, the ball "sinking" into the pad or some sort of artefact of using a 2-D image to view a 3-D event, I don't know. A side-on hotspot would probably have been the clearest evidence, and had it shown no edge (and based on what another fan said earlier about the lack of hotspot on the ball, it's possible it wouldn't have) that's a different matter, and would have justified overturning the decision.

Again, the issue is not the Trott wicket in this match. If England lose (as looks the most likely result) it'll be because we've not played well enough. End of. The issue is how we resolve similar issues in future. Personally, I think if a piece of tech isn't available, the reviewing side keeps the review and the on-field decision stands.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 12, 2013, 12:14 GMT)

@dgcov Oh come off it! That's almost as bad as saying "Trott said he hit it, and he wouldn't lie, he's not that sort of bloke" (and I know others have said that but it's a ridiculous argument).

Captains have routinely done just that. Heck, Clarke just did it with Bairstow even though it was clear in real-time that the ball was sliding down. That was certainly going to be turned down yet he reviewed it anyway (probably because the bowler pushed for it and Australia are comfortable).

Trott was a big wicket, Clarke knew it. 11-2 was a disastrous situation for England and it was clear Trott had been struck in line. In fact, in real time I thought it was absolutely plumb. But I'm not standing 22 yards away, nor am I an elite umpire.

Aleem Dar was and is. The *only* way Dar gives that not out (because it was never going to miss) was if he thought Trott hit it. So why did he give it not out?

Unless your saying Clarke's use of the review system is better than Dar's record as an umpire?

Posted by Surajrises on (July 12, 2013, 12:06 GMT)

@Jeremy Bradshaw - I so agree with you man.. Like I said before, using technology just for the sake of it is always bad. It isn't really solving the problems but increasing it...

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 11:36 GMT)

I'm coming round to the view that DRS is a bad thing for cricket. At least on-field umpire mistakes are more forgivable, and they have always been part & parcel of the game. But it's also bad if their mistakes played out on TV using ball tracking technology, hotspot & snicko - lose the lot I say, concentrate on the cricket. Slow-motion replays are as far as it should go.

Posted by dgcov on (July 12, 2013, 11:16 GMT)

Let's look at it from another viewpoint.

The Australians had already used one of only 2 referrals at their disposal.

If all the England supporters on here believe that the deviation into the pad was palpable and significant, why would Clarke risk using his only remaining referral on a review which (if the England supporters are to be believed) would almost certainly have resulted in the loss of that review? Unless, he somehow knew that the hotspot would be turned off?

I put it to you that if any of the Aussies thought for a moment that Trott had got an inside edge, the review would not have been used. Instead, Clarke was absolutely resolute and called the review immediately.

In my considered view there was no edge and Erasmus made the correct decision.

Posted by Surajrises on (July 12, 2013, 11:09 GMT)

Similar kind of error was done when it came to Rahul Dravid and that time the Brits were pretty happy with that decision. The snickometer had nothing to show that RD had nicked the ball but still the Third Umpire went against the On Field Umpire to give it out. That time these English men were very happy about getting a wicket. I am happy the same thing has happened to Trott and now people would also realize that using technology just for the sake of it is always bad...

Posted by concerned_cricketer on (July 12, 2013, 10:46 GMT)

Indian fan: DRS !?? Bah! Complete humbug. See this is why we never liked it. We have rejected it. Good sense has prevailed in our board at least in one thing.

Every time the DRS doesn't work someone will come up with the old chestnut 'what went wrong was not the technology but rather then man behind it'. This is why we are saying that let the technology be that of the on-field umpire's finger and let the human to blame for howlers be the one to which that finger belongs. End result is the same 'To err is human'. Less money spent and no danger of having a false sense of assuredness about decisions.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 12, 2013, 10:27 GMT)

@Jayco That's a good point about the ball actually. Might be enough there to say he didn't hit it.

@dgcov Actually it looked to me like the ball would've hit the back of the bat, looks like it was "squeezed" between bat and pad. Whether side-on would have shown it is another matter, and if it hadn't then I think there could be no complaints.

I don't think anyone would deny that the side-on should have been available and it needs to be addressed going forward. This time it might (and I stress might) have cost England, next time it could be Australia, India, New Zealand or South Africa. This isn't an England v Australia thing, it's a "hole" in the system to be addressed.

Posted by GlobalCricketLover on (July 12, 2013, 10:26 GMT)

Either way it wasn't a 'howler'. But Eng are right in feeling robbed. Since the original decision was notout perhaps he shouldn't have been given out unless there is day light between bat and pad. DRS still a good thing to me. it's job is meant to remove 'shocking' decisions not the 50-50 ones. However would be nice to have more consistency from the 3rd umpire. The issue is not with DRS but with consistency of decisions in 'too close' situations.

Posted by wonderstar1 on (July 12, 2013, 10:23 GMT)

Eng can only cry. If anyone wants to know how to win from unimaginable position then they have to look at India. if anyone wants to know how to lose a game then they should see the way England plays. totally two contrasting teams.

Posted by Fluffykins on (July 12, 2013, 10:18 GMT)

DRS is for howlers not for marginals.... therefore Trott should never have been adjudged out as there was no clear evidence and it was guesswork. I don't want the third umpire guessing on any decision.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 12, 2013, 10:02 GMT)

@Lord_mac Exactly my take on it. I didn't see any doubt, personally, in the Agar stumping, but I stand by the fact that if Erasmus saw some he should give it not out. Whether he should see any doubt there is a separate matter, and would be covered by his next umpire assessment (umpires are regularly assessed).

As for the Trott dismissal I think Australia shouldn't have lost their review (since that was clearly a legitimate use of the referral; we can't know if hotspot side-on would have conclusively proven Trott didn't hit it) but Trott should have been not-out because of the lack of a crucial piece of technology.

If there's a similar situation in Australia's innings and side-on hotspot reprieves their batsman when front-on and snicko suggest no edge, will any Aussie fans be saying he should be given out? I'm guessing not.

Posted by dgcov on (July 12, 2013, 10:02 GMT)

@Jeremy Bradshaw. You cannot have it both ways. If there was appreciable deviation off the bat as most English supporters on here claim, then it's unlikely that hotspot would not show. Trott's bat is raised high enough for any nick to show, unless that nick occurred on the back of the bat. As the bat was moving towards the ball, I would expect a mark to show on the front corner of the bat rather than the rear. No such march was visible.

I believe that Erasmus' decision was perfectly justifiable and, although no umpire likes to see his decision overturned, I don't believe that Alleem Dar was quite as unable to accept the 3rd umpire's decision as many on here seem to believe.

Furthermore, Marais Erasmus is quite definitely one of the best umpires on the Elite Panel (as is Alleem Dar, to be sure), and to have him struck off merely because he had the temerity to overrule against England on two occasions can only really be justified if you are English.

Posted by dmat on (July 12, 2013, 10:02 GMT)

Sounds like a lot of poms complaining about the umpiring decisions again - not a good sign for the rest of the series!!! Bottom line is, England bowled poorly to Agar and should have had Aus out for less than 150. The stumping was 50/50 so no problems with a not out call. Trott's decision would not have been an issue if England had bowled better. Finn and Swann need to do better and Cook's captaincy was average at best. Jimmy bowled well but he can't do it on his own.

Posted by gbqdgj on (July 12, 2013, 10:01 GMT)

@ Aussieheldhostage - I think perhaps the distress of losing the series has perhaps altered your memory. Certainly two of the batsmen were questionable but 5...I think not my friend...I also remember a certain R.Ponting creating merry hell when things didn't go his way in both that and the 2005 series. To the broader point though, I agree, England should indeed just get on with it. Technology is far better than just having the on field umpires (unless of course you are the BCCI) but mistakes happen and one has to accept this in the spirit of the game and just play on!

Posted by Jayco on (July 12, 2013, 10:01 GMT)

Can I point out that when a batter nicks you also see the hotspot on the ball. Didn't see anything on the ball here. Also, the Agar "stumping" is very over-exaggerated...it was a benefit of the doubt job- There was no evidence he had nothing behind the line, in fact, you couldn't even really see the line as the pitch was so dry and dusty. So what's the problem? It's just the same old story of trying to put pressure on the umpires

Posted by dickiebrewsters on (July 12, 2013, 10:01 GMT)

AussieheldhostagebywifeinUK - Not bitter then ? Recalling decisions from 4 years ago, the Aussie team obviously moved on, but you haven't. Shall we have some Kiwis on here moaning about the underarm ball, or shall we discuss this Test ? I think it is resonable to have a discussion here. Emotions apart, that is what these boards are for. I recall a power cut in a recent Test in the West Indies where although TV pictures were available, no DRS was. There should be something in the playing conditions (maybe there is) about what happens when things not available, just wish we knew.

