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

Australia bite tongues over Broad decision

161

Australia are privately fuming but biting hard on their tongues and declining to express any public anger over the reprieve of Stuart Broad after the umpire Aleem Dar failed to detect a thick edge to slip from the bowling of Ashton Agar.

In the second major umpiring controversy in successive days at Trent Bridge, England were only 232 ahead when Broad stood his ground. Australia's players reacted with considerable dismay at the decision, which they could not refer to the third umpire after using up their DRS allocation earlier in the day.

Broad was still in occupation alongside Ian Bell at the close, by which time the hosts' lead had reached 261. While the players' immediate response on the field was plain, and the coach Darren Lehmann made his displeasure plain on the dressing room balcony, the fast bowler Peter Siddle did his best to avoid critiques of Broad, the umpires or the current protocols for the use of technology, saying only that he had only seen a bigger edge not given out "in the backyard maybe off my brother".

"How many people have ever walked? Some. That's right, some," Siddle said. "At the end of day it's the umpires' decision. The umpires make the decision and players stick with it. We just went about it. You finish the over and go through to the next over. If you watched out there, there wasn't a big deal made of it. We got stuck in and just kept working to get the wicket.

"Obviously people are going to be frustrated but it's hard out there for players, for umpires. It's a long day, it's a tough day for people out there. Things are going to happen and we just have to deal with it. That's just a part of the game and spectators have to understand that - that there are times when things like that happen. Obviously it's a long day and it's hard for everyone involved. We can't be blaming anyone."

Siddle's acceptance of Broad's failure to walk - common practice in professional cricket for a generation and more - was in contrast to howls of outrage on social media sites and from media commentators, many of who judged Broad's behaviour as immoral and unsporting.

Michael Holding, the former West Indian fast bowler, contended that Broad's behaviour was comparable to that of the West Indies wicketkeeper Denesh Ramdin, who falsely claimed a catch against Pakistan in a Champions Trophy match at The Oval in London last month. Ramdin was banned for two one-day games by the ICC match referee, who happened to be Broad's father, Chris.

"What Stuart Broad did amounts to the same thing as Ramdin," Holding told Sky TV. "He knew he had hit the ball. The ICC fined Ramdin and suspended him for 'actions that were contrary to the spirit of the game'. What Stuart Broad did is contrary to the spirit of the game. He played the ball and stayed there."

The day after England sought clarification from the ICC following a Hot Spot operator error that contributed to Jonathan Trott's lbw dismissal, Dar's howler was not referred to technology that would have picked up the mistake because Australia no longer had any recourse to do so. Umpires do have the right to refer some decisions themselves if in doubt, but for now are limited to low catches and bump balls. Dar's refusal of Australia's appeal was as unequivocal as it was mistaken

"You can't do anything about that," Siddle said of the burned referrals. "You use them because you think you're going to get a result early on and you don't. You can't just hold them and put them in the back pocket and say 'I'm going to get one in the afternoon' and save it for that. You use them when you think there's a chance of getting a wicket and that's what they're there for."

For their part, England stood by the view that Broad was well within his rights to stand and wait for Dar's decision. It is debatable whether he would have done so had Australia still been able to use a video referral, but his team-mate Kevin Pietersen did not think Broad should have taken any other action in the circumstances.

"Each and every player who plays for their country, their club side, for their franchise or their county has the opportunity to wait for the decision the umpire makes and you respect the umpire's decision," Pietersen said. "We play hard. We play fair and each individual has the responsibility and makes the judgement if he will wait for the umpire's decision. Aleem Dar is a fantastic umpire and he has been rated one of the best umpires in world cricket over the last few years. Wait and respect his decision."

Contrary to reports, no apology has been forthcoming from the ICC to the ECB regarding the Trott decision on the second day.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo, George Dobell is senior correspondent

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • SouthPaw on July 15, 2013, 10:00 GMT

    Daniel Brettig & George Dobell should watch the Ramadin case again - nowhere does he "claim the catch". By the time he finishes fumbling, the umpire has already raised his finger in response to the appeal by the slip cordon and bowler. The error on Ramadin's part is that he didn't tell the umpire that he had fumbled the take. Similarly, Broad should have walked knowing fully well that he had nicked it! By not doing so, he has brought the game to the same disrepute that ICC claims Ramadin did. Holding is 100% right!

  • on July 13, 2013, 21:33 GMT

    @Raveena Mrtha. I find your comments funny . Are you suggesting that Tendulkar always walked ? NO. There have been many many instances where he didn't and he has the right to do that. Secondly I wonder why did u miss Srikanth being called back by Imran Khan. Yes that was an India Pakistan match and Srikanth was RIGHTFULLY given out but kept on crying as usual so Imran called him back and guess what ? he got out again to the same bowler without scoring any further runs ( the very next ball or not I am not sure). Wonder why did u miss that ??

  • H_Z_O on July 13, 2013, 19:29 GMT

    Have to say, while I don't expect batsmen to walk, no matter how blatant the nick is, banning Ramdin and not punishing Broad similarly would be a horrible double-standard. Not least of which because it was Stuart's father who was involved with the Ramdin incident. If the ICC thinks they were wrong with the Ramdin case, the correct course of action would be to publicly admit it, rather than try and pretend like Stuart's situation is any different.

  • vpdw on July 13, 2013, 18:34 GMT

    It's unfortunate the way the game stands. Australia would have had a ood chance of winning it had Broad been given out. Just bad luck Aussie boys keep fighting. Such a fantastic game was marred with some poor umpiring decisions.

  • on July 13, 2013, 18:33 GMT

    Tendulkar? Dravid? Gilchrist? Men of character. Or may be a certain Marvan Attapatu? When he was the Sri Lankan captain, he actually called back Symonds. Yes, CALLED BACK a player who was given out unfairly. Can you even imagine that? And a bit of nostalgia, but I recall a famous instance in 1979 in a Bombay Test (I think) when Gundappa Viswanath called back Bob Taylor because he was falsely given out. England went to win that test because of Taylor-Botham partnership. There are enough examples for people to follow, but as Siddle puts it - unfortunately, they are few and far between. Now that you have set a precedent in the case of Ramdin, you MUST punish Broad. Yes, if they had let Ramdin go, then I can understand ICC sitting still. But, they did set a precedent there. Would reek of sheer bias, if they failed to act on this one.

  • on July 13, 2013, 18:24 GMT

    Broad should be banned to the same level as Ramdin .Is there any case for cheat appeal?If chris says its against the spirit then it seems he hass to first teach it to his son!!

  • Kirstenfan on July 13, 2013, 18:19 GMT

    I think Siddle's comments about use of DRS say it all - Aus have the wrong attitude, it's not a tactic of hope, it's a tactic of correction, it's to fix something, not to create something. South Africa initially used it incorrectly and very poorly, Aus have to learn to use it properly

  • on July 13, 2013, 17:42 GMT

    at the end of the day.... there IS a cricket god!!!

    you receive a bad decision today....

    your opponent gets it tomorrow!

    it all balances out...

    some kind of weird karma within the sport.

    i hate bad decisions as much as the next guy... but a good team will look past it... and worry about it on day 6 of the test. because a bad decision.. is not the same as a fat lady singing!!

  • RodStark on July 13, 2013, 15:16 GMT

    I have a rather tentative idea about the DRS rules. It wouldn't have made a difference to the Broad or Trott situations, but it might be more logical overall.

    When the umpire gives a batsman out, it's pretty final--no second chance. So how about reviewing every time the on-field umpire gives a batsman out. In probably 75% of cases, this would not take any extra time at all, because it's clear cut. The fielding side would still get to review two not-out decisions per innings, which they would be well advised to use wisely. The only drawback I can see is umpires might be inclined to get lazy and always give it out when in doubt, knowing that it would be reviewed anyway.

  • AKS286 on July 13, 2013, 14:54 GMT

    Nothing wrong with Broad. Its a fault of umpiring simple. Broad walk or not it does't matter just appeal if umpire gave wrong decision batsman is lucky .

  • SouthPaw on July 15, 2013, 10:00 GMT

    Daniel Brettig & George Dobell should watch the Ramadin case again - nowhere does he "claim the catch". By the time he finishes fumbling, the umpire has already raised his finger in response to the appeal by the slip cordon and bowler. The error on Ramadin's part is that he didn't tell the umpire that he had fumbled the take. Similarly, Broad should have walked knowing fully well that he had nicked it! By not doing so, he has brought the game to the same disrepute that ICC claims Ramadin did. Holding is 100% right!

  • on July 13, 2013, 21:33 GMT

    @Raveena Mrtha. I find your comments funny . Are you suggesting that Tendulkar always walked ? NO. There have been many many instances where he didn't and he has the right to do that. Secondly I wonder why did u miss Srikanth being called back by Imran Khan. Yes that was an India Pakistan match and Srikanth was RIGHTFULLY given out but kept on crying as usual so Imran called him back and guess what ? he got out again to the same bowler without scoring any further runs ( the very next ball or not I am not sure). Wonder why did u miss that ??

