England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 3rd day July 12, 2013

Broad's edge

ESPNcricinfo presents the plays of the day from the third day at Trent Bridge
50

Edge of the day

How much did Australia regret using up their reviews earlier in day? A lot. Stuart Broad edged Ashton Agar to Michael Clarke at slip, via Brad Haddin's glove, and the Australians celebrated the vital breakthrough as everyone waited for the formalities of the decision. They never came. Broad stood there; Dar said not out. Australia could not believe it. Surely it was a thick edge? Yes, it was, the replays confirmed. There was anger in Australian eyes, Darren Lehmann was fuming on the balcony. Debate quickly surged about Broad's lack of walking. It was the howler DRS is there to get rid of. The impacts of this could rumble on.

Good review of the day

A groan rose from Trent Bridge - well, the England section of Trent Bridge - as umpire Kumar Dharmasena lifted his finger after what seemed an age to give Ian Bell out leg before for 34 to a delivery from Shane Watson. It was not much of a shot from Bell, moving over to the off side and playing across the ball but, after a quick consultation with his partner, Jonny Bairstow, Bell decided to utilise the DRS and Hawk Eye showed that the ball would have passed down the legside without hitting the stumps. Bell was reprieved.

Bad review of the day

This was not the best day for Dharmasena. While his decision to give Bairstow, on 8, not out following an appeal from James Pattinson for leg before was quite right - replays and Hawk Eye suggested the ball was passing well down the leg side - his decision to award Bairstow a run was puzzling; the bat missed the ball by some distance. More pertinently, Australia squandered their final DRS option for the appeal which left them without the option for the rest of the innings. Had they had another review available, they may well have used it against Stuart Broad, on 1, who was given not out after padding up to a delivery from Ashton Agar that was shown to be hitting off stump flush on.

Near miss of the day

Michael Clarke had chosen his field for Matt Prior like he was playing chess against Deep Blue. Players were moved inch by inch. Angles were discussed and measured until the player was in the exact right place for the exact kind of Prior slash we have seen a million times. It was only when everything was perfect that the bowler was allowed to come in. So when a Peter Siddle delivery was slashed in that very way, Clarke must have thought he had his man. Instead the very man that should have been the most important, the point fielder, couldn't get off the ground at all as the ball sailed inches from his hands. That man was Ed Cowan, who was back on the field after a couple of days of vomiting. His jump was so low it had no official hang-time. The next over, Steve Smith had replaced him at point. So Cowan took the catch off Prior at midwicket, by jumping, although still not very high.

(New) ball of the day

Not only had Australia maintained control with the old ball, they had managed to gain reverse swing. England had scored only four runs in the previous six overs, five of the last eight overs had been maidens and they had lost the wicket of Bairstow, edging a defensive prod well outside off stump off Agar. But instead of persisting with that method, Australia claimed the new ball and, with the extra pace helping the batsmen a little, England plundered 20 runs off the next three overs and 42 off the next 10; a feast in comparison with the famine on offer for most of the day. The newer ball soon offered reverse swing, too, but in a low scoring match, that relative run glut might yet prove crucial.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • JG2704 on July 14, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    @Sanjiyan on (July 13, 2013, 12:47 GMT) Even Kallis hasn't always walked. I think as he's matured he has but (I'm sure it was him) didn't walk when Chris Adams caught him out yesteryear. It was a close thing but TV evidence made it look like Adams had caught it

  • JG2704 on July 14, 2013, 8:18 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (July 13, 2013, 6:23 GMT) I have in the past both criticised and praised Bell. Some would say more of the former , but what's wrong with criticising players selection when you feel they're not contributing enough and praising them when they perform well? Also re a player not walking on an lbw - surely that's different. I mean if a player clearly nicks it (a la Broad) he knows he's nicked it. If a player gets the benefit of a plum lbw decision is he for sure going to know it was plum? However I do get your points re modern players not walking but this case is unusual in that I reckon 99.9% of the time a 1st class umpire would not miss the blatant edge

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 13, 2013, 17:11 GMT

    @Mitty2: Please read my comments in article "Foolish to write off any Australian side". I am a fan of Bells; I think you're confusing me with someone else...

  • Sanjiyan on July 13, 2013, 12:47 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (July 13, 2013, 6:23 GMT) Kallis and Amla walk. Though it is extremely rare to see a batsman walk when hes out. I dont blame Broad for standing his ground and waiting for the ump to decide, even though its not really sporting. But we can say that for a million other examples. Good to see the aussies getting on with it tho. As for Holdings remarks, hes spot on.

  • H_Z_O on July 13, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    @bluetin I don't get why so many people are going on about the Broad lbw. Yes, he offered no stroke, yes that means if he's struck outside the line he can still be out.