Posted by willsrustynuts on (July 12, 2013, 10:00 GMT)

TV visualisations of the data (visual trackers and sound) should not be mistaken for the data. There is a degree of user input and uncertainty in the algorithms that is not shown on the TV, this is disappointing as I continually hear comments that the ball on the screen is clearly hitting the wickets but is given not out etc. when the reality is that the ball shown in the visualisation is only a part of the story. Time to show the fog of uncertainty that surrounds the tracker, maybe not using a cricket ball cartoon but some other image.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 12, 2013, 9:59 GMT)

@AussieheldhostagebywifeinUK, which innings, looking at the commentry in the first innings the only dubious dismissal of the first 5 wickets to fall. was Hughes (1) as there was thought to be nick on the glove, Ponting (2)shouldnt have been given caught, however he should have been given LBW as the delivery would have hit leg and hed missed the ball. Katich (3) top edged, Hussey (4) was clean bowled, and clarke(5) was out whiping a ball to midwicket.

In the second innings the 3 for the first 4 dismissals where regulation catches (2 in the slips one in Gully) and Ponting was clean bowled.

So not sure which game you are refering to, its possible you have it mixed up with something.

Posted by colc on (July 12, 2013, 9:57 GMT)

Giving the batsman "thye benefit of the doubt", is not mentioned anywhere in the laws of the game, it's just what has always happened. Agar was marginal, although probably out, Trott wasn't out, the head on shows a clear nick from bat to pad, never mind about hot spot............

Posted by SirViv1973 on (July 12, 2013, 9:53 GMT)

This is clearly one of those situations where if you are an Eng fan the original decison should not have been overturned. If you are an Aus you will say he was out. IMO as an Eng fan Trott was unlucky. However I am sure that over the course of the series we (Eng) will have some dubious decisons go our way & hopefully by the end of the series things will even themselves out.

Posted by Sir_Ivor on (July 12, 2013, 9:53 GMT)

There has been a lot of debate over the refusal of the BCCI to accept the DRS in bilateral series. Many have attributed it to the financial muscle power that they wield in International cricket. So when Srinivasan was sidelined for the moment over the spot fixing scandal in IPL 6, there were some who had predicted that their stubborn refusal to accept this umpiring system would soon be a thing of the past. Cricket watchers may recall the gross errors of umpiring that took place in the 2011 India England series. And the third umpire blunders which compounded the one sidedness of that series which England won 4-0.Iam amused therefore by the chorus of English protests over the Trott dismissal

Posted by Sultan2007 on (July 12, 2013, 9:49 GMT)

Lets not cast a shadow over young Agar's phenomenal effort. Yes, he could have been out at 6 but lets take nothing away from his magnificent acheivement and rejoice at the discovery of another talent

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 12, 2013, 9:48 GMT)

@Jono Makim on (July 12, 2013, 7:22 GMT) I will agree that it's very hard to state the front-on angle conclusively showed an edge (I think it looked like there might have been, and that deviation is probably what Dar saw when he gave it not-out). There was a deviation but it could have been the swing (unlikely, though, I'd have thought, given when it happened) or even just the pad "crumpling" with impact.

That's why I'd have liked a side-on hotspot. If it showed nothing, then it wouldn't matter about the deviation because that could be explained by other things. And like you, I don't think England should delude themselves into thinking that if they lose this Test it's because of bad decisions. It isn't. Rogers got a bad one too and the fact is, England haven't played well enough so far.

Posted by dunger.bob on (July 12, 2013, 9:44 GMT)

From the article "Those who suggest that the technology does not currently support the DRS, may feel they have further evidence for their case." : For the life of me I can't understand why Snicko isn't a part of the DRS. It's absolutely brilliant. .. Snicko can differentiate between a thin edge and a brush of the pad. Hell, it can tell you whether it was the ball or the bat brushing the pad!! .. Hotspot also works well, IF the operator is up to it. .. not this time apparently. .. He (the operator) was dead set unlucky of course. How many times do you get an appeal first ball. ... Well, when I think about it, quite a lot actually. Especially in tense situations. .. He needs to give himself an upper-cut, which I'm sure he's thought about by now. .. Look. For God's sake, if we are going to use a DRS, let's use ALL of it and get everyone trained to use it properly. .. If they aren't prepared to do that, get rid of it altogether and go back to the gnarly old days.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 12, 2013, 9:42 GMT)

Tom Moody said both the Agar stumping and the Trott decision were wrong, but at least the Agar one was understandable (and I can see that point of view; if there's doubt, the batsman gets the benefit of it).

@maximum6 I think that's the issue. It's not whether Trott was out or not out, or if Agar was out or not out, or (and this hasn't been spoken about), whether Rogers should have been out or not out (and I said not out even before yesterday's play), the issue is consistent application of "benefit of the doubt".

It's not about this Test match. Or this series. It's about the broader global use of DRS in all cricket and making it as consistent as possible.

@Jono Makim on (July 12, 2013, 6:20 GMT) How have people convinced themselves Root didn't hit it? Hotspot. The side-on angle actually showed no contact. And I'm not saying Trott did hit it, but there was evidence he might have (slow-mo video) and side-on would have proven it one way or the other.

Posted by Jayco on (July 12, 2013, 9:40 GMT)

Can I point out that when a batter nicks you also see the hotspot on the ball. Didn't see anything on the ball here. Also, the Agar "stumping" is very over-exaggerated...it was a benefit of the doubt job- There was no evidence he had nothing behind the line, in fact, you couldn't even really see the line as the pitch was so dry and dusty. So what's the problem? It's just the same old story of trying to put pressure on the umpires

Posted by dogcatcher on (July 12, 2013, 9:40 GMT)

Just reading the comments. It now seems that without hotspot you cannot over rule the umpire?! Are we now overlooking the video image and snicko audio image?

I agree that most probably the benefit most probably should have stayed with the batsmen. But whilst watching it and I am no expert (a neutral observer too), I couldn't see the deviation. Snicko confirmed no double sound or edge and the hotspot that was working showed no edge. How much evidence does one need to overturn?

This is not a traversty. I am unclear on the exact 3rd umpire protocol but cannot say this warrants the outrage and vitriol towards the 3rd Ump.

I am starting to dislike technology again. Bring on on field umpire calls only!

So much whinging...

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 9:37 GMT)

Agar was clearly out too - boot was still marginally in the air - but in this case this can PERHAPS be forgiven since the benefit of the doubt should always go to the batsman. If Erasmus thought there was 0.1% doubt then that's his call, though he didn't see what I saw.

Benefit of doubt to the batsman wasn't applied in the case of Trott though. I'd like to see hotspot not being used to disprove an edge since it's not 100% reliable in this regard. Just consider the previous ball - Root obviously got a tickle (or he'd have reviewed straight away) but hotspot showed nothing.

A generally accepted principle sums this up: ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 12, 2013, 9:36 GMT)

@Jono Makim - We'll never get the absolute truth. I wouldn't disagree with any of the other points you make, but it's all speculation. Rightly or wrongly, Dar said not out. Erasmus over ruled him on partial evidence - he wasn't given all the Hotspot angles.

Agree with your last paragraph and, even if we are, hopefully it will be to recognise that it was a great bowling by Starc.

Posted by LunwayRobson on (July 12, 2013, 9:33 GMT)

Can people please stop saying "The benefit of the doubt should go to the batsmen", any doubt or inconclusive evidence should go or stay with the onfield umpire's decision... Trott was given not out and there was no conclusive evidence to overturn Dar's decision (in my opinion he obviously hit it)

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 9:31 GMT)

It's simple for me. Erasmus was in no position to OVERRULE his colleague on-field. End of.

The ICC in its use of various types of DRS is letting cricket sleepwalk into a perpetual spiral of controversy and conjecture. Look at the subject of this article and pinch yourselves... *WE are questioning the legitimacy of the decisions of a THIRD umpire*... Where the hell does this end? It's wrong and absolutely ridiculous. Cricket is indeed shooting itself in the foot and will continue to do so unless we take a step back and look at what is happening to our game.

Posted by First_Drop on (July 12, 2013, 9:31 GMT)

Sorry chaps - 2009m Ashes test at Lords and the first 4 out of 5 Aussie wickets were incorrectly given out. Despute the umpires ability to call fopr the 3rd umpire they did not. The Aussies didn't say a thing about it, just continued on their business. England need to get on with it.

Posted by Xolile on (July 12, 2013, 9:29 GMT)

David Gower is the reason for this debate. Not sure why he responded with so much emotion. I will not take him seriously in the future.

Posted by dickiebrewsters on (July 12, 2013, 9:29 GMT)

I think at the very least the viewers should have the information on what the rules for use of DRS are ! It seems to be a clouded mystery. What have the teams agreed to ? TV replays & hotspot from front & side or just "whatever is available" if the former, then a decision could not be made by the 3rd umpire and no over-rule could be made, if the latter, then he could communicate the information available. I did notice in the live coverage on SKY when the review was happening, there was not even a mention of the side on hot spot & I can't recall it even being mentioned in the highlights, clearly they were trying to avoid the embarrasment of there operators missing it. It was the 3rd 1st baller of the match, so clearly everyone should have been focused for the delivery.

