England v Australia, 4th Investec Test, Durham, 3rd day August 11, 2013

Who'd be a Test umpire?

From legalised player dissent to big-screen reviews, international umpires are now on a hiding to nothing but humiliation
63

The DRS is meant to help umpires, not humiliate them. But Tony Hill was humiliated on the third morning at Chester-le-Street. There can be no other word for it. When Stuart Broad rapped Ryan Harris on the pads dead in front, Hill declined the appeal. Presumably, he felt Harris may have nicked the ball. It was not a ridiculous supposition, for the ball had struck both pads, creating two noises. Whatever the case, Hill felt there was doubt and gave the benefit of it to the batsman, as Test umpires have done for 135 years.

England asked for a review, as is their right under the DRS. The replays showed that Hill had erred; Harris was plumb lbw. The process played out on the big screen at the ground. Ripples of laughter went around as Hill's mistake was not only shown but magnified, replayed, every angle leaving him further exposed to ridicule. The final indignity came when the third umpire relayed the decision to Hill, who raised his finger to an empty pitch. The players had seen enough on the big screen and were halfway inside.

It was impossible not to sympathise with Hill, who trudged off with all the haste and enthusiasm of a newly-dismissed Shane Watson or Jonathan Trott. He looked sapped of all confidence. There is no avoiding the fact that Hill's call was wrong, and that the final outcome was correct. But the process left him embarrassed and must surely have compounded the existing doubts in his mind. How is that good for cricket, or for this match, or for Hill? How does that help anyone?

"Throughout my career I never had a batsman dispute my decision," Dickie Bird said in 2010. That may be a slight embellishment, or perhaps it's true, but one thing is certain: Bird was never made to look a fool. Bird was a renowned "not-outer". If in doubt, say not out. That's what Hill did here. But in Bird's day, what the umpire said was final. Had he given this same decision - and he would've done countless times over the years - the bowler might have felt aggrieved, the viewers curious, but all would have moved on.

Nobody remembers the right calls, even the controversial ones. Kevin Pietersen's caught-behind at Old Trafford will be recalled for Pietersen's rudely-requested review and reluctance to accept the outcome, not for Hill's correct decision to trust his ears in the first place. Or Australia's unsuccessful review when Harris rapped Trott on the pads. Hawk Eye predicted the ball would have clipped leg stump on an "umpire's call" margin. Rightly, Hill had given Trott the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, Hill has made mistakes. He is human. Every umpire in this series has erred. Every umpire in every series throughout history has probably erred. Dickie Bird erred. David Shepherd erred. Tony Crafter erred. But commentators did not forensically dissect every aspect of a decision. That's out, they said. Not, that's out unless he hit it, and let's see if he did, and unless it pitched outside leg, and let's see if it did, and unless it was sliding down leg, and let's see if it was.

The disdain with which Kevin Pietersen called for a review in the third Test was downright contemptible. Where was his respect for the umpire or for the game?
Daryl Harper on the demands of the modern umpire

But technology creates unrealistic expectations. Mistakes are unjustly magnified, wrongly made to appear proof of complete incompetence. How could an umpire get that wrong? That decision that we've just seen six times in slow-motion from four angles and with the help of technology? What a buffoon!

"The DRS has certainly increased the pressure on umpires to get virtually everything right," former Test umpire Daryl Harper told ESPNcricinfo on Sunday. "The high performance experts would tell you that an umpire must put a poor decision out of his mind and focus wholly on the next ball. Sure, it sounds easy enough. I haven't known a single umpire who can do it.

"In the eighties, the general television coverage of cricket was very basic. In the nineties, the quality of technology improved, but even then, decisions were not scrutinised to the degree that we see today. It was common practice to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt to any ball that was drifting towards the leg stump.

"After the turn of the century, umpires made their lbw decisions, only to see replays on the big screen at the ground that suggested that the decision was wrong, before the batsman had even left the field. It isn't a good feeling and definitely gnaws away at one's confidence. After seeing so many replays of balls clipping leg stump in particular, umpires began to widen the target and gamble more often on that count.

"And in modern times, our administrators have now legalised dissent. The disdain with which Kevin Pietersen called for a review in the third Test was downright contemptible. Where was his respect for the umpire or for the game? Having been told to go a second time after the review, how did he possibly escape a sanction for his parting words? I can lip read as well as anyone."

All of these factors can gradually erode the confidence of an umpire. An umpire like Hill, who by the ICC's judgement is one of the best 12 in the world, a man who has made enough good decisions to get himself here, is made to look foolish. Yes, umpires choose this well-paid career. Yes, they accept the pressure that goes with it. But the expectations of players and viewers must remain realistic.