    But you still have to be very sure the ball's going to hit. Agar wasn't turning it a lot, there's no certainty it's hitting. He was also getting a lot of bounce out of the rough so the ball might have been going over. I've not seen a hawk eye to see how close it was, but unless was hitting the middle of middle the umpire's got every right to conclude he can't be sure if it's hitting or not.

    For the same reason I didn't agree with Rogers being given out lbw by the on-field umpire. Right arm over bowler around the wicket to a leftie, hit in front of leg. Too much doubt imho, force the bowler to review it if he wants.

  • H_Z_O on July 13, 2013, 9:56 GMT

    @Mitty2 You're a class lad, mate. I like the way you call it how you see it, straight down the middle. Real cricket fan, which is great to see.

    Personally I don't think Broad can be criticised for not walking, hardly anyone does and it's the batsman's right. The issue of punishment is more troubling. Holding has a point that when the ICC took action against Ramdin for conduct contrary to the spirit of the game, they opened up a massive can of worms. Ramdin didn't claim a catch, he just didn't correct the umpires or his teammates. A fine might have been justified but a suspension was too much and now, to be fair, Broad has to be held to the same standard.

    Fact is the Agar decision was just as game-changing, as you say, although I would say the Agar decision was much more marginal. Broad clearly nicked it, there's no way you could argue he didn't, and for the umpire to miss it is a big mistake. Not going to write off Dar as an umpire based on one mistake, but it was a huge one.

  • bluetin on July 13, 2013, 9:37 GMT

    Replacing the on field umps with computers is the worst way you could go. The technology is far from infallible, in fact I and a lot of solid commentators believe it is far from that. Hawkeye has never been accurate.

    As for Dar being good I would have to seriously question this, first there was the not out to the no stroke LBW when Broad was on few then there comes the unbelievable decision to fail to see Broad hit the cover of the ball when caught out.

    As far as Broad walking or not I have no problems with that, you get good ones you get bad ones, you go with the flow, but there can be no excuse for Dar, he must be dropped as an umpire in the biggest series around. With the Agir decision, it was line ball, if you are going to use technology on these you MUST have true slow mo cameras, there is too much doubt generated by the possible movements that can occur between frames.

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on July 13, 2013, 9:22 GMT

    Clarke has no moral right to ask broad to walk or to talk about spirit. Had he walket when he edged in first test against india last series against ashwin?

  • sachin_vvsfan on July 13, 2013, 8:06 GMT

    @Mitty2 "No modern players walk, so why should broad? Tendulkar got plumb LBW a million times against us in the 4-0 hammering"

    Excuse us. Are you saying not walking for nicking and not walking for an lbw that was not given out( and that too umpire himself was not sure) are same? This also brings back the memories of sachin's lbw decision in 2011 WC against Pak when we all thought it was plumb but umpire didn't think so(and so did DRS)

    As for Sachin not walking You have very selective memory. He did walk in WC 2011 against WI and also in Your own soil you might want to check how he conducted himself after wrongly given out for all those pad bat catches and shoulder before wickets

    And It is not million times there were 3 shouts and 2 of them were close :)

    @electric_loco_WAP4 Tendulkar knicked off Stuart Clark in 2008?? How did you know just because the fielders were appealing ? :)

  • AlbertPintoGussaHua on July 13, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    On field umpires should be replaced by 3CPO like robots who can see and hear everything -- the data that is used for DRS -- and make an instant on-field decision for every appeal. No human errors and no time wasted by referring to the third umpire.

  • JG2704 on July 14, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    @Sanjiyan on (July 13, 2013, 12:47 GMT) Even Kallis hasn't always walked. I think as he's matured he has but (I'm sure it was him) didn't walk when Chris Adams caught him out yesteryear. It was a close thing but TV evidence made it look like Adams had caught it

  • JG2704 on July 14, 2013, 8:18 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (July 13, 2013, 6:23 GMT) I have in the past both criticised and praised Bell. Some would say more of the former , but what's wrong with criticising players selection when you feel they're not contributing enough and praising them when they perform well? Also re a player not walking on an lbw - surely that's different. I mean if a player clearly nicks it (a la Broad) he knows he's nicked it. If a player gets the benefit of a plum lbw decision is he for sure going to know it was plum? However I do get your points re modern players not walking but this case is unusual in that I reckon 99.9% of the time a 1st class umpire would not miss the blatant edge

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 13, 2013, 17:11 GMT

    @Mitty2: Please read my comments in article "Foolish to write off any Australian side". I am a fan of Bells; I think you're confusing me with someone else...

