England v Australia, 3rd Investec Test, Old Trafford, 1st day August 1, 2013

CA ask ICC to explain Khawaja call

161

Cricket Australia has asked the ICC to explain why Usman Khawaja's dismissal was upheld after a decision review that appeared to show no evidence that he had edged behind off Graeme Swann.

Khawaja was visibly mystified by the outcome of his referral, shaking his head as he walked off following third umpire Kumar Dharmasena's decision to back Tony Hill's on-field call of out. There was no mark on Hot Spot and the raw vision, while not conclusive, appeared to suggest that the ball had not made contact with Khawaja's bat.

"Cricket Australia has sought an explanation from the ICC on the dismissal of Usman Khawaja," Cricket Australia's chief executive James Sutherland said in a statement. "In our view, the on-field decision and referred decision using DRS were both incorrect. CA remains a strong supporter of DRS and believes it is important that cricket continues to improve and build confidence in the DRS.

"We understand and accept that from time to time mistakes can be made, however in this instance, on behalf of the player, the team and all cricket fans, we feel duty bound to seek further explanation as to how this decision was arrived at."

The DRS is designed not with the idea of giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman but the on-field umpire's call, which meant that Dharmasena had to be completely certain that Hill was wrong in order to overturn the decision. Chris Rogers, who was at the non-striker's end when the dismissal occurred, said even the England players appeared resigned to Khawaja staying at the crease.

"He said he didn't hit it and I said he didn't hit it. That was about it," Rogers said. "I was up the other end. Even in real time I didn't think he hit it; I didn't think he was anywhere near it. The umpire must have had a different view on it. I thought it was not out and that's why we reviewed it. From what we saw on the replays I think even the England guys had given up hope of it being out. It was disappointing and another question-mark.

"It's a weird thing because it's people's careers on the line as well, so you want these decisions to be right. I felt for him, but it's been happening so we've just got to get on with it and not worry about that and try to have a good day."

Rogers said despite the apparent error costing Khawaja his innings, there was still a place for technology in assisting umpires. "I still think it's important," he said. "We want technology to make sure these decisions are correct. Sometimes it goes for you and sometimes it goes against you. You just have to take it."

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:53 GMT

    I can't see where the complaints about the technology make sense. The technology is fine. The problem is the use of technology by the third umpire. The technology clearly showed that Khawaja had missed the ball so the technology can't be blamed. The umpiring is what needs to be improved. In rugby and rugby league, video referees are used. These referees do video referee work only not on field work. They train exclusively to use the equipment and this should be what the ICC needs to work towards rather than just interchanging umpires between on field and video umpiring. Even football will now use technology.

  • Cyril_Knight on August 1, 2013, 20:41 GMT

    The technology has proven to be flawed time and time again, in all respects: hot spot with no hot spots showing (of course the 3rd umpire will ignore it, when it doesn't even show clear edges); Hawk-Eye has so many flaws it will take too long to list in detail (impact zone, location of impact, trajectory for spin and overspin, slopes and wind effect, assumption that the ball is a perfect circle, etc.).

    What is wrong with an umpire making an honest decision? It worked for 120 years in Test Cricket and continues to work in First-Class cricket. I think umpires, particularly those on the Elite Panel, do a fantastic job.

    No player works at a 90% correct decision level, so why is it expected of umpires to exceed this?

  • on August 3, 2013, 0:32 GMT

    The problems occur when the umpires and technology are being asked to find evidence that the player is not out. Anyone who has done any science lab work knows that finding evidence uses a process called "scientific method". By this, a null hypothesis (nothing happened) stands unless there is evidence that something happened. If no evidence is found, it is assumed that nothing happened. The null hypothesis is never that something happened; disproving that is often impossible - you can't show the "something" that happened to show that nothing happened. In cricket your null hypothesis is not out. You can readily find evidence of out - a snick, or a pad in line. Finding the "nothing" to overturn an out decision is as impossible as finding the non-existent "something" in science. The only way round this is to assume "not out" once the DRS is invoked, and look for evidence of dismissal. To reduce the bias to the batting team, change the DRS appeals to 1 for the batsmen and 2 for the fielders

  • IndianSRTfan on August 2, 2013, 23:03 GMT

    Contd...hitting the stumps is not at all foolproof.Even if we leave atmospheric and pitch conditions out of consideration, in a highly regarded article in a peer-reviewed journal, Mr. Collins and Mr. Evans have shown that Hawk-Eye struggles with predicting the trajectory of a cricket ball after bouncing when the time between a ball bouncing and striking the batsman may be too short to generate the three frames (at least) needed to plot a curve accurately.

    I'm quite familiar with development life cycle of a new technology.Regarding your last couple of sentences about new technology, I request you to look at my 1st comment where I've cited my Professor's words(which I support) and made my views on development of technology clear. Has HawkEye made any radical improvements over 4-5 years(which for a technology is a long time)? Nope! Just cosmetic modifications and new statistical models have been put in place. I'm not opposed to technology, just opposed to technology that doesn't improve.

  • IndianSRTfan on August 2, 2013, 21:14 GMT

    @Posted by Babu22 on (August 2, 2013, 7:49 GMT): I didn't say Khwaja dismissal was technology failure. Neither is my view that current technology is insufficient based on one dismissal or this series. As you say with ball tracking, the issue is with predictive part, isn't that the part we need ball tracking for in the first place? The point is predicting the path is the function that BT has to do correctly. And yes the factors I mentioned do have " a great effect" in the last 2m of the path. I don't say that because I'm an Indian, being a Caltech doctoral candidate for experimental physics, I can assure you I've researched enough material to know about the laminar and turbulent air flows, Magnus effect etc. which affect movement of spherical/round objects in the air all the time. As little distance as 25 cm enough to change trajectory of the ball. Predictive part of Hawk-Eye doesn't take any of these into account.So the predictive part where ball has a long way to go before Contd.....

  • a328232 on August 2, 2013, 18:26 GMT

    Ha ha ha. Cricket is a great leveller indeed.

  • arun_cric_fan on August 2, 2013, 15:55 GMT

    People will hate me for this - but i think the "DRS process" worked. Onfield umpire gave a call. Third empire "felt" he did not have evidence to overturn the onfield call. So he let the onfield call stay. Fair process. All this argument is really about -"was the info presented to third empire conclusive or not". In the spirit of cricket - if your appointed Third umpire says "it is not conclusive" then everyone including CA should let it go. Otherwise it is no different than player showing dissent. I like Sachin_VVSFAN comment that if DRS is inconclusive then do not reduce reviews. I think that is fair and will reduce this issue.

  • Chigz05 on August 2, 2013, 15:52 GMT

    I fail to understand when they say " to overturn the decision, DRS has to have clear evidence" ... Well if there is no evidence of Khawaja being out surely that shows "clear evidence" that he should be not out! Instead they stick to the decision! I would like to see how ICC defend this obvious blunder!

    I am glad Cricket Australia has taken this forward because DRS is or should I say the use of DRS is seriously confusing the hell out of everyone!

  • Scrop on August 2, 2013, 15:28 GMT

    Its a clear case of either technology wrong or the tv umpiring is wrong.

    The ICC has to answer which one is wrong.

    To me its the tv umpiring. What if it turns out to be a close game where Aus lose by slightest margin, Usman's wicket/scoring could have made the difference ??

  • TheGuruji on August 2, 2013, 14:17 GMT

    I find it incredibly myopic the argument, that DRS is fine, because the technology is good and only the usage is incorrect. Can Khwaja stand his ground saying that he is not out since technology said so? If not, that is a moot point. DRS is the sum total of everything - until you make it reasonably perfect, don't impose it on everyone.

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:53 GMT

    I can't see where the complaints about the technology make sense. The technology is fine. The problem is the use of technology by the third umpire. The technology clearly showed that Khawaja had missed the ball so the technology can't be blamed. The umpiring is what needs to be improved. In rugby and rugby league, video referees are used. These referees do video referee work only not on field work. They train exclusively to use the equipment and this should be what the ICC needs to work towards rather than just interchanging umpires between on field and video umpiring. Even football will now use technology.

  • Cyril_Knight on August 1, 2013, 20:41 GMT

    The technology has proven to be flawed time and time again, in all respects: hot spot with no hot spots showing (of course the 3rd umpire will ignore it, when it doesn't even show clear edges); Hawk-Eye has so many flaws it will take too long to list in detail (impact zone, location of impact, trajectory for spin and overspin, slopes and wind effect, assumption that the ball is a perfect circle, etc.).

    What is wrong with an umpire making an honest decision? It worked for 120 years in Test Cricket and continues to work in First-Class cricket. I think umpires, particularly those on the Elite Panel, do a fantastic job.

    No player works at a 90% correct decision level, so why is it expected of umpires to exceed this?

  • on August 3, 2013, 0:32 GMT

    The problems occur when the umpires and technology are being asked to find evidence that the player is not out. Anyone who has done any science lab work knows that finding evidence uses a process called "scientific method". By this, a null hypothesis (nothing happened) stands unless there is evidence that something happened. If no evidence is found, it is assumed that nothing happened. The null hypothesis is never that something happened; disproving that is often impossible - you can't show the "something" that happened to show that nothing happened. In cricket your null hypothesis is not out. You can readily find evidence of out - a snick, or a pad in line. Finding the "nothing" to overturn an out decision is as impossible as finding the non-existent "something" in science. The only way round this is to assume "not out" once the DRS is invoked, and look for evidence of dismissal. To reduce the bias to the batting team, change the DRS appeals to 1 for the batsmen and 2 for the fielders

  • IndianSRTfan on August 2, 2013, 23:03 GMT

    Contd...hitting the stumps is not at all foolproof.Even if we leave atmospheric and pitch conditions out of consideration, in a highly regarded article in a peer-reviewed journal, Mr. Collins and Mr. Evans have shown that Hawk-Eye struggles with predicting the trajectory of a cricket ball after bouncing when the time between a ball bouncing and striking the batsman may be too short to generate the three frames (at least) needed to plot a curve accurately.