Posted by rickyvoncanterbury on (July 12, 2013, 9:26 GMT)

@J Bradshaw I would not worry mate everyone knows that champion teams overcome hurdles .... sorry mate forgot who you support

Posted by India_ANY_track_bully on (July 12, 2013, 9:23 GMT)

There are some things in life which benefit immensely from technology and some which don't. Transportation has benefited a great lot... far cry from travelling in bullock carts.. however take reading.. the pleasure of having a physical book/newspaper in hand far outweighs the same if reading via a "book reading device". Cricket is another area where the long standing tradition of on-field umpire is much more "cricket" than having dodgy review systems.. which only waste time and take the romance away from the game.

Posted by sbrice11 on (July 12, 2013, 9:21 GMT)

Pat_one_back...there is absolutely no way that sharp deviation of a ball between bat and pad is down to 'swing'! Also if you look at the frame by frame for snickometer, there is not a frame between the ball passing the bat and hitting the pad, that all happens within the same frame so it it can't prove it didn't hit the bat. Very poor umpiring in 2 decisions, Trott and Agar. Had those decisions been the correct ones and Root had reviewed his decision, Australia would have been all out for about 130 and England 'may' be cruising to a huge win! That said...Agar deserves every plaudit he receives, the game is intriguingly poised and we have an incredible day in prospect!

Posted by India_ANY_track_bully on (July 12, 2013, 9:19 GMT)

The only people benefiting from DRS are the technology companies. There is no value add from a cricketing standpoint. The umpire is a long standing tradition in cricket and the phrase "umpire's decision is final" is the mantra which brings a unique attraction to the game... without which.. well... it's just not cricket!

Posted by DingDong420 on (July 12, 2013, 9:16 GMT)

Now to the English commentators that bash the BCCI whenever possible at their insistence not to use DRS. I saw a lot of moaning yesterday about DRS.....STOP whinging and stand by your convictions

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 9:14 GMT)

I'm perplexed by some claiming that "the front hotspot clearly showed that there was no edge".

Firstly, that inside edge does not come into clear view on the front camera (the other edge does).

And secondly, it's well known that hotspot can miss some fine edges. Hotspot can prove without doubt that the ball DOES hit the bat (for catches), but cannot prove without doubt that the ball DOESN'T hit the bat (for LBWs).

In this case the evidence that it hit the bat was in the slight but obvious and sudden deviation of the ball between bat and pad - that could not have been inswing (too sudden) or deflection off the pad (would have deflected the other way).

Also, Dar obviously heard the inside edge but was powerless to overrule Erasmus's incorrect overrule. I think on-field umpires need to talk to the TV umpire in working out whether to overrule, but the final decision should be the on-field umpire, not the TV umpire's.

Agar was clearly out too - boot was still marginally in the air

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 9:13 GMT)

The most interesting aspect of Trott's dismissal was Aleem Dar's shrug to Trott as he was forced to overturn his original decision. Suggesting that Dar was pretty convinced Trott had hit it. Erasmus only had had sound and video to decide on - presumably he went by the sound? The big question is whether there was sufficient evidence to overrule the on field umpire - in this instance I don't think there was. The big problem with DRS is that the DRS umpire spends too much time on close decisions - if they are so close that the DRS evidence is not immediately convincing just let the on field decision stand.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 9:13 GMT)

The thing that bugs me most about this is, regardless of your opinion if Trott did indeed hit it or not, the umpire gave it not out, and the 3rd umpire overruled it without evidence. He guessed, and that is outside of the guidance given by the ICC.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 9:04 GMT)

As someone has already alluded to, the 3rd umpire's job (as I understand it), is only to overrule the on-filed umpires decision, if there is clear evidence that he has made a mistake. Whilst the operator's human error (we all make them) meant that hotspot was not able to SUPPORT his view, there was nothing to contravene it. More so, sufficient natural visual evidence to suggest he was correct. Aleem Dar is widely recognised as one of, if not THE best umpire in world cricket. He saw and/or heard it, and was unusually openly perplexed/apologetic for the overturn.

To suggest the deviation was swing is, in my opinion either very misguided, or foolish. If any bowler in world cricket can make the ball swing 80degrees, over the course of an inch, then they are super-human.

I would have liked to have seen Hawkeye, which surely could have shown the projected path of the ball had he not hit it, and tracked its path when he did?

Posted by PFEL on (July 12, 2013, 8:51 GMT)

Lol I love how Anderson "knows" that Trott hit it. He was no where near it.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 8:50 GMT)

@Jules UK, presumably, though maybe he thought it was swinging down legside and never asked about an edge?

So many presumptions being made here about the interaction between Dar and Erasmus, its ridiculous.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 8:48 GMT)

The last ump who over-played his role as third umpire - Billy Bowden - rightly lost his place on the elite panel. In my opinion the same should apply here to Erasmus. He was in no position to overrule Aleem Dar

Posted by JulesUK on (July 12, 2013, 8:38 GMT)

@dgcov Presumably when referring the decision Dar informed Erasmus that he, Dar had given Trott not out because of an inside edge.

Therefore Erasmus should only have overturned Dar's decision if there was positive evidence on the replays that the was not an inside edge.

Posted by Hatter_Mad on (July 12, 2013, 8:28 GMT)

There are too many third umpiring errors. Maybe, as a job, it's too early on and they need more experience. I think the default position of the 3rd umpire should be "am I 100% sure that I have evidence to overturn my colleague on the field?" and "am I over-stepping the mark by changing things here?" On both counts Erasmus has failed miserably. And it would be nice to see cricinfo report this in an even-handed manner.

Posted by Inspector_Clouseau on (July 12, 2013, 8:19 GMT)

A couple of things I understood from this fiasco..

1. HotSpot, being expensive, is triggered manually only when the delivery is being bowled.

2. They employ only ONE operator for triggering it as well as showing the replays.

Posted by pat_one_back on (July 12, 2013, 8:18 GMT)

Amazed at the debate, objectively I thought I saw slight deviation, this was most likely swing given (not that it's in use for DRS) that the microphone picked up NOTHING!!!!

Posted by dgcov on (July 12, 2013, 8:16 GMT)

I have to say that I feel that Marais Erasmas' decisions concerning Agar's stumping and Trott's dimissal were spot on, despite the suggestion to the contrary of Nasser Hussain and other England supporters.

For me, the stumpcam showed Agar's boot sole had come back behind the line marginally before the stumps moved and for Eramas to have given that out would have been patently unjust. Furthermore David Gower's repeated assertion on air that Agar's back foot was not grounded smacks more wishful commenting than informed commentary.

In Trott's case, I could not see the "obvious deviation" alluded to and would suggest that had such occurred, this would have been visible on the front hotspot camera as Trott raised his bat. There was no such mark. The ball pitched inside leg and went on to be hitting middle halfway up, so it would have been a travesty not to give the decision merely on Trott's say-so that he had hit it just because the side on hotspot was not available at the time.

Posted by Lord_mac on (July 12, 2013, 7:58 GMT)

Such a shame that cricket has the ability to shoot itself in the foot. England should currently be about 180 ahead for one down.

I would imagine that Erasmus will be under serious scrutiny for the Trott debacle and the missed stumping against Agar when he had 6. The latter can only be down to incompetence, as only the shadow was behind the line, but there are more general lessons to learn from the Trott episode.

In rugby, the on-field referee remains in control and has a dialogue with the video ref. Erasmus should have said "I don't have the vital Hotspot video available. The front-on VT appears to show a deviation, but the front-on Hotspot doesn't show the edge of the bat. So it's inconclusive and I can see nothing to justify overturning the on-field decision. So Not Out. However, because the side-on Hotspot evidence isn't available, the Austrailian team should not be docked a review."

Posted by CliffM on (July 12, 2013, 7:58 GMT)

There are only four umpires on the Elite Panel who are not from either Australia or England. With ten Tests between them each requiring three of these umpires in the next six months they are going to be seeing a lot of these four umpires. The nightmare scenario was for the teams to be losing confidence in one of them in the first match. This could go horribly wrong.

Posted by rickyvoncanterbury on (July 12, 2013, 7:51 GMT)

@jmcilhinney thanks mate for your opinion, but my opinion is He was out and it also says that in the scorecard.

Posted by Whatsgoinoffoutthere on (July 12, 2013, 7:50 GMT)

The umpire who heard the edge with his own ears - Aleem Dar - gave it not out. Marais Erasmus overruled this decision on the basis of no information whatsoever. This sounds a little bit questionable, but even as an England fan I'd say if Trott had put a bit more wood on the ball - which I believe is what batting is about - he'd have been fine.

BUT - and this is a very big BUT - I've never been especially impressed with Erasmus as an umpire. That's a separate issue and I had that doubt even before the start of this match. On the TV highlights of this decision, watch Aleem Dar after he conveys the 3rd umpire's decision. He puts his hands up... like he's saying dunno, out of my hands mate. This makes me wonder what he's thinking too. Then again, if you don't want a marginal lbw decision, please hit the ball properly!

I think England's problem with Erasmus is that he appears to be a random decision generating machine. We've heard only this bit in public, I wonder what's been said before?