  • H_Z_O on July 13, 2013, 19:29 GMT

    Have to say, while I don't expect batsmen to walk, no matter how blatant the nick is, banning Ramdin and not punishing Broad similarly would be a horrible double-standard. Not least of which because it was Stuart's father who was involved with the Ramdin incident. If the ICC thinks they were wrong with the Ramdin case, the correct course of action would be to publicly admit it, rather than try and pretend like Stuart's situation is any different.

  • vpdw on July 13, 2013, 18:34 GMT

    It's unfortunate the way the game stands. Australia would have had a ood chance of winning it had Broad been given out. Just bad luck Aussie boys keep fighting. Such a fantastic game was marred with some poor umpiring decisions.

  • on July 13, 2013, 18:33 GMT

    Tendulkar? Dravid? Gilchrist? Men of character. Or may be a certain Marvan Attapatu? When he was the Sri Lankan captain, he actually called back Symonds. Yes, CALLED BACK a player who was given out unfairly. Can you even imagine that? And a bit of nostalgia, but I recall a famous instance in 1979 in a Bombay Test (I think) when Gundappa Viswanath called back Bob Taylor because he was falsely given out. England went to win that test because of Taylor-Botham partnership. There are enough examples for people to follow, but as Siddle puts it - unfortunately, they are few and far between. Now that you have set a precedent in the case of Ramdin, you MUST punish Broad. Yes, if they had let Ramdin go, then I can understand ICC sitting still. But, they did set a precedent there. Would reek of sheer bias, if they failed to act on this one.

  • on July 13, 2013, 18:24 GMT

    Broad should be banned to the same level as Ramdin .Is there any case for cheat appeal?If chris says its against the spirit then it seems he hass to first teach it to his son!!

  • Kirstenfan on July 13, 2013, 18:19 GMT

    I think Siddle's comments about use of DRS say it all - Aus have the wrong attitude, it's not a tactic of hope, it's a tactic of correction, it's to fix something, not to create something. South Africa initially used it incorrectly and very poorly, Aus have to learn to use it properly

  • on July 13, 2013, 17:42 GMT

    at the end of the day.... there IS a cricket god!!!

    you receive a bad decision today....

    your opponent gets it tomorrow!

    it all balances out...

    some kind of weird karma within the sport.

    i hate bad decisions as much as the next guy... but a good team will look past it... and worry about it on day 6 of the test. because a bad decision.. is not the same as a fat lady singing!!

  • RodStark on July 13, 2013, 15:16 GMT

    I have a rather tentative idea about the DRS rules. It wouldn't have made a difference to the Broad or Trott situations, but it might be more logical overall.

    When the umpire gives a batsman out, it's pretty final--no second chance. So how about reviewing every time the on-field umpire gives a batsman out. In probably 75% of cases, this would not take any extra time at all, because it's clear cut. The fielding side would still get to review two not-out decisions per innings, which they would be well advised to use wisely. The only drawback I can see is umpires might be inclined to get lazy and always give it out when in doubt, knowing that it would be reviewed anyway.

  • AKS286 on July 13, 2013, 14:54 GMT

    Nothing wrong with Broad. Its a fault of umpiring simple. Broad walk or not it does't matter just appeal if umpire gave wrong decision batsman is lucky .

  • getsetgopk on July 13, 2013, 14:18 GMT

    What is all this much fuss over wicket? Jimmy Adams in a test match back in 2000 stood his ground after thrashing the ball so hard that even a blind could see it. That decision cost Pakistan the series! To this day, Pak has not won a series in WI, speak about the importance of a wicket, Broad's wicket at that stage of match while the series is still young hardly matters. How about Langer smashing the ball to keeper and standing his ground against Akram? And if thats not enough, how about those 17 howlers in one test between SL and Pak at Galle a couple years back? I didn't see anyone making so much a fuss back then. The umpires were steve devis and ian gould in that test. So get on with it and try using your reviews carefully.

  • Barnesy4444 on July 13, 2013, 12:55 GMT

    DRS was brought in to eliminate terrible umpiring decisions from the game. This was one of those and DRS rules didn't apply. It's DRS rules that need fixing. It should not be used as a tactic by players attempting to overturn 50-50 decisions at critical stages of games, this is how it's used now.

  • VivGilchrist on July 13, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    Why are so many abbrassive toward Australia on this issue? I think they have handled the whole issue with dignity. Sure they were in disbelief, as anyone would have been, but they got on with it. Siddle summed it up well.

  • whofriggincares on July 13, 2013, 12:27 GMT

    As for walking , why are we even talking about it? It is never going to happen across the board so a batsmen is entitled to stand his ground simple as that. Of course the blame in this case is with the umpire. I actually think Dar is one of the best going around. He made a massive mistake here obviously but I can only judge him on what I have seen over the years and that has been pretty good. Also the stupid review on the Starc LBW where Dharmasena gave it runs, although going on track record we probably would have wasted it before the Broad situation anyway! The Broad decision is not the reason we are chasing 300 odd the reason is some class batting from the poms Bell in particular but also KP, Cook and even Broad. We will need a lot of luck but this chase is not impossible after all we do bat to 11 in the true sense of the saying.

  • on July 13, 2013, 12:25 GMT

    aleem dar is a great umpire. he gets it right almost every time. broads decision however was a mistake. in such cases the third umpire should have the authority to over rule. another way is for the field umpire to send it up for review just like for stumping ans run outs.

  • on July 13, 2013, 12:22 GMT

    I am not surprised with Aleem Dar as he previously also gave not out to a edge at slip caught by Sachin Tendulkar against south Africa in Ireland 2007.One should be able to use technology at will and it should not be restricted to two failed attempts to avoid such blunders which are clearly visible by naked eye.

  • whofriggincares on July 13, 2013, 12:15 GMT

    @BenjaminEdmonds

    Lets talk about incompetent bowlers. A very docile third day pitch , a quality batting lineup with a resolute mindset and a quality bowling attack trying their guts out . Do you know what incompetent bowling is? Perhaps you should look in the dictionary. I think the description goes something like this: Having a side 9-117 and then through INCOMPETENT bowling and captaincy letting a 19 YO debutante flay you too all parts thus causing you to lose all line and length.

  • Guthers007 on July 13, 2013, 12:01 GMT

    I'm an Australian and it is not the job of a player to give himslef out; quite simple really. Dar does get a lot of the tougher decisions wrong, so why is he still umpiring at this level?

  • on July 13, 2013, 11:29 GMT

    The Agar and Broad decisions were both wrong but it still doesn't hide the true fact that these two sides are nowhere near each other when it comes to talent. No possible way that Australia will win a test in this series. The other controversies are just talking points.

  • on July 13, 2013, 11:22 GMT

    As an Australian supporter watching it live I wasn't annoyed he didn't walk. It just all felt a bit strange when we all knew he hit the ball(even the graphic was changed on the TV screen score) and Dar missed it. Often when people walk(Gilchrist) or dont, its over a hard to tell to the naked eye out. Broad hit it and it was so blatant I didn't expect him to stay there. Alas he did stay there and wasn't given out. The Australian team dont expect him to walk nor do I. It was just a surreal moment in an amazing test.

  • on July 13, 2013, 11:04 GMT

    That is why the BCCI decision not to implement the DRS in its present form must be commended!

  • muxa on July 13, 2013, 10:55 GMT

    i don't know whats wrong with shane warne.aleem dar was umpire of the year consecutive times before dharmesena took over last year and broad decision was not crucial as he was a bowler rather trott decision given by eramus could be considered more crucial than that one and some times you have to accept the mistakes .england is usually at the receiving end of it lately trott bell stump in ct caused them the game .. i dont tink dar should be given the blame here .. clarke has equal fault by not using drs for the howlers like that and rather taking it on almost every lbw shout

  • on July 13, 2013, 10:19 GMT

    Not really the player's job to do the umpire's's job or vice versa, You happilytake the dodgy ones you get away with and you just accept the ones that go against you. That's fairly elemental to cricket really isn;t it.

  • bipin.07 on July 13, 2013, 10:10 GMT

    With so much talk about Broad's walking off, it certainly would be great of him to do so in the 'spirit of the game' as people call it. But for it, should the batsman not be allowed to stay on the crease if they are sure that they are not out @ trott the previous day???

  • z0mbiezom on July 13, 2013, 10:07 GMT

    Australia did well to control their tempers. An issue with this back-to-back ashes series is that there are only 4 umpires on the elite panel not from Aus or Eng, so will presumably share the 10 tests - gruelling schedule and amount of pressure on Aleem Dar, Dharmasena, Erasmus, and Tony Hill.

  • SL_BiggestJoke on July 13, 2013, 10:02 GMT

    @Mitty2: Sorry but the old chestnut of "it's not the fault of the DRS - far from it - it's to do with the use of it" doesn't wash anymore. No DRS and no problem... simple as that. There are many walks of life where technology benefits mankind immensely.. Cricket umpiring is definitely not one of them I'm afraid.

  • on July 13, 2013, 9:58 GMT

    Aussies were luck to have got Trott but lost broad. What if he would have got out next ball i believe these controversy wouldn't have happened. I believe that if you Australians can stay your ground until the umpire rules you out every other player has the right to do that. Get you own medicine for the problem you have created.