    I'm quite familiar with development life cycle of a new technology.Regarding your last couple of sentences about new technology, I request you to look at my 1st comment where I've cited my Professor's words(which I support) and made my views on development of technology clear. Has HawkEye made any radical improvements over 4-5 years(which for a technology is a long time)? Nope! Just cosmetic modifications and new statistical models have been put in place. I'm not opposed to technology, just opposed to technology that doesn't improve.

  • IndianSRTfan on August 2, 2013, 21:14 GMT

    @Posted by Babu22 on (August 2, 2013, 7:49 GMT): I didn't say Khwaja dismissal was technology failure. Neither is my view that current technology is insufficient based on one dismissal or this series. As you say with ball tracking, the issue is with predictive part, isn't that the part we need ball tracking for in the first place? The point is predicting the path is the function that BT has to do correctly. And yes the factors I mentioned do have " a great effect" in the last 2m of the path. I don't say that because I'm an Indian, being a Caltech doctoral candidate for experimental physics, I can assure you I've researched enough material to know about the laminar and turbulent air flows, Magnus effect etc. which affect movement of spherical/round objects in the air all the time. As little distance as 25 cm enough to change trajectory of the ball. Predictive part of Hawk-Eye doesn't take any of these into account.So the predictive part where ball has a long way to go before Contd.....

  • a328232 on August 2, 2013, 18:26 GMT

    Ha ha ha. Cricket is a great leveller indeed.

  • arun_cric_fan on August 2, 2013, 15:55 GMT

    People will hate me for this - but i think the "DRS process" worked. Onfield umpire gave a call. Third empire "felt" he did not have evidence to overturn the onfield call. So he let the onfield call stay. Fair process. All this argument is really about -"was the info presented to third empire conclusive or not". In the spirit of cricket - if your appointed Third umpire says "it is not conclusive" then everyone including CA should let it go. Otherwise it is no different than player showing dissent. I like Sachin_VVSFAN comment that if DRS is inconclusive then do not reduce reviews. I think that is fair and will reduce this issue.

  • Chigz05 on August 2, 2013, 15:52 GMT

    I fail to understand when they say " to overturn the decision, DRS has to have clear evidence" ... Well if there is no evidence of Khawaja being out surely that shows "clear evidence" that he should be not out! Instead they stick to the decision! I would like to see how ICC defend this obvious blunder!

    I am glad Cricket Australia has taken this forward because DRS is or should I say the use of DRS is seriously confusing the hell out of everyone!

  • Scrop on August 2, 2013, 15:28 GMT

    Its a clear case of either technology wrong or the tv umpiring is wrong.

    The ICC has to answer which one is wrong.

    To me its the tv umpiring. What if it turns out to be a close game where Aus lose by slightest margin, Usman's wicket/scoring could have made the difference ??

  • TheGuruji on August 2, 2013, 14:17 GMT

    I find it incredibly myopic the argument, that DRS is fine, because the technology is good and only the usage is incorrect. Can Khwaja stand his ground saying that he is not out since technology said so? If not, that is a moot point. DRS is the sum total of everything - until you make it reasonably perfect, don't impose it on everyone.

  • RohanMarkJay on August 2, 2013, 13:02 GMT

    I agree its not the on field umpires fault. If there was no technology, the on field umpires decision would stand as it should. However, in this instance technology was used with the 3rd umpire solely employed for the purpose of using technology. I can't for the life of me understand with the aid of advanced technology the TV umpire could get it wrong. Maybe cricket should only make the two onfield umpires make all the decisions like in the old days.

  • Raps on August 2, 2013, 12:43 GMT

    BCCI officials must be laughing their heads off. The use of DRS is getting a bit ridiculous now considering there have been so many "howlers" with the use of it in the Ashes. There are dual issues here. One is that the technology is not foolproof and the use of it by the umpires is not clearly defined. I think the technology should be scrapped until we have a 99% accuracy rate with respect to any umpiring decision.

  • Kayzed on August 2, 2013, 11:12 GMT

    The technology is fine, it is a matter of applying it correctly. In this particular case the third umpire was probably in too much of a hurry to go along with the field umpire. Perhaps 3rd umpire Dharmasena himself a top class cricketer needs to shown the replay by a panel so that such a blunder is not committed again. For the umpire it is a just a mistake, however for the players it can seriously damage their future. Perhaps ICC needs to get a little more tough with its own staff.

  • alicheema on August 2, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    In my opinion its not a DRS fault as DRS showed he (Usman) didn't hit it, instead its Poor umpiring decision, just not only poor but its a blunder by 3rd umpire.

  • atuljain1969 on August 2, 2013, 10:23 GMT

    Media has a field day, as every decision supported by DRS is making headlines.

    One thing is for sure, DRS should not be made applicable to LBW decisions, but of course where there is a doubt w.r.t ball touching bat then player can ask for referral.

  • sachin_vvsfan on August 2, 2013, 10:13 GMT

    Whenever DRS is INCONCLUSIVE (when the on-field umpires decision stays )then DO NOT REDUCE the reviews. Leave the reviews as is and reduce the count only when there is obvious evidence to overturn the decision. Believe me this will solve 90% of the problems (with 2 reviews per innings per team)

  • on August 2, 2013, 10:11 GMT

    For all those using this incident to support BCCI's stance on DRS, please note technology was not at fault here - in fact technology actually clearly showed it was not out - it was the third umpire's decision to support on field umpire's decision that has stirred controversy. I think its safe to say technology is here to stay and will form an integral part of cricket no doubt, its the umpires that need more "net sessions" on DRS!

  • StJohn on August 2, 2013, 10:06 GMT

    No blame to the on-field umpire: it's very tough to call all faint edges correctly in real time. But it's a total nonsense if an edge is referred to the 3rd umpire and then none of hotspot, snicko or real time replays support the decision to give the batsman out: if there's no evidence that the batsman edged it surely it must be not out, otherwise the review's pointless. Agar was wrongly given out in similar fashion following an edge review in the 2nd Inns of the 2nd Test.

    The interpretation of DRS is clear enough with LBWs: benefit of doubt to the on-field umpire if Hawkeye shows less than half the ball clipping the stumps. In a way that isn't logical: if the ball's clipping on an LBW then, essentially, the batsman's just as out as he is off the faintest of edges. But as LBWs are more complicated and harder to call it probably makes sense to give the benefit of doubt to the on-field umpire. And also at least everyone knows where they stand with such a review.

  • GermanPlayer on August 2, 2013, 10:03 GMT

    I think the ICC should. at the end of each day, make public a report on all DRS decisions taken that day. The problem is that most people still do not know the difference between a referral for a run out and a referral for a DRS. That is because they do not know that the third umpire has to think on a specific line and relay the result to the third umpire. That is the 'system'. He cannot say 'mate i don't see any edge'. That way we are still adding human error. All he does is look at the replay and check the boxes that are correct and leave the otehrs blank. That's all. The ICC really needs to make public how these decisions are arrived at!

  • on August 2, 2013, 9:58 GMT

    And ICC have given this umpire the number one umpire status who can not even give the correct decision even sitting as 3rd Umpire.

  • on August 2, 2013, 9:56 GMT

    Firstly it is not a technological issue but a governance issue. I really can't understand why ICC has come up with some below par governance rules for the DRS. When a batsman nicks one and if the DRS does not show anything, the third umpire is not allowed to use the Hotspot and Snicko but only real time mic. He still gave Haddin out in the 4th innings in Cardiff. Now we see the 3rd umpire sees no proof to give it out but he does not feel that his colleague's decision can be overturned with his available tech footage. I mean it is a farce as how the ICC has framed this set up. Above all there is something known as common sense. It should be used above technology in such instances and some umpire, gutsy enough has to start showing some changes. When you reward a team with the ICC spirit of cricket award why is not the ICC able to uphold the spirit of cricket.

  • on August 2, 2013, 9:53 GMT

    It is a pity that DRS would have to be the reason for the careers of the likes of Khawaja. It would for sure let the spirits down for a player and the next time he is out to bat, he shall be doubly under pressure. DRS is good, but not fit to be piloted in a critical series like this one.

  • Samdanh on August 2, 2013, 9:45 GMT

    Khawaja decision was absolutely not out - nothing on hotspot, nothing on snicko. Was there a snicko shown on decision when Steve was given not out? What did it show. I may have missed that phase

  • Chanred on August 2, 2013, 9:44 GMT

    There seems to be one controversy per test atleast with regard to DRS. So, is there some sense and reason behind the obstinate refusal of DRS by BCCI ? I think so. The other boards might have ganged up and screamed " Conspiracy " , but the ashes is providing enough proof that DRS is still work in progress. Atleast the Aussies would agree.

  • on August 2, 2013, 9:00 GMT

    The standard of umpiring now compared to pre drs has actually improved a hell of a lot. If you go back 25 years or so, there were some absolute howlers. Overall we don't get them now. Yes, yesterday the third umpire made a couple of very bad calls. But do you want to go back to the days when lbws were given when there were massive edges or the ball pitched outside leg or when no left arm spinner in the world could get an lbw?

  • on August 2, 2013, 8:39 GMT

    I can explain Khawaja's dismissal. Poor Umpiring. Tony Hill made a bad judgement and Dharmasena, only exacerbated it. Why blame DRS technology? Technology was clear. Human Interpretation of rules is 'fuzzy'. Dharmasena is an over rated umpire. since his award of "umpire of the Year", his performance has gone down. Tony Hill has always been a below average Umpire.

  • DingDong420 on August 2, 2013, 8:36 GMT

    Again....whats the point of technology if the wrong decisions are being given!

  • SabyS on August 2, 2013, 8:33 GMT

    I don't understand this concept of "backing an onfield umpire's decision". The umprie has made a decision, it is up to the person looking at the technology to look at the evidence and put it back to the on-field umpire. The 3rd umpire doesn't need to say, "Oh I think you were right". He needs to state what we sees, that's all...and not take sides. I feel the DRS is just fine. The interpretations need major change. Ask the 3rd umpire to report what he sees and ensure that the onfield umpire rectifies or stick to his position based on evidence. It coan't be that tough.

  • Kalran on August 2, 2013, 8:19 GMT

    The purpose of DRS is to remove howlers. So, let us keep DRS but without the fancy technologies and use only normal replays to make decision. Obviously, any howlers will be caught by normal TV replays. You don't need to have Hot Spots, Snicko, ball trackers and the likes to catch blatantly wrong decisions. This means only run outs/stumpings, inside edges in the case of LBWs, and blatant outside/inside edges in the case of caught behind could potentially be reversed.