Posted by stringbok on (July 12, 2013, 7:43 GMT)

The point here is not about DRS but the consistency of the third umpire. DRS is there to prevent howlers and to support the man who, standing 22 yards away has the best view. Dar gave him not out, the slo mo showed a deflection and unfortunately due to operator error hot spot was inconclusive. Trott should have been given the benefit of the doubt and the decision stayed with the on field umpire. Dar's gesture after he raised his finger said it all. The hot spot operator may have made an error but Erasmus made a bigger one.

England clearly can't get the decision changed but they can try to get clarity from the ICC, There should be a ruling that in the event of technology failure and inconclusive evidence to overturn the original decision the on field umppire's decision should be upheld,

Posted by Hazzak on (July 12, 2013, 7:41 GMT)

Surely the benefit of the doubt should always go to the umpire's original decision. So if the ball looks like it might have hit the edge, then if the umpire originally gave it not out, and hotspot is unavailable to show that there is no edge, the original decision should stand. Of course, if the batsman has been given out, then a lack of evidence to the contrary upholds the decision. A decision should never be reversed, unless the technology proves that it's wrong.

Posted by TheCricketeer on (July 12, 2013, 7:40 GMT)

Don't blame the poor operator to cover up the umpires inadequacies. Sure the shot should have been available but:

1. The front on view was maybe not 100% indicative of an edge but it sure looked like there was a deviation before striking the pad.

2. The umpires should have a little chat. Not a one way conversation. The standing umpire was clearly pretty confident Trott had hit it. He almost looked embaressed to overrule. And Marais Erasmus could not have been confident he didnt hit it based on what he saw. Technically he could say there was no evidence he had hit it. But he sure as hell couldn't say there was definitive evidence he hadnt hit it. For me the balance of probability on the regular slowmo was definitely that there had been an edge.

They should have got this decision right. No question!

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 7:22 GMT)

@Clarke501, I realise snicko is no part of the DRS, but it showed a noise when the ball hit the pad, though not as it was passing the bat. So regardless of DRS, if we are searching for the ultimate truth as to what happened out there, then snicko would certainly suggest that there was no edge involved and it is usually pretty reliable. Perhaps Trotty clipped his boot or something? Though I have to say, for me there was no double sound in the audio. Can anyone else say they heard the kind of double noise generally associated with an inside edge? No-one has mentioned it.

As for the appearance of a deflection, well it is very difficult to judge when the ball goes past the bat and into the shadow of it, may just be some sort of optical illusion, very hard to judge when the vision is frame by frame and not constant.

In any case, right or wrong, umpires are and should be allowed the odd mistake, I can't see at the end of the series that we'll all be talking about this dismissal.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 12, 2013, 7:18 GMT)

@rickyvoncanterbury on (July 11, 2013, 23:57 GMT) , it's just as well because you sound like a know-very-little. The clarity they are seeking is obviously the process by which the decision to overrule the on-field umpire was reached, including what exactly was considered to be conclusive evidence that the original decision was wrong. You don't have to know much to be able to work that out. There have been issues raised on several occasions in the past about how DRS is applied by the third umpire, even by proponents such as myself and not just when it has gone against my team. On this occasion though, I'm simply unable to comprehend how anyone could look at the standard replay objectively and claim that the ball did not deviate before hitting Trott's pad.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 12, 2013, 7:11 GMT)

@humdrum on (July 12, 2013, 6:41 GMT), quite right, such teams would never grumble about, say, being distracted by a bowler bumping the stumps at the non-striker's end.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 12, 2013, 7:06 GMT)

@Alex Slack on (July 12, 2013, 6:01 GMT), because there is proof. You don't need extreme slo-mo. Just the regular slo-mo replay from front-on showed a clear and significant deviation by the ball between passing the bat and hitting the pad. The ball is not going to react that way unless there's an action to react to and that action was the edge of the bat hitting it.

Posted by calcu on (July 12, 2013, 7:04 GMT)

Well, even though there was no side hotspot, the front one clearly showed that there was no edge and hawk eye confirmed that he was out. Right call was made in the end. ECB and english fans are making excuses to defend their poor performance despite being heavy favourites.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (July 12, 2013, 6:48 GMT)

@rickyvoncanterbury - may I add to your line . Scorecard :Trott Lbw Starc .And just go to cricinfo's live commentary and scores page :Umpire reviews remaining-England 2 (0 successful, 0 unsuccessful) .Yeah,0 successful reviews. States the fact !

Posted by GoBerries on (July 12, 2013, 6:46 GMT)

I know why the English don't want DRS!! If we had it in 2005 they would not have won the series. Warne had Jones plum LBW (first ball-ish) given NOT OUT and then he and Flintoff go on to put on 50 odd. Australia then loose the test by 2 runs. Katich got hit on the thigh pad by Harmison when the ball pitched a foot outside leg stump given out LBW.

Posted by humdrum on (July 12, 2013, 6:41 GMT)

For a team which fancies it has overwhelming superiority over the aussies, why make a song and dance regarding imperfect technology and bad decisions? It smacks of familier moaning and groaning. Champion teams (and would be champions as well) hardly ever grumble. Life is tough and gets tougher as you reach the top. Did someone say that when the going gets tough< the tough get going.

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 12, 2013, 6:40 GMT)

@samincolumbia - I'd expect Flower to do his job and represent the team he's coaching, just like any other coach.

@Jono Makim - Snicko isn't part of DRS. Hotspot is. Where was the Hotspot evidence confirming Dar was wrong? That's right, it was unavailable.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (July 12, 2013, 6:38 GMT)

Yesterday again showed why tech/DRS is here to stay as long as cricket itself stays and why it is the most significant, wonderful intro. in cricket in last few years.Apart from correcting 99% game changing howlers,it has brought lot of fairness in the game,made the umps up their efficacy or risk being shown up and demotion from Elite. It also sets apart the best umps from the rest,eg.- STaufel whose almost all decisions vindicated by tech and had but only few of challenges on his decisions proved right ,thus proving his standing as the best,most efficient in business.Trott's LB was among the 1% or so of the very 'marginal' decisions involving DRS due to unavailability of certain angles in slow-mo and/or H/Spot that can make such faint tickles or close to edge of bat or close bat-pad tricky and puts 3rd ump in a spot. However,Erasmus showed why he 1 of the best by making the correct call- OUT.No spot on H/S and no edge picked up on S-mo and ball hitting .OUT!! Right call by Erasmus.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 6:20 GMT)

On the Trott dismissal, where was the snicko evidence for the inside edge? Thats right, nothing.

On the Root dismissal, if he was convinced he didn't hit it, why no instantaneous referral? Because he hit it! How have people on this forum convinced themselves that Root definitely didn't hit the ball?

Posted by CricFan78 on (July 12, 2013, 6:17 GMT)

Dont you love the whinging from English everytime even a single decision go against them

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 6:01 GMT)

if there is no definite proof of the bat hitting the ball anywhere, hotspot, snicko, extremee slo-mo how can people be so determined they are right ? Anderson is adamant yet he wasnt on the pitch so he can only go on the batsmans opinion which we saw in Root's case is very subjective.

Simply beaten by a better ball on this occasion, its not like it was 3/4 of the ball hitting the stump and not out which was the first review of the innings !!!

move on people there is a contest to enjoy

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 12, 2013, 5:36 GMT)

I'm yet to see the Trott incident so cant comment. As for the Agar stumping, you get the feeling he is possibly out but the picture that we sore on the TV was not definitive. The line was worn and there was the possiblility he could have had a fraction of the foot over the line. As such I think the third umpire in this case was right to make the decision he did.

Posted by philvic on (July 12, 2013, 5:35 GMT)

Trott may have been a bit unlucky but if the 3rd umoire thinks he can make a correct decision based on whatever is available then he should do so. Snicko should be addded to the technology because it seems at least as good as Hotspot. The umpires call should be removed from the system as it distorts the system - in this match already England have had two decisions go in their favour because of umpires call - DRS may not be perfect but it is better and certainly more consistent then the human eye - if DRS says its hitting the stumps it should be out. The number of challenges should also be increased or the power given to the umpires to consult the system. Regarding stumpings and noballs s these are really difficult, especially knowing at what instant the batsman's foot is grounded and precisely when it can be decided that the bails are shifted. For this i would go with the benefit of doubt to the batsman in the case of stumpings and the bowler in no-balls. Bell was unlucky in ODI

Posted by yoohoo on (July 12, 2013, 5:32 GMT)

DRS has been made unnecessarily complicated. Dhoni was right - "it is corruption of technology with human involvement". How does the initial umpire decision matter. Once you have invoked DRS, the original decision of the umpire should not matter, only the evidence of the DRS technology should matter. If you are not confident enough to trust technology with that, then the technology is not yet good enough. Technology by itself should show us the facts, so that a human can make the decision. We should not have to add human input to the technological input. This is the primary reason we see all these inconsistent decisions.