  • Dashgar on July 13, 2013, 9:55 GMT

    Poor decision, these things happen. Australia are partially to blame for using up their reviews already. Trott was out because hot spot saw nothing from the angles available and even if snicko was used it would still have sent Trott packing. Broad can consider himself very lucky because this decision should never have needed hotspot. Also Broad had at least one other appeal, when padding up to Agar where DRS would have sent him back. Hopefully Australia bounce back tomorrow and the issue can be forgotten. Moral of the story, big howler by Dar, he deserves to be reviewed, not the rules

  • Clyde on July 13, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    All an umpire can do is decide whether you are out or not. Whether you are out or not is a fact that does not rely on this decision. Broad did not help either the game or the umpire: we may observe that umpires are often grateful to players who are in a better position to know than they are in particular situations. Gilchrist simply gave more to umpires and to cricket. It is alarming to know that to so many this is not self-evident. I would venture to say that most games of cricket, taking into account those on maidens and in school yards, don't have umpires. Umpires can only help: they can decide if someone is in or out, but cannot determine whether they are in or out. The latter can be done only by the rules, which know the facts even if those on the field or in the stands don't. Thank goodness for the laws.

  • on July 13, 2013, 9:24 GMT

    In Hobart Justin Langer smashed the cover off the ball against Pakistan, and umpire Peter Parker didn't give it out. We were standing on the boundary and heard the edge. These things happen in cricket and you live with it. As it's there is enough time lost to technology - DRS. Jacques Kallis was given out caught behind at the Adelaide Oval and the replay showed there was daylight between bat and ball. The crowd booed when the replay went up. Umpires are allowed to have an off day just like a batman falling for a golden duck.

  • malts on July 13, 2013, 9:06 GMT

    there needs to be a rule brought in the the 3rd umpire can look at that in 5 seconds and say hang on I need to have another look at that... and all you guys on about trot lbw it pitched in line hit in line and taking the stumps out and no bat involved last time I checked that's what an lbw is.

  • Mitty2 on July 13, 2013, 9:04 GMT

    Well said @jmcilhinney, agree wholeheartedly

  • Rahul_78 on July 13, 2013, 8:49 GMT

    Few Points I want to make: 1) Aussies have been skippered by a guy who nicked the ball to the slip and waited for Umpires decision. Latter apologized for his behavior on twitter. 2) A day before England's no 3 and probably on form best and most consistent batsmen was given out when technology failed him. 3) If batmen misses a ball by a foot and still given out by umpire caught behind he can not show too much of remorse and expected to respect Umpires decision. Other wise he gets a fine from ICC. Stuart Broad exactly did that. He respected the umpires decision. I guess we cricket fans, media and all needs to move on from it. (BTW Shane Warne's twitter outburst against Dar was very unfortunate and in poor taste to say the list.)

  • John-Price on July 13, 2013, 8:48 GMT

    The curious thing is that if Broad had stood for a thin edge, then there would have been no issue. It is as if some people are under the impression that it's OK to stand for a thin edge but not for a thick edge - well, I can tell the world, no such code of conduct exists. The way professional batsmen play is that will try to get away with anything they can. It's not always pleasing to the fair minded spectator, but that is the way it has been for the last fifty years at least. There is no point in pretending otherwise.

  • on July 13, 2013, 8:42 GMT

    Did andy flower meet the match referee for this incident too? i think not. Walk/No-Walk... standard of umpiring has detoriatef a lot in intl cricket. ofcourse what i dnt unferstand is why the 3rd umpire, in such cases, inform the on-field umpires? May be one of those ICC things that i can not understand.

  • on July 13, 2013, 8:30 GMT

    Broad is lucky to survive but it all happens in cricket. Some you win some you lose. It is a sport full of chances.If we can bat up to Lunch then we can definitely win.

  • on July 13, 2013, 8:22 GMT

    I don't see what the fuss is about. So, Broad should have walked. And Clarke should not have used his referrals to contest decisions that were not even marginal. Things kind of even out. DRS is supposed to be used to correct obvious umpiring errors and not every time you think there might be a chance you would get a wicket. Since Clarke has been putting DRS to such use, that I would call it abuse of the system, he got his just desserts when he had no referrals left for a call like this. Maybe he will use his referrals more conservatively from now on.

    As far as game goes, with Agar's not out at 6 and Root's out decisions both going Aussie's way, I don't think they can complain that umpiring errors have not gone both ways. It seems to me that, on balance, the game is fair and neither side could blame anyone but themselves is they lose the game.

  • AhmedEsat on July 13, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    Shane Warne made lots of mistakes in crucial games but he still got "a gig." So why shouldn't Aleem Dar?

  • jmcilhinney on July 13, 2013, 8:17 GMT

    @214ty on (July 12, 2013, 20:53 GMT), but it's not just 2 reviews; it's 2 FAILED reviews. Just 1 failed review should be enough in most cases if they are only being used to overturn clearly incorrect decisions. The only reason that 2 seems insufficient is that teams are using them up on LBWs that are marginal at best and, in the case of Bairstow in this innings, not even close.

  • jmcilhinney on July 13, 2013, 8:14 GMT

    A few people here are trying to compare this scenario with Ian Bell's run out against India. That's drawing a very long bow because the two incidents aren't alike at all. For a start, people are asking why England didn't just accept the umpire's decision but it was clear at the time that the umpire's didn't want to give Bell out but had to under the laws of the game. Surely anyone can see that that situation with Bell was extremely unusual. He was not trying to gain any advantage and it wouldn't have happened on any ball other than the last one of the session. Even the India players didn't feel right about it because they were already discussing it when Flower and Strauss came calling. They asked India to reconsider and India did. If India had stood by the decision then so would England. they wouldn't have liked it but they would have abided by it.

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

    @disco_bob

    Dar got it right because the edge was clear as day, you can clearly see a deflection on the front on slow motion replay. Erasmus was wrong to give it out as he didn't have all the technological aides available, because of this the decision was meant to stay on field, where the correct decision was made.

    Aside from that, people need to stop saying there aren't enough reviews, there are plenty, you don't lose them if you get them right. Just because Clarke needs to use DRS to try to get us out when his bowlers are too incompetent to do so is not a case for more reviews, he'd probably waste them all anyway. DRS is to correct howlers.

  • jmcilhinney on July 13, 2013, 8:09 GMT

    Australia have every right to be extremely pissed off by the umpire's mistake in this case; anyone would be. I don't see that they have any grounds to take it any further than that though. There is no systemic problem here. The umpire made a mistake, plain and simple. I think the thing that a lot of people here are missing is the fact that that's exactly what Australia have done: they were pissed off at the time but they cooled down, got on with the game and haven't complained about it since. Australia aren't having a go at Aleem Dar, Stuart Broad, DRS or the ICC. As is usually the case, it's the media and fans who are keeping the debate alive. I have no issue with that either but some people here seem to be implying that Australia are complaining when they're not.

  • FAB_ALI on July 13, 2013, 7:51 GMT

    As you sow, so as you reap..simple as that!! Australians have done this so many times themselves, they must be destined to get some back then....and as they say Cricket is a great leveler, so here you go!!

  • Un_Citoyen_Indien on July 13, 2013, 7:35 GMT

    The Australians should certainly not be the ones to complain about a batsman not 'walking'. Remember the infamous "Sydneygate 2008" test? Yes the one in which Symonds didn't 'walk' after nearly smacking the leather off the ball. Cost India the test match and the series eventually. Clarke claimed a bump catch as well and that test nearly caused a diplomatic incident at the time.

    Well, all I can say is that Karma can hurt. This Broad incident could well swing this test match towards England.

  • sachin_vvsfan on July 13, 2013, 7:33 GMT

    @johnstanley and other Aussie fans before you call Broad dishonest you might want to check how your own Clarke stood ground in that infamous 2008 Sydney test . That was more obvious catch than this.

    I am not supporting Broad(i know how many times he escaped the punishment for all his wrong doings). But in this case you have to remember that he was well with in his rights to stand to get the decision from umpire. Thats what clarke said in an interview after that match.

    I feel this decision might cost Aus heavily as the target is just moving away. But then clarke did not use the referrals judiciously.

    And Whats with Shane Warne He should be the last person to talk about umpire decisions. Never talked about how many wickets he got with umpire blunders (laxman wicket in 2001 kolkata, and many of sachins bat pad lbw, pad bat catches). Why he never talked about the howlers in that 2008 Sydney test that heavily favored Aus?

  • on July 13, 2013, 7:25 GMT

    One umpiring blunder each, big deal, the Aussies may be the ones fuming now, but would they exchange Trott for Broad? I think not. These thing happen, but they also have a way of evening themselves out. Tough, it's part of the game.

  • IndianSRTfan on July 13, 2013, 7:22 GMT

    This has been a great match so far. Young Agar's great debut, Anderson and Siddle's 5fers, it's all been great to watch. Sadly this match will also be remembered for poor umpiring decisions and inadequacy of the current DRS.

    Without a doubt, we need a review system in Cricket but we simply can't have a system which was put in place to eliminate a howler but still lets a howler get through and isn't rectified. The strange execution processes of DRS defeat it's purpose. This has to stop.

    If hotspot can't be queued up for successive deliveries and this and other deficiencies were known beforehand then it's absurd that it was given a go ahead. Fans will swing both ways but surely administrators need to keep a level head? No system is perfect but a flawed system isn't the answer.