  • bobonbb on August 2, 2013, 8:12 GMT

    Smiths's not out decisions were certainly no howlers. The sort of not out decions that have been made for ages. Dickie Bird would be made to look foolish inthis thay and age while he simply applied the laws. The Khawaja decision was likewise a mistake that has always been made by on field umpires. Exactly for this kind of mistakes DRS was introduced, nor for whether or not a ball pitched or struck a nanometer outside.

  • on August 2, 2013, 8:07 GMT

    I have been watching cricket for a long time. I have seen some ridiculous decisions made by umpires in the past. But Khawaja's decision was the ugliest decision I have ever seen. There are a few reasons for that. 1. The 3rd umpire had very good angles to decide whether the ball hit the bat or not.2. It was so obvious that the ball didn't hit the bat. In one of the angles(behind the keeper) I saw, there was a huge gap between the bat and the ball. How on earth did the third umpire give that out? There is nothing wrong with using the technology. But ICC should do something about these blind umpires. These are the people who ruin the quality of the game.

    This is not for the first time that umpires made ridiculous decisions in this Ashes series. What about Steve Smith's catch, what about Ashton Agar edge. This is the third time. In the second test match at Lords, Ashton Agar didn't hit the ball.Hotspot didn't show any edge. But the third umpire gave that out.

  • on August 2, 2013, 8:04 GMT

    Discussing both of the decisions of Khawaja and Smith. Clear Outside edge through to the keeper but no Hotspot and most importantly on field umpire said not out. England reviewed and as there was no hotspot but still a clear noise so the decision remains as on filed umpire. On field Umpire Won. Secondly Khawaja, nowhere near the ball, no hotspot, no sound if the ball clipping the bat but on field umpire said OUT, Batsman reviewed, 3rd umpire saw there was no hotspot, no noise but after taking his own sweet time, went with on field umpire. What comes out with these 2 incidents, on field umpires role is Vital. 3rd Umpire considering more an on field umpire than the technology. Also, loophole with Hotspot there, as it was clear outside edge but no Smith Survives. Bottom line is its all Umpire call 3rd umpire and of course on field umpire.

  • on August 2, 2013, 8:03 GMT

    Thats the reason i think BCCI is keep refusing to use DRS as most of the time ,3rd umpire is keeping on field umpire's call whatever its right or wrong. In short it was a slap on umpiring.

  • milepost on August 2, 2013, 7:50 GMT

    Did anyone notice Bresnan's no-ball when he got Watson's wicket? I think we accept that sometimes LBW's aren't given, that's cricket. I actually don't like DRS for LBW unless the batsman is given out but knows he hit it. Khawaja was not out and you're crazy to suggest anything otherwise.

  • Babu22 on August 2, 2013, 7:49 GMT

    @IndianSRTFan: Technology got the decision on Usman Khawaja. It was third umpire's mistake. Not technology failure. About ball tracking, there are 6000 fps cameras. For a 100 kmph ball(0.7 seconds), the cameras take approx. 4200 shots, and these are used to generate the path of the ball. You have a shot every 0.5 cm. The path shown is absolutely correct up to the point it hits the batsman. The issue is only with the predictive element that comes after the ball hits the batsman. Do you seriously believe all the factors you mention will have such a great effect in the last 2m of the path? Of course, Indians will say yes. This amazes me as Indians are pretty intelligent, but talk rubbish sometimes. About technology itself, can you name one that is born perfect? There is none. You invent something, use it and keep correcting it/yourselves as you go along. That's how it works always. That's how all the technology in the world developed.

  • Cricinbest on August 2, 2013, 7:42 GMT

    Why all these people making this a big problem. "The DRS is designed not with the idea of giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman but the on-field umpire's call, which meant that Dharmasena had to be completely certain that Hill was wrong in order to overturn the decision." This part has the total summary of this incident. 3rd umpire didn't have enough evidence to overturn on-field umpire's decission, because, though hot spot didn't show any mark (we have seen this several times, that the hot spot haven't captured soft edges) sniko gave a sound. So 3rd umpire can't properly say that the on-field umpire is wrong or correct. In this situation he has to go with the on-field umpire's call. Same we see in LBW decisions, where marginal decisions go with the on-field umpire's call.

  • ReverseSweepIndia on August 2, 2013, 7:08 GMT

    time & again problem is not with DRS but its implementation. I think ICC can atm remove HotSpot & Hawkeye from DRS and jut keep simple replay as DRS tool that mean no extra costs (only logical point in BCCI resistance i.e why spend so much on a imperfect system). Goal of DRS is to remove obvious howlers and obvious howlers are those where umpire made a mistake but are seen other way by another set eyes/replay. Simple & straight.

  • NishadD on August 2, 2013, 7:06 GMT

    An important part of the DRS which many viewers are unfamiliar with:

    On field umpire's call is favoured only in the case of leg before decisions. If either of the three parameters show on field calls, then the on field umpire's decicion stays. That is because judgement was a bifg factor in a leg before decision.

    This isn't the case with a caught behind, which is a factual decision. DRS decision in this case is independent of the on field umipre's call. If there is a conclusive evidence either via the hot spot or a sound during a TV reply, the batsman is out irrespective of the on field call.

    In the case of Khawaja dismissal, the hot spot as well as the tv replay was not conclusive. Umpire Dharmasena got it wrong.

  • GeoffreysMother on August 2, 2013, 7:03 GMT

    Cricket Australia have had Khawaja in and out of the side, confused him with mixed messages, created a schedule which left him in fine form in November and then no long form cricket after that. Given that, as the ultimate selectors, they can simply ignore this decision, their actions are much more crucial to his career than one bad decision.

  • ramz30380 on August 2, 2013, 7:03 GMT

    Khawaja's dismissal is one of the most ridiculous decisions in recent times. Technology needs to be used to get things right and is not about what the umpires think is right! These people do not understand that its the career of players affected by such calls that are at stake!

    ICC has some serious explanations to do. We all saw the outcome of two ridiculous decisions of Stuart Broad that played a significant role in the outcome of the 1st test result.A country's pride is at stake and umpires cannot fool around with it.

    Similar to penalties for players, there should be a system that penalizes umpires for such ridiculous decisions even when they have the benefit of using technology for it. High time ICC wakes up!

  • AltafPatel on August 2, 2013, 6:59 GMT

    This is absolutely valid decision as the limit is crossed now...

  • Madhava27 on August 2, 2013, 6:40 GMT

    And I felt the whole point of having technology in place is to get the right decisions every single time. If it has to be the case of few right decisions going your way and few others not, then there is no point of having DRS. The existing 3 umpires are already doing that job for the game. Add to the fact that errors caused using DRS might seem all the more intentional than accidental, and I don't think that will help the cause of the game in anyway, in fact there is greater potential to harm it.

  • on August 2, 2013, 6:13 GMT

    Australia is getting what they did with India in 2003 Famous Sydney tests .. So many decision which went against India ..

  • s_yajaman on August 2, 2013, 5:53 GMT

    The 3rd umpire needs to go by evidence and not by his judgement which is why he is given this technology to start with. The evidence in this case is whether Hotspot showed a nick or not. It is not for the 3rd umpire to decide if HotSpot is doing its job properly. Snicko/noise is not reliable; the bat can hit the ground, the pad, etc. IMHO,it is circumstantial evidence but not conclusive.

  • Narayan.Shastri on August 2, 2013, 5:48 GMT

    Prima facie it is a serious lapse on the part of the third umpire and not the DRS itself. Blaming DRS is like the English proverb 'cutting the nose to spite the face'. When Australia called for review, people all over the world watching the reply would have their eyeballs hunting for the HotSpot - it was not there at all! I am sure the officials were within their rights to recall Usman Khawaja to the crease.

    Clarke's century and Australia inching towards a good position in this Test seems to be a fitting retribution to the debatable Khawaja dismissal.

  • on August 2, 2013, 5:47 GMT

    Throughout this Ashes series one thing is quite palpable and apparent that majority of umpiring wrong decision went against Australia.What is amazing is even third umpires are determined to support England.

  • IndianSRTfan on August 2, 2013, 5:44 GMT

    @Posted by landl47 on (August 2, 2013, 1:00 GMT): You say technology got some right decisions today. Which ones may I ask? By technology do you mean only HotSpot? Even that doesn't show faint nicks always. So my question is what is the main purpose of HotSpot if it doesn't detect thin edges always? To detect obvious edges? Surely not. Ppl say HS backs up the ball-tracking system. But that itself doesn't take into account too many factors, some of which Cyril_Knight mentioned, the others being pitch and atmospheric conditions, Magnus effect etc etc, to be reliable. These technology components and the system were put in place to eliminate howlers and promised a near-perfect success rate. But both the system and technical components are proven to have too many glitches. So what's wrong with looking for better technological alternatives and meanwhile scrapping this error-prone system which has not shown any signs of progress for 4-5 years now?

  • on August 2, 2013, 5:20 GMT

    I really don't understand the idea behind on field umpire's call favoritism. That's ridiculous. How simple it is either OUT or NOT OUT. When you refer to TV umpire nothing less than correct decision would be in the spirit of game. All of a sudden tv umpires seems to have developed anxiety problem when they have to deal with referral calls...They seems to be in tremendous pressure...It must be kind of disorder to make such blunders... ICC should bring out changes...Their should not be any if or but in decision...Make it simple...Train umpire's...Suspend them for games for single error as a tv umpire... Its professional cricket... I would still prefer old days cricket...Gentleman walks on umpire call...I don't want to learn new rules... A Cricket lover from Nepal.

  • on August 2, 2013, 5:17 GMT

    @ Abhishek Banerjee no one owes India anything at all. Yesterday's mess had nothing to do with the DRS and everything to do with the umpires. They got it wrong, plain and simple.

  • metallicababy on August 2, 2013, 4:58 GMT

    Damn!!!it really hurts to see your favourite team suffer for nothing. DRS video clearly showed that khwaja did't nick it nor did hot spot showed anything. There's no blaming the on filed upmire as his decisions is clearly based on what he felt at that moment. he felt that khwaja had nicked it and he gave out...But!! the sole blame should go to the third umpire. he had all sorts of decision making tools and technologies. despite of these thing, he made a wrong decision which to some extent may affect the career of the emerging players.