Posted by 5wombats on (July 12, 2013, 5:24 GMT)

Trott was Not Out. On field Umpire gave him not out. If this game had been played in India - Trott would be not out because there is no DRS there. There was insufficent evidence available to the 3rd umpire to justify overturning the decision. A really desperate mistake by Erasmus. Agar whilst on 6 was out stumped - also a mistake by Erasmus, a bad one - as in just that single moment England could lose this game. But with the Trott issue - that's TWO potentially match losing umpire mistakes. This is why Australia is called the Lucky Country.

Posted by RA122 on (July 12, 2013, 5:16 GMT)

One of the rare occasions in cricket history since DRS was introduced. How many times have you seen two howlers both of them not from the ground umpire but the TV umpire. Is this shear incompetence on the part of Mr. Erasmus, a physical disability to see clearly or is he there to help someone prove DRS is a bad thing. First a shocker to give Agar not out when clearly was on the line and not over it when bails came off. All I can say is this guy should never be a TV umpire ever again.

Posted by cric_J on (July 12, 2013, 5:05 GMT)

I have no doubts that DRS and technology improve the quality of decision making in cricket. They surely do. The logic behind the excuse that DRS is not perfect so it should not be used at all , totally escapes me. It is better to have something than nothing. Always.

Coming to the match , England have now had 2 poor decisions in the match and key ones at that. Agar already made them pay dearly for it. And Trott's may be the same as well.

I have said this before on atleast 10 occasuons that THERE IS A NEED FOR A FIXED RULE TO GIVE THE BATSMAN OUT/NOT OUT WHEN HIS FOOT IS "ON" THE LINE IN CASE OF STUMPING APPEALS. This should be done for the bowler's front foot in case of a no ball and for the batsman's bat in case of a run out as well.

There can be no radical reason for leaving such decisions to the umpires or for it being the "umpire's call".

England have paid for this recently when Bell was given out stumped in a "close call" in the CT final while Agar wasn't yesterday.

Posted by samincolumbia on (July 12, 2013, 4:48 GMT)

Will Andy be looking over the shoulder of the third umpire for the rest of the Ashes now, making sure the decision is always in favor of England?

Posted by bobagorof on (July 12, 2013, 4:48 GMT)

@Barking_Mad: Your logic doesn't make sense. If a team uses their DRS review on what they perceive to be a howler, but are proven wrong, then they have no further reviews for future howlers. I don't see how that improves the current situation. As it is, Root decided not to review an incorrect decision because he was worried about losing the review. In any case, the 3rd umpire would still have to rely on the technology available to him, and if the technology is as unreliable as you're suggesting then the only things he could accurately rule on should be obvious to the on-field umpire in the first place.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 12, 2013, 4:47 GMT)

@H_Z_O on (July 11, 2013, 20:12 GMT), I disagree with making the teams review stumping decisions. You can't expect the batsman to know whether he is back in time when he's probably looking the other way so can't see the crease or the keeper break the stumps. Also, it's tough on the square leg umpire asking him to make a call on a close stumping like that so the decision would have to be not out every time. I think that it makes perfect sense to go upstairs pretty much automatically and let close-ups and slo-mos do their job. I wonder whether maybe a panel of three TV umpires would be a good idea and you need at least two to overturn an on-field decision. They should also use an overlay on the crease so that they can see a straight line and whether any part of the foot is behind it. While I think Agar might have been short, I think that it was the right decision under the circumstances. That said, I think Ian Bell should have been not out in the CT final based on what I saw too.

Posted by bobagorof on (July 12, 2013, 4:40 GMT)

For those who are against the DRS because it 'takes the human element out of the game', here is evidence that the human element is alive and well!

Posted by Josephus72 on (July 12, 2013, 4:37 GMT)

Was very surprised and disappointed at the shrug of shoulders by Aleem Dar which was patently and publicly for the benefit of the outgoing Trott. Is there a place for personal ego in a test-level umpire? Having just erred diabolically in not giving Root out to Starc LBW shortly before the Trott dismissal (how can middle stump be the sole determinant in a margin of error calculation???), should that remind an umpire in his own fallibility? Ego in umpiring is to blame for a very poor decision resulting in Australia being able to unfairly tie a test against India but that was a long time ago and I would have thought that with technology, umpires would have moved on from that. I'd argue that Dar's clear gesture is close to bringing the game into disrepute.

Posted by Udendra on (July 12, 2013, 4:34 GMT)

Can we allow "operator errors" to govern the game? Use DRS properly or don't use at all.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 4:24 GMT)

The TV commentators could see no inside edge and I am inclined to agree. From a naked eye perspective it did seem as of there was but not once you see the slow replay and not on hotspot.

Posted by ramli on (July 12, 2013, 4:20 GMT)

Anderson should know better ... just because Trott thinks he hit the ball and prior thinks that it was out, decisions can't be made in their favour ... the available evidence pointed that both decisions were rational ... why all the fuss?

Posted by AidanFX on (July 12, 2013, 3:39 GMT)

It's early days in the use of DRS this series. One ting I will tell you - compared to when India toured Australia, whilst by and large the umpiring was good; there were significant howlers. I say that for just perspective on the matter.

Posted by rajpan on (July 12, 2013, 3:39 GMT)

Use of technology should be welcome provided it is fairly used. In last few years of DRS operation it is proved that it has its own limitations. But the unfair part of it is it is available for only two occasions in an innings. The selfishness/foolishness or sheer incompetency of top order batsmen (even though they belong to the same team) create a situation wherein the later batsmen can not have the advantage of the same system. Where is the fairness? Just imagine an unfair decision given to a player like Agar and he being unable to do anything about it just because both referral chances are used by top order!! Every player must get an opportunity to get a fair deal. Some time loss in the pursuit of perfection should be acceptable.

Posted by AidanFX on (July 12, 2013, 3:38 GMT)

Aiming for objectivity and non-bias I will say this - Agar was probably technically, but in the spirit of the game was rightly given not out. On the other hand Trott I believe was technically out (yes I know he look bemused and all), but in the spirit of the game and consistency of the application of DRS should have been given not out as per Aleem D. I would hope no one would want to take away the innings from Agar. On the other hand - Trott was beaten by a lethal delivery first up to put Starc 'on a hatric'. Again another spectacle of the day He was unlucky in terms of the spirit of the game but the controversy is a bit over drawn. I don't think he nicked but got his bat close to the ball and squeezed his pads. But I agree based on consistency the Aussies won out.

Posted by funkybluesman on (July 12, 2013, 3:06 GMT)

With DRS and edges I think it basically comes down to this:

With an LBW, to rule a batsman not-out when the only thing that could save him would be an edge, then I think you need some reasonably conclusive evidence that he has edged it to say it's not out

With a nick to the keeper, if you don't have pretty conclusive evidence of an edge then it gets given not-out.

Posted by funkybluesman on (July 12, 2013, 3:03 GMT)

People are talking about not being evidence to overturn the on-field decision with Trott, but with an LBW it would come down to Erasmus reviewing all the evidence and if the ball pitched in line, hit in line and would have gone onto hit, then I think he would need to see definite evidence to prove there was an edge in order to give the batsman not-out. In this case people are talking like there is evidence proving he hit it, as if they were able to view the side-on hotspot themselves later and it showed an edge. That's clearly not the case, they are just going on Trott saying he hit it.

Last Australian summer David Warner was given not-out caught behind. The fielding side asked for a review and he was given out despite no hotspot, no visible deviation from any angles etc. That is a howler. This one it sounds like the 3rd umpire got right.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 3:01 GMT)

I really think England is whingeing. They have had the benefit of umpiring errors too, remember Billy Bowden"s howlers in 2005. This will give more ammunition to India to say DRS is not ok. I think the umpiring review system is working. It is not ideal, but then we dont live in an ideal world . Ramanaujam sridhar

Posted by TropicPleasure on (July 12, 2013, 2:55 GMT)

Errors like the one Erasmus made in the Trott dismissal can be avoided (somewhat) if the third umpire isn't allowed to make the decision, but to advise the standing umpire, telling him exactly what he has seen. In this case, Erasmus would have had to advise the third umpire, explaining that the front side Hot Spot angle suggested a touch because there was a deviation but hotspot didn't record it, and that the side angle wasn't available. He would then suggest that the decision be overturned - if that was what he wished - but Dar would have the final say and would have upheld his initial decision

Posted by RodStark on (July 12, 2013, 2:53 GMT)

The simplest way to do it would be to require the on-field umpires to make a decision and then only overturn it if the reviews show it to be definitely wrong.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 12, 2013, 2:46 GMT)

@Barking_Mad on (July 11, 2013, 20:15 GMT), of course you can blame the umpire. The point is that any decision is only supposed to be over-turned either way if there is conclusive evidence that the on-field call was wrong. If the technology provides conclusive proof and the third umpire chooses to ignore it then that's the umpire's mistake. If there is no conclusive proof, either because the on-field decision was correct or because the technology just can't detect that it was wrong, and the third umpire overrules the decision anyway then that's the umpire's mistake too. That's exactly what happened in the case of Trott's dismissal: there was no conclusive proof that the on-field decision was incorrect but it was overturned anyway, which is the umpire's mistake. For whatever reason, there was no side-on HotSpot. The front-on HotSpot showed no edge but it also never clearly showed the inside edge of the bat. The front-on replay showed a clear deviation. Not conclusive proof of error!

