Investec Ashes 2013

Take DRS off players' hands - Haddin

Daniel Brettig

July 16, 2013

Comments: 215 | Text size: A | A

James Anderson and Matt Prior appeal to have Brad Haddin caught behind, England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 5th day, July 14, 2013
Brad Haddin was the 20th Australian wicket to fall at Trent Bridge, after an edge was detected by the DRS © PA Photos
Related Links

Decision referrals should be taken out of the hands of players and left as a tool of international umpires, Australia's vice-captain Brad Haddin believes. A central and heroic figure in the closing passage of the Trent Bridge Test, Haddin also admitted he knew he had hit the ball that ended the match, and had no problem at all with Stuart Broad's decision not to walk after a much thicker edge on the third evening.

The drawbacks of a review system used by the players became clear at Trent Bridge, as the one most obvious errors was left to have a huge bearing on the result while a string of other more marginal calls were debated over due to the players' instincts to review anything they thought was out. As wicketkeeper, Haddin was a key man in Australia's flawed use of the system during the match, and said it was a consistent challenge to take emotion out of decision referrals.

"I personally think the umpires might as well use the reviews. I don't think they need to be in the players' hands, to be honest," Haddin said. "I see nothing wrong with what Stuart did. The umpire is there to make the decision and he has seen it different to everyone else.

"That's what the system was brought in for, the howler. The system is the same for both teams, we just haven't used it very well. That's the bottom line. We have to take emotion out of the decision and go on what we see. If you think it's out, challenge it. We obviously got it wrong this Test but it might be different next Test."

Haddin's views on the use of the system mirror those of the former umpire Daryl Harper, who said decisions should be left with the appointed decision-makers rather than turned into a tactical device by the players. "If this current system is the best we can come up with then something is wrong," Harper told The Advertiser. "If the reviews were taken out of the players' hands and given to the umpires then eventually the stronger performing umpires would emerge and be identified by the lesser number of reviewed decisions.

"In the third umpire's chair, a full time television umpiring analyst would act swiftly and without fear or favour. That is what the umpires wanted in the first place, five years ago. Once Australia frittered its reviews away with poor judgment, then the door was opened for a howler and Stuart Broad's non-dismissal was a howler."

Broad's reprieve was a telling moment of a great match, but so too was Haddin's innings on the final day, when he guided the tail to within 15 runs of victory before succumbing to the thinnest of edges behind from the bowling of James Anderson. Haddin made a calculated attack on Steven Finn, and said Australia had to do their best to tire Anderson, taking advantage of the fact that England rely on him so much more than any other bowler.

"Obviously Jimmy was the difference. He was at you the whole time. I had the opportunity when Finn came on to force the game a little bit," Haddin said. "I had the feeling England didn't really want to bowl him. I was always going to go then and see where it got to, see if they could bring Jimmy back quicker than they wanted to. In the end it worked against me, he got me in the end.

"He has shown over a long period of time that he has got a pretty big engine. It's obvious he is the one we've got to work through. He bowled extremely well in difficult conditions for fast bowlers. It's important to get him bowling a lot of overs. My mindset was to take the game to Finn because I had the feel England didn't really want to bowl him when the pressure was on."

Australia's response to pressure was variable across the match, but Haddin's innings reflected a fearless approach first taken by the 19-year-old debutant Ashton Agar. "He was pretty relaxed actually, bulletproof. A 19-year-old kid playing in his first Test match with no fear," Haddin said. "Whether he understood the enormity of the situation he just watched the ball, blocked the ones on the stumps and hit the ones off the stumps. He was just enjoying the whole time. He showed us how to play, he didn't play on reputation, he just played on watch the ball and hit it.

"He's a pretty intelligent kid, he knows what he's trying to do with the ball and the bat. It'll be interesting to see how he handles the second Test after all the emotion of your first Test."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Daniel Brettig

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by coldcoffee123 on (July 18, 2013, 11:50 GMT)

England MUST be penalized 5 runs for abusive use of DRS. Joe Root used DRS for LBW, as a tactical review after consulting with his partner. That is exactly the problem with DRS. Any player wanting to use DRS must use it WITHOUT consulting any other person. If you genuinely feel hard-done by the umpire, use DRS. But not for tactical purposes. Penalize the team that uses it for tactical purposes. England are 2 wickets down, and honestly I could not enjoy the 2 moments, because umpire's decision is no longer the final verdict. DRS is a not a joke, but its implementation is.

Posted by bundybear55 on (July 18, 2013, 8:21 GMT)

The DRS was introduced to get rid of the howlers. It's never going to work if the captains and players insist on using it to try and get marginal calls to go their way. Don't blame Broad, don't blame Aleem Dar, don't blame the ICC - its not their fault the captain had used up his reviews by the time the howler came along...!!