  • Sanjiyan on July 13, 2013, 12:47 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (July 13, 2013, 6:23 GMT) Kallis and Amla walk. Though it is extremely rare to see a batsman walk when hes out. I dont blame Broad for standing his ground and waiting for the ump to decide, even though its not really sporting. But we can say that for a million other examples. Good to see the aussies getting on with it tho. As for Holdings remarks, hes spot on.

  • H_Z_O on July 13, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    @bluetin I don't get why so many people are going on about the Broad lbw. Yes, he offered no stroke, yes that means if he's struck outside the line he can still be out.

    But you still have to be very sure the ball's going to hit. Agar wasn't turning it a lot, there's no certainty it's hitting. He was also getting a lot of bounce out of the rough so the ball might have been going over. I've not seen a hawk eye to see how close it was, but unless was hitting the middle of middle the umpire's got every right to conclude he can't be sure if it's hitting or not.

    For the same reason I didn't agree with Rogers being given out lbw by the on-field umpire. Right arm over bowler around the wicket to a leftie, hit in front of leg. Too much doubt imho, force the bowler to review it if he wants.

  • H_Z_O on July 13, 2013, 9:56 GMT

    @Mitty2 You're a class lad, mate. I like the way you call it how you see it, straight down the middle. Real cricket fan, which is great to see.

    Personally I don't think Broad can be criticised for not walking, hardly anyone does and it's the batsman's right. The issue of punishment is more troubling. Holding has a point that when the ICC took action against Ramdin for conduct contrary to the spirit of the game, they opened up a massive can of worms. Ramdin didn't claim a catch, he just didn't correct the umpires or his teammates. A fine might have been justified but a suspension was too much and now, to be fair, Broad has to be held to the same standard.

    Fact is the Agar decision was just as game-changing, as you say, although I would say the Agar decision was much more marginal. Broad clearly nicked it, there's no way you could argue he didn't, and for the umpire to miss it is a big mistake. Not going to write off Dar as an umpire based on one mistake, but it was a huge one.

  • bluetin on July 13, 2013, 9:37 GMT

    Replacing the on field umps with computers is the worst way you could go. The technology is far from infallible, in fact I and a lot of solid commentators believe it is far from that. Hawkeye has never been accurate.

    As for Dar being good I would have to seriously question this, first there was the not out to the no stroke LBW when Broad was on few then there comes the unbelievable decision to fail to see Broad hit the cover of the ball when caught out.

    As far as Broad walking or not I have no problems with that, you get good ones you get bad ones, you go with the flow, but there can be no excuse for Dar, he must be dropped as an umpire in the biggest series around. With the Agir decision, it was line ball, if you are going to use technology on these you MUST have true slow mo cameras, there is too much doubt generated by the possible movements that can occur between frames.

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on July 13, 2013, 9:22 GMT

    Clarke has no moral right to ask broad to walk or to talk about spirit. Had he walket when he edged in first test against india last series against ashwin?

  • sachin_vvsfan on July 13, 2013, 8:06 GMT

    @Mitty2 "No modern players walk, so why should broad? Tendulkar got plumb LBW a million times against us in the 4-0 hammering"

    Excuse us. Are you saying not walking for nicking and not walking for an lbw that was not given out( and that too umpire himself was not sure) are same? This also brings back the memories of sachin's lbw decision in 2011 WC against Pak when we all thought it was plumb but umpire didn't think so(and so did DRS)

    As for Sachin not walking You have very selective memory. He did walk in WC 2011 against WI and also in Your own soil you might want to check how he conducted himself after wrongly given out for all those pad bat catches and shoulder before wickets

    And It is not million times there were 3 shouts and 2 of them were close :)

    @electric_loco_WAP4 Tendulkar knicked off Stuart Clark in 2008?? How did you know just because the fielders were appealing ? :)

  • AlbertPintoGussaHua on July 13, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    On field umpires should be replaced by 3CPO like robots who can see and hear everything -- the data that is used for DRS -- and make an instant on-field decision for every appeal. No human errors and no time wasted by referring to the third umpire.

  • on July 13, 2013, 7:07 GMT

    as a sportsman spirit broad should have walk off, because it was clear edge.

  • 200ondebut on July 13, 2013, 6:32 GMT

    Hardly anyone walks - the Aussies know this as good as anyone. You accept the decisions and move on. Fielding sides have a greater responsibility than the batting side for the simple reasons that they "claim" the catch - so if it is found that they knew their claim was false this is why one level of punishment is given. The batting side doesn't claim anything when there is a catch - they stand there and wait for a decision. Now it would be different if the umpire asked the batsman - but they don't. England will be happy that a decision has gone in their favour - having had two howlers (costing upwards of 200 runs) go against them.

  • Mitty2 on July 13, 2013, 6:23 GMT

    @RU4REALNICK, again, are you serious? Don't compliment Bell when you've criticized him from pillar to post.