Posted by Chris_Howard on (July 12, 2013, 1:43 GMT)

I've lost faith in the DRS. W'eve become too obsessed with every millimetre.

The game loses something when we start trying to decide if "he was a millimetre in or a millimetre out". It's not cricket.

If the third ump can't make a decision in 30 seconds, then leave the decision with the on field umpire.

As Ian Chappell says, DRS should just be for the howlers.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 1:35 GMT)

It is not fair for players to feel cheated by technology or the absence of technology. Hotspot cost a lot of money to use, mainly covered by sponsors, not the ICC, not the ECB, not CA or the ground hosting the event. To not use it in the manner in which Trott was dismissed is equivalent to being given out off a no-ball. There was clear video evidence to suggest that the ball had deflected or deviated before the ball hit the pad. But hotspot wasn't turned on due to human error, do people drive without their headlights on at night? That moment of indecision is gonna spark the tabloids into a frenzy and Marais Erasmus himself not being a TV umpire again.

Posted by ODI_BestFormOfCricket on (July 12, 2013, 1:30 GMT)

Believe or not, hot spot is not 100% accurate. It does not detect thin edges and everyone knows it, so now a days batsmen trying to make use of that hole eventhough they knew they nicked.

Posted by Chris_P on (July 12, 2013, 1:08 GMT)

@king78787. No one is disputing Dar is a quality umpire, but he & the rest of the elite panel are unanimous in their support of DRS, so really, offerings of personal opinions are moot. Not one person states DRS is 100% correct, but it gets more correct than even the elite umpires, ergo the reason for its use. I really couldn't see why Root was unsure, the bat was the only thing the ball could have hit given the way he played the shot & sninko confirmed the sound. Snicko also showed no sound for Trott's case which makes it even more intriguing given his & Dar's reaction. If you get the chance, guys, Cook's head went backwards when Trott was hit in what looked like a sign of disbelief or the way you think someone is out, another interesting take on all this.

Posted by somethingdifferent on (July 12, 2013, 0:44 GMT)

I think there is nothing wrong with the technology and its usage. Partially it is the operator's error but primarily it is the fault of TV umpire, Marais Erasmus. He should have given Trott the benefit of doubt once he new that the evidence was not conclusive due to non availability of side-on DRS. Furthermore he needs to be more consistent in his decision making. As a general rule of thumb it is the batsman who gets the benefit of doubt. if Agar got it then why not Trott.

Posted by rattusprat on (July 12, 2013, 0:43 GMT)

This issue is that you can never conclusively prove that a batsman did NOT hit the ball. Finding conclusive evidence the other way is easy, but (without exploring physics of what "touching" actually means) you can have a scenario where there's nothing on hotspot, nothing on sniko, no obvious deflection, but the batsman still hit it.

In theory, unless the bastman misses it by a metre, the 3rd umpire should NEVER be able to overrule a NOT OUT lbw, or an OUT ct wk. As this would be ridiculous umpires are required to make a judgement call. The 3rd umpire must make a call on how convinced they need to be to make a decision - same as the on field umpires. 95%? 90%? ???

Posted by canterbury1990 on (July 12, 2013, 0:38 GMT)

Under DRS, a decision may only be overturned if and only if there is conclusive evidence that the original decision is wrong. Clearly in this case, there was not conclusive evidence that the original decision was wrong, and so the decision should not have been overturned. There is nothing wrong with the DRS, it just wasn't used properly in this case.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 0:33 GMT)

The DRS issue will never EVER get resolved until ICC, and a lot of fans, keep harping on this "howler" issue. There is no clear definition of a howler. Generally, when the decision goes against your team its a howler, but if it benefits you then it was a 50-50 decision that went your way....We don't use technology for run-outs with that intention and we never will be able to use it for any other decisions with that intention. Simply put - the third umpire should give a binary out/not out decision, based on all the technology he has available to him, IRRESPECTIVE of the on-field decision. If there is not sufficient evidence available - then its not out as the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman....

Posted by alarky on (July 12, 2013, 0:32 GMT)

I detected questionable operations of the DRS since World Cup 11 in India. I think the Pakistanis are still asking what happened to a glaring LBW decision that the on-field had given, but which was overturned by "The Operators" replay in the semi-final match between India and pakistan! Hence, this incident today now gets me very suspicious about DRS, since I am learning now that an "Operator" has to provide the replay for the third umpire! I think that ANYTHING can happen!

Posted by rickyvoncanterbury on (July 11, 2013, 23:57 GMT)

England seek clarity over Trotts dismissal ... well I don't want to sound like a no it all but that clarity can be found on the scorecard,....Trott Lbw Starc

Posted by czar2008 on (July 11, 2013, 23:33 GMT)

Why can't the third umpires just review every decision anyways and use technology in each of these? If an appeal made was wrongly given out - they can call the umpire to change his decision, similarly if a batsman is out but standing his ground when an umpire on ground wrongly says no to the bowling team's appeal, they can call the umpire again and ask them to rechange it!! Use technology for the benefit of both teams and you can't go wrong. And whats the logic behind giving a limited number of Reviews to each team?? This should be atleast 11!

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 11, 2013, 23:33 GMT)

@Cyril_Knight on (July 11, 2013, 18:00 GMT), I'm an England fan who lives in Australia so I don't see all that much live cricket but I do see some and I'll be taking time off work to see every day of cricket that England play in Sydney during the next southern summer. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about the entertainment value or otherwise of DRS. It's about getting the right decision as often as possible. If people who regularly attend the grounds would rather see incorrect decisions made to increase their enjoyment a little then I weep for the game of cricket.

Posted by   on (July 11, 2013, 23:31 GMT)

This is a howler? You could see the ball go past the edge cleanly. How is this a big story? Is this the first English series to use DRS or something?

Posted by   on (July 11, 2013, 23:10 GMT)

Its simple to make this rule work. If there is any, I mean ANY, ELEMENT OF DOUBT, it shold be not out. That's it. That has always been the case as an umpire, if you aren't sure then let it go. That should have been the case in both big decisions, it was with Agar and then not with Trott.

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (July 11, 2013, 23:07 GMT)

I've seen too many replays not to see quite easily that Trott got an edge to his delivery into the pads. This was one important wicket-wow! Hopefully the guys can play like they did tonight again in the morning and then go on and make major totals.

Posted by Tigg on (July 11, 2013, 23:04 GMT)

DRS is excellent (although it could badly use snicko). That said, I feel this was Erasmus's error. Live I thought Trott had nicked it. On the slowmo there was a late sharp deviation that appeared more extreme than the steady shape of Starc;s inswing. With that deviation, and the lack of a useful hot-spot angle the on field umpire's decision should stand.

Agar looked out to me as well (a great piece of keeping from prior), nothing was grounded behind the line, which to me is out. That said, watching Agar bat on the Channel 5 highlights was a joy. The frustrating thing about that decision is that in a similar situation Bell was given out in the Champion's Trophy final.

Posted by mikkkk on (July 11, 2013, 22:45 GMT)

Only just seen the Trott incident on the highlights. Staggering decision by Erasmus. Even Aleem Dar looked annoyed and fed up. You can clearly see the ball deviate after it hit the bat. Erasmus will go the way of Bowden and Rauf.

Posted by xylo on (July 11, 2013, 22:32 GMT)

I hope Cook does not go over to Clarke and ask for Trott to be reinstated tomorrow.

Posted by   on (July 11, 2013, 22:29 GMT)

Trott was out-dead plumb.I know the slow mo's suggested a nick but when magnified it seemed the bat clearly missed the ball.In any case even Mike Atherton was unsure before the magnified view.All the available evidence suggested he was out and thats all the tv umpire can go on.

Posted by Chris_P on (July 11, 2013, 22:21 GMT)

Back here, Mark Taylor commented on how he felt Dar had it right & even was surprised it was overturned. He did add that though, with presented evidence, the end decision to overturn was there to be had. I was actually surprised Snicko did not pick anything either. You know the usual suspects will post about DRS being not up to it, but I believe overall, it had lessened the howlers being passed, no one person has ever suggested DRS was going to be 100% but even the international elite umpires panel prefer its use rather than not use it so that would suggest confidence,

Posted by Kavum on (July 11, 2013, 22:12 GMT)

Looks like Marais Errorsmus is a worthy successor to Rudy "I'll give you a rude shock" Koertzen. Bad luck JT but, what goes around comes around. Some other ump may go off half-cocked and give you a reprieve some other time when you are out. But these bad decisions do seem to spoil an enthralling match. Interesting to know why ump Dar gave it not out. We will never know, most likely.

Posted by inthebag on (July 11, 2013, 22:12 GMT)

There was no evidence of a nick, how is Erasmus supposed to adjudicate that there was one? The fact that Anderson says he hit means nothing. Clarke had the guts to review it while Cook was too scared to review Root's (and England bowled rubbish at the kid and he smashed them around the park).