  • on August 2, 2013, 4:50 GMT

    I agree with those who suggested DRS should be used similar to video referreeing in Rugby. Field umpire should refer all close calls to video referee and leave it up to him to make the final decision - OUT or NOT OUT just as Rugby video referee says TRY or NO TRY. Field referee should only decide if the batsman is clearly out or if it is a close call. - Abhijit

  • on August 2, 2013, 4:34 GMT

    The entire DRS lobby owes India a grovelling apology. The crow has been served, let us see if the fine upstanding gentlemen, who were accusing India of being liars and cheats, are now man enough to eat that crow.

  • on August 2, 2013, 4:33 GMT

    The DRS system works fine. There are issues with some of the 3rd umpires who believe it is their job to protect the on-field umpire. The on-field umpire made a mistake which does happen. No excuse for the 3rd umpire though. Would have though a gap between bat and ball in the first replay would have been enough to show he didn't hit it. Funny how people are saying that hot spot wasn't working. It was. There was no hot spot for the simple fact he didn't hit it. Sound came before the ball passed.

  • Cricket_theBestGame on August 2, 2013, 4:33 GMT

    i watched the dismissal and all i can say with DRS is that ICC has ordered umpires to leave common sense at home !

  • on August 2, 2013, 4:25 GMT

    Just in - official explanation from the ICC for the Khawaja howler: Stevie Wonder was guest umpiring at the time...

  • Shaggy076 on August 2, 2013, 4:21 GMT

    I'm not a fan of how the DRS is administrated more to do with the Smith (LBW of Broad) one later in the day than the Khawaja one. As it stands the DRS is set-up to save Khawaja which is what the system should do and is designed to do, its just those administering the system that stuffed-up here not the system itself. As for the Smith LBW, as I have said in earlier tests this is what the system needs to be used for not the 50/50 calls that it was used on. Once again the ability to use DRS effectively has changed the nature of the game and this time in Australias favour. DRS should not be a tactic that captains need to master.

  • Mano91 on August 2, 2013, 4:03 GMT

    why mistake by an umpire on hotspot I think still he didn't full believe. I think hotspot lost in confidency. anyone disagree "some notout shows spot and it didn't show on clear out"

  • on August 2, 2013, 3:59 GMT

    DRS does not seem to have helped in correct decisions in being arrived at . If DRS is there to remove howlers, then why was Khawaja declared out . What did Dharmasena see in the replays to declare the batsman out . On the whole, it prooves a point that India is right in going against DRS ,till the technology is perfected . ICC makes so much money that they should fund the DRS system ,after perfecting the technology ,in order that it is accepted by all countries and the margin of error is reduced to the minimum .

  • Timmuh on August 2, 2013, 3:51 GMT

    @Sachin_Pointing. Yes, DRS has issues and some have been highlighted in this series. It is still, however flawed, better than no review system. The Khawaja one was just blatantly wrong, while Australia did get the better of a couple of other closer ones of the type which has gone against them all series (Smith in particular, I can understand that being given not out but the English have a right to eel aggrieved over it).

  • Rukky on August 2, 2013, 3:50 GMT

    Well, It is very disappointed to have such a decision. But for this mistake we should not blame the technology. It is off course human mistakes. Technology is very correct. ICC implemented that Technology so that the Concern Umpire (off course Third Umpire) can see that, and can go with the decision what Technology is saying. When there is not Mark on Hot Spot and Raw Vision, that means it clearly not touched the Edge of His (Khawja's) bat. And Technology had proved it. Then why Third Umpire is not accepting it. Then what is the use of Technology? So I think ICC should improve DRS to little further extent and make technology which automatically decide whether Batsman is out or not? Means if Hot Spot is showing mark, wind flow, bowlers foot step, bow angle and direction that light automatically should blink "RED" (OUT), otherwise "GREEN" (NOT OUT).

    CON : IF UMPIRES DON'T FOLLOW THE TECHNOLOGY, WHAT IS THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY? OR OTHERWISE COMPLETELY USE TECHNOLOGY... Rukky, India

  • on August 2, 2013, 3:49 GMT

    I don't understand how this decision is an argument against DRS. It was a wrong decision, that remained just as wrong after the review. The issue in this case is DRS being given such a poorly defined definition of evidence to overturn a decision that it ends up being unable to overturn a decision that seemed to the whole world to be just wrong.

    The idea that the answer is to drop DRS makes no sense, and is akin to pointing out that one motor cyclist was killed despite wearing a helmet, therefore there's no point to helmets and no-one should wear them. The answer, of course, is better helmets and a better set of protocols for using technology to review decisions.

  • Greatest_Game on August 2, 2013, 3:39 GMT

    @Sachin_Pointing wrote "India is the only country which opposes (the) DRS system (which) is not accurate & it could make or break someones career. Many times umpires are not accurate, and they too can make or break someone's career. As the problems and the outcome are the same both for umpires and the UDRS system, are India opposed to umpires too?

  • bobbo2 on August 2, 2013, 3:21 GMT

    The third umpires need to be held responsible. There is nothing wrong with the technology. If there is a nick on hotspot then it is out - if not then not out.

    The human factor is the issue and up until the Ashes I think most third umpire decisions with DRS have been fine.

    I simply don't understand why there have been so many issues with the Ashes series.

    The ICC should be asking the umpires in each case to justify the decisions and show the ICC the evidence as to why they made the decision. In the Kawaja case, it should have been not out as there was no hotspot. Simple and based on what we've seen with the technology there should have been a clear edge if he hit it.

  • on August 2, 2013, 3:08 GMT

    As per the Hotspot and the replay it wasn't out hence it should've given not out. Umprire ruled otherwise, Why blame the DRS? . Maybe we as human wants to believe it should've given out since umpire has given it out?

  • agent001 on August 2, 2013, 3:07 GMT

    Umpires can make mistake seeing from 22 yards away, but there is no excuse for the 3rd umpire to repeat that mistake in order to side with his on-field umpire. 3rd umpire Dharmasena should never have been placed in the elite group. He has not umpired in that many matches to qualify plus he has made many poor on-field decisions.

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:39 GMT

    umpires should be made obsolete.

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:20 GMT

    Maybe I'm biased but it seems to be going against Australia in extremes. Firstly, there was no evidence against the on-field decision on Agar yet it was the decision was overturned, and now this where it was laughably claimed there was no evidence disputing the original decision. My feeling is it could be Tony Hill to blame, he made atrocious decisions in the last game and stuck with his awful decision last night after watching the replays himself

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:18 GMT

    @2mikegattings khawaja decision was the worst because it was reviewed. hot spot showed nothing, snicko showed nothing, relplay showed no evidence of ball touching the bat.

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:13 GMT

    @2Mikes. The Smith lbw was a bad one but would or should have been overturned on a review (if England still had it). What annoys me about the Khawaja dismissal is that the third umpire had a million opportunities to see that it was clearly not out.

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:13 GMT

    This is not DRS problem but absolute incompetence on Kumar Dharmasena's part (ICC Umpire of the Year). After seeing no HOT SPOT and on replaying clearly showing batsman missed the ball what other evidence does Kumar Dharmasena need to overturn it? This is an example of an umpire not doing his job correctly.

  • kathirraj on August 2, 2013, 2:10 GMT

    Continuation... Was it bcoz of host broadcaster? Or just a technician's wrong doing or what not.We had seen a camera man not showed hot spot in this series itself. For whose benefit? Mr.Mike atherton said very very slender evidence 2 gv it out Ian Bell in d Champs trophy final.(IF Bell stayed for another 3 overs thr, Ind victory margin cud hv been bigger than d eventual one though.. lol ) I wondered n suspected host broadcaster in that case as they not showed us d clear pic except for d 3rd ump.Thr r humans,host broadcasting companies n what not thr to obtain their fav decisions? Wn BCCI opposed UDRS 1st, I cud smile as I cud smell their view.Thief won't allow darkness in his own house to make another theif's cause.

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:09 GMT

    I'm not sure why people are criticising the technology. The DRS demonstrated that it was not out which the umpire chose to ignore. The third umpire is at fault not the DRS. If technology was not used and we just went with the on field umpires, the decision would still have been wrong.

  • heathrf1974 on August 2, 2013, 2:04 GMT

    Although people are complaining about the DRS, it was human or protocol error and not technological error. If we get rid of DRS the media with all it's technology with still show the errors made by the umpires. So the DRS is here to stay. Also, people saying Khawaja was robbed by DRS need to check their logic. If there was no DRS he would have still been out. I think the DRS should be used with both hotspot and snicko and if they both agree a nick or no nick has occurred they can then over-rule an umpires contrary decision. Just listening for noise is not accurate enough as bats sometimes creek between the handle and the blade when it is swung through the air or the bat clips the pads.

  • kathirraj on August 2, 2013, 1:54 GMT

    Once few yrs back,I ws watching a match btwn India vs Zim match I guess.I don't remember India's opp, but d match had bn played in Ind.Thr was a call for an LBW from a Ind bowler. Zak/Nehra.Don't remember it clearly.Thr was no udrs or drs to b calld upon those days.(even now too in Ind soil. :lol:) But @ 1st replay showd d ball was pitched outside leg n d commentator from that other playing country man said it was n.out.Then again a 2nd replay showd in d screen.That time I clearly seen the line off the hawk-eye's was doctored n the ball shown as pitched on leg stump.Now d Indian commentator who commented as it was pitched on leg stump rather and it should be given out. n d verdict went to Ind and the visiting country's commentator was in disbelief.Though I am an Indian too, I was shocked to get a result from a doctored way.I don't know who can alter it.But the thing is hayk-eye's line was altered in d 2nd time.Whose responsibility it is 2 ensure these things can't happen? Wd continue..

  • on August 2, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    Hahahaha..Oh this is from India by the way..

  • Barnesy4444 on August 2, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    These type of bad on-field mistakes have always happened. But DRS was brought in to eliminate them which it is failing to do. It overturns many 50-50 decisions but also allows too many howlers.