    Amazing, why DRS isn't in the hand of the umpires ill never know. The arguments for far outweigh the arguments against. It should not put pressure on the captain, the right decision should be far more important and should be attempted to be archieved all time. Ridiculous, all though it will teach Clarke to be more conservative.

    No modern players walk, so why should broad? Tendulkar got plumb LBW a million times against us in the 4-0 hammering in which I painfully watched practically all of it, and didn't walk once... He is a great of the game, doesn't walk, so I repeat, why should broad? It is the terrible, game changing decision (same should be said about Agar's stumping) that should be criticized.

  • jmcilhinney on July 13, 2013, 6:07 GMT

    I have no issue with Broad not walking, as I have no issue with any player not walking. If you don't expect a fielding team to recall a batsman who has been given out when they know that it shouldn't be then you have no right to expect a batsman to walk. Batsman have no choice to accept a decision that they know to be wrong so why shouldn't they accept the reverse? It would be nice if all games were played with the mythical "spirit of cricket" to the fore but that's a dream in these days of professional sport.

    In this case I have to wonder whether the umpire was influenced by the batsman's reaction, or rather lack of it. It's generally a reflex when the batsman edges the ball to look back to see if it's caught but Broad's body language indicated that he hadn't hit it. Some may see that as a conscious act by Broad but, at first at least, I very much doubt that. Like I said, the initial reaction is basically reflex so it's very hard to overcome that.

  • jmcilhinney on July 13, 2013, 6:01 GMT

    I don't think that there's actually such thing as a perfect DRS implementation. There are pros and cons of the current 2-review system but there are also pros and cons of increasing or decreasing the number of reviews or taking it out of the players' hands altogether. If we are going to leave it in the players' hands, I think that we should probably reduce the number of reviews to just one per team. DRS was never intended to overturn marginal decisions but the most common use of a review is on a marginal LBW. If there's only one review then that may happen less often. Mind you, Australia wasted there last review on a prayer against Bairstow so maybe not. The thing is, if it's a howler then you know it's a howler, e.g. an inside edge when given LBW or something like Broad's edge to Clarke. You only need one review to fix those so that's all there should be.

  • jmcilhinney on July 13, 2013, 5:57 GMT

    Broad's reprieve was indeed a howler of the highest order. Aleem Dar is a very good, if not the best, umpire but he has missed one that even a club umpire should have got right. All that proves is that everyone's fallible though. We already know that umpires make mistakes and that's exactly why DRS exists. Michael Clarke has been roundly applauded for being an aggressive captain but his rather gung-ho approach to reviewing LBW decisions is one of the downsides of that aggressive approach. No way in the world they should have reviewed that decision against Bairstow so Australia are certainly at least partly to blame for Broad still being there. A mechanism exists to right such wrongs and they abused it. They're not the only ones who do, of course, but you have to then accept the consequences.

  • hmmmmm... on July 13, 2013, 5:09 GMT

    Broad will probably feel the weight of his 'stance' but really most players wouldn't walk. The issue is a huge umpiring blunder and the way that the review system is set up - why can a wicket given off a no-ball be reversed by the third umpire without the batting needing to call for a review yet a broad-day-light missed call won't? The DRS has made umpires feel like the onus is on the players to challenge decisions rather than making them as is their job - how an elite umpire misses that call is beyond me...

  • on July 13, 2013, 4:59 GMT

    Agar got the benefit of the doubt (there was little doubt that Agar was stumped when on 6). Australia benefited by another 150+ runs in a last wicket stand. One bad turn deserves another. It's poetic justice that Agar was the bowler, even though after that, Bell & Broad have not added 150, nor was it the last wicket (so you would only consider the runs added by Broad). Overall, lady luck has been with Australia because at 125 all out when the swing conditions were gone, the match was practically over on day two.

  • on July 13, 2013, 4:58 GMT

    Perhaps instead of reviews per innings, you get a certain number of reviews per set amount of overs? Perhaps 1 review every 10 or 20 overs? That way, the DRS will only be used for a howler as there is only one review available. Once that 10 or 20 over block is complete, the review count is reset. You do not get to keep any unused reviews, and you gain a review if you have already used your one. I know it isn't a perfect system, but if you are in the field for 100+ overs in an innings, you are more than likely to use the reviews and then not have any to negate the howler.

  • on July 13, 2013, 4:02 GMT

    As Ian Chappell pointed out long time ago, DRS should be taken out of hands of players and third umpire should correct every wrong decision by on-field umpires.

  • on July 13, 2013, 3:21 GMT

    Australia refused to walk at the their prime, always citing umpire's decision notably during the Sydney Test against India when Kumble was the captain. Ironically, the team that refused to walk is now demanding the other team to do so.