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 11, 2013, 22:04 GMT)

@Cyril Knight - Personally, I enjoy the theatre of watching the replays unfolding on the big screen. However, I'm happy to accept that I may be in a minority. My biggest gripe was with the earlier version of DRS when spectators were the only people who couldn't see the replays. When Clarke was run out on the last day of the 2009 Ashes, people were leaning over balconies to try and see into the executive boxes equipped with TV screens. Ridiculous.

Posted by Tlotoxl on (July 11, 2013, 22:01 GMT)

The problem is not DRS, it is the person operating it, it seemed blatantly obvious to me that the from the head on camera there was a deflection to the right off the bat then it hit the pad, I was astonished that anybody could come to any other conclusion to be honest.

Posted by LarryTB on (July 11, 2013, 21:50 GMT)

This is a rare situation where the DRS has actually introduced an error into the game.

Usually these fusses occur when the DRS fails to overturn an on-field error that it might have been expected to catch, or fails to resolve a close call, as with Agar's stumping. I always think these problems are hugely exaggerated, since so many other decisions do get put right, and if you take DRS out of the game, you're just left with the original on-field mistake or uncertainty. So blaming the DRS seems unfair.

Not this time though! So how did it happen? It looks like there were two human errors: the operator's, and the third umpire's. He's there to overturn mistakes when he has the evidence to do so. For whatever reason he didn't have all the evidence he should have done, so the batsman should have got the customary benefit of the doubt.

Posted by WakeyLee on (July 11, 2013, 21:45 GMT)

Massive fan of cook as a player but not the first time he's suggested to a colleague not to review then subsequently used up a ridiculous review himself!

Posted by Zippydidodah on (July 11, 2013, 21:12 GMT)

In the a BBC radio interview, Jimmy Anderson said that Root had heard a sound, but not felt a nick. He didn't know what had caused the sound, but decided not to review it based on that. If you use a review on a close decision, early in the innings, then you might not have one left for a howler later on.

Personally, I'm happy that DRS removes the howlers, when the umpire was definitely wrong. I don't think the umpires are biased to one team or the other, but sometimes they get things wrong. In the long run, the errors from close decisions balance out.

Posted by sixnout on (July 11, 2013, 21:11 GMT)

I was not much of a fan in the begining. But I believe it has gotten progressively better. However, I would pin the blame on the Erasmus, unless there was something to overwhelmingly support negating Aleem Dar's call. But I guess unless we automate the DRS, we will continue to see decisions made by humans which are going to stir up a trouble for all concerned.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 11, 2013, 20:23 GMT)

@whoster I agree the evidence for pretty much all of the reviews were inconclusive and I think the real issue isn't whether they were the right decisions or not, but the manner in which the review system is supposed to work. Benefit of the doubt needs to be applied consistently, and should, following history, be applied in favour of the batsman. That's why if the umpires thought Agar was not out, and England review, I've no problem with him being given not-out. Likewise if Dar thought Trott wasn't out, and Australia review, it should be not-out. Consistency is the key, and I don't think anyone would deny the DRS was applied inconsistently, to the detriment of both teams, it must be said.

What's horrible is this debate is distracting from a superb day of Test cricket and one of the best debut knocks you'll ever see. I think it's important everyone tries their best to remember the good out of today, not the bad.

Posted by Barking_Mad on (July 11, 2013, 20:15 GMT)

The problem *IS* DRS. You can't bring it in to the game on the basis that it will correct all wrong decisions and then when it cant definitely say one way or the other, blame the umpire for making a judgement call on the best information he has available to him.

Ultimately a human is being asked to look at evidence that can't be proven by technology. It should be no surprise that they get it wrong. If that's what's going to happen, and the 3rd umpire is merely making ANOTHER decision, then why bother in the first place?

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 11, 2013, 20:15 GMT)

@sarangsrk the problem with that is people keep saying the technology showed there was no edge. That's patently untrue. The front-on camera suggested there might have been (and I think it was actually very suggestive that there was, that the bat and pad "squeezed" the ball). Hot-spot wouldn't show that sort of edge from front-on (since it didn't "clip" the bat, it got "squeezed"). The side-on was necessary and without it they shouldn't have overruled, imho. The evidence was inconclusive at best.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 11, 2013, 20:12 GMT)

@jmcilhinney yeah, that's how I saw Root not reviewing. Looked to me like he was absolutely certain he hadn't hit it but conferred with Cook because Cook's captain. Cook persuaded him not to and was, it seems, wrong, and potentially cost us Root and Trott's wicket.

@HawK89 Err, there was a massive deviation on slow-mo.

And I'm not saying only England suffered with bad decisions. I thought the on-field umpire should have given Rogers not-out and the review, if England had reviewed, would have upheld that (or maybe not, since Erasmus seems to be making it up as he goes along). The fault is not the DRS, but with the inconsistency over when the third umpire is supposed to overturn a decision. My understanding was this was to only happen if the evidence was conclusive.

The issue with the Agar stumping is we still don't know if the on-field umpires had any opinion either way because they automatically review any stumping. I'd rather they made a decision and made the teams have to review.

Posted by Barking_Mad on (July 11, 2013, 20:07 GMT)

It's been shown to be unable to completely remove the error of doubt in close decisions, leaving the 3rd umpire to to make a decision using what is in front of him.

This is his opinion and his opinion only, which ironically has in various instances compounded the problem by over ruling the possibly correct decision on the on field umpire. So far from clearing the issues up, it's simply making them worse in certain cases.

If it should be used it should only be available to each team once. If a truly poor decision is made and referred then they retain one more go if proven correct. That WAS the original idea of it, right?

Posted by PanGlupek on (July 11, 2013, 20:07 GMT)

More sensible comments on this subject than usual: As a few people have said, I don't think technology is the problem here - it's usually either the 3rd umpire's interpretation, or the guidelines they are forced to work within, that cause problems.

DRS still results in more correct decisions than without, and neither of the decisions today were total howlers. Agar I thought was out, but if there's any doubt at all (and there maybe was some), the umpire is right not to give it (DRS-bashers might note that this is not a DRS-howler, this would have been referred to the 3rd umpire whether DRS existed or not). Trott I don't think should have been overturned there. It looked like an edge onto pad. Don't see how Erasmus could have said without doubt, "No, he definitely didn't hit this". Again, this is a 3rd umpire error for me, not a DRS error. The same logic as "stick with umpire's call if in doubt" should have been used here.

Posted by whoster on (July 11, 2013, 20:02 GMT)

I'm still a big fan of DRS, but it'll never be perfect. As Jimmy Anderson says, more correct decisions are being made since it was introduced - and that's its job. England shouldn't complain about the Trott decision - but it was interesting to note that Aleem Dar's body language strongly suggested that he gave Trott out against his wishes. Dar obviously thought he edged it, because it was utterly plum otherwise. The circumstances why it wasn't recorded by the side-on Hotspot were unfortunate - hardly a common occurrence where it needs to be used for two successive balls. None of the decision reviews today had real evidence either way, so it's not a big deal.

Posted by king78787 on (July 11, 2013, 19:58 GMT)

Trust the on field umpire to make the right call, if the evidence tells the 3rd umpire nothing either way then the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsmen. Dar is a class umpire, he knows if someone hits the ball.

Posted by thekaz on (July 11, 2013, 19:51 GMT)

The problem here isn't actually whether Trott hit the ball or not, the problem is consistency in the 3rd umpires decision making. The stumping of Agar ( which to me looked out ) was not given because there 'was no clear evidence to show that he was definitely out'. The Trott dismissal should not have been given out because there was not enough evidence to overturn the on field umpires decision. These two decision's are not following the laws, or the perceived idea that the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsmen, they were made on the gut instinct of Marais Erasmus, not good enough when using technology.

Posted by sonicattack on (July 11, 2013, 19:47 GMT)

Not that it makes any difference now because the scorebook says Trott was out, but it 's the first time I've seen an umpire have to reverse a decision and then hold out his arms as if to say 'what can I do?'

Posted by gtr800 on (July 11, 2013, 19:36 GMT)

England can't seriously complain about these 2 decisions when Rogers lbw, Mitchell Starc to root lbw & Starc to Anderson lbw were against Australia. In my opinion it didn't look like Trott hit it & England should be good enough to create more than 1 chance against an inexperienced 19 year old making his debut & having only 10 first class matches under his belt.

Posted by landl47 on (July 11, 2013, 19:32 GMT)

We have neutral umpires and they do the best they can. No doubt not every decision is correct, but I'm happy to leave it in the hands of the officials, using whatever technology is available. Once the umpires have made their decision, that's it. This seems to be a backdoor method of challenging the decision of the umpires and I don't find that acceptable.

Not having Hot Spot available is another matter and needs to be looked into.

I disagree strongly with any implication in the last sentence of the article that using technology to help with decisions is wrong. That's like saying that car seat belts or motorcycle helmets are useless because they don't prevent every death. Technology has improved decision-making by an enormous amount and to pretend otherwise is to stick one's head in the sand. I noticed that in the recent CT a frequent user of the DRS was the Indian team. The BCCI's opposition evidently didn't extend to not using the DRS when it was available.