  • johnsenden2011 on August 2, 2013, 1:40 GMT

    @Cyril_Knight, It has nothing to do with 'part of cricket', or even the fact why Steven Smith is still batting. The problem is Dharmasena saw the SAME technology that the rest of the world saw, but somehow, he came to a different result. You can blame technology as much as you want. The exact same thing happened to Agar in the last test match in terms of not over turning a wrong decision (The Trott incident was a little different since the technology malfunctioned) . Change the people who use the technology and we might actually see correct results. Tony Hill made mistakes as third umpire last match and is just doing the same this match, just out in the middle this time.

  • bouncer709 on August 2, 2013, 1:39 GMT

    Is this the first time in TEST cricket that wrong decisions are made? Why so hype? because this is Australia and England cricket? When other countries are playing and Australian and English umpire standing there and they do make wrong decision then no body care about it.

    To the people who criticise DRS and technology, a question to them? how do you know Khawaja was not out? In fact you know it because of the technology, So you are criticising the thing which you believe is correct in telling you, Khawaja was not out......it is not technology fault, it is human error. What If DRS is not used, will the people stop criticising umpire decisions? If ICC decides to not use DRS then there should be no slow replays, hawk eyes and any other helping material available for the commentator and spectator on TV screen to judge umpire decisions and criticise them.

  • on August 2, 2013, 1:30 GMT

    DRS and technology is not at fault. In just above every instant replay system, its the people using it that makes the mistakes.

    The technology in this case provided NO evidence of the ball being hit. Yet umpires still gave it out. We've seen even the slightest of nicks show up on hotspot, I've yet to see a nick not show up on hotspot. Apparently this was the case.

    The processes the people use are the problem. The reason we need DRS is because in this case, Khawaja would have been given out and the media would have been all over it as the worst decision ever. However now the focus is on the third umpire being the worst decision ever.

    There has been lots of 50-50 decisions, which is where i think the DRS gets misused. However in this situation it was used correctly but the process gave the wrong result.

  • hayagriva on August 2, 2013, 1:24 GMT

    Definitely Ridiculous System... Thats what the DRS is turning out to be. Not because of the technology, but in its interpretation. I am neither Aussie, nor English, but have am a great fan of Test Cricket. And when I watched this decision being given out, my jaw hit the floor. I wonder whether all the three umpires would need one of two things... or perhaps both.

    Firstly, they need to get their eyes checked. Neither in Real Time nor through the DRS components was their a confirmation of the Hot Spot. Even in real time replays it was quite clear, that ball was inches away from the bat. So I am baffled why none of the three could pick this out. Secondly, they all need a crash course in interpreting the technology and how to use it. Perhaps its a scam by the umpires to make so many erroneous judgement calls, so that the DRS is kicked out and the umpires have their stronghold again!!!

  • on August 2, 2013, 1:23 GMT

    I hate saying this since ive always been a supporter of technology,but....i agree with Gilly.The DRS,whilst a fine idea and experiment and perhaps has even worked more than it hasn't but it is messing up the game,taking away key traditions and causing umpires to be undermined.Palpably,thin edges are not picked up by the technology time and again.At best scrap it until it has found to be more effective at lower levels or shorter versions of the game and all nations embrace it,including Inida.At worst continue using it but with only the umpires reviewing it at their own discretion.

  • rohanbala on August 2, 2013, 1:17 GMT

    Simple solution for the problems with regard to DRS, is to fire the umpires concerned and get on with the game. In both the cases involving Khawaja and Smith, it is the umpires who should take the blame. Why blame the machine when the workman is at fault?

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on August 2, 2013, 1:06 GMT

    Khawaja's dismissal

    Erasmus: is there was any heat on the bat? Dharmasena: no! Erasmus: is there was any deviation? Dharmasena: no! Erasmus: is there was any noise? Dharmasena: noise.., might be from..! (Bat hitting pad). Erasmus: no, no, no. you donot have any right (by drs rule) to say **may**, you have right only to SAY **yes** or **no**. Now tell me, whether there was a noise or not. Dharmasena: yes. Erasmus: that's enough.

    OUT.

  • landl47 on August 2, 2013, 1:00 GMT

    @Cyril_Knight: perhaps you'd explain how you know the technology got any decisions wrong today. All the decisions today upheld the on-field umpire's decision, so if you think technology got the decisions wrong, what's your evidence? Oh, that's right- technology.

    You're arguing in circles.

  • Amarjitmadan on August 2, 2013, 0:53 GMT

    All possible evidences showed that there was no contact between bat and ball and if such a decision cannot be reversed then let us rename it " Dubious referral system". I salute the Aussie PM for expressing his views on Twitter about this howler!

  • RaadQ on August 2, 2013, 0:52 GMT

    If you are require more than (1) absent of hotspot (2) a noise coinciding with the bat hitting the pad, not with the ball going past the bad and (3) slow motion replays showing daylight between bat and ball - to be conclusive, there is a clear problem and umpire re-training is required. Those saying "he would have been out anyways" forget that poor third umpiring can actually cause errors (first test) and not mention the waste of time and interruption of the game to provide yet another third umpring error. This was by no means an onfield howlers, rather, a third umpiring howler.

  • liam_ali on August 2, 2013, 0:50 GMT

    is questioning an umpire's decision not bringing the game into disrepute?. while both Hill & damassena made a huge error with Khawaja, the umpire's decision is FINAL,the umpires also made another howler which is why Smith is still at the wicket. Perhaps, CA should also enquire about that mistake!!! take the good with the bad, mates

  • Belltower on August 2, 2013, 0:50 GMT

    Why mention the smith decision, in real time it looked like it might have hit just outside off stump, and that is how the umpire called it, doesnt matter that hawkeye showed it hitting half way up. This again is a failure by the umpires not the technology. There have been 4-5 howlers in this series and not surprisingly all but one has gone against australia Rogers lbw - missing leg by a yard Agar - didn't nick it 2nd test Broad did nick it - sorry smashed it Trott - nicked an lbw Khawaja missed it by over 6 inches Bell - clear catch given not out

    There has also been a number of marginal calls and we expect those but the umpires need to stop the howlers. Englands appealing causes the howlers, the pressure on the umpire is unbelievable, they have realised if they continue a lengthy appeal the umpre will give it out. I am sure the only reason they didnt get the smith appeals is because of the mistake earlier

  • David_Boon on August 2, 2013, 0:41 GMT

    Raw vision not conclusive? The view from behind the stumps shows the ball missing bat by about 6 inches!

  • hramesh on August 2, 2013, 0:34 GMT

    The present system is highly flawed. What is preferable is to have the on-field umpires being the decision makers, only provide them with access to technology. When in doubt, they have their third umpire colleague looking closely at it and advising them. Even if it means a little time lost, it is important, because sometimes a match swings one way or the other because of a single decision, and careers of cricketers may also be affected. Giving the onus to the players makes the whole thing a lottery. Indeed if a team makes a couple of negative but very close challenges (where the technology leaves it to umpire's call and the umpire simply holds on to his old decision), then that is it, they have no further reviews for that innings and that is really unfair. If the DRS is not improved in the manner that I have suggested, I fear that it will eventually fall into disgrace and provide further ammunition to the BCCI's lack of acceptance of DRS.

  • dirkwellham on August 2, 2013, 0:31 GMT

    It's just cricket....with/without DRS we would still be talking about one good decision and one rough one, may as well get rid of the technology. Or, if you are going to use it, make snicko available, would have cleared khawaja

  • Paul_Rampley on August 2, 2013, 0:23 GMT

    Really glad to see CA refer this one, this was the biggest howler, there was a inch between bat and ball, how can the third umpire possibly get this wrong, Khawaja deserved better.

  • Will90 on August 2, 2013, 0:23 GMT

    @2Mike, Khawaja's decision was worse overall. Both on-field decisions were equally bad, but Smith's did not go to a review. Khawaja's did, and even though there was compelling evidence to overturn it, it stayed the same. imo Khawaja's was as bad a decision as Trott's, and Smith's as bad as Broad's.

  • IAS2009 on August 2, 2013, 0:21 GMT

    it looks like the 3rd umpires looses all his smartness and becomes a dumb umpire, time and again 3rd umpire decisions are the worse one, obviously they are following a protocol given by ICC, Dharmasena is a good umpire and make very good decisions on field most of the times, but this one is so bad it looks like he pressed the wrong button, ICC is to blame for this FISACO, the protocols are bad and reason for bad calls, get rid of DRS, i have seen India England series and there were some bad calls too (no more than DRS poor calls) but game felt original.

  • on August 2, 2013, 0:17 GMT

    As Indians, after after having having got so many mouthfuls for not supporting DRS in the past..here we are sitting and looking at the Pundits fight and explaining why DRS is failing...It is a nice feeling... Welcome !

  • McCricket_ on August 2, 2013, 0:11 GMT

    I don't agree with those saying "DRS isn't at fault -- it's human failure". DRS is at fault because it's a system; inclusive of men combining DRS rules & DRS technology to make a DRS decision. If there is fault in one of those areas, then there is fault in the system. Apart from adding snicko, the technology seems reasonably good.

    At the moment, the fault lines seem to be: too much weight given to the on-field call (sound concept, poorly executed due to unclear rules); no snicko (yet); and no clear hierarchy in the evidence chain. The rules need tweaking for lbws and nicks.

    I'd also like to see the a reintroduction of the lbw rule from a few years ago, where if the batsman was more than 2 metres out of his crease, HawkEye could only be use to determine where the ball pitched and where it struck the pads. I feel that DRS is increasing the number of lbws per match, and would love to see some stats over the last 2-3 years compared to the non-DRS years.

  • cricket_ahan on August 2, 2013, 0:10 GMT

    I keep hearing people batter this technology time and time again. I agree that Hotspot doesn't seem to show some of the finer edges, and can also not show marks when conditions are otherwise quite got. I also agree that Hawkeye is not perfect - how can it be, anything that is predicting the future will NEVER be perfect - though let's not forget that it was tested before being put into place. BUT, both these technologies IMPROVE the evidence at hand to make the correct decision. And to people's calls to go back to the days of just on-field umpiring calls - if that was the case, this decision would still have been a howler, and there would still be a big fuss kicked up about it. The issue is a human one, and it always has been. And leave aside this incident, overturns like Brad Haddin's dismissal in the first test are examples of the system working well. Give it time and we will figure out some more concrete rules on how best to implement it.