  • McCricket_ on July 13, 2013, 1:07 GMT

    bobmartin has the right of it -- there's nothing to complain about here, except poor use of the DRS.

    Australia wasted our referrals so we can't complain if we've used them all up. So . . . kick the turf, frown at Pattinson, raise an eyebrow at Dar, tell Broad he's a lucky bugger, and get on with it. In all likelihood, the borderline and poor decisions will probably even out over the series, and indeed in this Test.

    Not to say we shouldn't also focus on umpires' performances. Poor use of DRS doesn't excuse poor umpiring decisions.

  • on July 13, 2013, 0:26 GMT

    These are not operator error. This is a machine operated by human( human are prone to do error) and if that has to done why don't just third umpires do that without machine. It will save time, money and controversy. I think to save the hot spot technology, it was deliberately passed over to the operator so HOT SPOT technology would not be blamed. This technology is nothing but hot spot put by operator during reviews. And most of the time operator gets it right but when operator gets it wrong this things happen.

  • SaracensBob on July 13, 2013, 0:21 GMT

    Any changes to the rules of a game change the nature of the game. DRS has changed how Test cricket is played - the use (or not) of reviews is an added tactical issue in what is already the most tactically complex of sports. If we are to have DRS then players should be taken out of the equation. Leave decisions to the on-field umpires while allowing them to ask for advice from the 3rd umpire in a close decision (as for run-outs). The 3rd umpire should be able to intervene to prevent 'howlers' like the Broad decision. The 3rd umpire must fully understand how the system works (re Trott l.b.w.) and be aware of the laws of cricket (re Agar 'stumping') - hang your head in shame Mr Erasmus! No system can be perfect and there will always be human error. However the DRS controversies in this test have slightly taken the gloss off an enthralling cricket match.

  • Moppa on July 12, 2013, 23:38 GMT

    I haven't seen the Broad dismissal, but when the Aussies reviewed the Bairstow lbw I couldn't believe it - it was clearly going down leg. Which has proven to be a costly error. @Ozcricketwriter, Dar has far from had a shocker, in fact he's made many very good decisions and was almost certainly right on the Trott lbw, which looked plumb to me in real time.

  • Shan156 on July 12, 2013, 23:14 GMT

    @Harmony111, I just mentioned the Sydney incidence in another article. It was the same test where Symonds stood his ground after edging behind too. He was reprieved and scored a century and Australia won the test. India was robbed off a win there.

    Broad should have walked if he was certain that he edged it (which he must be surely). Two wrongs do not make a right. But, as @Harmony111 said, pup should not be whingeing about this. He would have done the same thing. It is also a fact that both teams have got bad decisions in this test. If Trott was not given out wrongly yesterday, we may still be sitting at a similar lead for England or perhaps more.

  • electric_loco_WAP4 on July 12, 2013, 22:25 GMT

    @Harmony111 - Wait till you quote destiny and other such fancy virtues to take on the moral high ground when BCCI refuse to use DRS. You point out Clarke not 'walking' in Sydney, what about Dhoni claiming the Pieterson 'catch' at Lord's in 2007? Even Tendulkar not walking after nicking behind off Stuart Clark in 2008. No surprise that only BCCI are the ones not wanting DRS. Pot, kettle.... Coming to topic of destiny, what is going to be Indian's fate in SA few months down? It's anybodies guess! Please publish Cricinfo.

  • Clyde on July 12, 2013, 22:19 GMT

    The technology is most useful after the game, for the ranking of umpires.

  • on July 12, 2013, 22:18 GMT

    It is well known that "Aussies do not walk" and Chappell, Waugh and Clarke would back that any day. So, it would be justified if Stuart Broad does not walk....but he is the son of Chris Broad who as a match referee fined/suspended Dinesh Ramdin for not playing in the 'spirit of the game'. Pray tell me what would his pronouncement be if he was asked to comment on the decision of his son to 'not walk' .

  • Greatest_Game on July 12, 2013, 22:07 GMT

    @ John Stanley. Who had a gun? I did't see any gun. Did Clarke have a gun to his head, forcing him to burn his reviews? And who had the vest? Was it the batsman, the bowler or the umpire. It is a game, son, not a police investigation. There are no issues of life and death here, just 22 blokes playing a game.

  • JG2704 on July 12, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    Also , if Aus had a review left the issue would have been resolved. Obviously the JB review was terrible and they paid the price. When you have already used one review you need to be fairly certain of the 2nd review being successful so that's the price you pay. However , IMO re the review system - if the fielding side reviews for an LBW decision and the ball is clipping the stumps (umpires call) , I believe that while the decision should remain not out the fielding side should not lose a review. So in this instance Aus would still have had a review - although who's to say they wouldn't have wasted it?