    Living with wrong decisions was bad enough but now we have to deal with a combo of bad decisions+ inadequate technology and faulty system may highlight a bad decision but doesn't always allow rectification.

  • on July 13, 2013, 7:00 GMT

    match is not draw aus win the match 90% aus 8%eng 2% draw

  • manav599 on July 13, 2013, 6:53 GMT

    Broad was right to stay his ground no doubt. Spirit is something you cannot expect but just show. However I don't then understand why Dinesh Ramdin (in Champions Trophy) or Rashid Latif a long time back were penalised for claiming catches against spirit of game. Umpires are there to decide too. If you claim an obvious dropped catch, its against the spirit but standing your ground on an obvious edge isn't. That's not fair.

  • Mitty2 on July 13, 2013, 6:43 GMT

    First off, it's not the fault of the DRS - far from it - it's to do with the use of it. Erasmus's trott decision might be wrong in the sense that there was not enough evidence to overturn the decision, but there was no edge or deviation in sight (look at the overhead clip) there was no sound whatsoever (snicko) and it was downright plumb. Out. The technology is correct, but how it's implemented/used is wrong. Two things: It should be in the umpires hands, not the captains', and the third umpire should have the right to overturn decisions. I also think snicko should be a part of the deliberation process.

    Broad had every right not to walk - as no one does. Even the great Tendulkar was plumb pudding multiple times against us in the 4-0 smashing, but didn't walk. Gilchrist is virtually an anomaly. Boycott's point is most pertinent, the rules supersede the 'spirit of the game' and it was within every legal basis for broad to not walk, therefor no moral connections can be made.

  • ben.p. on July 13, 2013, 6:31 GMT

    It's very sad when a decent, hard-fought game of cricket is spoilt in this manner. Broad is no stranger to gamesmanship as opposed to sportsmanship, and he doesn't seem to realise that it's not winning that really matters in the end, it's how you play. If that comes across as rather quaint and old fashioned, why are there rules safeguarding fairness within the game and why does anyone still talk about its 'spirit'? Look what happened to Dinesh Ramdin in the Champions Trophy. If human nature is always going to be such a factor, the only answer is to increase the number of unsuccessful appeals to DRS available per innings to five, or maybe more.

  • disco_bob on July 13, 2013, 5:55 GMT

    @BenjaminEdmonds on (July 12, 2013, 23:15 GMT) "Harsh on Dar, He actually got the decision with Trott correct"

    Based on what evidence? Are saying Dar heard the ball hit the bat?

  • class9ryan on July 13, 2013, 5:54 GMT

    It may happen with any body. Broad was lucky this time around. Australia need to wait for their luck to favor and they were more than lucky in that Aus-Ind series when Bucknor and Hair were umpiring. But the Aussies showed some good spirit, Agar as well bowled well. Just get on with it .....

  • on July 13, 2013, 5:53 GMT

    I think we need a statement from the ICC stating whether or not a Batsman staying at the crease after he has 'nicked it' (no matter how lightly) is 'against the spirit of the game'. Until we do then it remains a right of any batsman to stand his ground and wait for the umpire's decision. What about a bowler appealing when you know it's not out? Is that against the spirit of the game?

  • on July 13, 2013, 5:13 GMT

    Totally disagree with Warne.Aleem Dar and Simon Taufel have been the two best umpires without a doubt in the last decade. Occasional errors are made by everyone who is human.Even the Hot-spot operator made a huge error for the first time since the DRS was employed.Aleem has umpired in most demanding of conditions especially in Australia with ball doing every kind of tricks and come out on top.So starting an all out attack on Aleem(as Warne has done) on social media is plain simply wrong.All who are criticising him today will praise him when the series ends(except Warne of course) after he has given decisions of the topmost calibre.

  • geminianrahul on July 13, 2013, 5:11 GMT

    I very well remember Indias tour of Aus in 2008 which will be famously remembered by cricket fans for Steve Bucknors blunders and Punters grounded catch which he himself declared out, if not it would have been India's first test series win down under. During that series India's legend Anil Kumble being a great gentleman he is who was the captain of the test team at that time came open and admitted to the media that "Only one team was playing in the right spirit of the game". Can the Aussie team do that or have the courage to do that now which is known over the years for not playing in the true spirit on more than few occassions starting from the under arm incident against NZ. Lets wait n watch.

  • on July 13, 2013, 5:04 GMT

    The 3rd umpire should review all decisions and have, say, 30 seconds. if its a bad decision it will show up pretty quickly. Of course the English, like the Indians, want everything their way and will complain when it goes against them but it's "just cricket" when it benefits them.

  • on July 13, 2013, 5:03 GMT

    Erasmus' error in letting Agar continue when he was stumped was far more egregious than Dar's. Why should the batsman get the benefit of the doubt? This isn't innocent until proven guilty. Bowlers deserve the benefit of the doubt too. So if it is 51-49 bowler, hand it to the bowler. Agar looked stumped 90-10, why award it to the batsman? Australia benefited by 150+ runs.

  • on July 13, 2013, 4:54 GMT

    Australia deserved exactly that. The beauty is that Agar is the one who benefited from an obviously poor umpiring decision when on 6...Australia then added another 150+ runs, otherwise it was 125 all out, not 280. So Broad did something very admirable by standing his ground. Even better that Agar was the bowler, such poetic justice. Broad & Bell have not added 155 (not yet) after Broad's refusal to walk, so fortune still favours Australia in this test.

  • on July 13, 2013, 4:42 GMT

    Remember one Steve Bucknor. Officiated in so many important games and committed so many howlers. Just part of the game. There was a time when Aussies were getting wickets (LBWs mostly) based on reputation of G McGrath and S Warne. If Warne's LBW wickets are reviewed on today's technology, he might be left with a far lesser tally than 700+ he boasts of. I remember Inzimam ul Haq given LBW of S Tendulkar's when he was hit at least 18 inches outside the off stump. Either ICC should make provisions for reviewing every delivery by the third Umpire. If wrong decision is made, the third umpire should be able to reverse it even two deliveries later.

  • Vasi-Koosi on July 13, 2013, 4:38 GMT

    Aussies should be the last team to complain. Remember 2007 Melbourne boxing day test. In fact, Anil Kumble had agreed with Ricky Ponting on honesty in claiming catches by asking the fielder. I feel horrified by the decision by no iota of sadness on behalf of the Aussies. These dishonest people deserve more. They are being given a taste of their own medicine.

  • sweet2hrme on July 13, 2013, 4:21 GMT

    Ibw decison! When it reviewed its totally depends upon on field umpires decison which i think ICC need to rethink. So many blunder decisionr was made by umpires simply becoz its just clipping the stumps! Lol! Half of the ball is not hitting the stumps but he is still out becoz its depends blind on field umpires decision. Plz we need to correct that rule

  • sweet2hrme on July 13, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    Frnds its totally shocking decision by Aleem Dar. Broad i wana say shame on you, you shld walk straight way. See its just hurting when cricket so called "A Gentleman Game" is not played in a right spirit. Dnt say now these ashes series is as big battle atleast for me. I always found umpires do favour england most of times. I am not happy with the umpires performance in the match. Ok eng is favorite to win as predicted but this is not the way 13 man vs 11 man.

  • Blokker on July 13, 2013, 4:07 GMT

    DRS is pretty superfluous at the best of times. Anyone who followed Australia v India last two series (4-0, 0-4) knows that the lack of DRS didn't affect proceedings at all, in fact, its absence was a huge improvement to the flow of the game. And there was none of this energy-sapping controversy. Umpires get it wrong, big deal. Get over it and move on. India has this one right.

  • johnstanley on July 13, 2013, 3:58 GMT

    I have played a lot of cricket and have tough time buying this nonsense that a player should stand his ground until umpire makes a decision. Broad knew he was out since he played with an angled bat and it was a thick edge. If I steal something and the Police do not catch me, does it mean I am right. In my eyes Broad was dishonest and it is discredit to the game of cricket that we refer to as "gentlemen's game". His only excuse would be that he was not sure whether a ball hit his bat and that it is not possible given the thick edge and the deflection. Shame on you Broad!

  • Ihaq on July 13, 2013, 3:55 GMT

    That is simple wrong Dar gets decisions wrong at key moments. Warnie must be thinking of Australian empires

  • on July 13, 2013, 3:53 GMT

    2008 Sydney test...symonds nicked the ball it was as loud as a drumbeat, he didn't walk instead went on to make a huge hundred and india lost... we didn't see warnie or any Aussie for that matter making a issue of it...so it's simple you reap what u sow I don't mind Aleem Dar as umpire....

  • on July 13, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    So much fuss - a lower order batsman did not walk against Australia. What have you done Broad? You are not an Australian. That right is only reserved for Australia. Any one remembers Syndey 2007, Symonds, or the bump catch claimer - Clarke.

  • on July 13, 2013, 3:00 GMT

    Australia's fault. Not the decision, that was blatant. But using the DRS inappropriately caused this.

    I still think it should be in the players hands though. If the umps end up with the power, imagine this scenario. Swann bowling, 2 wickets to get, 10 overs left to do so. There will be appeals every time the ball his the pad. Every appeal get referred because the umpire wants to be sure. It's going to add a ton of time. You could get 3 reviews an over. 3 extra minutes per over. No wants that in English conditions where bad light could easily curtail play.

