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).


Posted by Finchy63 on (July 17, 2013, 18:29 GMT)

I really don't agree with Haddin's position. In my mind, it would place an incredible amount of extra pressure on the umpire, leading to player clashes, and player/umpire clashes. Imagine the scenario in the two decisions at Trent Bridge. Dar gives Broad not out - now, maybe he sees the Aussie reaction and thinks 'ok, I should review this.' But he gave Broad not out, so if he chooses not to review it, suddenly the Aussie are pressuring him, instead of kicking themselves that they used up the last review for the Pattinson LBW shout. Then for the Haddin review to end the game, if it's solely in the umpire's hands, this time with a far less obvious nick, and with Anderson not really appealing - the umpire does not go for the review, and Cook, Prior etc begin pressuring him to do so. I say leave it to the captains as is, and they need to learn to use them better, as Strauss, Cook have done. Maybe have the umpire have one review per innings.

Posted by salman.ali.rai on (July 17, 2013, 16:49 GMT)

H_Z_O: I don't oppose what you're saying. Sure the DRS can simply give it out once it is confirmed that the ball is hitting the stumps (doesn't matter by how much) but I am sure many people wouldn't be satisfied with the ball tracking/path prediction feature of HawkEye. Folks in India oppose DRS mainly because the HawkEye is unreliable. I haven't seen people objecting to HawkEye's ability to tell us if the ball pitched outside leg or not or the hotspot showing an edge or not (some exceptions are there such as Trot dismissal) but we do see people arguing if the technology is good enough to predict what's going to happen after the ball pitches. Anyways I hope we do see a major improvement in the administration of the DRS.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 16:12 GMT)

@salman.ali.rai the point of the DRS is not to remove the howlers, it's to remove a bad decision. Was Haddin's edge a howler? So should that have stood as not-out? Haddin's said he hit it, he waited for the umpire because that's his right (and I've never condemned anyone not walking). But the right decision was reached.

"it is too controversial"

Where it shows the ball plumb hitting or completely missing, it isn't at all.

"we have see instances where a batsman was given LBW on review just cz the ball was hitting 10% of the stumps (umpires call) and a batsman given not out on review just cz the ball was hitting less than 50 % of the stumps."

Or just fix that small problem? If you have a cut finger do you have it amputated?

There are fixes to that, like making that either out or not out uniformly. I wouldn't oppose that, and I think "out" would be better. If the ball had missed the pads and clipped the stumps, removing the bails, you'd be out bowled. That's what the bat's for ;).

Posted by symsun on (July 17, 2013, 15:53 GMT)

There should be No limit for DRS. Penalty runs is not a good idea. If the bowling team fails in DRS, reduce teams match fees for each failure. If fails twice of the same bowler, then the bowler should not be allowed to bowl further in the innings. And if the batsman fails in DRS, reduce teams match fee for each failure and obviously he is going to walk out. Justice should not be prevented for next coming batsman or bowler by keeping limits.

Posted by salman.ali.rai on (July 17, 2013, 15:03 GMT)

H_Z_O: Well there is going to be a trade off at some point. The whole point of having a DRS system is to remove the howlers and for an LBW shout, only two things can make it a howler, first that the ball pitched outside leg stump and second the batsman got an edge and was given out. I still don't think that we can label an LBW decision a howler based on Hawkeye saying it was going on top or missing the legstump. It is too controversial and we have see instances where a batsman was given LBW on review just cz the ball was hitting 10% of the stumps (umpires call) and a batsman given not out on review just cz the ball was hitting less than 50 % of the stumps. So to eliminate this, I would much rather go with the instinct of the umpire and focus on removing much bigger howlers.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 14:42 GMT)

Posted by Green_and_Gold on (July 16, 2013, 13:15 GMT) "Howlers are normally identified pretty quickly. Be it a massive edge like broad or an LBW thats hits the bat first - watching it on TV you pick up that there has been a mistake pretty fast"

And yet as you reveal in this post watching on TV you thought Broad had a massive edge, whereas we know that he didn't and that the appearance of a 'massive edge' was given by Haddin's deflection to slip! So yes there was a mistake, you and numerous Aussie commentators still propagate it, there was no massive edge.

Posted by Jagger on (July 17, 2013, 13:35 GMT)

Get rid of DRS altogether and make the umpires accountable.

Posted by itsthewayuplay on (July 17, 2013, 13:10 GMT)

Limiting the referrals to one per team would encourage teams to use DRS for the reason for which it was introduced and not or tactical purposes. The current limit of 2 referrals per team per innings implies that there are up to 4 howlers committed by umpires in each innings and up to 16 per test which in turn implies the on-field umpires are not up to it. The 3rd umpire should also have the power to intervene / over-rule in the case of howlers missed by the on-field umpires because ultimately we want to reach the correct decision with minimum interrupton to the flow of the game. With Broad's non-dismissal, a quick word by the 3rd umpire to indicate there was a healthy edge would have ensured the correct decision had been reached and even England couldn't have complained. For lbws the umpire is best placed to decide whether the ball is going to hit the stumps so happy to stay with umpires except for howlers where again the 3rd umpire with the benefit of technology could overrule.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 12:40 GMT)

Why would you put more pressure on Umpires when you are not able to use DRS properly. Now a days umpires ask for 3rd umpires for every run out even when they are out by huge margin. The only reason they do it because of pressure on them. Players appeal at least once or twice in an over for LBW or catch. If DRS is handed over to umpires, it would put immense pressure on them, lower their confidence and ask for DRS review for each and every appeal. That would be a waste of time. Handing over DRS to umpires would do nothing good other than lower their confidence in decisions. Umpires should have more powers and players need to use DRS properly.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 12:39 GMT)

@ONE4U : well no one understands that. the reason given is that the third umpire gets to watch the replays late by the time the bowler may start bowling next delivery. In an ideal world there would be robots on the ground in place of umpire who would have inbuilt DRS technology with multiple technologies and their support sensors. The only problems in that case would be that the umpire would not be able to duck when Gayle hits a shot in his direction.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 12:06 GMT)

@salman.ali.ra I'm not sure how that would have been any better. Bell would have been out undeservedly just to ensure Broad was out deservedly? There are several ways to ensure the latter without the former.

If "umpire's call" reviews didn't cost reviews, Australia would have still had one for Broad (Starc lbw review against Root).

If Michael Clarke hadn't reviewed an lbw against Bairstow that anyone could see was sliding down leg, they'd have still had one for Broad.

If they got fresh reviews for the second new ball (longer innings = more appeals, more chances of an error), they'd have had two for Broad (who probably would've been given out lbw on review earlier than the catch).

None of those would have ended in an injustice. The idea of limiting lbws to where the ball pitched (which wouldn't have changed the Hughes decision) and to if there was an edge (which wouldn't have changed the Trott one) would have (Bell out lbw with the ball missing the stumps by a good margin).

Posted by Karnor on (July 17, 2013, 11:03 GMT)

Giving reviews to the umpires wouldn't work. The players would then pressure the umpire to review every decision they make, just in case it is wrong. And the umpire would feel under pressure to do so because they would look very stupid if they did happen to get one wrong. It would hugely slow the game down.

When was the last time you saw an umpire give a run out or stumping without reviewing it? I see the batsmen walking for run outs more often.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 10:54 GMT)

@Andross "If at the end of the innings, none of the reviews have been used? Who cares?"

Exactly. Worth noting England had a review left at the end of their first innings and two left at the end of every further innings in the match. That's not just because of successful reviews either; they didn't review a single decision during the Australian first innings. They only reviewed one during their own second innings (Bell's lbw).

Other than Finn's rather hilarious use of a review in the first innings for one he had blatantly nicked, England rarely chanced their luck with a review.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 9:20 GMT)

We have to remember in this test match, the middle older failed in both innings and it was left to the tail to keep Australia in the game. Whilst I enjoyed Ashton's innings, the failure of the top 5 batsmen put enormous pressure on the young teenage debutant, which I think is just terrible. The batsmen showed self scentedness by reviewing obviously correct decisions (namely Shane Watson, as he usually does). This opened the door for howlers to cost them. Lets face it the Australian batsmen lost this test, not the umpires, DRS or whatever. I think its a complete copout to say Aleem Dar and Marais Erasmus lost the match for Australia. The batsmen need to pull their fingers out.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 8:51 GMT)

More than DRS taking out of players, Umpires should be made accountable for their mistakes/ decisions, All caught behinds they have to refer to third umpire if there is an element of doubt like wise run outs.Aleem dar should have referred Stuart broads decision of not out with 3rd umpire.Why then umpires go upstairs for checking no ball after giving out,which is unacceptable.If a team used it reviews unsuccessfully it doesn't mean they have to suffer like broads decision.

As far as howlers are concerned, considering the spirit of Game, in player& team ratings it has to be considered. Then in future claiming bump catches and batsmen waiting for umpires decision on caught behind will come to an end.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 8:27 GMT)

I don't really understand why the Broad catch is the big DRS news from this test - the issue is simple, the Australian's are not very clever at using the system. No wonder Haddin want to be relieved of the responsibility that inevitably falls on the keeper. To me the big DRS story was Erasmus incorrectly overturning the on-field umpire's decision to give Trott not out (as has now been confirmed by the ICC). How often does DRS overturn the correct decision?

Posted by ONE4U on (July 17, 2013, 8:11 GMT)

Why don't the 3rd Umpire constantly monitors the proceedings and wherever he deems necessary should intervene and advise the onfield umpire to change the decision of out or not out.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 6:55 GMT)

lol this is like.. if DRS is the Court law .. giving the law to the criminals to correct his mistakes :P duh ! grow up .. they will never use it hahhaha

Posted by shortsillypoint on (July 17, 2013, 6:38 GMT)

Haddin is right for a change - the DRS is not being used as it was designed. Teams are using it as part of the tactics. The umpires need to take more control over the referrals. In test cricket time is not that immediate so if the umpire or umpires are unsure if there was an edge for example, then they can refer it. Take the players out of the equation.

Posted by to_belong_to_other_nations on (July 17, 2013, 5:58 GMT)

Surely it's simple. give each team ONE review only, for the whole test match. Then you only use it if you are absolutely certain the decision is wrong. If you use it correctly I can't see why you would ever need more than one.

Posted by joseyesu on (July 17, 2013, 5:30 GMT)

So till you are get caough, you can do all approach. That what i understand from "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"

Posted by crick_sucks on (July 17, 2013, 3:50 GMT)

completely agree with Haddin. DRS was brought in not to give 100% accurate results(which is currently not possible with the available technology) but to get rid of howlers as the ones of Trott and SB. But what happened was just the opposite. DRS should be used to assist the umpires and as another tool/skill for the captains. Until this is fixed I am sure IND will not buy this idea of DRS.

Posted by Andross on (July 17, 2013, 3:42 GMT)

@thekaz Or say more where it arrived at an incorrect decision. I agree, as an Aussie, the fact that we squandered our reviews on marginal LBWs is no one's fault but our own. It is something that Australia is probably the worst at in Test cricket, and something that we need to improve. If at the end of the innings, none of the reviews have been used? Who cares? If there had been a shocker on the last ball of the innings, you would have been able to counter it. Lehmann needs to tell the players, do not review ANY LBW decision unless you KNOW decisively, that there was or was not an edge. if its just a question of line, don't even bother, you will get just as many wrong as you will get right.