  • JG2704 on July 12, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    I love this debate. For me , Broad not walking doesn't sit well and the decision was horrendous. Having said that calling for action to be taken against Broad is unlikely and enters alot of grey areas. I mean at what point do you say the batsmen knew for sure he nicked it? Batsmen in the past have clearly nicked a ball and not walked or waited til the umpire raised his finger before they walked but the unusual thing about this is that the umpire didn't spot such an obvious edge and then Aus had no reviews (and one of them was clearly a waste of time so in that respect they only have themselves to blame). Would those batsmen have walked out of guilt had the umpire made such a shocking error? There could be a case for the 3rd umpire saying something in the onfield umpire's earpiece but again you're entering grey areas

  • Black.Mamba on July 12, 2013, 21:22 GMT

    Cricket has changed, no one doubts! But if you have spent a lot of time and expense on technology and then do not use it to the best of its availability, then why bother having it for any reasons whatsoever, including the media in all its facets? People are only human and humans make mistakes-have done and will continue to do so. Pressure on high profile decision makers in the public eye has never been as intense as it is today! The mistakes made today/yesterday and in the past by on field officials in any sport are just arming armchair experts to warble on and on with negative postmortems and really achieve nothing in the advance or enjoyment of the game. Controversial decisions and notoriety seems to be what it is all about these days, (and has also been in the past, by the way!). What I am watching is the great game of cricket, this game namely "The Ashes" with all its intrigue, gamesmanship and sportsmanship on display! How lucky are we to enjoy this game? "(P)Lay on MacDuff"say I!

  • aracer on July 12, 2013, 21:15 GMT

    @John Stanley - DRS is being discussed because decisions like that have always happened over the years. Before DRS there were just complaints about the umpires getting it wrong. That is the sort of mistake DRS was supposed to correct, not the marginal calls Clarke chose to waste his reviews on. Is it the fault of the system that he didn't use it correctly?

  • whatawicket on July 12, 2013, 21:12 GMT

    cook when England bowl i am sure does not entertain any reviews from his pace bowlers. then keeps them for Swann it happens too often for England. of all the test playing countries they use referrals the best and the worst is India hence they dont want them. Dhoni for a wicket keeper is so poor in its use.

  • FlashAsh on July 12, 2013, 20:40 GMT

    Pup! Live with it! Many to come if you can't begn to use reviews more carefully? Cook has learnt from Strauss the benefits of reviews, hence he wasn't prepared to waste one on Root, which due to "Operator error" lead to a similarly "Bad" decision over Trott, which he couldn't challenge!

    So moral of story is use reviews wisely and don't expect any batsmen to walk anymore as DRS should find them out if the 3rd Umpire can only apply a consistently!! Bell would tell you all about Agars stumping when comparing notes!! But then when Bell was "Stumped" the 3rd Umpire was an Aussie!! Go figure

  • on July 12, 2013, 20:04 GMT

    Why is DRS even in the conversation? Clarke and Australia shouldn't need to have a spare review in this case it should have been given full stop. Its like if someone got shot and they got blamed for not wearing a protective vest. The issue isn't the vest the issue is the man with a gun.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 12, 2013, 20:02 GMT

    Meanwhile, back in the world of actual cricket play: I thought Bell's driving today was absolutely superb. Beautiful to watch his stroke-play in amongst his top-class patience. Top knock Ian Bell.

  • bobmartin on July 12, 2013, 18:57 GMT

    I'm not convinced by anything that has happened in ths match thus far renders DRS as being a waste of time.. DRS is not to blame for any of the mistakes that have occurred.. The mistakes have been made in the interpretation of the DRS evidence by the third umpire together with ill-concieved use of the DRS by the players.. DRS is not to blame... it doesn't make mistakes.. it's players and umpires who make mistakes..

  • krvij on July 12, 2013, 18:35 GMT

    I totally agree with @Barnesy4444. The purpose of DRS is to eliminate howlers, so everything needs to be done to achieve this. What's the point in having technology & DRS if there are still howlers which everyone knows but nothing can't be done? Its a shame.Moreover the way technology & DRS is being used somehow has become a tactic impacting the result and at times contributes to controversies in almost every series particularly in England. Is this the objective? Technology is great, but the way it is used must be revisited to get it serve the purpose - eliminate howlers!!

  • Ozcricketwriter on July 12, 2013, 18:22 GMT

    The invention of DRS means that, rather than complaining about how awful Aleem Dar is as an umpire and how his awful mistake means that England are suddenly in the box seat to win the match, we are instead complaining about Australia making the mistake of wasting reviews. So rather than this purely being an umpire error - and a terrible one at that - we are instead worrying about the team error. This is a good thing. As an Australian I am nowhere near as upset as I would have been had DRS not been involved. Still a terrible decision though, and you have to wonder how the umpire could make that mistake.