    The simplest solution to me seems like to reduce the number of unsuccessful referrals to 1 per innings. That should ensure it gets used only for the howler.

  • on July 13, 2013, 2:56 GMT

    Same thing happen with Buckner in India's tour of Australia 2008 Sydney, Aussie deserve this!

  • ASHTON_WHO on July 13, 2013, 2:47 GMT

    With the DRS not working as designed (creating one howler and failing to stop another) there obviously needs to be a major change to its structure.

    -Close LBWs is where the DRS system is falling down as players are using up their reviews and not having any left for when the howler comes around.

    -There is a big difference between an LBW review and a Caught at the wicket review with the LBW being more 50/50 with the possibility of umpires decision being correct either way - with a caught review it is generally more straight forward.

    -Possibly the bowling team should only be able to review one LBW decision (if it is close enough to be umpires call then they should not lose their review) this would leave one review in reserve that can only be used for a catch decision (hopefully saving the howler).

    -Another possibility would be to not allow the bowling team to review LBWs at all and only allow the batting team to review LBWs for a knick onto the pads and not for line and height.

  • Sadiq1952 on July 13, 2013, 2:38 GMT

    The Aussies must understand mistakes happen. This is not the first time. And there have been occasions when the Aussies benefitted. So instead of making a meal of it they should just move on and fight it out. All is not lost. They should ae the best effort.The better team will always win.

  • on July 13, 2013, 2:35 GMT

    hmm... i agree Stuart did not walk. But I have a question, And any AUSSIE here can answer that. Did Andrew Symonds walked off in Sydney test ? No, then chin up and continue bowling. England are slow starters( they lost first test in India also), so this was australia's only chance. I see them winning 5-0 now. And, I would be mighty happy to see aussies lose as Clarke is a cheat and has disintegrated the australian team. Get rid of him!!!!!

  • on July 13, 2013, 2:29 GMT

    it is very bad that in one innings of test cricket they are giving only two reviews,if the same would done in odis it will be great .........

  • stickboy on July 13, 2013, 2:19 GMT

    Frustrating, but I thought as soon as Clarke chose to review the Pattinson to Bell (I think) LBW appeal, which was so very clearly going down leg, I thought that moment could have cost us the game. If that really bad decision was not made by Clarke, there's a good chance England would have been at least one more wicket down.

  • on July 13, 2013, 2:12 GMT

    Everyone's lost the plot. Broad got a feather and the ball deflected off Haddin. The way people are talking about this incident you'd think the ball came at right angles off the bat. It didn't. It was a fine edge, the umpire missed it, end of story, move on. Don't blame Dar or Broad, Blame Clarke for wasting his team's referrals.

  • Optic on July 13, 2013, 2:00 GMT

    Lets be right Clarke hasn't got leg to stand on because he's got form for this himself. Remember the last Ashes, KP to Clarke, he middled it to Bell and stood there, England used their review to get the right call. He then apologized the next day saying he knew he middled it. They could have done the same if they hadn't have wasted them. Can't believe all the abuse that Broad has got, ridiculous from so called cricket fans who seem to be more up in arms because it' Broad. When the rest of the world players start walking then you can condone until then let the umpires do their jobs. No different from this to bowlers appealing when they know it's nowhere near.

  • Ozboy on July 13, 2013, 1:55 GMT

    Warnie's comments are disgraceful. Dar makes errors - some appalling - which umpire doesn't. Cricketers all over have to step up and be sportsmen first. It used to be a gentleman's game and no one seems to be helping the umpires. Reviewing the decisions seems to be another step towards gamesmanship. Neutral umpires, DRS plus all the technology is not going to make decisions hundred percent fair unless players cooperate. Broad's actions should be condemned by ICC. Captains should have the option of requesting a special review which if fails - they risk a one match ban - and if successful - the batsman/bowler who has the option to walk or rescind the appeal - takes no further action in the game.Obvious edges which don't even need a hot spot should mean that if the batsman hasn't walked - he faces disciplinary action. Period.

  • challagalla on July 13, 2013, 1:50 GMT

    rightly said Siddle. The more i see of them , I admire the aussies. They were seething and yet did not make any undue fuss over it. That's the spirit. Fight guys and win.

  • ramanach on July 13, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    all the australians should now remember SCG Test against india.Howmany howlers helped australians to win it.they should feel how it hurts when umpire gives wrong decisions against their favour

  • wrenx on July 13, 2013, 1:48 GMT

    Aside from the fact that Siddle had completely misunderstood what DRS is there for, why aren't the umpires being smarter about this and using the system to their advantage? Yes, Australia were out of reviews, but England weren't. Dar could have used this: he might suffer his correct decision ratio going down, but better being overruled than being responsible for a game changing howler. No more of this "benefit of doubt going to the batsman" which is an absurd principle that we still seem to have. If Dar was unsure, he should've given Broad out, that way an England review would have overruled him if he had got it wrong and if Broad hadn't nicked it . Time for umpires to get smarter, and use team reviews themselves tactically, making it an unofficial umpire review. It would lead to more correct decisions. When in doubt, call it against the team with reviews left

  • ramanach on July 13, 2013, 1:47 GMT

    warne cannot decide or comment on competence of dar.howmany mistakes helped warne to increase his wickets tally?specially harper,bucknor?

  • ramanach on July 13, 2013, 1:43 GMT

    why so much debate whenever decision goes against england and aussies? similar level of mistakes being done by umpires infavour of both england and aussies when they play against asian teams.why no debate then? look at who is criticising dar.Warne. howmany wickets warne got due to poor umpiring of bucknor.then there is no problem for warne.terrible state of affairs. better not to debate such issues and no need to make such a big issue.they should treat just as another wrong by umpire.

  • cricketforpeace on July 13, 2013, 1:35 GMT

    If Broad knew that he was out, then it is indeed wrong on his part to continue playing. If Broad was not convinced that he had indeed nicked it, then he has every right to continue standing and wait for the umpires decision. At the end of the day, every human being has got a thing called conscience and this dammed thing will prevent Broad from looking even the English players in the eye - leave alone the Australian players! Broad, ten years from now will rue his decision of not walking if he knew that he was out - irrespective of the umpires decision.

  • on July 13, 2013, 1:29 GMT

    When bell was run out vs india in 2011 then England Didnt respected umpires decision. Now its their turn and they are saying umpires are responsible. Not cool.

  • on July 13, 2013, 1:20 GMT

    I think the most disturbing aspect of this whole fiasco is that Stuart Broad questioned the integrity of the Australian cricket captain because Michael Clarke ultimately claimed the catch. He has also placed Aleem Dar in an invidious position.

  • disco_bob on July 13, 2013, 1:02 GMT

    @214ty This is non comparable to the Trott decision, which Erasmus got right. Front on hotspot still showed a foreshortened view of the side of the bat. There was no contact. Not only that but Dar asked Erasmus if he was sure and Erasmus said that there was no sound. Kind of ironic that Dar could only have given Trott not out if he heard a sound because it was otherwise absolutely plumb, yet Dar does not hear the considerably thick woody edge sound from Broad's bat.

  • indianpunter on July 13, 2013, 0:55 GMT

    C'mon, Daniel. Agree that it was a howler. But Trott didnt deserve it, neither did England. Erasmus was not even aware that Hot Spot was NOT available for the delivery that got Trot ( it was still keyed into the previous delivery, Root's dismissal). As much as i am not a Broad fan, he was well within his right to stay put. Sydney 2008 anyone?? andrew symonds hit the cover of the ball and stayed put ( Bucknor gave it not out). Same test.The paragon of virtue, Michael Clarke, hit the ball to slip and stayed put. He did NOT walk. But this time Bucknor gave it out. What goes around, comes around.

  • on July 13, 2013, 0:51 GMT

    if broad was right, because he went with umpires decision. then why did england's skipper and coach went to indian dressing room when bell was given run out by the umpire....

  • on July 13, 2013, 0:51 GMT

    i agree DAR made a mistake, but what about michael clarke, he made two mistakes in this inning, why australians refeer those dicissions which were "not out", u people make umpire"s fault an agenda and forget about players fault, do u people remember when clarke was caught at silly mid on in first test, first inning the during the indian series but was given not out and he scored a century.ALEEM DAR is one of the great umpires, a mistake or two is often by many many umpires, is there anyone who did not make mistakes in his entire careear, and i think it is australian fault that they used up their both refeerals wrongly, do u agree?

  • on July 13, 2013, 0:50 GMT

    Neither Englishmen nor Aussies (with the exception of Gilly) are graceful and decent enough to walk unless given out by the umpire. None is as graceful as Rahul Dravid, when it comes to walking. Playing cricket is one thing, but it fairly is entirely another. Sorry guys, here Broad is plainly indecent not to walk. Winning the game is easy, but winning hearts? Very painful, but in the long run, shows your character.

  • Chris_Howard on July 13, 2013, 0:41 GMT

    @jasin_long. +100. Spot on.

    I've totally lost respect for DRS and would rather see it not used at all than used the way it is now for the 50/50 ones. Spending 2 or 3 minutes judging whether Agar's foot was in or out (I thought it was out) is a blight on the game. If the third umpire can't tell in 30 seconds, then leave it with the onfield decision.