Posted by Cricket_theBestGame on (July 17, 2013, 3:30 GMT)

DRS should be take out of players hand. its clear how players will try to squeeze advantage out of it and when really needed they no longer have any left. plus it delays the game.

i mean its common sense. don't know why icc can't see it. let 3rd umpire inform the onfield umpire that "hey i think there is an edge in there". 3rd umpire should watch each over as the on field umpire but with technology at his disposal. and umpire should be able to check if there is any doubt.

like run outs, aren't the run outs initiated to 3rd level on the appeal of players by the on field umpire?! so if an appeal is made and umpire is not sure then refer it 3rd umpire. simple. whats so difficult about it ICC !!!

Posted by pakoz on (July 17, 2013, 2:14 GMT)

There is nothing wrong with the current system. Such problems occur only when one team has used their DRS quota & can not challenge umpire's howler. From last few years it is clear that 2 reviews are not enough per innings. If it is made to 4 or 5 per innings such problems would not occur. Umpires also feel pressure when they know it is all upto them & there no review left. Aleem Dar played safe for Haddin dismissal, he was doubtful but decided to give Haddin not out, because he knew Eng had one review left & they could get right decision thourgh it. Simple solution is to increase reviews from 2 to 4.

Posted by couchpundit on (July 17, 2013, 2:09 GMT)

LOL...i have seen hadding goading ricky ponting to use DRS and fail miserably and consistently.....especially he is very poor judge of line and length...wonder dearth of quality wicket keepers in Australia.

Haddin single handedly making a mess of australia's chance of securing proper Review.

I am not surprised he wants the system to be left with Umpires.....but Mr.Haddin MCC will consider such request only if it comes form English players..oops i mean players playing for england and wales cricket board.

Posted by Meety on (July 17, 2013, 1:11 GMT)

@landl47 on (July 16, 2013, 17:02 GMT) - bad sportsmanship will always haunt Broad - you know those pesky shoes & running down the middle of the pitch deliberately.

Posted by WandererMatt on (July 17, 2013, 0:55 GMT)

The problem with the above comment about letting the umpires make the decision is that currently if an umpire is unsure on a decision they can just go to the third umpire at any time. Broads decision was that the umpire though he might have nicked the ball and so got it wrong, because if he wasn't 100% sure it was not out he would have asked for a review by the 3rd umpire. I think they players do need to have some control and the 2 unsuccessful reviews works (however as someone else said if it's a line ball then it shouldn't go against either team and shouldn't be counted as an unsuccessful review). However the third umpire also needs to have to option to be able to stop play if they see a howler and tell the onfield umpires that he wants to review the decision based on what he saw. No one wants a howler and if the third umpire is given the opportunity to intervene on the howlers then that is what should happen.

Posted by Secunderabadi on (July 16, 2013, 23:43 GMT)

If the umpires decision is reversed reduce the match fees for the Umpire. If the Umpire was correct fine the team requesting the referal- Bowling team -entire team to be fined and for the batting team the two batsmen.

That way they will all think before making a challenge.

If the third umpire feels that the decision on field was wrong he could ask for a pause of play and review thus saving his and his collegues match fees.

Posted by chirpi on (July 16, 2013, 21:18 GMT)

It seems totally logical that a tool like DRS (the name withstanding) is better used to help the umpire make right decisions when they are in doubt rather than used by players to overturn/appeal the umpire's decision.

If later is the case then we can do away with umpires entirely and let players directly make all appeals to DRS to save misery to all involved.

Posted by LeeHallam on (July 16, 2013, 19:21 GMT)

The system works fine as it is. The technology will improve, but the failings are mostly due to third umpire errors, and teams wasting their reviews. If the umpires get responsibility for reviews, they will use it for every one. Just look at run outs and stumpings.

Posted by coldcoffee123 on (July 16, 2013, 18:46 GMT)

DRS must be take out of the hands of the fielding side COMPLETELY. Batsmen should be allowed DRS for edges ONLY. LBW... If fielders can drop catches, bowlers can bowl no balls, wides, and batsmen can get out for zero, why not let umpires make an error of judgment?. The LBW decisions MUST solely be made by the on-field umpires, with NO challenges whatsoever. Only in the case of edges, should a batsman be allowed to review. On review, if it is found that there was no bat was involved, the batting team should be penalized 5 runs. This will stop the abusive use of DRS w.r.t LBW. Regarding ball's height at impact, ball's pitch, trajectory, everything MUST be solely decided by on-field umpires with NO challenges. If the umpire makes a mistake in judging the ball's pitch, height, trajectory, then so be it. Live with it. CATCHES... If a batsmen thinks he never edged, and he is given out, he should be allowed to review. If the review shows an edge, the batting team should be penalized 5 runs.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 16, 2013, 18:19 GMT)

@Clifford Jenner problem is whether an lbw was "marginal" is often clouded by our own biases. Rogers was hit in front of leg by a right arm bowler around the wicket. Starc had Root hit in front of middle bowling left-arm over. Those are both cases, I think, where the traditional decision would have been the other way round (Rogers not-out, Root out) and in both cases not only was the opposite decision reached, in both cases it was "against" Australia and Australia lost reviews in the process. That will (as it has) cause resentment and if that resentment continues, I'd be surprised if the DRS lasts. That would be a far bigger shame than having more marginal lbws reviewed.

I'm an England fan, I don't think the DRS cost Australia a win, but I do think they've been on the wrong end of a lot more of those marginal lbws than we were. If being on the end of some of those caused them to "waste" reviews and ultimately meant Broad got away with it, you can understand the resentment.

Posted by landl47 on (July 16, 2013, 18:02 GMT)

Haddin has done the game a huge service, in my view. By admitting he hit the ball and knew he had hit it, at one stroke he removes any doubt about the need for the DRS, he removes any doubt that England won the game fair and square and he kills the 'bad sportsmanship' accusation against Stuart Broad by pointing out that professional cricketers leave the decisions to the umpires. Haddin could have said nothing, but he has made the choice which was in the best interests of cricket. I always liked him, he plays the game with a smile, but now he is right at the top of my list of favourite players.

I agree, and have said here often, that the entire game should be in the hands of the umpires. The 'too much delay' argument is nonsense, there are only around 10 decisions per game which are tricky and 2 minutes on each is 20 minutes in 5 days. The players waste more time than that on unofficial drinks breaks. If they are ready to go once the decision is given the delay will be minimal.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 17:42 GMT)

The problem with giving the review back if it was umpires call on an LBW, is that you would get even more marginal LBW's reviewed.

If the umpire makes a howler, but the umpire is sure his decision is correct, then why would the umpire then review it? He believes he is right. then you would get players surounding the umpire trying to get his decision changed by intimindation, similar to football.

The system that is currently working is the best solution, the captains have to just not gamble on marginal calls. I'm guessing, but with the Root decision, they decided that is was marginal and was likely not going to be overturned.

Having the 3rd umpire do all the reviews, why then even have umpires on the field.As they will only be counting to 6. If all decisions went to review, we would get about 10 hours per hour.

Posted by CricketLifer on (July 16, 2013, 17:35 GMT)

Suddenly all these parties that were ridiculing India for not wanting DRS and accusing that Indians' do not know how to use it on the field are now asking for putting it back in Umpires' hands. Why not make it very simple - give all marginal decisions as Outs and review ALL Outs as a matter of habit.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 17:05 GMT)

I think DRS made a good positive impact in the match excluding Trotts decision. England might have lost if not for DRS in the end, how unfair that would have been? It is not DRS's fault, but captains need to use it properly. I favour the current system where captains have the decision to use DRS, it should not be with the same umpire who makes the initial mistake

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 17:05 GMT)

Master__Chief: You're hypothetical situation is broken. You state that no one notices the edge. And then bring up the question of why the umpire didn't review the decision? Well for starters there would be no review of the decision because the players didn't appeal if no one noticed it.

To have someone dismissed in cricket, you actually have to appeal.

Posted by thekaz on (July 16, 2013, 16:34 GMT)

People mentioning the 'skill' of using the DRS. The skill of using the DRS is using it how it is intended to be used. It's taken a little while for players to adjust to the system, and Cook is the first to begin using it correctly. When used how it should be used, not for marginal decisions, it works. The funny thing is, the only incident in the game where DRS was used incorrectly was for the Trott dismissal.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 16, 2013, 16:26 GMT)

@Whatsgoinoffoutthere yeah, that's exactly what I mean. Those aren't frivolous, so even if we leave it with the on-field umpire's decision (and I see why that's done, it maintains the legitimacy of the umpire where we cannot prove they were wrong), it seems harsh to penalise a team for asking for a review that their senses are telling them is a legitimate one. They're human beings as much as the umpires, after all.

I don't think there's a huge amount wrong with the current system. That is one of a handful of problems (how much of the ball needs to pitch in line, for example, must be consistent across different countries, technology should be supplied by the ICC, not the TV broadcasters etc) but I don't think it needs the drastic changes that are being suggested by some. The players, by and large, use it well. It can be improved but removing it from the players would be a backward step.

Despite the BCCI's stance, India used it well in the Champions Trophy, ensuring the best team won.

Posted by Calypso_Kid on (July 16, 2013, 16:01 GMT)

H_Z_O is spot on about not losing a review on umpire's call.

Sorry Madras_boy, you are wrong about the BCCI attitude. Correct decisions have gone from 90% to 98% with DRS. This Test was unusual because two howlers got through. Before DRS, every second test match was tainted by wrong decisions. As for "improve the umpiring standards instead' - what, they didn't try to do that for 100 years before DRS came along???

And would all the armchair critics who've never played a season of serious cricket cut the moralising about walking? There are two reasons why batsmen in serious cricket rarely walk:

1. Every instinct of a batsman is survival and NOT getting out. To expect them to instantly throw that into reverse is to expect gladiators to fall on their swords and humans to act like angels.

2. Play a season of serious cricket and count the times you are given caught off the hip or LBW to snicks, and you will very quickly decide that when a mistake goes your way you will take it.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 15:44 GMT)

For each wrong referral by the fielding side, the batsman should get 4 runs. For each decision overturned in favour of batsman, the batsman should get 4 runs. And number of referrals should be unlimited.

Posted by kumarcoolbuddy on (July 16, 2013, 15:39 GMT)

Haddin is coming up with this idea just because AUS couldn't use it properly. Initially DRS was called as UDRS (Umpire Decision Review System) and then left out U to make it as DRS. So I don't understand the concept of leaving DRS review decision to umpire. In first place DRS is not consistent and now these new ideas would making it even complicated.

Posted by bobbo2 on (July 16, 2013, 15:36 GMT)

Players need to use it better. Giving it to umpires would be a disaster

Posted by Slogger_John on (July 16, 2013, 15:28 GMT)

The fault here is use by players - DRS is NOT for marginal decisions (e.g. the lbw appeals on Root/Bairstow). Umpires call is there precisely to stop people gaming the system - it has to be a clear error.

The suggestion to hand it over to the umpires once you have run out of reviews is utterly ridiculous. The umpires will be under massive pressure to go upstairs for anything so we then move to a review every ball and we get 8 overs a day. Letting the 3rd umpire review as the game progresses is equally ridiculous - that incentivises slowing down the game so the 3rd umpire can watch it 20 times.