  • PFEL on August 2, 2013, 0:10 GMT

    There would be even more bad decisions if DRS wasn't here. So why are people suggesting it should be removed? It makes no sense.

  • Humdingers on August 2, 2013, 0:07 GMT

    And the BCCI doesn't look so silly not backing DRS after all now do they?

  • xtrafalgarx on August 2, 2013, 0:05 GMT

    @Salazar555, Smith is still there because England went for marginal reviews.

  • williaml on August 1, 2013, 23:53 GMT

    The worst umpiring decision I have seen in a long time. Either the Third umpire does not know the rules and interpretation of the guidelines or he needs bifocul glasses. Erros like this can cost a player his place in the side. This Sri Lankan umpire must be sacked and fined, only then he will learn to interpret the rules properly and do his job well. Disgraceful decision!

  • Zahidsaltin on August 1, 2013, 23:42 GMT

    Why are people cursing DRS here?. A how come an umpire who is umpire of the year too, did this blunder? On which grounds did he gave him out even after having all the technology and slow motions on his disposal, how can he make correct decisions in the middle when he can't while sitting with all the technology? Smith was out yes but that's what you get without DRS.

  • WhoseYaDaddy on August 1, 2013, 23:36 GMT

    The correct use of cricket law , giving the batsman the benefit of doubt, ruling him not out. Re: Smith's caught behind off Anderson, the gut feeling and initial player reactions was it is out. However , the umoire again had doubts and Engkand ended up reviewing it. Technology proved it certainly wasnt a clear out,with no visib,e edge however there was a noise. AGAIN absolute certainty is required when giving out so batsman in this case got the benefit correctly. Simple solution, use the cricket laws and apply it consistantly on both team by the on field and if DRS is required by the off field umpire Players, officials, spectators need to keep evolving with te hnology Officials hav to keep up DRS WAS to eliminate howlers, inside edges given lbw, big edges given not out etc Big Human errors where the umpire didnt concentrate briefly could be fixed, not a lifelife for technically inept batsman or a face saving opportunity, it shouldnt be used as a 2nd guess or hope. Then DRS WILL WORK.

  • naudurivsm on August 1, 2013, 23:36 GMT

    I see many followers/cricket lovers are expressing anguish at this dismissal. while some others still believe it is not DRS's fault. so I will try to make things clear in my own way. First DRS is terminology (abbreviation) is invented by ICC by which a team/player can ask for thorough review of a decision being made by the on-field umpire. This is DRS in short Then the on-field umpire asks the third umpire to take a detailed look at the decision with active replays and use of a technology like Hot-spot / Hawk-eye etc. etc. and see if the original decision was correct. The findings are conveyed to the on-field umpire who then either up-holds or reverses the original decision. Now in this case the DRS gave the Australians a chance to review the decision. But the review by "Third umpire failed". when the technology was inconclusive, the third umpire should know what he/she should do. not taking side with a team. It is a BAD Judgement and incompetent people as third umpire.

  • on August 1, 2013, 23:33 GMT

    I don't think it's the fault of the technology. I believe it is the fault of the operators. In this case there was clear evidence that the ball had not hit the bat, yet the decision was upheld. I have also seen in this series a decision overturned with even less evidence. The umpires and Video Umpires have to get a bit more consistent. Either there is enough evidence to overturn a decision or there's not. They can't go changing their minds from wicket to wicket. As far as the use of the DRS goes, I feel that needs to be changed. If the upper order batsmen "waste" the team's referrals, then a lower order batsman has got no hope if he gets a howler. I feel an ideal way is have unlimited referrals with an incorrect one costing a team 10 runs.

  • IndianSRTfan on August 1, 2013, 23:21 GMT

    Wonder how many people actually know the rules of DRS implementation. The third umpire does NOT overturn or hold up the on-field umpire's decision. In case of a referral, the third umpire can ONLY provide all the evidence requested by the on-field umpire, and answers a series of Yes/No questions on the lines of 1.Does the hotspot show any conclusive edge? 2.Does the ball appear to be hitting the stumps? so on and so forth. At NO stage the third umpire is allowed to give his OPINION. After this the ON-FIELD umpire uses this information to make a decision using HIS better judgement. Don't confuse DRS with run-out decisions where third umpire actually makes a decision.

    I always chuckle when people say current technology is adequate. As a doctoral student at Caltech, I remember my Hon. Prof.Dr.John Preskill's wise words, "Technology is never advanced enough, keep looking for better alternatives and when you're done, start looking again". Anyone for new and better technology in Cricket?

  • on August 1, 2013, 23:15 GMT

    So, could he have not walked ? A lot of pressure. When a wrong decision is obvious to a batsman The batsman himself, should have right of, appeal, review? MalArmstrong Adelaide South Australia

  • Favell on August 1, 2013, 23:14 GMT

    The problem with Cyril Knight's Featured comment is "it worked for 120 years in Test Cricket." Well, Cyril, that's why they changed it, because it wasn't working. There were too many howlers affecting the careers and the livelihoods of unlucky cricketers. The technology isn't perfect, and that's an irritation, but if the mistakes are reduced to one in 20, that's a bonus, because human error had become an embarrassment due to television technology exposing blatant errors several times per match. It is simply unfair that games can be won or lost as the result of human error. It's happened before - a batsman out before he reaches double figures, goes on to make a century. Simply unfair.

  • Truemans_Ghost on August 1, 2013, 23:06 GMT

    I don't understand why people think incidents like this are a reason to ditch DRS. It was a wrong decision. Not the worst ever as people who should know better claim, but wrong all the same. However , without DRS, he would still be out. DRS didn't make the decision any better, but it didn't make it any worse either. It is VERY rare that it makes a decision worse. You could argue that Trott's LBW was one such case, as the 3rd umpire overturned a decision as he didn't realise that hotspot was not available, but overall it corrects far more bad decisions than it spoils good ones. If it doesn't correct a few bad ones, at least that leaves us no worse off.

  • on August 1, 2013, 23:04 GMT

    DRS reveals how umpires are making bad decisions even with the benefit of technology.

  • Javed_17 on August 1, 2013, 23:01 GMT

    @cyril_knight i think you are missing the point. The DRS is meant to eliminate umpire errors. umps make bad decisions all the time and true the good decisions are not always remembered but the whole purpose is to arrive at the right decision. A mistake was made then upheld is totally wrong. Whats the use of the review when the decision backs the umpires? further most of the time these miscalls have serious demoralizing effects. THis means of course that the umpire is breaking a teams momentum. Therefore i can only conclude that you prefer a system where errors which can change games are allowed.

  • on August 1, 2013, 22:59 GMT

    Introduction of technology will weed out many types of errors but breeds newer types of mistakes. This is something medicine is slowly beginning to realize as is the case with cricket now.

  • TengaZool on August 1, 2013, 22:57 GMT

    @Carl Crowley - It has got everything to do with DRS. The DRS technology doesn't stand in isolation - but is supposed to be part of a solution or System that comprises of umpires using it well. If ICC hasn't got the system right, stop using it! Don't forget - it is DRS - Decision Review System not DRT - Decision Review Technology. Saying that the technology works but umpires don't is a cop out. It is a systemic failure.

  • HOMEBREW on August 1, 2013, 22:54 GMT

    With the Ashes sereis partly sponsered by Specsavers it's about time the umpires go for an eye test and fitting of glasses.

  • syd0660 on August 1, 2013, 22:54 GMT

    Let's move forward here. Technology is proven to be an aid in ensuring that the umpire's decision is correct (check the ICCs own information about the improvement in umpires decisions since DRS). What can be wrong about that. We are living in the 21st century, not the 19th. The issue is the process. If a decision is reviewed then the whole decision needs to be reviewed, not just whether there is doubt in the onfield umpires decision. I'd rather have this system then the previous system where there were so many allegations of 'home town' decisions when howlers happened. The notion of a 'gentlemans game' is romantic - read your cricket history and you would see that there were serious complaints and allegations about umpiring decisions back to the 1870s. The ICC should be focused on ensuring that the 3rd umpire gets it right using whatever aids are available.

  • funkybluesman on August 1, 2013, 22:41 GMT

    Not sure about the LBW's against Smith, but I can't understand how anyone could still be thinking the caught behind appeal should have been out. No hot spot, no deviation, and while there was a definite sound it came noticeably after the ball passed the bat. You could tell that seeing it live that the ball was well past the bat before the sound came, and all the replays with sound showed it pretty clearly.

    When they went to snicko later after the decision was completed, they barely rolled far enough, but there was no sound as the ball passed the bat, but a big sound as the ball was about 1 metre passed the bat. Pretty clearly not-out on that one.

  • 2MikeGattings on August 1, 2013, 22:41 GMT

    @Frazer IMO the Broad LBW was the definition of a howler. Not even close to outside the line. That's OK, simple human error, and if England hadn't already used their reviews it would have been overturned. Completely uncontroversial -- trhe umpire just got it absolutely dead wrong and it was immediately obvious to everyone present.

  • H_Z_O on August 1, 2013, 22:37 GMT

    The Smith decision on-field was wrong, but acceptable, much as I think Hill, as bad an umpire as I think he is, was right to give Khawaja out in real-time. In real-time I also thought he'd hit it, so I can't blame Hill for that.

    But it took about 5 seconds into the review to realise it was wrong. Not because of Hotspot, however. While some have said that Hotspot is used as 100% evidence of an edge where there is a mark, that's not true. In every case so far there's been an obvious noise as the ball passed the bat, together with deviation in some cases.

    The conclusive evidence should have been the video footage, with Hotspot giving a higher degree of certainty. From front-on I took one look at the replay and saw the gap between bat and ball. And from behind the wicket you'd have to be blind not to have seen that, as Holding suggested Dharmasena must have been. The concern is, if an umpire can't see that gap on slow-mo, what hope is there of them seeing it in real-time (without DRS)?