    The captains (Cook aside) are abusing the system, trying to exploit it. As Chappelli said, maybe Clarke will finally learn.

    If the players need to think to hard about whether to review, then don't.

  • Mutukisna on July 13, 2013, 0:39 GMT

    With some reluctance of course, I feel that the time has come when we should have another category of review incorporated in the DRS System. The two umpires should each be allowed one referral per innings to the third umpire and this should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances where the reviews have been exhausted and the umpire concerned feels unsure about a decision he is being asked to make. What do Cricinfo subscribers think of this suggestion being included in the DRS system?

  • Noel-Kalicharan on July 13, 2013, 0:38 GMT

    What say you now, Mr Chris Broad? You fined West Indies wicketkeeper Denesh Ramdin 100% of his match fee and suspended for two-thirds of the ICC Champions Trophy for claiming a catch he had not taken. You stated then "This is regarded as a serious offence as it is the responsibility of all players to act in the spirit of the game." So how do you regard the action of your son, Stuart, for remaining at the wicket when it was obvious to all that he was out? He knew he was out since "he turned so red you could not see him blush". Isn't this contrary to the spirit of the game? I expect that the match referee will impose the severest penalty on Stuart. If not, it will just highlight the hypocrisy and double-standards that exist in cricket today.

  • on July 13, 2013, 0:32 GMT

    how many times Michele Cklarke has done what Broad did?

  • Karthikeyan007 on July 13, 2013, 0:23 GMT

    Ooh. The Aussies are forgetting the Sydney 2008 test. Mr. Siddle seems to forget one of his old team mates Symonds edged it directly to first slip and stood his ground. Then the tables have turned. What goes around comes around.

  • on July 13, 2013, 0:21 GMT

    Broad is no Gilchrist, didnt Australia let a West Indian Bat againg after a crowed went wild? even after he had left the field, Gilchrist will be remember in 30 years later, Broad? some how I doubt it, and lets take quote from Gillly " mate the whole worlds is watching you champ, the whole world"

  • pat_one_back on July 13, 2013, 0:12 GMT

    Admirable how the Aust team moved on from an absolute howler and continued to apply pressure. No "please explains " demanded, no Broad you don't have to walk when you know you're out, you do have to deal with what fair and honest people think of people like you though, nice guys like Andy Murray for example. Stealing from a debutant is particularly unattractive, cricket has it's ways and will return your deeds in kind don't worry. How did you win your MBE dad? I stood there and pretended I didn't hit it son-bravo, bravo....

  • spindizzy on July 13, 2013, 0:10 GMT

    Warn is totally correct and the current limits on DRS are totally arbitrary.

    This is a failure of the administrators.

    BTW - why do English supporters think the lack of side on hot-spot is evidence that Trot was not out? None of the other evidence showed an edge so there's actually far less chance that this would have as well. You appear to have turned wishful thinking into a 'fact'.

    Simply Dar got this LBW wrong as well and DRS corrected him.

  • Int.Curator on July 13, 2013, 0:08 GMT

    Cricket is not a running game. There is plenty of time to rectify an umpiring error. They check the no-ball rule for every wicket. It is not about tit for tat its about managing to get the right decisions.

  • on July 13, 2013, 0:07 GMT

    Remember Andrew Symonds not walking off after being caught behind -- the "famous" Sydney test that cost India the match?

    Now let the Aussies taste their own medicine.

    Broad is cool not walking off.

  • Haleos on July 12, 2013, 23:51 GMT

    It is not that the nick was faint where the batsman does not realise it so am not sure why Broad stood his ground. It is supposed to be gentlemans sport and england invented it. Also DRS is useless if the teams have to request it. If the goal is to remove howlers 3rd umpire should override the ground umpires. Why should it be left for the teams? Aleem dar is a respected umpire but he is comitting a lot of mistakes lately.

  • on July 12, 2013, 23:46 GMT

    I still remember Jason Gillespie not walking after an exceptionally healthy edge of a medium pace bowler in India. He went on to put up a 100 plus partnership and Australia won the Mumbai test. Were the Aussies biting there tongues then? Not walking was brought into the game by the Aussies and they have absolutely no business complaining about it.

  • CricketCoachDB on July 12, 2013, 23:45 GMT

    "You use them when you think there's a chance of getting a wicket and that's what they're there for." Sorry Pete, no, that's not what they are there for. They are meant to eliminate the howler, like today, not to be used as a strategic weapon.

  • Un_Citoyen_Indien on July 12, 2013, 23:44 GMT

    Now I'm starting to see why the BCCI does not support DRS in its current form. Until the day comes when these decisions can be made in real-time by the third umpire and thereby over-rule the on field umpire, DRS will have this fundamental flaw............

  • on July 12, 2013, 23:42 GMT

    "A Hot Spot operator error that contributed to Jonathan Trott's lbw dismissal", writes Brettig. The Hot Spot was not available, and the Third Umpire guessed that there was no hit. It was Third Umpire's fault.

  • disco_bob on July 12, 2013, 23:40 GMT

    First there is the issue of Broad not walking, which is to to with the concept of walking in general and thus is a philosophical question which has no definitive answer. Second, there is the question of the importance of the decision, which is no big deal because England were already destined to post an almost unreachable score, so it's not a game changer. Third it is nothing to do with nor should it be used as an excuse to slam Erasmus for the Trott decision which was correct.

    Instead of these distractions we should rather focus on the most obvious problem with the referral system that is in fact easy to fix but apparently difficult to see. That is the number of referrals need to be increased. It's that simple. Give each side two referrals per each new ball for example. It won't solve all the DRS problems for some people but it will go a long way to improving the current situation where the original reason for 2 referrals per innings used the flawed logic that it would slow the game.

  • Kulaputra on July 12, 2013, 23:36 GMT

    Aleem Dar gets a lot of decisions right rather than wrong. Australian behaviour on the field sometimes biases the ump against them. Bad luck. Get on with life. Do not act as though this was the only way Broad would have been out. RESPECT THE UMP.

    Play well and win the match and do not respond like the English cricket teams do. One expects better from Australian teams.

  • on July 12, 2013, 23:25 GMT

    Get over it Ausis. It is a human error and it is a part and parcel of the game. You are partly to be blamed for wasting one of your reviews. Do not act like you guys are a completely honest bunch. How many of you would have walked if you get such a decision in favour of you while you are batting? Broad is just a tail ender and clear the English tail in the 4th morning without whining.

  • Ninety9 on July 12, 2013, 23:23 GMT

    I don't understand the role of the third umpire. If he sees a howler and doesn't act to correct it, then he himself is acting 'contrary to the spirit of the game'.

  • BenjaminEdmonds on July 12, 2013, 23:15 GMT

    Harsh on Dar, He actually got the decision with Trott correct and that was a very tough call, Warney needs to settle down, didn't see him piping up last night about Trott. Erasmus has been much much worse in this match, missing Broad's edge was pretty poor but it was nearing the end of the day and the clearest nick was off Haddin's pad, so the edge was pretty fine but very much there.

    Also 2 reviews is bang on, Aus just waste their reviews on ridiculous calls, it's like if Stuart Broad or Graeme Swann were in charge of the review for England, just desperation, try getting a wicket from good bowling, thought you Aussies were chirping about having the best pace attack, did they miss their flight?

  • GeoffreysMother on July 12, 2013, 23:09 GMT

    A bit of whining from Warne: again.

  • on July 12, 2013, 23:01 GMT

    Shane Warne - what pathetic comments. Maybe should watch some cricket, mate and see that Dar is the finest umpire out there and has been for a very long time. Everyone makes mistakes, hey Warnie?!

  • Sportius on July 12, 2013, 22:58 GMT

    Aussies shouldn't be whining about it. How many of the former players who's criticizing Broad walked when they played? not even 1%. They simply dont have the right to do so

  • Sticky_Dog on July 12, 2013, 22:57 GMT

    I liked Siddle's comments that the Umpire's decision is final, that you accept it and get on with the game. What I didn't like was his implication that the DRS is there to be used to increase the chances of getting early wickets. Actually, that's not what it is there for. It is there to reduce the frequency of "howlers." Using technology to increase the accuracy of umpiring decisions is fine, but do we want a system that encourages players to challenge the decisions of on-field umpires? It can only erode the authority of the umpires' decisions and players' respect for the umpire, which only contributes to the undermining of the spirit of the game. In this context it is less likely that someone in Broad's position will do the right thing, as the game has been reduced to nothing more than a competition. It is that, of course, but actually so much more, or at least it should be. Give the third umpire the discretion to intervene and correct the "howlers." Leave the players out of it.

  • on July 12, 2013, 22:54 GMT

    I would never expect Broad to walk. Cook, maybe; KP or Bopara never. Cricket is (or was, once upon a time) a gentleman's game. But times have changed. Its too much to ask Broad to do as a gentleman should. He is a quick, for God's sake; he is looking to crack open people's skulls with a solid bouncer. Too bad they have helmets these days. Or else....