Before anyone suggests this was one sided lets not forget Agar was out on 6 in the first innings. If Erasmus was willing to OVERTURN the Trott lbw without hotspot - inconclusive, then Agar should have been given out. Australia profited to the tune of 150 runs. If Broad had been referred and given out and England had lost the remaining wickets for no addition, England only added 78.

Posted by Master___Chief on (July 16, 2013, 15:27 GMT)

Leaving DRS in hands of umpire is not going to be happen. Because this will lead to umpire checking for each possible out scenarios on every possible ball. Lets say we amend the rule and check for everything only when there is an appeal, then what stops the baller to appeal in his every ball.

Consider the scenario, 6 runs are needed in 2 balls and 1 wicket is remaining. In 1st bowl the ball gets the faintest of edges which no one notices and the keeper catches. But since no one had noticed, game continues. Now in the next ball batsman hits the ball for a 6 and wins the match for his team.

After some it will be discovered that ball brushed the bat, and then question will be raised that why didn't umpire referred. This thins can be applied in any other scenarios as well, not just in these crunch situation.

Not to mention that the time taken by Hotspot for its so called calibration; which would lenghten the game. Then only option left will be leave DRS and play like we used to in past.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 15:26 GMT)

"Posted by Chaitanya G. Kirtikar on (July 16, 2013, 10:49 GMT) Without prejudice to the walking issue and the spirit of cricket line of argument, this is not the first time Aleem Dar has missed an obvious edge to slip. " There was no missed 'obvious edge to slip' in this match!

"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."

What 'much thicker edge' Daniel? Do you mean the deflection from Haddin's gloves?

Posted by my_comments on (July 16, 2013, 15:23 GMT)

I think haddin is correct to some extent. but i think 3rd umpire should get a quicker replays and overturn any wrong decision even without the on-field umpire or players request. this would result in correct decision most of the time.

But if you know that you've hit the ball then you should walk. thats what ghilcrist, sanga and some others would have done even at crucial times of a match....

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 15:22 GMT)

If the DRS were to be taken out of the player's hands (IMHO) it would lessen the emotion - if/when there is a glaringly incorrect decision (or non-decision) the third umpire, or TMO as they're called in rugby, should get in the ear if the on field official and say, "just hold up, we'll look at that one". Allow the human element back into the on field umpire's decision making and remove the ever increasing reliance on the technology available....

.....that's just my two cents on it....

Posted by whatawicket on (July 16, 2013, 15:14 GMT)

a couple of points, some thought the haddin caught behind was iffy and was incorrect, the wicket keeper got a touch, gracious of him to clear what some were suggesting. as to the broad trying to make sure another over was not going to be bowled. this has been used by 1000s of cricketers over time some are good at it most get caught out and the result more times than not is failure. finally to lara 213 you say when your out your out that's not plainly true

Posted by ToneMalone on (July 16, 2013, 14:59 GMT)

Giving the DRS back to umpires would just swap some existing flaws for much larger problems. Imagine the pressure: it's a tense match on day five, there's an appeal every over, and each time the umpire says "not out", the fielding stares at him as if to go: "Really??? You're so confident that you won't even double-check?" Imagine the recriminations when an "overconfident" umpire, looking not to overuse DRS, is shown to be "wrong".

Looking back on the first Test, the two howlers had very little to do with faults in DRS protocols. For Trott, the third umpire overruled the on-field umpire's decision, despite having no clear evidence to do so. And the Broad decision could've been overturned, if only Michael Clarke had not been so flippant in his referrals.

At least the current system puts some accountability on the fielding side to be responsible. I'm sure Australia has learned this for the second Test, and hopefully the third umpire for that match will likewise follow DRS protocols.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 14:58 GMT)

Leave the DRS as it is with the batsman and skipper of the fielding side with unlimited reviews and deduct some runs for every wrong review from team total of that particular inning after 3 reviews. This will reduce the excessive reviews and rectify the umpire's errors

Posted by shankarv69 on (July 16, 2013, 14:56 GMT)

It is the players who needs wickets to win the match and not the umpires...You need to look at DRS and Review System separately...DRS is for the Umpires and Review System is for the players. Review System is an extension of appeal, which the teams has to use intelligently. Bowling teams appeal for a wicket and then only the umpire declares the batsman out or not out. He does not declare a batsman out, if he thinks so, without the appeal.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 16, 2013, 14:56 GMT)

@yoogi why not just stop depriving teams of reviews for marginal calls? Increasing the number of reviews wouldn't necessarily address the issue of marginal decisions because you may get very few marginal decisions against you (I'm not sure England had too many marginal decisions go against us in this match) and then would have 4 reviews to use "tactically".

I've said it before, give the reviewing side the review back if it's "umpire's call". You cannot expect players to be 100% sure of those, but nor can you say they shouldn't review any of them (especially batsmen who have very little to go on as to whether the ball would have hit the stumps, while their partners are usually focussed more on backing up properly).

I do like the idea of "resetting" reviews for every new ball, though, for both teams. If you still have 2, you don't get any extra, but if you've used 1 or 2, you go back to having 2 with the new ball. Batsmen too.

Posted by Whatsgoinoffoutthere on (July 16, 2013, 14:52 GMT)

@H_Z_O: If I've read your comment correctly, I think you're on to something when you suggest that "Umpire's Call" decisions that go against the side requesting the review should not cause that team to lose one of their reviews. It would promote the use of the system against decisions that really need looking at and still penalise the frivolous.

Personally, I have no problem with tactical use of the DRS. After all, cricket is one of the ultimate tactical games.

Posted by madras_boy on (July 16, 2013, 14:49 GMT)

Let's scrape DRS and concentrate on improving the umpiring standards. Broad example is a classical one for this. Take a bow to BCCI for not accepting DRS in any of their games.

Posted by bobmartin on (July 16, 2013, 14:48 GMT)

A couple of points...Haddin admits he hit the ball that eventually was given as out...Did he walk ? NO!! He waited for the umpire. So he could hardly say anything other than that he agreed with Broad not walking... Both incidents were at a crucial stage in the game... Australia frittered away their reviews and paid the price...England were more conservative and reaped the rewards....I'm sure the Aussies will have learned a valuable lesson...

Posted by Nampally on (July 16, 2013, 14:47 GMT)

I feel sad for Cricket as "A gentleman's sport" when a batsman caught in the slips refuses to walk. But more than that I am shocked at a highly paid professional Umpire turning a blind eye to something as basic as caught in the slips. Biggest howler of all is the justification by Media & some players that Broad was right in not walking even when he knew that he was out! This strikes @ basis of Cricket as Gentleman's sport. We often comment to any injustices done in our every day life by stating "This isn't cricket"!. When players try to capitalize on every mistake however bald it is, there is something wrong with the sport itself. Cricket then takes the sinister shape of "Politics". In politics you capitalize on every little ethical or morality issue. DRS is there to assist the Umpire in making a correct decision- not as a political tool to capitalize. Broad knew that the Aussies had ran out of challenges. If DRS is used make it unrestricted. For heaven's sake Keep Cricket as a Sport!

Posted by Mageelyn on (July 16, 2013, 14:45 GMT)

I am in total agreement with Brad Haddin that DRS should be used as a support tool to the umpires and not players. When a test match is competed in such a keen manner and at the end of the match players say saying "The umpire is there to make the decision...", really takes away the sportsmanship away from the game. I however, do not agree that when a batsman edge a ball that he should stay his ground and let the umpire makes a decision, it puts Unnecessary pressure on the umpire. For example when a batsman hits the ball in the outfield and he is caught, he walks, why when he edges it behind he does not walk? But in principle he should. Things like this are what brings the game in dispute and drives supporters away from the game.

Posted by A-Gunnie on (July 16, 2013, 14:37 GMT)

It is a certainly a valid point,let the umpires (including the 3rd) be involved in the dismissal decisions ; the whole reasons why they're in the game.The same same it is almost automatic for a close run-out call initiated by the standing umpires on the field.ICC have some tweaking to do with this and the D/L rule.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 14:36 GMT)

Why are we even discussing this? If umpires had the call they would had finished the game in 4 days. Agar was out stumped by Prior in the first innings. And the Broad dismissal was ruled not out by the on field umpire not because they wanted to they wished they had used DRS. It was an umpiring lapse which wouldn't be corrected by giving the control to fix the error back to the umpire. Australian media should stop pontificating and spend more attention to other news like the sacked coach Mikey Arthur's court case.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 14:29 GMT)

Everyone has got so distracted by the DRS in the First Test that they seem not have noticed that the umpiring was very poor. If the umpiring had been better, DRS need not have been involved.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 16, 2013, 14:28 GMT)

Yes, leave it in the hands of the third umpire. That way one third umpire (Erasmus) can give a stumping not-out while another (Oxenford) can give an almost identical one out (against Bell in the Champions Trophy).

The only difference leaving it to the third umpires would have made to this match is that England fans would be unhappy about the umpiring (Haddin's nick) instead of Aussie ones. Yes, the one really bad howler was Broad's edge, but that was such a bad decision it shouldn't have needed the DRS. Still can't believe the focus is on DRS instead of asking how the umpire missed something that obvious. If he was unsure, give Broad out and let Broad review.

The real issue is the "umpire's call". Australia lost a second innings review against Root for an lbw that was no less out than Rogers or Watson. It cost them a review which they could have used against Broad. I don't think teams should lose reviews if the ball is clipping the stumps. That's close enough to justify reviewing it.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 14:27 GMT)

I have always felt that technology has taken the human element out of the game.. I know nobody likes a bad decision but than again that used to be a part and parcel of the game. You get lucky one day maybe not so on another. That was the thing that made the game exciting. I know with TV replays and cameras the umpires are under constant pressure to deliver accurate decisions. But giving a little more power to the on field umpires would really help and people will stop complaining too. I don't think DRS should be used until its 100% accurate. There is no point using technology and getting wrong decisions while slowing the game down.

Posted by leave_it_to_the_umps on (July 16, 2013, 14:22 GMT)

I agree with the calls that any referal that is "umpires decision" should not be deducted as a review as the person is justified in calling that there was doubt as to whether it was out or not.

Also the number of referrals should be considered as 2 incorrect referrals in what could be 2 days of play does not appear to be enough. compared to tennis where you are allowed 2 per set!

Otherwise i think the referral system is good as it is - you cant ask onfield umpires to choose to refer as otherwise thye would refer everything marginal or not refer their howlers anyway cos they think they are correct! 3rd umpire would be a possibility but he would need to think quick cos the next ball could easily be bowleed before he has made any decison so not really practical!

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 14:19 GMT)

Seems an odd remedy to Aus's poor use to take it away from everyone and give it to the umpires. For one thing, if the ump thought his own decision was a howler, he would have given the other decision in the first place, so the only logical use this way would be to review every appeal, of which there could be many each day.

The current system works fine if used properly and the only change I would coinsider is reducing it from 2 to 1, which would hopefully reduce the temptation of taking a punt on marginal calls.