  • Big_Maxy_Walker on July 12, 2013, 18:21 GMT

    @Barnsey. I agree that players shouldn't have the right to review. But the on field umps tend to be very stubborn about asking for a second opinion about a decision. The 3rd umpire should be checking it all himself. If something looks suspicious then he can intercede. Aleem Dar hasn't had the best match. The Chris Rogers lbw was dodgy, and the Broad nick. The other umpire buggered up the Trott decision. Is there any two in world cricket that provide consistency? Simon Taufel cant rule on Aussie matches when he is the best umpire

  • on July 12, 2013, 18:09 GMT

    Ramdin was suspended for a match after he appealed for a catch even after he knew that he has dropped the catch... Why can't the same apply to Broad as a batsman and i would be surprised if Broad says he was not aware he has edged that... atleast his reaction after he edged it didn't suggest that

  • Barnesy4444 on July 12, 2013, 18:07 GMT

    DRS is a new tactic in cricket. Players gamble that technology will make a different judgement than the umpire on 50/50 decisions. It should not be like this so it needs to be changed in two ways:

    1) The on field umpires should have total control over which decisions are reviewed. If they are unsure of a close decision they can ask the 3rd umpire to look at it.

    2) If the 3rd umpire notices a decision that is clearly wrong (such as Broad) they can hold up play and make a judgement.

    All of the communication should be done over the two-way radio and not broadcast on the big screen at the game. This Broad decision was a howler, DRS was brought in to eliminate these from the game. It's failed badly.

  • whoster on July 12, 2013, 18:03 GMT

    Can't blame the Aussies for feeling robbed, but any player is entitled to stand their ground until the umpire says otherwise. Yesterday, England had the decisions go against them. The Agar stumping review was a fair enough decision - though I'm sure most would've given it out, and it cost England 150 runs. The Trott review was certainly a rough decision, and Erasmus shouldn't have overruled the on-field umpire. Broad got away with a howler from Aleem Dar today - but the Aussies used up their reviews. Que sera sera, I'm afraid. England rode their luck, but they had to as the pitch isn't getting any easier to score on. Several balls are keeping low, there's reverse swing, and even if England lose their last four wickets early tomorrow, anything above 250 will be a monumental ask with conditions absolutely tailor-made for Swann. Strong performance from England, and Bell has probably played the innings of his career to put England on top.

  • Harmony111 on July 12, 2013, 17:55 GMT

    Ah destiny has weird ways of showing its many colors. Many would recall Sydney 2008 where a certain Michael Clarke had edged the ball to be caught behind. The edge was so big it could be seen and heard by Voyager 1 but what did Clarke do then? He pretended as if nothing had happened. He stood to be GIVEN OUT. Trust me, it looks even more shocking on tv than while reading it here.

    I am 101% sure that when the umpire gave it as Not-Out, Clarke's mind must have gone back to that day.

    Comeuppance my dear Clarky, it happens to all of us.

  • on July 12, 2013, 17:46 GMT

    I could not believe that Broad did not walk. It is not a good example set by by Broad. Top sportsmen should be good role models for younger cricketers.

  • HawK89 on July 12, 2013, 17:45 GMT

    Pretty much everything is happening in the first test match. 3rd day and already questions from both sides about umpiring and DRS decisions. All we need now is Bell to get his hundred, a wicket off a no-ball and a run-out.

  • on July 12, 2013, 17:44 GMT

    Broad was right not to walk - the assumption that cricketers are 100% honest is ridiculous. What about when everybody goes up for an appeal for lbw - including square leg and the boundary fielders!!I saw that every appeal at Chelmsford by Lancashire was obviously pre arranged by the players before play began! This probably applies to every club to a degree. I just wish the 3rd umpire had the power to intervene when a howler occurs. I suppose the team captains should learn to be more selective when challenging tho but if the whole point is to eliminate howlers leave it to the 3rd umpire because lets face it he is the only person who should know for sure apart from SKY viewers (if he gets it wrong with all the proof at his disposal he should get fined or banned because its got to be the easiest job in the world)

  • eight41 on July 12, 2013, 17:38 GMT

    I think instead given DRS to players, third umpire should watch every ball. If he finds a decision suspicious, then he should pause the game before next ball is being balled and declare his decision. Also, batsman needs to be punished if he stayed in the crease knowing that he should be out. But this punishment needs to be given carefully because sometimes batsman are unsure whether is out or not.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • eight41 on July 12, 2013, 17:38 GMT

    I think instead given DRS to players, third umpire should watch every ball. If he finds a decision suspicious, then he should pause the game before next ball is being balled and declare his decision. Also, batsman needs to be punished if he stayed in the crease knowing that he should be out. But this punishment needs to be given carefully because sometimes batsman are unsure whether is out or not.