  • mixters on July 12, 2013, 22:54 GMT

    A wicket falls then an umpire of his own bat can review for a no ball, Billy Bowden dose this frequently can they also do this for a catch, yes. SO why cant all line ball calls be in the umpires hands on field and off. Trott was not out Broad was out wrong both times. There is no evening out there is only right and wrong. Any wrong call can effect the out come of the game. Having to wait a minute for the right decision is a small price to pay in a five day test when a hasty mistake by the umpire can decide the result of the match

  • on July 12, 2013, 22:51 GMT

    I do not recall Andrew Symonds walking during that fateful Sydney test. what goes around comes around.

  • on July 12, 2013, 22:51 GMT

    Warne & @Sidzy were spot on...Dar has been terrible for Years..I'm surprised there wasn't more made of the 2005 Ashes. Luckily the Australians and the Aussie media bit there tongue. He simply gets far too many wrong. I don't blame Broad at all, he did nothing wrong...Sadly poor decisions can cost you a game in test cricket especially if it's tight.

  • on July 12, 2013, 22:50 GMT

    No umpire can ever be 100% accurate 100% of the time. There should be more referrals, but captians need to use them more wisely than Clarke did today. The Australians don't walk - and in 2005 they deliberately fooled umpires by orchestrated appealing whenever Andrew Strauss went near the ball and this affected Strauss and the team and series. Sorry - Australians moan when they are hard done by, but happy to accepts decisions in their favour.

  • Alexk400 on July 12, 2013, 22:50 GMT

    My problem is why aleem dar did not refer to third umpire. In his mind he thought he made correct decision. I would say his eyes failing. Replace him in next test.

  • Honyakusha on July 12, 2013, 22:37 GMT

    While umpires, reviews, and DRS are being blamed for not giving the batsman out, let us not forget that cricket is a gentleman's game. So hold your head high and walk if you are out. There are thousands of cricket fans in the world who will respect you for the rest of your life regardless of the result!

  • on July 12, 2013, 22:34 GMT

    When West Indies wicketkeeper Ramdin claimed a catch which he had really spilled in a relatively recent match he was fined 100% of his match fee and banned for two matches in the ICC Champions trophy.The match referee then,if I am not mistaken was none other than Chris Broad who said that that kind of sportsmanship was not good for the game and it could bring the game into disrepute.Maybe he should have a good talk with his son.Should he not be fined and banned also...........or is he a hero?

  • pakyacdac on July 12, 2013, 22:26 GMT

    why is so much fuss being made, its a game, same thing happened once india played against australia.

  • on July 12, 2013, 22:24 GMT

    In 2010, Aleem Dar gave it out when siddle was bowling on his hat-trick but guess what today? He is taking that back. Micheal Clarke barely need to save a review. In case anything happens like this so he could go to third umpire but Clarke was taking fifty fifty shot for those 2 reviews. He still need to learn a lot from his seniors.

  • Chris_P on July 12, 2013, 22:24 GMT

    Look, no issues with end result. You go with what is the law & what everyone agrees with. I have seen too many howlers in the past to get on any soapbox now. Maybe the decision to review should be taken out of the cricketers' hands & entrusted only to the 3rd umpire, I don't know, just one thought. Let's move on, this test has more twists than any recent one I can recall & an loving it.

  • whatawicket on July 12, 2013, 22:19 GMT

    to get their own back tomorrow when SB scores a 100 do not applaud it. lol

  • on July 12, 2013, 22:12 GMT

    Warnie, Dar is as great in umpiring as you were in bowling.

  • on July 12, 2013, 22:09 GMT

    Didn't Clarke smash KP into his thigh pad at Adelaide in the last ashes and then tried to challenged it! Australia should keep very quiet on the subject of walking. Given how Trott was completely sawn off by some Hot Spot operator and the 3rd umpire, I don't blame Broad for trying to get away with it. Doesn't make it right but the officials have played worse than either side in this test match.

  • Puffin on July 12, 2013, 22:08 GMT

    a few too many howlers at the moment, thankfully they seem to have evened themselves out for now. Must do better next time, mmm?

  • MB40 on July 12, 2013, 21:59 GMT

    I think the game, paradoxically, needs human errors like this. If the whole affair is simply a video-regulated, robotic run-through, part of the fun and excitement will disappear.

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:55 GMT

    lbw is fine..its difficult to judge..bt clear edge n caught on slip n notout decision..whts da umpire doing??? good luck Aus

  • creekeetman on July 12, 2013, 21:55 GMT

    agree with 214ty, test innings require more reviews, at least 3 reviews per innings.

  • electric_loco_WAP4 on July 12, 2013, 21:55 GMT

    Agree with @214ty that test matches need to have 3 uncorrect C'llenges per team per inning. If not all TMs, at least high profile series like Ashes need to sooner than later. Had it been so, Broad would have been rightly sent on his way back by 3rd ump and the howler of the match - probably series - be avoided. As it stands Aus will be robbed of a probable win by an ump and also the ump will have to live with all the flack he - quite rightly - gets and guilt of the mistake which is a shame. Had right decision been made we would have been looking forward to an exciting TM and the umps going about their job calmly and peacefully not somewhat soured what has been a good game and still may turn out to be so.

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:52 GMT

    No big deal. What happened when Andrew Symonds stood his ground in the IND-AUS Sydney test when he got out? End result - India lost the game. What a horrible test match that was. So, you feel the pain when you are at the receiving end. Eventually India won the next test. So, fight it out Aussies if you can with performance in the rest of the series...

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:46 GMT

    LOL , Now the poor Ausis are showing their frustration.. by blaming Aleem Dar for all of their failures. I agree Dar made mistake while taking this decision , but this is the part of the game & incidents like that have happened b4 so many times. I am just wondering when Shane warne will start blaming Dar for their last consecutive defeats in Ashes :p .. I hope they will find a way :D. Aleem Dar is still the best umpire of the world & it has already been proved. Cricinfo can still take the survey , I bet he will be the NO.1.

  • BKyogi on July 12, 2013, 21:43 GMT

    Well, Aussies got something back, not from the Indians but from England. Was anything raised about the howler which the umpire missed during the 2nd test Aus. vs India. Symonds was given a reprieve when he was caught at slip and did he move. He went on to score a century and won the match

  • Greatest_Game on July 12, 2013, 21:43 GMT

    @ 214ty. Perhaps you should consider these points. Players are not fined for inexcusable errors like dropping a regulation catch, wafting outside off and edging a ball on the sixth stump, taking a wicket on a no-ball. Making an error when umpiring is not misconduct. Look up the meaning of the word.

    Umpires stand for the entire game. You are asking them to be the equivalent of a batsman or bowler who opens the game, and bats or bowls non stop for 5 days and does not make a single error.

    2 umpires - 22 players. The players make mistakes - that's cricket. The umpires make mistakes - that's cricket too! Yet you state that 2 men must be perfect and the other 22 are allowed to fail. It is east to critisise from the comfort of an armchair. It is also easy to make unreasonable suggestions when you are not out on the field, having to make a decision.

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:36 GMT

    Oh come on Pietersen. How is it fair to stand when you are clearly out? I am supporting England in this series but Broad has shown what a poor sportsman he is AGAIN.

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:36 GMT

    We can convince ourselves by our logical thinking that mistakes are possible by umpires and batsman has the right to stay on his firm ground..And here's my point,I am an INDIAN,but as a cricket lover I used to watch any cricket match at the moment.BUT what if I saw BROAD walking back even the umpire stood against austrailia,I would have felt(many more fans like me) an applause for the cricketing spirit flown from broad and probably slept with a saturation of satisfaction of feeling some great cricket some thousand miles away from me.People watch the sports for spirit not just winning...(example of higher standard-what if the ashes series was fixed and planned to end with great finishes and the players think they still love it...felt very sad by some commemt on cricinfo ''this is the way of test cricket now,NOBODY WALKS OFF'')

  • IAS2009 on July 12, 2013, 21:36 GMT

    the system is broken, blame the system not umpires or players, Dar is very good umpire and best one will make mistakes too. what ironic about DRS is that it has not eliminated bone head mistakes, too many reviews will disrupt the game also so more appeals is not a solution after 10 reviews this situation will come again, i am not sure what should be the solution but if system can give wrong decisions after reviews then it is not working, go back to old way and at least keep the game non disruptive. or get rid umpires and use technology 100% outside the field (it is ridiculous but may be the solution). i don't like the permutation computers do for LBW any way sometimes it looks so obviously wrong. 2 big blunders in 2 days and DRS was there, it is joke.

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:32 GMT

    Dar recent form is not good and it should be criticize but not in a way warne is doing it.i think is overdosed with the pills which he used before 2003 world cup. never seen him tweeting anything about darrell harper

  • electric_loco_WAP4 on July 12, 2013, 21:29 GMT

    The brilliant decision by Erasmus to overturn obviobus LB decision of Trott which Aleem Dar got wrong initially as the DRS showed, albeit not all that conclusively -not the system's fault in at all in any way, just the errors of 'omission' if you can call it being the non availability of some angles of slo-mo/hot-spot reply in case of very slight edge or close bat-pad decisions making it tricky some times which I am sure is 1 area that tech. can improve and make more right decisions -, that he had missed the inner edge as shown by hot-spot, slo-mo and ball ll hitting for it to be given o ut LB shows why the S African is 1 of the best in the game now.Dar though can be excused for umpire standing can miss these at times as all happens quickly and it is not easy to pick if there is a faint edge or not. But the Broad decision is an unmitigated howler - which would've been O/T but for Aus not having any left - and shows up the ump.Dar needs to improve or face Billy's,Bowden's fate!