Posted by Green_and_Gold on (July 16, 2013, 14:15 GMT)

Howlers are normally identified pretty quickly. Be it a massive edge like broad or an LBW thats hits the bat first - watching it on TV you pick up that there has been a mistake pretty fast - its the close ones that take longer (and if they are close then its not really a howler). Why not have the 3rd umpire take a quick look at decisions in the back ground. in the broad incident the 3rd umpire could have quickly told the on field umpire that he spotted something and needed more time to check - same if a batsman is out - if the 3rd umpire thinks its not out they can review. I understand that there is an element of human error but the howlers need to be eliminated. We should use tech to better the decisions however this method has moved the first 2 howlers away from the umpire and given them to the captains. Clarkes 2nd review was a howler!

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 14:11 GMT)

Haddin is right, when a team use full quota of its DRS than umpire must taken responsibility of using DRS in right manner, umpire must insure that no any team will heart due to bad decision, they must use DRS in case of strong appeal from a team who use their quota of DRS in the innings.

Posted by JK_1982 on (July 16, 2013, 14:09 GMT)

You need to use ur reviews smartly. And the fact is Aussi team is weaker than Eng team.

Posted by Wealwayslosethecricket on (July 16, 2013, 14:08 GMT)

I think there's one solution that a lot of the people associated with the use of the DRS need to consider. It's there for the howler, not the 50/50 decisions, so all you need is something to discourage captains from wasting their reviews on close calls. In other words, give each team one review per innings, and if that doesn't work, one review per match, meaning that the cost of wasting a review is much higher than it is with the current system. Otherwise, situations like this will happen again and again and captains will never learn because there is always the second chance. Personally, I would also prefer it if the system is not run entirely by the umpires. After all, the umpire doesn't know if he's made a mistake, so it's counter-intuitive of itself. On top of that, it takes some of the spark out of the game, just like in situations where umpires frequently check for the no-ball off bowled and caught behind wickets. Regardless, the ICC needs to solve its issues with DRS QUICKLY.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 16, 2013, 14:07 GMT)

@Sanjiyan, actually its highly probable that more errors are being reported 20 years ago it was a case of get on with it, now its a case of analyse, and re-analyse until everyone is sick of it, then analyse the analysis.

People like Dicky Bird, Shep and others made decisions and people got on with it, the media might highlight a garling error, eg not given out thick edge to second slip, or something like that but the 'small' errors, feather edges just went unnoticed.

Posted by Romanticstud on (July 16, 2013, 14:07 GMT)

Why give the players any say in the matter ... The game of cricket should be decided by the umpires ... Remember they are human and can choose to refer a decision which is then decided with the help of technology and hence another human decides the fate of the batsman ... There will always be errors when humans are involved and hence the DRS will never always give the right decision ... The umpire in charge of the referral system will give a decision where conclusive evidence is available ... If no conclusive evidence is available ... The benefit of the doubt must then be given ... The LBW decision based on Hot Spot for the edge and Hawk Eye for the stump prediction should be used on all LBW appeals ... The Hawk Eye prediction must be where more than half the ball is over the edge of the stumps or the bails ... LBW should be extended to both sides of the wicket to eliminate padding away of the ball on the leg side (negative play) ... ie anything that is deemed to hit the stumps is OUT.

Posted by CRam on (July 16, 2013, 14:03 GMT)

Astounding really for Haddin to admit he nicked that last ball. The game has been taken over by pretenders - there has to be a better regime of DRS - even to the extent of reviewing every decision.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 14:00 GMT)

Haddin clearly implies that his team sucks in the appropriate use of DRS and they can't take responsibility. So let's shift that responsibility to the umpires. Pathetic response. Both teams have the same rules. However, England gauges the on field situation better than Australia. Hence, England clearly is the better team and deserved to win. If the Aussies are emotional, that is their problem. As they say "head should rule not the heart".

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 13:55 GMT)

Haddin is wrong. Australia just need to be smarter with their reviews. Cook has it working well.

Posted by Bockee on (July 16, 2013, 13:55 GMT)

I miss the days when the fielding team went up, everyone looked at the umpire for a few agonising seconds and then you knew for sure if it was out or not. It seems that there isn't any less controversy now than there was back then, certainly not after neutral umpires were introduced. And series without DRS don't seem to have any extra dramas.

Maybe one day we'll get back to those quick, final decisions - be it with technology or without.

Posted by 200ondebut on (July 16, 2013, 13:51 GMT)

If the Umpires could use DRS to help them make the decision then we would get to a point where they make none - it would all be reviewed. We see this for line calls (run outs and stumpings) where the umpire nearly always refers the decision. The number of referals would detract from the game.

DRS as it stand works well and generally helps get the right decisions. The only faults with the system is with how it is operated by the players and officials.

I would argue that the Trott decision (based on statistics) probably cost England more than they gained from the Broad decision and would therefore disagree with the writers view that it was the decisive moment of the game. (the most decisive moment was of course the Agar stumping in the first innings) If all of these decisions were 100% right England would have thrashed Australia by 200+ runs and we would not have had the nervous excitement of a tight finish

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 13:50 GMT)

Sounds like a good idea, i always felt that giving the players too much power undermines the Umpire's authority to be in control of the match. If there's a contentious decision one way or the other, then it's down to the 3rd Umpire to contact the Umpires in the middle about something they might've seen or heard. At the end of the day the Umps are human-beings just like the players and will make mistakes from time to time, so without the influence of Captains/Players contradicitng what the Umpires have judged, the last word shall remain final amongst the three who have the final say on mistakes or close decisions.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 13:46 GMT)

The late great Tony Grieg said we had DRS so we could simply get THE CORRECT DECISIONS - plain and simple. This argument about DRS reviews being a part of the game is rubbish. We want bat vs bowl, bowler vs batter to decide games. If Agar is good enough to deceive Broad, get the edge and have him caught - why should he suffer because his captain and other team members made bad decisions earlier? No DRS system is going to be perfect but we need to get closer then the present system is right now - WE NEED THE CORRECT DECISION!

Posted by Secunderabadi on (July 16, 2013, 13:43 GMT)

DRS is a tool to question the umpires decision and Indian board is against that. In the Champions Trophy DRS was used, right! and captian cool used it to his advantage. Everyone was howling at Indian board for not using DRS. Had the Indian board used it, could they have reversed Jadeja and Ashwin being given out in the Triangular series finals against SriLanka, similarly Sangakara's. Can anyone verify.

Posted by Sanjiyan on (July 16, 2013, 13:43 GMT)

I feel that since the introduction of DRS, umpires have been making more and more mistakes. Years ago when Sheppard was still alive and umping, the % of wrong decisions was less than 5%(closer to 3%) in general. Since the DRS it seems that just getting 70% right is an accomplishment. It seems that since they have this safety net they are not as sharp as they used to be(or that the current crop of umpires is not that good). If the DRS is put into their hands, there should be a stick behind the door. Like if they dont get a certain % of decisions right they will be removed from international duty for x amount of time. That should keep them sharp and they will only refer decisions that they are really unsure about.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 13:40 GMT)

All this talk about better umpires and less decisions reviewed is stupid. Even if umpires call it correct, teams get to the point where they have challenges up their sleeve and burn em accordingly on faint hopes. I for one think there is nothing wrong with the DRS.

If you blow it on a bad call, pay the price and get burned like Australia did. Quit with the whinge for change. I don't mind tinkering, but trying to take it from the players is sour grapes.

Posted by devlsmurf on (July 16, 2013, 13:39 GMT)

The issue with the DRS is, if we take the Broad example, the umpire has said not out, why on earth would he then refer it. If an umpire says yes or no, that really should be that with their part of the process. What would have happened if the umpire then refused to refer Broads catch to DRS? The howler would still stand, naturally.

I'm of the opinion that the system is somewhat effective now, with the tweak that if a decision comes down to an "Umpires call", for example the LBW decisions, then the review should not be lost on that, because it's close enough to cause doubt.

Players in todays game deserve the right to ask questions. It's not about being disrespectful, it's about trying to find the balance in achieving the most fair result possible, without ruining the games character.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 13:39 GMT)

I agree with the point about taking the decision to review (or not) out of the player's hands;

but I feel it should be given to the third (4th?) official who, if he suspects there is an issue with a decision, would communicate to the field umpires... "Wait, I wish to check that." The field umpires would then hold the game while the review takes place (if a batsman has been given out he could be half way off the ground to reduce time consumed). After the video is examined the reviewer passes on his result, the field umpire confirms/overturns his decision and play continues.

Posted by ThugbyFan on (July 16, 2013, 13:34 GMT)

Good to see that Haddin, like most batsmen, copped Broad's refusal to walk as normal and admitted that he tried the same later. The match showed that DRS needs tweeking but I would hate referrals to be at the umpire's call. You would see countless referrals while everyone sat around because the on-field umpires were scared witless. Already they refer all run-out chances.

The more important change is both teams still have 2 referrals per innings but the 3rd umpire should be able to quickly intervene if the on-field umpire has made a howler. This decision must be made quickly using normal vision without umteen dozen close-ups and slow frames.

Despite what the geeks say, DRS has inbuilt errors with LBW decisions and should be changed. The current use is ridiculous. Its an admission of inaccuracy that half the ball hitting stumps is needed to overturn a not-out yet a mm of ball on stumps confirms an out decision. Thats crazy.

Posted by welovepakistan on (July 16, 2013, 13:30 GMT)

haddin is wrong, australia is wrong......they just need to use it correctly!

Posted by TheBigBoodha on (July 16, 2013, 13:27 GMT)

@roook, luck had at least a little to do with Cook's run, and bad luck partly to do with Clarke's bad run. The Haddin review was a pure guess, for example. Why have games decided by a roulette wheel?

Posted by Montague_Withnail on (July 16, 2013, 13:19 GMT)

The main problem with handing DRS to the umpires (apart from denying the game an extra element of skill, strategy and drama) is that the umpires will still make mistakes, and teams (including management etc) will still blame them for those mistakes. What if Dar had been able to review the Broad decision but had decided not to?

OK, yes, we had the Trott situation and not every DRS is uncontroversial, but for the most part, when howlers are missed, such as Broad/Agar, the umpires can turn back to the Captains with 100% justification and tell them their fate was in their own hands and they blew it.

Clarke should shoulder 100% of the blame for the Broad dismisal and he has done so to his credit. He made the call to disagree with the Umprires twice and was wrong both times, that gives the umpires the right to make decisions from then on, howlers and all - just like it used to be, and still is on every village green in the country. Perfect.

Posted by tslwang on (July 16, 2013, 13:18 GMT)

The Stuart Broad incident would not have come up if Australia didn't waste their reviews.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 13:15 GMT)

Agree with the sentiment here. I don't like players being allowed to question the umpires decision, and reviews end up being used tactically.

The problem, as other's have stated, is that on-field umpires will end up deferring every decision to the third umpire (just as they do with run outs now). However, I assume the only reason Hawkeye reviews take so long is for dramatic effect on TV?

Personally I would prefer a system whereby on an appeal for LBW Hawkeye immediately announces (through the on field umpire's ear piece) something along the lines of "Pitched inline, struck inline, 98% likelihood of missing leg stump by 1cm". The on-field umpire then has far more information available to enable them to make a decision (I think they should have the authority to overrule hawkeye if they think it necessary too).

As for faint nicks and edges - after an appeal I would allow the third umpire a 10 second window to initiate a full review whenever they felt it appropriate.