Umpires are not machines. They are men, and men who do their job in increasingly trying circumstances. Once, they were inconspicuous, but never infallible. They never will be, yet cricket has reached a point where decisions and umpires and reviews and technology are the story. It is an unhealthy situation for any sport, and it breeds self-doubt in men whose very job relies on backing their judgement.

"With this respect for officials being stripped back to the bone, I have great sympathy for my former colleagues who are on a hiding to nothing," Harper said. "Our administrators have snatched at the television dollars and sold the officials up the river without a paddle. As often as American sports are unfairly maligned, Major League Baseball allows its officials to make decisions, good and not so good. Replays of missed calls are shown but life goes on."

Life will go on for Tony Hill, and Aleem Dar, and Kumar Dharmasena, and Marais Erasmus. They have all made mistakes in this series. Some have been howlers. But none deserve ridicule. No official should have to raise the finger to an empty pitch. Respect must return. And unless it does, who'd be a Test umpire anymore?

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

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on August 12, 2013, 4:41 GMT

    I dont agree with this article completely. Yes, Umpires have to be respected and what KP did was wrong and he should have received a serious rap on the knuckles for it. But this doesn't take away the fundamental issue that today's umpires are expected to be extremely professional.

    An error of judgement from an umprire can ruin a player's career, change the outcome of a match or even a series for that matter. I don't think there is anything in the sipirt of cricket which protects players who have had unjust decisions handed out to them.

    One cannot help but go back to to the often over-used cliche- "With great power, comes great responsibility". Over analysis by public and media, and 100% correct decision rate are the typical demands of the modern day umpire.

    What would really help is if the ICC market the performance of the umpires when and accept when their performance is questionable. Put them on performance improvement plan and work on improving skills rather than protecting them.

  • on August 12, 2013, 2:33 GMT

    For those who criticise umpires try it yourself. Stand 22-24 yards away with a bowler bowling 130-140kms/hr you have between 0.3-0.6 of a second to make a decision. Factor in a myriad of noises from bowler to batsmen to fielders. Check the flight is it outside off going down leg or going over the top was there 2 noises was it bat hitting ball or bat scrapping pad, remember you have only 0.3-0.6 of a second to decide along with a bowler screaming in your face. Same for a nick. Ball movement bat/pad close together was it bat? was it pad? was it a woody sound or thuddy sound or no sound at all. All fielders appeal what did you hear? Againg you have 0.3-0.6 of a second to be sure. Furthermore before this your eyes are diverted to the bowler to check for a no ball then raise to the point of the ball. All within 0.3-0.6 of a second. Try it and see if you can. Umpiring is not easy its mentally and physically draining. Techgy will make umpiring more difficult so yes who would be an umpire.

  • sundarb on August 11, 2013, 22:07 GMT

    Excellent write-up. Another aspect that must be highlighted is that, the umpires working at the first class level - when they transition to the elite level, that is when their decisions are completely scrutinized with DRS. It is a step function, not an easy transition up the ladder and therefore very rough on the umpires. Players have been saying (as well as writing) during this series that they like DRS because it gets more decisions right. And they do have a point. But at what cost? Certainly not at the cost of undermining the umpires. The problem as I see it is in the implementation of the system. Let's get full respect back to umpires and give them adequate technology to make sure they give right decisions. No more reviews. TV umpires should be empowered more to give their opinion (today they simply relay the evidence), and on-field umpires can be equipped with more technology to get decisions right. If all evidence has been considered prior to decision, what is there to review?

  • on August 11, 2013, 21:42 GMT

    Thank you Mr Coverdale for this article. As an umpire (albeit for football) I know exactly what it is like to go out there, call at how we see it, get ridiculed even for making the right decision and be condemned to high heaven. Nobody knows how hard it is to make a decision after one showing when things happen very quickly. Its all very well to sit there, watch replays in slow motion and then say "what a bafoon, how can he/she make that decision?" The answer is quite easily. It just happens to ALL umpires. I have neve met an umpire who hasn't made a mistake, but I also have not met a player who has made a mistake." What DRS is doing to umpiring right across the board is creating low self esteem to the extent that people are now afraid to make decisions. I remind everyone once again that there is a shortage of umpires in every sport and DRS is just increasing to that shortage. Why bother ? If anyone things they can do a better job, take it up, we need you !!!!

  • Thegimp on August 13, 2013, 5:40 GMT

    Hill had a shocker, let's not mince it. Umpires have always had to make close calls and we have always forgiven the odd error, but in this series you can only laugh because not to do so will simply depress. I just find that I'm glad I'm only watching and not playing because then I would be ropeable. To say that it's acceptable that he got three right and three wrong is a joke. 50/50 isn't good enough. Ask your employer, if your boss says it's OK for you to get 50% of your work decisions correct then I want your job.