Posted by Wefinishthis on (July 18, 2013, 3:17 GMT)

Finchy63 - Great point which is why if DRS was implemented the way I see it, Dar would have signalled his intention to go upstairs, creating 30 seconds of tension and heart-attacks, and then at the end raised the finger. In another scenario, the 3rd umpire could have got on a call with Dar and said "hang on a sec, I think that one might have been wrong" but personally I like the former scenario where the umpire gets on a call with the 3rd umpire, but this is providing that DRS is tuned to be MUCH faster for the easier calls (<15 seconds) and more consistent (which it would be if there was a discussion with the field umpire and they had the last say). Ideally, a less than 30 second consultation on those line-ball decisions wouldn't slow the game down alot, PLUS we'd get back to the real cricket tradition of the umpire giving a batsman the finger rather than a screen (except in run outs) and brings back the celebration of when a batsmen is out, they're out. No more half-celebrations.

Posted by landl47 on (July 18, 2013, 3:07 GMT)

Sorry, salman.ali.rai, but without going any further than this match your proposals fall down.

First, why have you arbitrarily selected catches as being allowed unlimited reviews, but LBWs some (unspecified) limit? A poor review is a poor review, whatever it's for.

Second, your proposal on LBWs is that only the place the ball pitched and any contact with the bat be checked. However, where the ball hit the batsman is also one of the requirements and, most importantly, whether the ball would have hit the wicket. Under your scenario Bell would have been out even though the ball was clearly missing the stumps.

It seems to me that your proposals were put together to accommodate the Broad situation without thinking about what else would be involved. Back to the drawing board.

Posted by   on (July 18, 2013, 2:19 GMT)

Have to agree with Haddin. Take it out of the player's hands. Test cricket is such that there is time after each ball for the third umpire to watch a replay. If he sees something that looks wrong, as all us armchair experts are also able to see, he can whisper into the on-field umpire's ear to hold up play while he reviews it further, thus ensuring that the correct decision is made. Very simple and will eliminate all howlers and 99% of other errors. Also eliminates the situation where player's have to decide whether or not it is worth risking a challenge on something they are not sure of. Also reduces time wasting as frivolous challenges no longer occur. At the end of the day the important thing is getting as many decisions correct as possible.

Posted by Test-Cricket on (July 17, 2013, 22:05 GMT)

They need to take the reviews out of captains/players hand and leave it on umpires(including third umpire).. Why are we not using Third Umpire effectively ? If it is an howler, then third umpire can immediately correct the on field umpire. And in case of on field umpire's having slightest of the doubts, then they need to immediately ask third umpire to check if the decision is correct.. I don't think time is a problem in test cricket..

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 20:41 GMT)


Of course the issue with "Umpire's Call" is when different umpires give very similar decisions different ways. This wouldn't actually be any different with third umpires (Oxenford gave Bell out stumped in the Champions Trophy final while Erasmus said Agar was not out in very similar circumstances).

That's why I think if people's objection is that almost identical decisions are being decided differently (and I agree with that; Root lbw to Starc was turned down, but Watson, and worse still, Rogers from around the wicket, were given) I understand their resentment. I hate seeing inconsistency as much as anyone.

The problem is, I'm not sure giving the power to the third umpire would cause any more consistency in decisions. Trusting HawkEye, warts and all, accepting margin of error and making it the same for every side, should do.

We can't eliminate bad decisions, but if we can ensure a) more right ones and b) more consistency, so all sides are judged equally, why not?

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 20:34 GMT)

@salman.ali.rai We do see people argue about HawkEye more than hotspot, which is weird because hotspot is less reliable than HawkEye. A good example is the Root nick down the legside. There was a noise. It was given out. Hotspot didn't show any mark. Doesn't mean he didn't hit it (I don't think he did, but several Australian fans have argued he did based on the noise, and that's fair enough).

Besides, there were plenty of complaints about the hotspot in this one, trust me. If it wasn't the Haddin nick (which he has confirmed) it was the Clarke one. Feels like the complaints about HawkEye from the BCCI have convinced people of falsehoods.

It's not 100% accurate. But the margin of error is very very small (5mm on average based on Tests conducted by the MCC) as long as the batsman isn't struck 2 metres or more from the stumps. And even then the margin is 25mm. Which is less than a stump's width. That's why clipping reviews are "umpire's call" (which covers 45mm).


Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Daniel BrettigClose
Daniel Brettig Assistant editor Daniel Brettig had been a journalist for eight years when he joined ESPNcricinfo, but his fascination with cricket dates back to the early 1990s, when his dad helped him sneak into the family lounge room to watch the end of day-night World Series matches well past bedtime. Unapologetically passionate about indie music and the South Australian Redbacks, Daniel's chief cricketing achievement was to dismiss Wisden Almanack editor Lawrence Booth in the 2010 Ashes press match in Perth - a rare Australian victory that summer.
Tour Results
England v Australia at Southampton - Sep 16, 2013
Australia won by 49 runs
England v Australia at Cardiff - Sep 14, 2013
England won by 3 wickets (with 3 balls remaining)
England v Australia at Birmingham - Sep 11, 2013
No result
England v Australia at Manchester - Sep 8, 2013
Australia won by 88 runs
England v Australia at Leeds - Sep 6, 2013
Match abandoned without a ball bowled
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days