Posted by roook on (July 16, 2013, 13:15 GMT)

Simple anwser don't waste reviews, cook use DRS sensibly it is now part of game deal with it

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 13:12 GMT)

PanGlupek; That is what frustrates me the most about DRS. People talk about using it correctly but they are cricketers that emotions will get better of them. I dont want to see a team win a game of cricket because they are better at using DRS than the other team I want to see them win because they have been better at batting, bowling and fielding.

Posted by Sarfin on (July 16, 2013, 13:11 GMT)

Then players (mainly from the fielding team) will make excessive and loud appeals to force the umpire to go to upstairs. We might have a referral in every overs. If you can stop that, then I agree with Haddin.

Posted by Vindaliew on (July 16, 2013, 13:09 GMT)

If DRS was in the hands of the umpire Hughes would have survived that delivery from Swann. I really didn't think it was out until the DRS kicked in, and Cook, Prior and Swann were rewarded for being alert and accurate in their collective judgement of the situation. That's what DRS is all about, really, giving the players a chance to verify a delivery which they are confident about, but which has generated the wrong decision. If some people have better judgement than others it doesn't make the system flawed. It's like saying that the hook shot is flawed because some people play it better than others.

Posted by DaRkINvAdoR on (July 16, 2013, 13:03 GMT)

haddin is damn correct....many captains are wasting their reviews at unnecessory cases and left with no reviews at some situations like broad's's better to leave drs in the hands of umpires itself......all umpires are not 100% confident that he has given a correct at that critical time umpire can go upstairs.........if more than 50% of the ball hits the stumps then third umpire can conclude that as out otherwise it should go to batsmen's ashes 1st test also....broad's full length ball is just clipping watson had to suffer for the drs should be in the hands of umpires for more genuine decissions

Posted by pratit on (July 16, 2013, 13:00 GMT)

The problem with this proposal is that umpires will want to refer every decision to the 3rd umpire just to be sure. And teams are already struggling to bowl 90 overs in a day. On the other hand, an umpire might be confident about his own decision even if it's a stinker. Do you then want the fielding team to "convince" the on-field umpire to go for the 3rd umpire? The point of the DRS is to eliminate these howlers, so that players have a recourse even if they do not AGREE with the on-field umpires. If Australia used up their DRS quota for marginal calls, they have only themselves to blame. If anything, England should feel aggrieved as they correctly reviewed the Trott decision, and yet it was not overturned.

Posted by Beertjie on (July 16, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

All those claiming it will slow down the game ought to consider Hair's words: eventually the stronger performing umpires would emerge and be identified by the lesser number of reviewed decisions.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

Problem maybe is will umpires want to review every appeal decision ? All takes time and most teams have problems bowling 90 overs a day. will we need 6 x 80 overs days for Tests ?

Posted by yoogi on (July 16, 2013, 12:56 GMT)

You cant have just two reviews for an innings that lasts 20 overs and have the same for an innings that lasts 120 overs. (Same for the wickets, some innings go no further than 2 wickets, while some go all the way to 10). So for a start at least give 4 reviews in test matches and Onedayers and in tests it should be 4 for every new ball. The fact is you can get two marginal calls against you fairly quickly, not 4.

Posted by PanGlupek on (July 16, 2013, 12:56 GMT)

Haddin does have a point - England have been pretty good at using DRS for quite a while now, and certainly used it better than Aus did in that first test. The problem though, is it's supposed to be a contest between who has the best batsmen, bowlers & fielders, not those things plus who is better at knowing when an umpire's got something wrong.

On the other hand, DRS use requires an element of skill, and if umpires are given the power to review anything they aren't sure about, it wouldn't take long before everyone calls for umpires to review every single decision (like they tend to for run-outs & stumpings). As long as it doesn't slow the game down ridiculously, people might argue that it's worth going down that route in the future.

Although if on-field umpires refer decisions rather than make them, what happens to "umpire's call"?

Posted by Haleos on (July 16, 2013, 12:55 GMT)

Very well said Mr Haddin. this is what I have been saying since its inception. The purpose of DRS should be to eliminate errors. Some 3rd umpires may still create some but that would be rare.

Posted by John-Price on (July 16, 2013, 12:54 GMT)

100% agree with Haddin and Harper. I know the fear is that the game will be slowed down, but if we have good umpires they will know the difference between a good shout and a hopeless one. We already have this system for line decisions - why the inconsistency?

One other thing - questions of if a ball carried for a catch should never go to the third umpires - TV evidence is misleading on this point.

Posted by WhoCaresAboutIPL on (July 16, 2013, 12:53 GMT)

The natural and logical extension of leaving all DRS decisions to the umpires is to ban all appealing, and leave "out" / "not out" entirely to the umpires. With the current systems it could also be argued that real penalties should be exacted for sides who appeal when they know the decision should be "not out" - this is also against the "spirit of cricket". This appears to happen more in the sub-continent, especially when slow bowlers are operating.

Posted by Capricorn60 on (July 16, 2013, 12:53 GMT)

There should also be nothing to stop the T.V. umpire having the authority to instantly [or almost instantly before the next ball is bowled] inform his on-field colleagues of something he has clearly seen [e.g. Broad's snick] in helping make correct decisions - thereby not slowing the game that much by greater use of the third umpire.

Posted by 64blip on (July 16, 2013, 12:48 GMT)

It should stay as is. Give it to the umpires and almost every shout will be reviewed and there'll be more shouting! I think there is less pressure on umpires now. Remember Hawk-eye was around before DRS, so umpire's mistakes were being picked up and discussed ad infinitum. At least now some can be reversed. Haddin is practically admitting Australia are so emotionally incontinent they can't stop themselves from reviewing decisions they know are marginal at best, so want the responsibilty taken off their shoulders. England have shown it can be done. The third umpire won't fly because there's not enough time between balls. Most decisions take multiple run throughs and angles. You can't have the umpire stopping a bowler in mid run up to dismiss a batsman for the previous delivery, so in effect there'd be a break for every shout. It would make the umpire's current job of making decisions redundant, they'd just be a messanger boy for the voice from the box.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 12:43 GMT)

I think DRS-decision is the best 1 ... It should be mandatory for all teams to apply !!!

Posted by Bundaboy on (July 16, 2013, 12:42 GMT)

Nonsense! every umpiring decision should be open to debate - they obviously can't be trusted. There should be unlimited referrals, with penalties for frivolous appeals whether they are referrals or not!

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 12:38 GMT)

Totally agree .. the lbw should be left to empires .. except the batsman can call for edge.. LBW in DRS is too much of a mess right now.. The hotspot should be used for edge ..

Posted by countjimmoriarty on (July 16, 2013, 12:36 GMT)

Daryl Harper would certainly be an expert on umpiring howlers! Possibly the leat competent umpire ever to officiate in test cricket.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 12:35 GMT)

problem; frivolous calls made for LBW's

solution: don't make frivolous calls for LBWs


Posted by The-Stoat on (July 16, 2013, 12:34 GMT)

I agree with Inspector_Clouseau... It never takes long for the cameras to highlight a true poor decision. Batsmen would then walk, because the truth will always come out and teams will never feel robbed. Also, I think ridiculous appealing would decrease and umpires won't be pressured. Win.

Posted by Chris_Howard on (July 16, 2013, 12:34 GMT)

Leave DRS the onfield umpire. With any decision, give him the option to go upstairs (as they already do now for runouts and stumpings). QED. If he chooses not to, then that's that, get on with the game. If he's wrong, then he's wrong. But I don't think he will be very often. You don't see umpires making runout and stumping calls unless they're absolutely certain.

Posted by on (July 16, 2013, 12:33 GMT)

@indianinneredge : hawkeye predicts the trajectory depending on the initial trajectory of the ball after it pitches.. so for all the cases mentioned by you.. with the initial bounce.. it can say how far it could have bounced.. but for fuller balls it is quite difficult ( but they would hit the stumps any way.) having said this.. it is still not very accurate,.... needs improvement..

Posted by derpherp on (July 16, 2013, 12:29 GMT)

@ thebarmyarmy- Why should have he? Did you even read what Hadden said? He agrees with what Broad did...

Posted by khansa06 on (July 16, 2013, 12:23 GMT)

Had it been an Aussie cricketer that was banned for falsely claiming a catch during the Champions Trophy by match referee Chris Broad, the whole reaction to the Stuart Broad incident in this test match would have been completely would probably have been more about "spirit of the Game" rather than changing DRS.

Posted by hnlns on (July 16, 2013, 12:23 GMT)

I think the decision to review any doubtful ones should be taken by the on-field umpires - if they think DRS/3rd umpire's help is needed, they will opt for it or against it. Also, no of reviews should be restricted to 2 per team per innings, even if reviews are successful. That way lot of time wastage can be avoided.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 12:23 GMT)

I've heard and read a lot of garbage from Aussie fans during and after the first test. Here, Brad Haddin, a player who I have badmouthed to all and sundry in recent years has shut me up and spoken the clear truth about the last 5 days of Ashes cricket. Haddin's (and Clarke's) post-match comments are a strong foundation for any rebuilding effort the Australian team will undergo. Hopefully this attitude of taking responsibility for your own actions and leaving uncontrollables to whoever else is responsible will continue.

Posted by 122notoutWestByfleet1996 on (July 16, 2013, 12:18 GMT)

what about unlimited reviews with a penalty for too many incorrect reviews (would not include umpire call) in order to ensure that silly or "tactical" referrals are not made all the time.

it does seem daft that a system introduced to eliminate howlers does not actually do so.

Posted by Andre117 on (July 16, 2013, 12:16 GMT)

The only problem I see with the TV ump taking over the referrals is that it will slow the game down. The bowling team is super confident of an appeal so they waste time hoping the TV ump will over-rule the on-field ump.

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

I agree. I've never liked players challenging the umpire's call and the current system doesn't stop howlers. However, I would make a couple of suggestions.

First, for every decisionl, esp clean catch or linecalls, the umpire should have to make a call. He may then chose to have the third umpire confirm that the decision is not obviously wrong. That then prevents time being wasted with constant line call/clean catch replays - the third umpire just checks that the call is not obviously wrong and then we go with the on-field call.

Second, the third umpire can intervene and suggest to the on-field umpires that a call be checked if the umpires don't refer it.

Finally, a radical one, if it turns out that too much time is being wasted on DRS then EVERY CALL should be referred automatically, BUT runs should be awarded/removed for bad appeals/not walking - say 5 runs given as extras against bowler for a bad appeal and 10 runs off batsman's score for not walking!

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 12:15 GMT)


How to make a simple game very ugly and very complicated.

I heard Michael Vaughan on commentary saying that despite the mistakes with the DRS "It all evens itself out in the end".

So why have it in the first place?

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

Things we were told would be great about DRS, A: There would be far less controversial decisions, B: Players would be more likely to walk, C: There would be less pressure on umpires, D: The right decision would be made more often. The first 3 are comprehensively not happening, the 4th...probably not happening either.