  • Chris_P on August 1, 2013, 22:37 GMT

    The explanation is simple. This is what happens when the best umpires aren't used. CRS was not to blame in the least. All it showed was evidence, how it is used is the problem & when you don't have the best in action, you don't get the best decisions. I am afraid, Kumar, your time on the elite panel will be very limited. Poor effort, along with with your on field buddies as well.

  • WandererMatt on August 1, 2013, 22:33 GMT

    Too many complains about the system - any system is only as good as it's users. Given the amount of time that the DRS system has been around (yes there will always be flaws in a system) the umpires should have learnt by now how to actually use and interpret the information in the correct way - and yet they haven't. This isn't a failure of the system but a failure of policy, procedure and training on behalf of the ICC to the umpires using the system. 1. Benefit of the doubt should ALWAYS go to the batsman - not the fielding team or the original umpire's call (because clearly if the call is being put in question then there's a very good possibility it was wrong in the first place). So any DRS review should not take into account the original decision and the 3rd umpire should make his own decision on the footage and evidence available. 2. Umpires should go back to reviewing themselves rather than making a decision and allowing a team to challenge it, while allowing teams to challenge.

  • mngc1 on August 1, 2013, 22:32 GMT

    @cyril_knight. Time and time again the umpires only get about 25 % of reviews right. Just remember there were 7 wrong calls in the 1st test alone with only 4 overturned. There is nothing wrong with using technology. Even part of it is better than none at all. It is like using a computer to do a calculation and making an error with the input figures, the answer will come out wrong. The problem occurs when the user applies it wrongly like the 3rd umpire did today. The issue is how to get the users to make correct decisions using technology and not blaming the DRS system.

  • on August 1, 2013, 22:32 GMT

    There is nothing wrong with the technology. Take a look at this very decision. No edge was indicated, yet the error was made by a human. It is mind-boggling to see scores place blame on the technology and champion the cause against DRS than the human(s) who were involved.

  • on August 1, 2013, 22:29 GMT

    The decision came from the best umpire of the year 2012. If best umpire is like this just imagine about the rest.

  • AravindShastri on August 1, 2013, 22:19 GMT

    I was listening to Boycott on BBC and he kept mentioning that these umpires are not good enough and that neutral umpires concept should be abolished and best umpires from ENG/ AUS should officiate. I am an Indian and can confidently say that Aleem Dar, Rauf from Pakistan and Simon Taufel ( retired) are best umpires i have known watching cricket for many many years. Who are these excellent umpires that Boycott is talking about - Paul Reifel 4 tests, Nigel Long 4 tests, Richard kettleborough - 9 tests, Oxenford 8 tests illingworth 4 tests. Thus they have hardly any experience and i have seen them making even worse mistakes Only ian gould Eng and Rod Tucker and steve Davies have some experince and i have seen them also making grave umpiring decisions;DRS is bot being used and interpreted properly here, thats problem. So Sir geffoery boycott - please look into umpires statistics before jumping guns( like saying abolish neutral umpires, or making comments like have Best ENG/AUS umpires etc

  • Chris_Howard on August 1, 2013, 22:09 GMT

    People who has so strongly criticising the on-field decision are the reason we have DRS in the first place.

  • on August 1, 2013, 22:02 GMT

    I do not understand why is this thread about BCCI not supporting it because of flaws and one flaw was seen today. As it is widely known, the DRS cleared showed the Khawaja was Not Out. It is not the DRS that was going to give the call, it was the umpires job to do that. The DRS CLEARLY gave you NO SOUND, NO NICK and NO HOT SPOT. THE DRS showed you a gap for nearly 2 inches between the bat and the ball. Still the DRS is the culprit....? I totally dont get it...?

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:58 GMT

    I don't understand people blaming DRS on this incident here. It was a shocking umpiring error. If there was no DRS, Khawaja would still need to walk back as it was on field umpire's call.

    I think the problem lies with the DRS policy. It may be tough to prove "there is ghost", but sometimes it may be tougher to prove "there is no ghost". If on-field umpire's call was not out and had England reviewed it, third umpire would need to find if there was any proof of edge which he definitely would not find and not out call would stay for sure. But the situation got tougher as he needed the proof of "there was no edge". I don't understand though how many more proof he required to overrule the on-field umpire's call. This is simply ridiculous!!!

    And another question:: why third umpire didn't have snickometer??

  • Najam2010 on August 1, 2013, 21:57 GMT

    should use decision and judgement onfield umpire, as they always have nutural .

  • Someguy on August 1, 2013, 21:55 GMT

    "There was no mark on Hot Spot and the raw vision, while not conclusive, appeared to suggest that the ball had not made contact with Khawaja's bat. "

    appeared to suggest? It was more than just a suggestion, there was a huge gap between bat and ball. The third umpire should be sacked. The view from behind was the clearest. The sound came from bat hitting pad and there was a massive gap between bat and ball. That's a howler.

  • CricketFirstLove on August 1, 2013, 21:52 GMT

    It must have been so disheartening for a player who is waiting for this opp to make a mark, cement his place in the team and help his side. Things were good for Khwaja to put up a good score. Sad Dharmasena was so irresponsible in this.

  • mrmonty on August 1, 2013, 21:49 GMT

    If this was the BCCI asking for an explanation, I could easily see at least a few hundred comments screaming 'arrogance'. I guess different strokes for different folks.

  • hycIass on August 1, 2013, 21:46 GMT

    Sutherland is absolutely correct in getting a response on this. The point of the DRS isn't to give the player the benefit of the doubt, if there is doubt, the umpire's decision stands. I do agree with that however with Khawaja's dismissal there was no doubt in that he completely missed the ball and which is why the third umpire is under scrutiny. There's nothing on the hotspot, no evidence of a nick like in this case, it should be not out. Khawaja should have been bought back to continue his innings. And also I don't get this idea of checking for a noise. If you're not allowed to use Snicko because it's not accurate enough, then why can you check for a noise - which is just an even more inaccurate version of snicko.

  • I_Love_My_India on August 1, 2013, 21:38 GMT

    I see every one complaining about DRS. What has DRS done here? It is purely a human error and DRS proved us that it is the third umpire who was wrong.

  • leave_it_to_the_umps on August 1, 2013, 21:35 GMT

    Fantastic we are officially reviewing the decision which was the result of officially reviewing the umpires decision!

    The technology seems fine when interpreted properly however as we have seen over the course of this series the problem is with inconsistent and error strewn interpretation of the evidence provided by the technology. Every man and his dog agreed that the correct interpretation is that that was not out and numerous decions have been overtunred with less evidence.

    I think ICC needs to think really careful about what their response will be cos if it is not possible to overturn a decision on the evidence that was available then I struggle to see the point of reviewing a ball that you have been given out edging as it would be impossible to have more evidence than was provided.

    I think unfortunately for the umpire the ICC will have to admit umpire error in this case and will probably need to start having DRS training for their umpires if they are serious about keeping DRS

  • maddy20 on August 1, 2013, 21:34 GMT

    The ball missed the bat by a mile. The sound on snicko was clearly his bat hitting the ground. England has already won a test due to dubious umpiring(Broad's not out that proved to be a notout) and it is only fair that Aus get their share of luck!

  • Inducker on August 1, 2013, 21:29 GMT

    Lot of daft things flying round on DRS. If DRS is removed from umpiring decisions, will the broadcasters still be allowed to use it? If so people will still be howling about umpiring decisions. Even with out DRS, howlers were obvious on TV. Just about every last day test match had bad LBW decisions particularly on tail enders. Everybody going to enjoy LBW's after big bat-pads again? LBW's are being adjudged reasonably allowing for margin of error with Hawkeye. Hot spot is variable but if one does not a appear - the batsman gets away with one -too bad. Just leave it to the off field umpire who must still give the batsman the benefit if he is not sure. Don't protect the on field umpire

  • ScottStevo on August 1, 2013, 21:27 GMT

    And so we should, it was a terrible decision. If it's okay for Eng to ask about Trott's decision, then this should certainly be fine as it was a squillion times worse

  • 3ddy on August 1, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    mistakes from onfield umpire was OK that happens but 3rd umpire kumarDharmasena's decision to uphold that was terrible, ICC should take notice atleast 3rd umpires shouldnt make mistakes like this...

  • shot274 on August 1, 2013, 21:22 GMT

    You suggest that raw vision was not conclusive. From the camera behind the keeper it would appear that Khwaja missed it by a mile! There is nothing wrong with DRS. We have wrecked it with stupid rules about how it should be interpreted. If technology needs interpretation its not technology.Get rid of umpires call and all this stupidity which simply exists to support the umpire whether he is right or wrong.Its not accuracy which is killing technology its inconsistency due to protocols needing human interpretation.

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:20 GMT

    DRS = Hotspot + Hawkeye + Umpire. In khawaja's case the hotspot showed no edge, there was 0 deviation , no clear sound either, videos showed daylight between bat and ball. Technology did the job perfectly. Umpire had clear evidence to overturn the decision , but he choose not to. Now how can one blame the technology for this ? DRS was in place in the last Ashes as well , it was a major success back then. Why is it failing now ? The only changes to happen since then are the umpires. DRS isn't making its debut this series. It was a success in 90% of the series. I see people blaming high temperatures for hotspot , it worked 100% in UAE and i am sure UAE is much much hotter than UK. Time people blamed the driver for poor driving rather than the car.

  • bobonbb on August 1, 2013, 21:17 GMT

    The problem with DRS is threefold. If umpires are generally less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman then the 3rd umpire must act on another notion than protecting his colleague in the middle as now happens. What we have seen in this series so far looks like an attitude of the umpire to give marginal decisions in favor of the fielding side, the batting side can challenge the decision if they want to. But when decisions are only overturned if there is not a single dot of doubt than the combination of those aspects are greatly favoring the fielding side. Which means that the laws of cricket are no longer adhered to. Both the on field and the 3rd umpires seem to be unclear of what is expected from them regarding the use of DRS. The ICC should go back to the drawing board and outline a better concept of how DRS is to be used and train the umpires accordingly.

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:09 GMT

    We must remember that this is not a problem with DRS. DRS said he had not hit the ball, that evidence was ignored. This was human error. Dharmasena is a fine umpire but HE made the mistake not DRS so let's not blame DRS.