  • salman.ali.rai on July 12, 2013, 21:29 GMT

    While I absolutely agree on the fact that Dar made a massive mistake, I still don't understand the fuss about this particular decision alone. Bell was given out of an inside edge and he went upstairs for a review because that's the purpose of having DRS. It is meant to correct howlers. We all saw that there was no fuss on that decision so just that Aus had wasted their reviews gambling on close LBW shouts, they are just feeling more frustrated because they just have to move on with the game. ICC needs to do some serious work on the umpiring standard though. I remember the SL-PAK test where atleast 13 wrong decision were made but since it wasn't as high profile as Ashes so we didn't see the outrage we're seeing right now from these 'cricket experts/models'.

  • OopsIsaiditagain on July 12, 2013, 21:27 GMT

    Question is if Broad is going to be fined and dropped from 2 games? Was this not an issue for the spirit of the game Chris Broad?

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:27 GMT

    Shane Warne talking about Dar's judgement & what about his good decision? What about other old umpires who have been giving three to four wrong decisions in a single match many times. This is very unfair what Shane Warne said.

  • ozwriter on July 12, 2013, 21:25 GMT

    as an aussie fan, i really think the whining needs to stop. Trott arguably england's most consistent batsman got done earlier with a poor decision. if anything, england would prefer if trott was not out instead of broad. umpiring decisions have always been part of the game, you just need to accept and move on. i would be blaming our own performances rather than the umpire. dropping catches (e.g. haddin dropping bell) does NOT help.

  • khansa06 on July 12, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    If a Tendulkar or Gilchrist did not walk, that would be some news. Not when Stewart Broad does not walk ......cause that is the most natural thing for to do. That is the way he has always played his cricket, walking or any other part of the sport.

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:22 GMT

    I dont understand all the fuss surrendering broad's decision. Its upto the individual ethics and morals whether to walk or not when they nick the ball..and its absolutely hilarious to see the might aussies complain about this! I still remember the match between india and Aussies 2008 sydney Micheal clarke edged kumble and dravid took it clean in the slip cordon and then Micheal Clarke stood his ground and waited for Steve Bucknor to deem him out when the ball clearly took a deviation of his gloves. I wonder where the ethics and morals disappeared then which are being preached by aussies now. What goes around Comes around. In India we call it Karma my friends

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:22 GMT

    This is why the limits on DRS appeals is silly. You should basically eliminate that, and let the umpire decide if he wants to use the DRS system.

    Short of that, players should basically announce at the beginning of a series: "I will respect the umpire's decision but will not walk because these things even out, right?"

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

    @214ty - you get more than 2 reviews if you don't waste them.

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:21 GMT

    Broad should have walked. There is no way Umpire Dar could have detected the edge and deflection off Haddin's gloves. Two people to criticize, Broad and Clark. He wasted his reviews and Broad did not display moral sportsmanship.

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:12 GMT

    So, what's the difference between this situation with Broad and the one recently with West Indies wicketkeeper Ramdin, who was suspended for two games for unsportsmanship behaviour, when he tried to take credit for a catch that had actually been dropped? Isn't this action by Broad to be considered unsportsmanlike behaviour also? Or do the authorities just look the other way because it's England?

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:12 GMT

    Feel sorry for Aleem. Poor decision but we are all only humans. He must be felling terrible tonight.

  • landl47 on July 12, 2013, 21:09 GMT

    Look, if (and I am not claiming it is the case) Trott edged the ball on which he was given out, he'd be even more frustrated, because he was given not out, the Australians reviewed and the third umpire overruled the decision and gave him out with incomplete technology to help him. It's the rub of the green, mistakes happen.

    Siddle's comments are perfectly fine. The Aussies were disappointed not to get the decision, but put it behind them and got on with it. That's the way it should be.

    This decision was certainly no worse than one given by Billy Bowden in the 2011 England v. India series, when he gave Tendulkar not out to a ball which pitched on off, hit him middle and off and would have hit 2/3rds of the way up middle. The bowler on that occasion was ....Stuart Broad. Should anyone be surprised that Broad didn't give himself out?

  • truguynese on July 12, 2013, 21:07 GMT

    This is very interesting, I am west indian, Ramdin was suspended for two games for claiming a catch. Lets see how fair they are. I am waiting with bated breath to see how much games Broad will get . I've always maintained there are two sets of rules.One for "US" and one for "THEM".

  • on July 12, 2013, 20:56 GMT

    And this is the problem with the current version of DRS. This wouldn't have happened if Australia didn't use their reviews on 50/50 calls and saved it for "The Howler" as it was designed for. Until technology advances to the point where hotspot is able to be calculated for every ball in a matter of seconds, allowing the third umpire to make reviews of the decisions of every ball and taking it out of the hands of the players this will keep happening and the DRS will be an inherently flawed system.

  • 214ty on July 12, 2013, 20:53 GMT

    I had mention once before that 2 reviews in an inngs in a test match is ridiculous. Imagine an inng going for almost 2 days and 150 overs bowled - can you justify only 2 reviews for 930 balls? That is why umpires need to maximize the use of DRS and ICC need to revisit the "review" quota.

  • 214ty on July 12, 2013, 20:40 GMT

    So I view this as one for one. Trot for Australia Broad for England. But what happens to umpires when they make these inexcusable errors. Why are they not fined 10% of their match fees just like the players are fined for misconduct? If the umpires has the authority to use the DRS and they didn't use it they should be fined. I bet you they will make the right decisions the next time. We need to stop making excuses for umpires. They are making more of a difference in the game than the players. This is a big game, there is no room for these blunt umpire errors.

  • cloudmess on July 12, 2013, 20:35 GMT

    I feel more sorry for Aleem Dar right now than Australia...

  • sidzy on July 12, 2013, 20:13 GMT

    I agree with Warnie where was Dar in ashes 2005 with Martyn's decisions...

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • sidzy on July 12, 2013, 20:13 GMT

    I agree with Warnie where was Dar in ashes 2005 with Martyn's decisions...

  • cloudmess on July 12, 2013, 20:35 GMT

    I feel more sorry for Aleem Dar right now than Australia...

  • 214ty on July 12, 2013, 20:40 GMT

    So I view this as one for one. Trot for Australia Broad for England. But what happens to umpires when they make these inexcusable errors. Why are they not fined 10% of their match fees just like the players are fined for misconduct? If the umpires has the authority to use the DRS and they didn't use it they should be fined. I bet you they will make the right decisions the next time. We need to stop making excuses for umpires. They are making more of a difference in the game than the players. This is a big game, there is no room for these blunt umpire errors.

  • 214ty on July 12, 2013, 20:53 GMT

    I had mention once before that 2 reviews in an inngs in a test match is ridiculous. Imagine an inng going for almost 2 days and 150 overs bowled - can you justify only 2 reviews for 930 balls? That is why umpires need to maximize the use of DRS and ICC need to revisit the "review" quota.

  • on July 12, 2013, 20:56 GMT

    And this is the problem with the current version of DRS. This wouldn't have happened if Australia didn't use their reviews on 50/50 calls and saved it for "The Howler" as it was designed for. Until technology advances to the point where hotspot is able to be calculated for every ball in a matter of seconds, allowing the third umpire to make reviews of the decisions of every ball and taking it out of the hands of the players this will keep happening and the DRS will be an inherently flawed system.

  • truguynese on July 12, 2013, 21:07 GMT

    This is very interesting, I am west indian, Ramdin was suspended for two games for claiming a catch. Lets see how fair they are. I am waiting with bated breath to see how much games Broad will get . I've always maintained there are two sets of rules.One for "US" and one for "THEM".

  • landl47 on July 12, 2013, 21:09 GMT

    Look, if (and I am not claiming it is the case) Trott edged the ball on which he was given out, he'd be even more frustrated, because he was given not out, the Australians reviewed and the third umpire overruled the decision and gave him out with incomplete technology to help him. It's the rub of the green, mistakes happen.

    Siddle's comments are perfectly fine. The Aussies were disappointed not to get the decision, but put it behind them and got on with it. That's the way it should be.

    This decision was certainly no worse than one given by Billy Bowden in the 2011 England v. India series, when he gave Tendulkar not out to a ball which pitched on off, hit him middle and off and would have hit 2/3rds of the way up middle. The bowler on that occasion was ....Stuart Broad. Should anyone be surprised that Broad didn't give himself out?

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:12 GMT

    Feel sorry for Aleem. Poor decision but we are all only humans. He must be felling terrible tonight.

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:12 GMT

    So, what's the difference between this situation with Broad and the one recently with West Indies wicketkeeper Ramdin, who was suspended for two games for unsportsmanship behaviour, when he tried to take credit for a catch that had actually been dropped? Isn't this action by Broad to be considered unsportsmanlike behaviour also? Or do the authorities just look the other way because it's England?

  • on July 12, 2013, 21:21 GMT

    Broad should have walked. There is no way Umpire Dar could have detected the edge and deflection off Haddin's gloves. Two people to criticize, Broad and Clark. He wasted his reviews and Broad did not display moral sportsmanship.