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

I agree with Haddin DRS should not be in hand of player it should use my third umpire .hussy should come back

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

@Frustrated_Local_Umpire...well said-u've brought out the ump's viewpoint verywell....on a different note-maybe the 'Evil empire' got it right withtheir refusal of DRS-though i donot agree 100% withtheir decision not2use DRS-my gripe is with Hawkeye& the predictor path...bear in mind theball after hitting the pitch could bounce 2any height@any angle-the path that hawk eye predicts simply CANNOT be 100% accurate..also factis bounce will get lower after every day's/session play, does hawkEye FACTOR this in, when asked to predict the path of bouncing ball?-What if the very 1st ball of the For eg-4th day's play was referred-how would hawkeye predict this as it would not have a precedent of the previous hours/overs 2 judge the bounce-woudn't it boil down to guesswork of the TV technician doing the path? what about different balls-(SG, Duke, kooka) etc, how about 2nd new ball taken-referral on the very first ball on the say-5th day 2ndsession? hopng 4 sum interesting replies...Thanks :)

Posted by bipulkumar on (July 16, 2013, 12:09 GMT)

Current form of DRS is fine. It's only for players to learn that they shouldn't be reviewing every decision to exhaust their quota. Australians used all their reviews for marginal calls and ended up with a howler. They could have easily saved their reviews. Also, hotspot has created too many confusions. It's not mature and should be taken out in the current form. If third umpire clearly sees a deviation then they overturn the decision else they should leave it to the ground umpire.

Posted by Jagger on (July 16, 2013, 12:03 GMT)

I agree with the great Daryl Harper.

Posted by 122notoutWestByfleet1996 on (July 16, 2013, 12:03 GMT)

why not extend play by 30 minutes per day to make up for the time that might be lost using additional reviews?

Posted by thebarmyarmy on (July 16, 2013, 11:57 GMT)

Why didn't Brad Haddin walk when he got an edge in the second innings????

Posted by the_indian_guy on (July 16, 2013, 11:50 GMT)

As the ultimate use of DRS is to avoid howlers, the most probable idea is to first keep responsibility of LBW decisions purely on the standing umpires and give each batting team 1 review only in case of an edge. Leave the rest of the rules as it is (i.e. 2 reviews per side) and it will surely eradicate most of the howlers and hassles of the wasting the reviews on marginal LBW decisions.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 11:49 GMT)

Without prejudice to the walking issue and the spirit of cricket line of argument, this is not the first time Aleem Dar has missed an obvious edge to slip. In a SAF-India match he ruled AB Devilliers not out after he had edged it to first slip, when there wasn't even the shadow of a doubt, due to the obvious deviation off the bat... I think what Harper says is harsh but true. ICC needs to educate and train their umpires to make better decisions. Also, to negate absolute howlers like the Stuart Broad non-dismissal, it makes sense to keep such powers in even the TV umpire or Match referee's hand, so that decisions like these or say if there is a big inside edge which the umpire has missed or even a run out call that the umpire did not notice will actually be ruled correctly. This can genuinely help the umpires and make the game better. The current application of DRS is too flawed to be allowed to continue further.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 11:48 GMT)

Having watched a lot of test cricket with the DRS in action, I am definitely in favour of the system. I would reduce to one review per innings so reducing the 'tactical' use of DRS. I would also either (1) allow teams to keep this review if it's umpire call or (2) scrap umpires call altogether. e.g. in LBW If most of the ball is in line with the stumps and the ball goes on to hit the stumps, even slightly, it's out. The idea of umpires reviewing every decision does not work. Can you imagine that idea being used vs India (and other Asian teams). Their bowlers appeal at least twice an over.

Posted by mtfb on (July 16, 2013, 11:48 GMT)

Why not take a lesson from NFL (American Football), where the challenges come from the coach? Two challenges in each half, and if both are upheld you get a third. In cricket you could have a total of two for the first innings (batting and bowling combined) and two for the second, with the chance of a third?

Posted by Crimsonbat on (July 16, 2013, 11:48 GMT)

Its conjecture to say that England would not get to a good score had Broad been given out, maybe be Swann would have come in with more determination. Maybe Bell would have pulled out all stops.I really think that the eventual score will be 4-1 or 5-0, If Finn comes to the party.

Posted by whofriggincares on (July 16, 2013, 11:47 GMT)

Pretty sure they did extend the first session by 30 mins on the last day.

Posted by teadrinker on (July 16, 2013, 11:46 GMT)

- LoveCric1975 -

An extra half hour WAS taken before lunch on the fifth day (see the Cricinfo commentary for evidence). At the normal time for lunch, Aus were 273 for 9 and after the extra half hour Aus were 291 for 9.

Are you suggesting that there should have been an extra, extra half hour ? Asking a side to field in hot conditions for three hours after four days of Test cricket seems rather unfair.

Bob Willis was probably watching a different match (again)

Posted by AltafPatel on (July 16, 2013, 11:45 GMT)

There is nothing wrong with DRS system,the thing is how we use it.We have been using DRS kind of system for years for Run-out, stump-out,boundary etc. and it is successful without doubt.The norms that are integrated with recent DRS system are not practical and requires improvements like 3rd umpire should have final decision if DRS is requested, same as in case of run-out/stumping used for years,because the 3rd umpire has all the ideas of the instance from every angle of review.In another case,one of the norm says,for LBW decision,if on-field umpire gives batsman out and if DRS is referred that shows ball has contact of its half with the leg stump for right-hand batsman,then decision depends upon what on-field umpire gave the decision, and not the actual DRS system feedback, if on-field umpire had given out,then he is out else not.This is again inefficient use of DRS system.Until such complications are eliminated, the system will not gain full confidence of players as well as audience.

Posted by Inspector_Clouseau on (July 16, 2013, 11:43 GMT)

@ JulesUK, I feel the urge to clarify your doubts. DRS in umpires' hands means..

The on-field umpires would give the decisions exactly as they do right now. A television analyst working aside the third umpire would verify the decision quickly and alert him if there is a need to for the decision to be overturned. Then the third umpire would overturn it. The key here is to decide what happens while the analyst is verifying the decision? Would the play continue or they wait? In my opinion the play should continue as usual and if it is overturned, it should restart from that point.

1. So there is no reason why the on-field umpires would feel extra pressure from players.

2. There will be an "on-field umpire's call".

3. On-field umpires don't have to review anything as the 3rd ump analyst would look at it anyway.

Posted by Mervo on (July 16, 2013, 11:42 GMT)

Haddin should be the captain, not Clarke. Hussey should still be there and not have been forced out by Arthur. Senior players are crucial as the young ones are fragile and most have poor techniques for first class cricket.

Posted by paapam on (July 16, 2013, 11:39 GMT)

Have always been a great fan of Haddin. Out there in the middle a big heart counts as much as anything else. The DRS could be given to the umpires and it should be put to unlimited use. I am in favour of the on field umpire having this power. Anything undermining the standing of the on field umpire, dinishes the game.

Posted by Frustrated_Local_Umpire on (July 16, 2013, 11:38 GMT)

An interesting series of comments. As a cricket umpire who stands in matches where all first class players that play at "club level, I see similar "howlers" now and again. I have been guilty of them too. At this level, there is no "TV Toys" for Umpires to make the right call. They are left to use their best skills / judgement to make a call. Sometimes, it's the wrong decision. Umpires live with it and move on. Why? Because they do. No Umpires = no cricket. So what is the solution? Take the toys away from the TV Gurus who are killing this great game and let the poor Bloke standing behind the stumps make the call. Stop the replay after replay and also stop the "CSI" approach to killing the confidence and reputation of Umpires. Aleem Dar has made a poor call. We all know that with the aid of TV replays. He did not have that, and nor do us poor Blokes at club level. Give him a break, as he is more than aware of the error. Like all umpires, we try to improve and move on.

Posted by MichealT on (July 16, 2013, 11:37 GMT)

Umpire is a human and he can make mistakes and often becomes a escape goat of a poor performance. Ultimately we'll come up with a better use of technology just like the universally agreed Duckworth-Lewis method. Now Australia used up all their reviews before the Broad's incident and they are calling it a howler. But infarct they were on the wrong side three times despite being closer to the batsman than the umpire. The game was almost over in the first inning when Australia were 125/9 but a record partnership saved them from a knockout punch. In the second inning another record last wicket partnership could have won it for them. But Haddin suggestion of a panel of umpire for reviews is a good one. Field umpire could also be given three chances to review in the extremely heated situation but the review panel should be handle more power to go for a TIMEOUT and instantly review any incident.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 11:36 GMT)

having followed the game for the last 15 years... n knowing what a great leveller it is... lets sit back n enjoy the glorious uncertainties. .. full credit to cook for being tactical in da usage of DRS... Clarke himself expressed the need to being more judicious in using the technology. .. cometh the next match.... .. cheers! !!!

n dnt lament the thing abt walking. .. Leave it to the individual to decide. .. hw many of us return the money that v accidentally find.... its human nature. .. live by it... period .

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 11:36 GMT)

Regarding 'umpire's call' if leaving DRS referrals to the umpires, Rugby and Rugby League have solved this - in asking for a try to be checked, the referee has to state what his opinion is, and if there is no clear evidence to the contrary that 'ref's call' stands.

I see no reason why this cannot be used in cricket - when calling upon DRS the umpire should state what his 'decision' is, and if there is no clear evidence to the contrary then this decision stands.

Or, the old cricketing adage could be used - any doubt, it is not out.

I also think the third umpire should be given the power to enforce a review if it becomes obvious that a decision that is made by the on-field umpires without utilising DRS is obviously wrong.

Posted by Fireballz on (July 16, 2013, 11:35 GMT)

@LoveCric1975 - They did delay it for half an hour before they eventually took lunch. I think the system is fine the way it is, players just have to use it better.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 11:33 GMT)

I find it a bit discomforting to see batsman walking or staying and many heads shaking due to a wrong decision even when everyone is watching the replays on the big screen that are showing what was actually happened.You have technology and that means you have the facility to take correct decisions every single time,without significant delays of course.So my question is why not use the technology every single time,possible.Whenever an on-field umpire makes a wrong decision he must be told of his mistake by the third umpire or even the commentators(Make them the active spectators of the sport) and umpire's decision must be overturned.I mean in case if all the three umpires fail to make the right call(just imagine if third umpire is taking a nap or tea break,c'mon it's possible) the commentators must intervene to draw umpires' attention into the incident.If such a system is in place we may not need to cry over any false decisions anymore.

Posted by 2929paul on (July 16, 2013, 11:33 GMT)

@LoveCric1975 Your post has nothing to do with this article but just to clear up your misunderstanding of the situation, the morning session on Day 5 WAS extended by half an hour in accordance with playing regulations, as nine wickets were down (same as the Aus first innings). This extension can only happen once.

The half hour extension is also allowable before a tea interval or at the close of play if the umpires feel that a result is possible.

As for the Broad antics, the umpires saw through this and made sure England bowled another over anyway (quite rightly).

As for players complaining now about DRS, they make a rod for their own back by questioning the umpire's decision too often, or trying it on all the time. Get on with it, stop complaining and leave your DRS for the howler.

Posted by sharidas on (July 16, 2013, 11:33 GMT)

If more and more decisions are taken off the Umpires , they will lose credibility and eventually there will be no need for field umpires. a sorry state .

Posted by nicg on (July 16, 2013, 11:32 GMT)

LoveCric1975 - They did take the extra half an hour on Sunday. Lunch was delayed until 1.30pm and it was around 1.27 when Broad started taking his boot off. At 1pm - the scheduled time for lunch - Australia needed a lot more than 20 runs.