  • mngc1 on August 1, 2013, 21:01 GMT

    Why bash DRS? It is clearly an issue with the users i.e. the 3rd umpire. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of what was used but who used it. So why fault technology that is showing up the weaknesses of us humans? No human can be more accurate than properly used DRS with Hot Spot and Snicko. It can be greatly improved if the 3rd umpire uses a larger TV screen because close decisions may not be easily decided on a laptop of small screen. That is cheap and simple to implement first step and lets take it from there.

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:00 GMT

    World to BCCI : You are gonna say things now, isn't it! BCCI : No, No we are nnnnot!

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:58 GMT

    The problem is not DRS. Its Dharmasena... and Erasmus before him, but Dharmasena has been haunting Australia for a while now.. I think he enjoys it.

  • samincolumbia on August 1, 2013, 20:57 GMT

    @Ozcricketwriter - So since the DRS is not working for the aussies, just get rid of it. Haha... And speaking of dubious decisions, nothing beats Sydney 2008!

  • VickGower on August 1, 2013, 20:51 GMT

    @Carl Crowley: You really can't see how this was DRSs fault?? The fact that DRS sometimes does not show a spot even though there was a nick is precisely why it has become a guessing game with third umpires. Dharmasena didn't see a white spot but he is probably thinking, I must look beyond that -- it is known that hotspot will sometimes not catch a nick. THAT is how it is DRSs fault.

  • Real_Champs on August 1, 2013, 20:46 GMT

    people will blame DRS ,,, but its not DRS fault its Umpire fault DRS is to help the UMPIRE,, but I dont think Dharmasena want to take HELP,, simple is that

  • Baundele on August 1, 2013, 20:46 GMT

    There was clear daylight between the bat and the ball. Hotspot also had nothing. It is certainly conclusive that Khawaja did not nick the ball. The technology is showing all the correct evidences; but umpires are making wrong calls. The funny thing called 'on-field call' should not carry any value once the decision is referred. Let the technology handle it. Good decision by the CA. This horror show must stop. Cricket should dominate the talk about umpires and DRS.

  • drnaveed on August 1, 2013, 20:34 GMT

    DRS should be used to improve the standards of umpiring in the international cricket matches.it should be applied completely ( audio hearing of any bat or glove involved ,hot spots ,hawk-eye, snicko etc) in all the matches played in all the Countries.there shouldn't be any double standards in umpiring,all the umpires in the cricketing world should benefit from DRS to improve the game.the third umpire should be given the power to check every dismissal in the match,whether right or wrong, if wrong , he should inform the field umpires to correct their decision, irrespective of what the on field umpire has given the decision.

  • chitti_cricket on August 1, 2013, 20:31 GMT

    Did Dharmasena pressed red button (out) instead of Green (non-out) mistakenly. That is what it seems to me the case might have been. A laughable decission by third umpire.The DRS means refering a wrong decision made by on field umpire to be corrected and if that is not what we are acheiving with it, then it defeats the purpose. The umpires should be given a clear protocal saying in catches, LBWs you just folow hotspot and hawk eye, just hotspot and hawk eye, period. If hotspot says differnt story than what on field umpire's decision then rule it nagetive. Don't consider on filed umpires decision at all, while thrid umpire is asked to review.If third umpire is bound by on field umpire's decision then why the hell it has to be refered to over turn right...!Does that make sense.So that clause has to go. This very clause caused DRS to be ineffective. Watson in first test, now Kywajha , this ICC want how many victims and wront test results to change their protocal?ICC please awake

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:24 GMT

    @2mikegattings, no, that was close to being hitting outside the line, so it was a bad decision, but not an absolute howler. The on field umpiring mistakes happen and always have, and although sometimes very bad, they cannot be ever as bad as the khawaja call, as he got to look at it 100 times before making the decision. 2 things that annoy me immensly about the DRS, 1. That the umpires call has any bearing on the result. 2. That hotspot is used as difinitive evidence when a spot is visible (ie if there is a spot its 100 percent given out as caught) yet when there is no spot, u can somehow still be given out? its actually laughable, same thing happened to agar too.

  • Sachin_Pointing on August 1, 2013, 20:12 GMT

    India is the only country which opposes DRS & the entire world was thinking that its the financial power of BCCI that enables India to get away with it. I think the general population now understands that the DRS system is not accurate & it could make or break someones career.

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:03 GMT

    what has this got to do with DRS? nothing! why does Dean Jones say "this is why I don't agree with DRS"? what has DRS got to do with it - the DRS system gave the batsman the lifeline in this case that it was designed to provide. this is not a technology failure...this is a shocking policy and human failure.

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:02 GMT

    That was a terrible call and it was more how bad the on field decision was. Then to back that up with another terrible decision makes it look completely incompetent. Khawaja was not out and Smith was out. I don't understand again the on field call as it looked plumb. Then to show the ball was clearly hitting the stumps and still be not out is farcical.

  • Sunil_Batra on August 1, 2013, 19:58 GMT

    2Mikegattings smith's call was bad, but seriously Khawaja's call was as worse as it gets. No hot spot, no noise when the ball passed the bat, a gap between ball and bat and yet somehow the deicsion was given out. Glad to see CA ask for an explanation.

  • Iddo555 on August 1, 2013, 19:57 GMT

    I'm with 2 mikes

    Maybe CA should ask the ICC why Steve Smith is still there in the middle. If Khawaja got unlucky, Smith's certainly made up for it, more than once

    The Umpire's elite status needs to be considered if he can't see one hitting half way up middle stump

  • sharidas on August 1, 2013, 19:53 GMT

    Sadly, technology is putting more questions than answers to decisions which were simple when only the on-field umpires were involved. I think DRS and Hotspot are more for the benefit of the spectators and TV audience than for the game itself. Unfortunately, trust has gone out of the game. A gentleman's game it WAS.....not anymore.

  • Flemo_Gilly on August 1, 2013, 19:48 GMT

    I think it is a good decision by Sutherland to get this reviewed, Khawaja's dismissal was not acceptable.The hot spot didn't show anything, and worse there was nearly a inch between the bat and ball, absolute worse decision that i have ever seen and robbed Khawaja of a big knock today.

  • Ozcricketwriter on August 1, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    In many ways I yearn for the good old days when players got bad decisions all of the time, usually worse when playing overseas, especially in certain countries with dubious umpiring, and everyone knew it was cheating, and that was it. Nowadays we have neutral umpires who aren't supposed to favour either team yet somehow or other manage to do it still, and DRS that is supposed to fix up glaring errors and yet, in this series at least, it has just made things worse. If I were the two captains here, I would come to the agreement that DRS is not being used correctly in this series and to get rid of it. Simple as that. This series is really highlighting the weaknesses of DRS.

  • 2MikeGattings on August 1, 2013, 19:34 GMT

    For me the worst umpiring decision today was Smith lbw b Broad. For the other decisions there was at least an element of doubt whether or not the batsman was out.

  • 2MikeGattings on August 1, 2013, 19:34 GMT

    For me the worst umpiring decision today was Smith lbw b Broad. For the other decisions there was at least an element of doubt whether or not the batsman was out.

  • Ozcricketwriter on August 1, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    In many ways I yearn for the good old days when players got bad decisions all of the time, usually worse when playing overseas, especially in certain countries with dubious umpiring, and everyone knew it was cheating, and that was it. Nowadays we have neutral umpires who aren't supposed to favour either team yet somehow or other manage to do it still, and DRS that is supposed to fix up glaring errors and yet, in this series at least, it has just made things worse. If I were the two captains here, I would come to the agreement that DRS is not being used correctly in this series and to get rid of it. Simple as that. This series is really highlighting the weaknesses of DRS.

  • Flemo_Gilly on August 1, 2013, 19:48 GMT

    I think it is a good decision by Sutherland to get this reviewed, Khawaja's dismissal was not acceptable.The hot spot didn't show anything, and worse there was nearly a inch between the bat and ball, absolute worse decision that i have ever seen and robbed Khawaja of a big knock today.

  • sharidas on August 1, 2013, 19:53 GMT

    Sadly, technology is putting more questions than answers to decisions which were simple when only the on-field umpires were involved. I think DRS and Hotspot are more for the benefit of the spectators and TV audience than for the game itself. Unfortunately, trust has gone out of the game. A gentleman's game it WAS.....not anymore.

  • Iddo555 on August 1, 2013, 19:57 GMT

    I'm with 2 mikes

    Maybe CA should ask the ICC why Steve Smith is still there in the middle. If Khawaja got unlucky, Smith's certainly made up for it, more than once

    The Umpire's elite status needs to be considered if he can't see one hitting half way up middle stump

  • Sunil_Batra on August 1, 2013, 19:58 GMT

    2Mikegattings smith's call was bad, but seriously Khawaja's call was as worse as it gets. No hot spot, no noise when the ball passed the bat, a gap between ball and bat and yet somehow the deicsion was given out. Glad to see CA ask for an explanation.

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:02 GMT

    That was a terrible call and it was more how bad the on field decision was. Then to back that up with another terrible decision makes it look completely incompetent. Khawaja was not out and Smith was out. I don't understand again the on field call as it looked plumb. Then to show the ball was clearly hitting the stumps and still be not out is farcical.

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:03 GMT

    what has this got to do with DRS? nothing! why does Dean Jones say "this is why I don't agree with DRS"? what has DRS got to do with it - the DRS system gave the batsman the lifeline in this case that it was designed to provide. this is not a technology failure...this is a shocking policy and human failure.

  • Sachin_Pointing on August 1, 2013, 20:12 GMT

    India is the only country which opposes DRS & the entire world was thinking that its the financial power of BCCI that enables India to get away with it. I think the general population now understands that the DRS system is not accurate & it could make or break someones career.

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:24 GMT

    @2mikegattings, no, that was close to being hitting outside the line, so it was a bad decision, but not an absolute howler. The on field umpiring mistakes happen and always have, and although sometimes very bad, they cannot be ever as bad as the khawaja call, as he got to look at it 100 times before making the decision. 2 things that annoy me immensly about the DRS, 1. That the umpires call has any bearing on the result. 2. That hotspot is used as difinitive evidence when a spot is visible (ie if there is a spot its 100 percent given out as caught) yet when there is no spot, u can somehow still be given out? its actually laughable, same thing happened to agar too.