  • on July 12, 2013, 17:44 GMT

    Broad was right not to walk - the assumption that cricketers are 100% honest is ridiculous. What about when everybody goes up for an appeal for lbw - including square leg and the boundary fielders!!I saw that every appeal at Chelmsford by Lancashire was obviously pre arranged by the players before play began! This probably applies to every club to a degree. I just wish the 3rd umpire had the power to intervene when a howler occurs. I suppose the team captains should learn to be more selective when challenging tho but if the whole point is to eliminate howlers leave it to the 3rd umpire because lets face it he is the only person who should know for sure apart from SKY viewers (if he gets it wrong with all the proof at his disposal he should get fined or banned because its got to be the easiest job in the world)

  • HawK89 on July 12, 2013, 17:45 GMT

    Pretty much everything is happening in the first test match. 3rd day and already questions from both sides about umpiring and DRS decisions. All we need now is Bell to get his hundred, a wicket off a no-ball and a run-out.

  • on July 12, 2013, 17:46 GMT

    I could not believe that Broad did not walk. It is not a good example set by by Broad. Top sportsmen should be good role models for younger cricketers.

  • Harmony111 on July 12, 2013, 17:55 GMT

    Ah destiny has weird ways of showing its many colors. Many would recall Sydney 2008 where a certain Michael Clarke had edged the ball to be caught behind. The edge was so big it could be seen and heard by Voyager 1 but what did Clarke do then? He pretended as if nothing had happened. He stood to be GIVEN OUT. Trust me, it looks even more shocking on tv than while reading it here.

    I am 101% sure that when the umpire gave it as Not-Out, Clarke's mind must have gone back to that day.

    Comeuppance my dear Clarky, it happens to all of us.

  • whoster on July 12, 2013, 18:03 GMT

    Can't blame the Aussies for feeling robbed, but any player is entitled to stand their ground until the umpire says otherwise. Yesterday, England had the decisions go against them. The Agar stumping review was a fair enough decision - though I'm sure most would've given it out, and it cost England 150 runs. The Trott review was certainly a rough decision, and Erasmus shouldn't have overruled the on-field umpire. Broad got away with a howler from Aleem Dar today - but the Aussies used up their reviews. Que sera sera, I'm afraid. England rode their luck, but they had to as the pitch isn't getting any easier to score on. Several balls are keeping low, there's reverse swing, and even if England lose their last four wickets early tomorrow, anything above 250 will be a monumental ask with conditions absolutely tailor-made for Swann. Strong performance from England, and Bell has probably played the innings of his career to put England on top.

  • Barnesy4444 on July 12, 2013, 18:07 GMT

    DRS is a new tactic in cricket. Players gamble that technology will make a different judgement than the umpire on 50/50 decisions. It should not be like this so it needs to be changed in two ways:

    1) The on field umpires should have total control over which decisions are reviewed. If they are unsure of a close decision they can ask the 3rd umpire to look at it.

    2) If the 3rd umpire notices a decision that is clearly wrong (such as Broad) they can hold up play and make a judgement.

    All of the communication should be done over the two-way radio and not broadcast on the big screen at the game. This Broad decision was a howler, DRS was brought in to eliminate these from the game. It's failed badly.

  • on July 12, 2013, 18:09 GMT

    Ramdin was suspended for a match after he appealed for a catch even after he knew that he has dropped the catch... Why can't the same apply to Broad as a batsman and i would be surprised if Broad says he was not aware he has edged that... atleast his reaction after he edged it didn't suggest that

  • Big_Maxy_Walker on July 12, 2013, 18:21 GMT

    @Barnsey. I agree that players shouldn't have the right to review. But the on field umps tend to be very stubborn about asking for a second opinion about a decision. The 3rd umpire should be checking it all himself. If something looks suspicious then he can intercede. Aleem Dar hasn't had the best match. The Chris Rogers lbw was dodgy, and the Broad nick. The other umpire buggered up the Trott decision. Is there any two in world cricket that provide consistency? Simon Taufel cant rule on Aussie matches when he is the best umpire

  • Ozcricketwriter on July 12, 2013, 18:22 GMT

    The invention of DRS means that, rather than complaining about how awful Aleem Dar is as an umpire and how his awful mistake means that England are suddenly in the box seat to win the match, we are instead complaining about Australia making the mistake of wasting reviews. So rather than this purely being an umpire error - and a terrible one at that - we are instead worrying about the team error. This is a good thing. As an Australian I am nowhere near as upset as I would have been had DRS not been involved. Still a terrible decision though, and you have to wonder how the umpire could make that mistake.