I partly agree with Haddin, but I like the fact that captains can challenge calls. It's up to the captains to get their tactics right, and for me, it all adds to the excitement. But I think there probably needs to be a system where the 3rd umpire can step in when there is a howler... but then where do you draw the line? It has to be led by the 3rd umpire as we cannot get to a situation whereby the fielders put pressure on the on-field umpire to review a decision. But then what happens if the 3rd umpire cannot get the replay of the previous ball before the next ball is bowled? If the game was stopped after every appeal then it would slow the game down. A few teaks to the current system is all that is needed in my opinion.

Posted by sharidas on (July 16, 2013, 11:31 GMT)

Straight and to the point.No mincing of words.good on you Haddin.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 11:31 GMT)

@LoveCric1975, unfortunately the extra half an hour had already been used to get them to within 20 runs.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 11:31 GMT)

@ LoveCric1975, in Australia's 2nd innings when they were 9 down lunch was delayed by half hour. It was pointed out by the commentators at the time and a big deal wasn't made about it.

Posted by JasperT on (July 16, 2013, 11:30 GMT)

Lunch on the last day was delayed for 30 minutes, all of them excruciating for an England supporter. Australia very nearly used the extended session to pull off a win, but not quite.

Posted by kellhound on (July 16, 2013, 11:29 GMT)

If players use the DRS tactically (like Aus did), then they deserve to miss the Howler. They all know the rules and that they only have 2 reviews. (I am Australian BTW). I still think, however, that DRS was implemented wrongly - it should have nothing to do with players. Since the Howler is obvious, a simple system as follows should remove it. 1. On-field umpires make their call as they see it - but may call for TV review for run-outs/stumpings as they are sometimes very close. 2. TV umpire may call for any footage/specials (e.g. Hawkeye, Hot-Spot) to check on-field decision but has the following time limits to overrule the on-field decision: if not out, the decision must be made before the bowler returns to his mark; if out, before the batsmen has left the field. This way, the decisions are still in the hands of the on-field umpires, but if something obvious (like the Broad incident) is missed, it will be easily picked up in these time frames.

Posted by AidanFX on (July 16, 2013, 11:28 GMT)

The problem with taking it entirely out of players hands to refer contentious decision is that in the end we might as well get rid of the on-field umpire and replace him with a robot. That would ruin the game - but maybe in 50 years from now on-field umpires (will sadly) be a thing of the past.

Posted by HatsforBats on (July 16, 2013, 11:27 GMT)

If reviews are entirely in the umpires hands then they will be forced to review everything. Fear of retribution from angry national boards (Bucknor-style) and fear of damage to their reputation will have every appeal sent upstairs. This could be offset perhaps by heavily fining overzealous appealing? Even if teams had five reviews per innings that would still be less than umpires reviewing EVERY appeal. We already struggle to bowl 90 overs/day (I'd like to see runs awarded to the batting side in that instance, based on run rate), if umpires control DRS we'd be spending even more time reviewing decisions/appeals.

Posted by thekaz on (July 16, 2013, 11:27 GMT)

The problem with giving the umpires control over using DRS is that they would begin to use it whenever they are unsure on a decision, not just for a 'howler'. That would lead to reviews being called for all the time, we would get nowhere near 30 overs a session, and technology would completely take over the game. I think the review system is right in its current state, it adds drama to the game, much like in tennis, it is the captains responsibility to use the system correctly, then it works.

Posted by AltafPatel on (July 16, 2013, 11:26 GMT)

DRS system has many weird norms that forces the decision which is clearly incorrect. When umpire gave, Trott out in second innings, there was inside-edge clear in hotspot and camera. Third umpire didn't give Trott not out because on-field umpire asked Third umpire for whether ball hits stump or not, and not for inside edge and hence decision to give Trott out remained. Completely impractical use of the DRS system. There are many such examples as well.

Posted by Iqbal_Hasan on (July 16, 2013, 11:26 GMT)

@A.ak Would Dar have reviewed the Haddin appeal do you think?

Posted by longlivetmj on (July 16, 2013, 11:26 GMT)

Rowan Tyson 4 more tests of DRS dramas? Don't you think the test cricket has been much more interesting after the current rules of DRS. I think this ASHES Test showed us a great deal of that. Drama and Controversy is what a neutral spectator needs specially watching test cricket. So to me the current system is perfect.

Posted by Sanath.Shenoy on (July 16, 2013, 11:24 GMT)

If umpires were to control DRS then why the hell do we need umpires for? What i would suggest is - increase the punishment of OverRate offence, provide unlimited reiviews. Let time be a constraint for using reviews. unlimited reviews will also reduce the burden on umpires. They can make the decisions freely. Or else there is no need for DRS, since it gives tactical edge to some captains making the game unfair (or an extra variable to play with).

Posted by pushkeraman on (July 16, 2013, 11:24 GMT)

I think nobody should hv objection with DRS system.Haddin has problems bcz he was on the receiving end.He did exactly what broad did.atlast the correct decision came out and that is what we all want.then why anybody should hv a prb with DRS.I strongly feel that no changes should be made in DRS system.It should not be given in the hands of is for the playing teams n they should decide when to use it instead of umpires.

Posted by Yevghenny on (July 16, 2013, 11:24 GMT)

LoveCric1975 - Lunch WAS delayed by 30 minutes. It is normally 1pm, but did you notice the time when Broad was taking his shoe off? 1:28pm

As for taking reviews out of players hands. England didn't seem to have a problem, they still had all their reviews at the end of each innings. It's up to the players to realise that not everything is out.

Posted by McCricket_ on (July 16, 2013, 11:24 GMT)

Well, as an Australian I'm happy to read this. Both Captain and Vice Captain have now supported Broad and directed the conversation towards usage of the DRS. Haddin says it best, "The system is the same for both teams, we just haven't used it very well. That's the bottom line".

For me that truly is the bottom line and I'm happy to read/hear/see the opposition leaders say it openly.

I don't care if they get a bit frustrated in the heat of the moment (within limits), and they certainly have the right to remind the batsman that he is a lucky so-and-so, but when they front a press conference they aren't afraid to back the other guy.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 11:23 GMT)

@LoveCric1975 I'm pretty sure lunch *was* delayed in the fourth innings due to 9 wickets down as well (i.e. the morning session was 2.5 hours long). It can't be postponed indefinitely.

Posted by HansonKoch on (July 16, 2013, 11:23 GMT)

Umpires should be responsible for getting it right; so yes, take it out of the player's hands. The concept itself is obnoxious. The third umpire should have access to snicko and hotspot and should immediately review anything that looks tenuous, and pull it up before the next ball is bowled.

Posted by Capricorn60 on (July 16, 2013, 11:22 GMT)

The current system makes the umpires look rather incompetent when DRS makes them having to often overturn their decisions as happened in the 1st Test. So this is another reason for all DRS to be taken away from the players & left entirely in the hands of the on-field umpires. Just as they consult their T.V. colleague on most run-outs, it'll be entirely up to them on making similar consultations on any other decision. Clearly the T.V. umpire is much better placed to make decisions on marginal calls but even if he is unsure [as in Agar's possible run-out in the first innings], then it is simply ruled in the favour of the batsman as did happen in this particular decision. This seems much fairer & making better use of the T.V. umpire as in rugby.

Posted by andyzaltzmanspubes on (July 16, 2013, 11:20 GMT)

@LoveCric1975: they *did* delay lunch by half an hour on the final day, but the 10th wicket wasn't taken/winning runs weren't scored in that half hour, so they broke for lunch. they can't just delay lunch for another half hour and then another and another (...till the end of the day) when 9 wickets are down.

Posted by dwblurb on (July 16, 2013, 11:20 GMT)

@LoveCric1975, Lunch WAS delayed by half an hour on the final day, making it a 2 1/2 hour session.

Posted by cozens on (July 16, 2013, 11:18 GMT)

seems that Austrailia, owing to their incredibly poor use of the system want to defer it to others. Maybe some serious thought into how best to use the system would benifit Austraila ? Englands use has been superb, and whilst they will of course get it wrong form time to time, I'd be intersted to see how often they have got it right ?

Posted by Jeppo on (July 16, 2013, 11:17 GMT)

The problem cricket has is that for many years players are taught never to question the umpire's decision. "Umpires are always right, even when they're wrong" we used to say. Problem is the current Decision Review System by definition goes against that philosophy, so in that regard, tweaking the system so that umpires can review calls sounds like a good idea in theory.

The only problem I see with Brad's proposition is that I can see umpires review most lbw and caught behind appeals. We've seen in the case of run out and stumped appeals where umpires check with the third umpire most of the time even though the batsman clearly got back behind the crease, just to check whether their bat bounced up in the air. Such referrals take time out of the game, and since we're already seeing 12 overs being bowled in a hour more and more often, it would get worse with Brad's proposition.

Posted by Bones87 on (July 16, 2013, 11:17 GMT)

@Lovecric75 They did extend play by 30 mins, that's the maximum they are allowed to extend a session when a team is 9 down.

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

Let's all remember the reasons that Broad was not given out 1) The umpire made a "howler" and 2) - very importantly... Michael Clarke had made 2 "howlers" in calling for daft reviews and so he had no reviews left. He admitted himself that he was not very smart... whereas Cook made really good use of the system in place.

Lets face it... the only difference between Broad's and Haddin's cases (standing their ground and all) was that England had wisely kept their reviews in hand. Dar was wrong on both occasions

Posted by PPL11 on (July 16, 2013, 11:14 GMT)

People seems going crazy after DRS. DRS purpose is to make sure umpires do not make blunders (They do as they are human beings) now team have two chance and you got to master that, Australia need to learn quickly here to use two chances of DRS intelligently else you see how it can back fire.

Posted by frazell on (July 16, 2013, 11:14 GMT)

@LoveCric1975 They did delay lunch, lunch was taken at 1:30 instead of 1:00. May I also suggest Eng would have won by more than 14 runs if a normal lunch was taken.

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

Haddin is clearly doing what Ozzies do best and have a bit of moan and a whinge. The fact is that Clarke gambled on his reviews and chose wrong. Deal with it and move on. DRS is here to stay and long may it continue.

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

...and so do I (with trav29). It would slow the game down no end. It is fun seeing the way they use it.

I would like to see the cameras run by the ICC not the broadcaster though, and I like the idea of resetting the reviews back to two at every new ball.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 11:10 GMT)

If DRS has to be effective , the review must be prompted by the on field umpires and not by the players . The decision to limit the no of reviews to 2 per innings has been taken with a view to limit wastage of time . But more important than the loss of time , is to make the right decision . After all in a game which is played over 5 days , loss of even 30 mts per match will have no effect , especially when most of the test matches get over in 4 days or so .The umpires also should not be stubborn in their decision and they should make a review when there is a doubt . After all , it is the umpires who use replays to decide on runouts and stumpings. May be the BCCI may accept DRS if the authority to refer lies with the umpires instead of the players .

Posted by TommytuckerSaffa on (July 16, 2013, 11:10 GMT)

@ george matthew

No one here is now saying that DRS should be removed. Far from it. DRS is a one of the best aspects which has been introduced in the game. India and its administrators still choose to live in the stoneage in not accepted DRS. They use the excuse that its not 100% accurate. Nothing in life is 100% accurate and DRS makes decision making more accurate than only human input.

I actually think DRS adds to the game for spectators, its makes reviewing decisions tactical and involves the crowd more.

Posted by A.Ak on (July 16, 2013, 11:08 GMT)

Vary Fair point. On field umpire should take the review when he is not 100% certain and take it to the 3rd umpire. No issues.