Posted by HawK89 on (July 11, 2013, 19:12 GMT)

The stumping was too close to give it a certain OUT decision. Root knew he didn't hit it, but his captain thought otherwise. Trott says he hit it but shows no deviation on slow-mo and nothing on hotspot. If he actually hit the ball, it must of been a feather of a touch which only the batsmen would notice from holding the bat. Even Snicko clearly showed no sound when the ball went pass the bat. Don't know why England are up in arms about it. Everyone has received the hard end from DRS/3rd umpire, so why should something change because England received it this time?

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 11, 2013, 19:12 GMT)

It does seem ludicrous that hotspot cameras, hawkeye and all the other high tech paraphernalia are used, yet line decisions are still made by an umpire looking at a blurred line on a TV screen. Surely there must be some electronic means of showing the position of the line on the 3rd umpire's screen.

Posted by Barking_Mad on (July 11, 2013, 19:10 GMT)

What a tangled double edged mess of nonsense the technology has proven to be. It's left the 3rd umpire making an off the field decision which is simply a matter of opinion, not as it is supposed to be, a matter of fact. Why bother allowing a referral in the first place?!

It was introduced to "eliminate the really poor decision", but now it's simply engrained in the game to such a level that using a decision in some circumstances is a matter of chance.

At a push they should have just one referral, for the really poor decision. If it was up to me (which it's obviously not!) id just get rid of it entirely.

Ruined the game in my view and over a hundred years of history.

Posted by CricketingStargazer on (July 11, 2013, 19:09 GMT)

DRS is fine. However, it needs to be used consistently and with common sense. 90% of DRS "errors" can be traced to human error - humans not using it sensibly or consistently, or expecting unreasonable things of it such as tracking accurately a ball based on just a few centimetres of flight.

Scientists are always told "present your errors" to assess the reliability of a result: the ICC has never requested that such error information be presented. It would be a trivial exercise for the TV umpire to be presented with an estimate such as "probability that the ball would have hit the stumps: 90%", or "20%". You then set a confidence level, for example 75% and, anything below that is "NOT OUT!!!"

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 11, 2013, 19:04 GMT)

@kingkarthik - Root presumably decided not to refer on the basis he thought he probably hit it, and Cook presumably agreed. I don't think you can refer a decision on the off chance that the technology won't pick up an edge. Totally agree with your point that the errors from the umpires were to blame, not the DRS itself.

Posted by GeoffreysMother on (July 11, 2013, 18:50 GMT)

The issue is not DRS but the inconsistency of Mr Erasmus and the (surprising ) revelation that there is no real time hot spot with TV replays coming from recorded tape. Having said that let's not let this get in the way of two enthralling days of cricket.

Posted by sarangsrk on (July 11, 2013, 18:46 GMT)

@jmcilhinney...You can't be conveniently selective. either you support technology or you don't. If the technology is saying there was no edge, how can that decision of Trott be not overturned. Would you be happy with the decision being overturned if the side on hot spot angle showed no edge? If yes, then you should be happy with snickometer showing no sound when ball passes the bat. If no, then you are not supporting the technology and trusting your eyes watching it on TV. Make up your mind, mate. For me, there was no reason for umpire to not overturn the on-field decision. You must have seen Rahul Dravid given out multiple times 2 years back in tests in england when the hot spot didn't show any edge and umpire went with the noise heard. was that the right thing to do?

Posted by mrklinkerpants on (July 11, 2013, 18:40 GMT)

DRS is NOT the problem - the interpretation of the 3rd umpire when using incomplete evidence to overturn an on-field decision that palpably appears to have been correct in the first place most definitely is the problem. The LBW shout looked so plumb that the only way an on-field umpire could turn it down was if he felt the batsman hit it - the look of utter bewilderment on Aleem Dar's face when he had to overrule his own call and give Trott out speaks volumes. Utterly barmy and could prove a pivotal moment in this game come the final reckoning. DRS will be like the baby being thrown out with the bathwater if it continues to be misused like this.

Posted by   on (July 11, 2013, 18:37 GMT)

This match has needle and will continue as the series continues.Some of these players are of mediocre talent and quite honestly should be more responsible in their shot selection.What has happened to the maxim that the umpire (s) is the final arbiter on the field of play.Cricket should reflect old and tested qualites of life. On field thevplayers hug and high five and constantly to the scoreboard as if its one large slot machine.Play the game fairly and honestly.

Posted by Harlequin. on (July 11, 2013, 18:20 GMT)

For what might actually be the first time, I am forced to agree with the BCCI. The DRS system is simply not doing it's job at the moment. When it was fist brought in, I thought it would be great because at the end of the days play the focus would be on the cricket which had been played rather than umpire errors. I still think the technology they use is great, and it could work well but unfortunately it has been turned into a joke. I'm not just talking about Erasmus and his inconsistency as to whether the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt or not, but also the players who use it tactically. Now, it's not the on-field umpires taking the focus away from a mind-blowing test innings from a 19 y-o, number 11 debutant, but its the 3rd umpire instead. At least then the umpires could be excused for having to make a snap decision.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 11, 2013, 18:08 GMT)

I must also say that I have no issue with Agar being given not out on that stumping chance. I think that he may have been out but I couldn't say conclusively from the replays available. That said, I don't think that he looked any less out than Ian Bell in the CT final. That was a different umpire though so they may have fallen on opposite sides of a 51/49 decision. We move on from that but I'm still livid about Trott though, because it's not like that was a 50/50. It was a 100/0 that he was not out.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 11, 2013, 18:05 GMT)

It's really quite upsetting to hear that HotSpot showed no edge for Root. To think that, had he reviewed, neither he nor Trott may have been dismissed. I'd really like to know how the conversation between he and Cook went. He obviously didn't think he hit it or he wouldn't have queried it at all so I can only assume that Cook thought he heard a noise and told Root not to waste the review. Unfortunately for Root, he happened to be batting with his captain where probably anyone else would have left it up to him. England have made some mistakes this game and, if they lose, not reviewing that decision could be pivotal. The way Cook and KP are batting, there's every chance that Trott's wrongful dismissal has cost them a big chunk of runs too. If they do lose though, they should think first about their poor batting in the first innings and poor bowling to Agar and Hughes. The rest wouldn't matter if they hadn't let themselves down.

Posted by kingkarthik on (July 11, 2013, 18:02 GMT)

It is not a case of technology supporting the DRS. It is the ineptitude usage of technology that gives a bad name to the DRS system. Ashton Agar was out for all intents and purposes. His foot was on the crease clearly. Marais Erasmus decided to interpret it differently. Therefore not poor technology, but poor judgement. Trott was out on the count of the front on hot- spot not revealing any edge and now this article states that even snicko did not detect anything. Yes, the side- on hot- spot was not available, which is the root cause of this controversy; the only reason the side- on was not available was because the broadcaster was busy reviewing the previous out. Therefore, not poor technology, but unfortunate timing by the broadcaster. Root could have reviewed it and DRS would probably have helped the decision to be overturned. But after consultation with Cook he decides not to review. Therefore, not poor technology, but poor decision making by Cook and Root. Think about it!!!

Posted by Cyril_Knight on (July 11, 2013, 18:00 GMT)

Can we do a new survey for DRS support now? But can you divide the opinions by those who regularly attend cricket and not those who just watch on TV.

A good appeal from the crowd in support of the players is great. The wait for the finger to be raised, watching for the twitch. DRS has devalued this vital interaction between players and fans, in a much as it has devalued the decisions of the umpires.

I reckon the majority of regular attendees of live cricket will vote no on DRS. If it wasn't for Sky's dominance over cricket in England we wouldn't have DRS, it is for the entertainment of viewers not for improving the cricket!

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 11, 2013, 17:58 GMT)

I'm a proponent of DRS and I accept the fact that the technology employed is not perfect. I'm not changing my stance or opinion here. The one issue I do have with DRS - and I'm sure I'm not alone here - is the way that various third umpires apply the technology and the rules of DRS. If the side-on HotSpot was not available for Trott then so be it. It's not ideal but it's the reality. I don't see how the front-on HotSpot could be used to say conclusively that there was no edge because it never provided a view of the inside edge of the bat. The front-on slo-mo replay showed clear deviation just before the ball hit the pad. To suggest that that was natural swing is just ridiculous. A ball cannot deviate that sharply simply by swinging. It was a clear inside edge. I guess none of us know what the actual guidelines are for the third umpire but it's been apparent for some time that they are either ambiguous or just inconsistently applied. That is what's really undermining DRS.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
George DobellClose
Tour Results
England v Australia at Southampton - Sep 16, 2013
Australia won by 49 runs
England v Australia at Cardiff - Sep 14, 2013
England won by 3 wickets (with 3 balls remaining)
England v Australia at Birmingham - Sep 11, 2013
No result
England v Australia at Manchester - Sep 8, 2013
Australia won by 88 runs
England v Australia at Leeds - Sep 6, 2013
Match abandoned without a ball bowled
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days