Posted by Cricketfan11111 on (July 16, 2013, 11:08 GMT)

Captains/players should use one review for decisions where they are guessing- like lbws. And one for the howlers involving bat, where they are sure the batsman is out or not. Once they are used up one review for unsuccessful lbw no other review should be used for further lbw decisions other than inside edges involving bat. If this logic is used even in odi there should be two reviews allowed in ODI.

Posted by liz1558 on (July 16, 2013, 11:08 GMT)

When it comes to LBW decisions a batsman's senses are heightened to X-men levels, so that fingers gripping the bat handle detect the slightest of tremors, and ears pick up the faintest of nicks, as the ball feathers the edge of the bat. There is no uncertainty and the bat is raised instantly, incredulously, and pointed to with moral conviction. On the other hand, the same chap's sensory skills atrophy when it comes to being caught behind; 'couldn't feel anything'; 'better let the technology do its job' ; 'it's for the umpire to give you out'; 'Australians never walk'. Abolishing DRS would certainly take the sting out of players' hypocrisy, but not put an end to it, because it's human nature. It is a shame because abolishing it will make role of on-field umpire virtually redundant and anaesthetise the game even more.

Posted by Iqbal_Hasan on (July 16, 2013, 11:07 GMT)

@lovecric. They DID give an extra 30 mins. When that time had elapsed.... lunch!

Posted by getsetgopk on (July 16, 2013, 11:07 GMT)

"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" And to think that umpires are robots and have no emotion or this feeling that 'I could be wrong' is ludicrous. Thing is Auss did not evaluate their DRS chances more seriously and were hoping against hope each time they referred a decision. You need to refer a decision when you are 100% sure that its out otherwise you'll end up with no reviews left against this thing called howlers, the actual daemon for which the system was designed to eliminate in the first place. If players can't control their emotions then they'll be at the umpires throat with each delivery board, pleading to refer it and we'll have more tussles and arguments in the middle than cricket. In that case I'd like to watch cricket with no DRS at all. DRS was meant to give players some control over decisions now you want to give it back because of your emotions?

Posted by Harlequin. on (July 16, 2013, 11:04 GMT)

If you are going to do that, then you will have to drop the slow over-rate punishments for captains, because the umpires are going to review everything! Just look at some of the run-outs - even when the batsman is past the stumps they are reviewing it. Or look at rugby, every single try is reviewed now. Put it in the umpires hands and they will have no excuse if a wrong decision is made, and the fall-out will be apocalyptic if a wrong decision does sneak through.

The current system could still work if players like Clarke stop using it to try and sneak a 50:50 decision.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 16, 2013, 11:03 GMT)

As an England fan, I believe that Australia have handled the incident involving Stuart Broad pretty much exactly as they should have. At the time that it happened they were at first in disbelief and then they were pissed off. That's exactly how everyone would feel under the same circumstances. I think that they may well have been pissed of with Broad and Aleem Dar at the time but it turned into being pissed off with the situation most of all, again, as anyone would. They didn't carry on overly at the time, but rather pretty much just got on with business. James Pattinson had a bit of a grizzle later when he was warned for over-appealing by umpire Dharmasena but he's a bit like that most of the time. Once the innings was over, even though I'm sure that they haven't got over it complete, as anyone wouldn't, they have outwardly laid no blame and have basically said "let's just get on with it". As it should be.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 11:02 GMT)

DRS is a system designed to aid the umpire. How does that occur when it is the players hand?

Posted by Montague_Withnail on (July 16, 2013, 11:02 GMT)

I love the extra dimension of tactics and skill required in making DRS calls; I would hate to see it taken away. England could easily have reviewed Joe Roots' dismissal and might very well have got away with it, but Joe Root wasn't sure so they didn't risk it. That's exactly how DRS should be used and showed real thought and application.

Those sorts of big tactical calls are brilliant for the game, and just because Australia aren't very good at it, doesn't mean it should be taken away. Australia are not very good at batting either (number 11s excepted) does Brad Haddin think that should be "taken off their hands" as well?

Posted by frazell on (July 16, 2013, 11:00 GMT)

I'm not sure, if solely in the umpire hands I fear we may have either too many reviews, as they may review all close decisions, vastly reducing over rates, or they will be stubborn and believe that they can get the decision right without the 3rd umpire, thus not reviewing anything. Remember the stanford T20 (i know it's painful), england vs T&T I remember the umpires not reviewing a tight decision and getting it wrong, although I can't remember the players/umpires/situation. Also, if the DRS is meant for howlers, then doesn't that mean the umpire got it wrong? In this situation aren't the players in the better place to review, as the umpire might have wrongly convinced himself 100% it was out/not out?

Posted by geepharm on (July 16, 2013, 11:00 GMT)

1.Renew moral code, "invite" walkers, consider spirit of cricket charges at times for non walkers. 2.DRS should be on/off field on going communication with umpires, nothing to do with players.Umpires tryiyng to get the correct descision.Ebb and flow of incorrect descision is the bewiching charm of cricket.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 11:00 GMT)

As BCCI has said time and again, we dont need the review system in the game. It is inconsistent and inconclusive. Just take it out, it does not need to be in the hands of any one, players or umps.... if we give it to the UMPS... might as well review everything, now every run out and stumping apeal goes to the 3rd Ump. It will slow the game down big time.

Posted by LoveCric1975 on (July 16, 2013, 10:57 GMT)

Quote from article by mark nicholas on cricinfo regarding the Aussie 1st innings:"Because Australia were nine wickets down, lunch was delayed by half an hour - a new wheeze from the ICC that took us all by surprise. From that point on the match, and the series, was alive" unquote. Now my point is that Australia were again 9 down when they needed 20 to win and lunch was taken after broad's laughable antics with his boot. Why didn't they allow extra half hour before lunch like they did in Aussie first innings. Bob willis suggested on telly in The Ashes Verdict that had lunch been delayed by half hour, Aussies would have knocked off the 20 required as momentum was with them. Please somebody explain this. If OZ were 9 down again just before lunch was due in the 2nd innings why the double standard in allowing players to go lunching with haddin and patto staring at a chicken sandwich and stuffing it down their throats with potentially 3 and a half hit away from a famous win.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 10:52 GMT)

Umpires r there to give decision but sportsmanship is v important .it wins u respect among players and spectators though its different when u r not sure as it happens in some cases

Posted by JulesUK on (July 16, 2013, 10:51 GMT)

There are problems with leaving the DRS solely to the umpires.

Would you then have a return to teams putting pressure on the umpires, wanting every possible chance looked at by the DRS?

Would the umpires fear getting decisions wrong and refer too many decisions to the third umpire, thus slowing the game down? (Look at how rarely an onfield umpire gives a run out decision now, even obvious ones).

How do you deal with marginal LBW decisions if there is no original decision? You can't have "umpires call" if there hasn't been a call. Do you give all "umpires call" decisions to the batsman on the basis of reasonable doubt?

Posted by Hammond on (July 16, 2013, 10:51 GMT)

Haddin must have forgotten about the 2011 Ryobi Cup farce where this very thing was attempted and all the Australian state players thought it was so terrible they forced CA to revert it to the old system. Leave everything as it is or just can DRS altogether and go back to on field decisions.

Posted by espncric123 on (July 16, 2013, 10:48 GMT)

IMO taking the DRS out of players' hands will benifit in below situations. 1. When umpire makes a mistake and player doesn't review it. 2. Umpire makes a correct decision, player reviews it. But, this will result in unwanted match delays as TV umpire will tend to review every decision that is made on the field. A day will come when players will question the need of having on field umpires if every appeal can be reviewed by the TV umpire.

Posted by SamWintson92 on (July 16, 2013, 10:47 GMT)

For me, the 3rd umpire should overturn the wrong decisions made by the on field umpire. Snicko should be added to DRS system.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 10:47 GMT)

these days umpires has the role of constables , they have the power but they can not use it and even if they use, it can be supersede by some one else.

Posted by Roger_Dodge on (July 16, 2013, 10:45 GMT)

Might as well get rid of the on-field umpires completely then.

The DRS was brought in to prevent "The Howler", but most players use it as a tactic. I would suggest giving the players just 5 seconds to make their challenge. They would know straight away if a "Howler" has been made. If the players need a group discussion to decide whether they think the umpire may have made a wrong call, then I suggest that it probably wasn't a "Howler".

Posted by George.Mathew on (July 16, 2013, 10:45 GMT)

I am a supporter of DRS and sometimes felt the Indian side (of whom I am a supporter) was being petty at not accpeting it. But what intrigues me is the whole world was against India in not supporting DRS. I have heard many a commentator make snide remarks when India used it to their advantage in venues where it was used (Champions Trophy). Now one Ashes test seems to have changed everyone's attitude about DRS reverting to umpires...It takes bad experience to accept what India had been saying all along?

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 10:45 GMT)

4 more tests of DRS dramas? Or will whoever is in charge, simply change the DRS system to the third umpire when decisions are in doubt? we play 30 hours of cricket in a test, people wont mind a few minutes or less to check close decisions throughout the innings. The umpire does the Square-symbol in the Air for runouts, but why not LBW, caught behind? they even do it to check if the catch was legitimate. The current DRS system seems absurd. It takes the pressure off the Umpires in the middle if they can call upon technology whenever they want, and if there is a feeling over-reviewing will use up extra time, then the confident experienced umpire wont waste time reviewing everything, only the close ones. Either this or unlimited challenges. Please fix DRS system and don't worry about time delays.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 10:44 GMT)

practitioners dont frame the rules !! players are practitioners , so every decision making regarding the cricket as a system should be in the hands of in this case Umpires !!

Posted by Lara213 on (July 16, 2013, 10:44 GMT)

I think there is an issue where Haddin's not out was overturned by a DRS review which after a long deliberation was overturned to give him out, while Broad was allowed to stay in after a much more blatant nick, simply because Australia had no more reviews left. It turns the whole thing into a game of cricket roulette and generates a load of chatter, comment and acrimony which distracts from the game.

If you're out you're out, and it should be left to umpires to decide and not to the casino lottery of whether you've used up your reviews or not. I think everyone would accept that as a lot fairer and within the spirit of the game, and after al,l it's the umpires' job to adjudicate not the players.

Posted by dabhand on (July 16, 2013, 10:43 GMT)

Haddin talking more sense in one article than ICC officials will achieve in a year or more.

Also it is good to see that a professional sportsman recognise that the game is now professional and brings with it a professional approach - gone are the days of the amateur and all that they brought to the sport - including walking, no team manger would have thanked Haddin for walking had the DRS been inconclusive.

As for those who were yet again forecasting England would be whitewashed - you really need to get out more and for those forecasting a 10-0 drubbing of Australia - you need to join them - get away from the keyboard and see some real life - take a lesson from Haddin and recognise the quality of others, even if you are trying to win.

Posted by trav29 on (July 16, 2013, 10:41 GMT)

wont happen as how do you regulate how often it gets used

what would be stopping the onfield umpire passing the buck to the 3rd umpire for every marginal call ?

if the 3rd umpire is required to intervene if he sees something that the onfield umpire missed he would have to do it before the next ball was bowled or it would just get really messy

present process isn't ideal but this suggestion would fix one problem by creating numerous others

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 10:36 GMT)

and I totally agree...!

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