  • Cricket_theBestGame on August 13, 2013, 1:56 GMT

    @JB Baxter - i completely agree with you. its a tough job no doubt. you did raise a valid point of umpire having to look at the NO ball then look up and see the rest of the picture. maybe just maybe, this is the reason why most umpire err because their attention is diverted for that 1 second from watching No ball and looking up?

    it explains why Dharmasina regularly checks for No ball. ...so why not help them and handover checking the No ball to 3rd umpire? then onfield umpire can keep looking at the batsman where all the action is. if there is a No ball 3rd umpire can whisper into onfield umpire. just like now when umpires check for it after a batsman is cleaned bowled..would be no differnt. though it would give more time to umpires..

  • ballsintherightareas on August 12, 2013, 19:25 GMT

    Well said. Absolutely right.

  • quarterjack on August 12, 2013, 13:47 GMT

    Is giving the bowler "the benefit of the doubt" any more fair than doing the same for the batsman? Should a ref give a penalty if he's not sure or refuse it for the same reason? One side is going to be angry with the decision. Keep some form of review, but limit its use to LBW, which is probably the most contentious decision an umpire can make. Take a leaf from baseball's page: show the feed only to the umpires, and only to the field umpires, not a third or fourth official. The crowd doesn't need to see it. Keep the challenges, and tie an unsuccessful challenge to some form of mark down -- a loss or addition of two runs, say. Decision-making must remain in the hands of the umpires on the field.

  • on August 12, 2013, 13:28 GMT

    Super article. The situation is not helped either by commentators (Mark Nicholas is often a guilty party) second guessing appeals using phrases like "must be" then saying very little when the umpire's decision is shown to be the correct one and their guess found to be wrong. A little more humility and empathy and a little less grandstanding would go a long way. Would be great to see Sky or Ch5 (perhaps via the analyst) do an in depth feature on being an umpire to give people a better insight as to their role rather than at times hiding behind the technology and countless slow motion technologies. A start might be to show the piece in real time speed. The commentary from Geoff Boycott summed it up for me when reviewing a bat pad decision in England's first innings saying that he didn't need to look at it on DRS he could see it on the replay. Something not afforded to umpires in the first instance.

  • Calypso_Kid on August 12, 2013, 12:39 GMT

    Yes, DRS has shown up umpires. But the number of failed reviews has also shown up the players. Nicks & close LBWs are fiendishly hard to judge, even by the man holding the bat. So let's accept the DRS genie is out of the bottle and get its use right.

    The excuse for not using DRS on every iffy appeal is that it delays the game. But we have delays anyway, as parties confer whether to risk one of their two precious reviews. So let's cut out the middlemen and go straight to DRS, just like the TV stations do anyhow.

    And if DRS devalues umpiring skills, so what? Umpires are servants of the game, the contest is not about their skills. They will still be the judges of a myriad things: wides and no-balls, catches close to the ground, short runs, intimidatory bowling, was a stroke played, unfair play in all its forms. And of what is so palpably out or not-out that referral is pointless.

    Whole series have been decided by umpiring mistakes and the sooner DRS takes us past that, the better.

  • on August 12, 2013, 4:41 GMT

    I dont agree with this article completely. Yes, Umpires have to be respected and what KP did was wrong and he should have received a serious rap on the knuckles for it. But this doesn't take away the fundamental issue that today's umpires are expected to be extremely professional.

    An error of judgement from an umprire can ruin a player's career, change the outcome of a match or even a series for that matter. I don't think there is anything in the sipirt of cricket which protects players who have had unjust decisions handed out to them.

    One cannot help but go back to to the often over-used cliche- "With great power, comes great responsibility". Over analysis by public and media, and 100% correct decision rate are the typical demands of the modern day umpire.

    What would really help is if the ICC market the performance of the umpires when and accept when their performance is questionable. Put them on performance improvement plan and work on improving skills rather than protecting them.

  • on August 12, 2013, 2:33 GMT

    For those who criticise umpires try it yourself. Stand 22-24 yards away with a bowler bowling 130-140kms/hr you have between 0.3-0.6 of a second to make a decision. Factor in a myriad of noises from bowler to batsmen to fielders. Check the flight is it outside off going down leg or going over the top was there 2 noises was it bat hitting ball or bat scrapping pad, remember you have only 0.3-0.6 of a second to decide along with a bowler screaming in your face. Same for a nick. Ball movement bat/pad close together was it bat? was it pad? was it a woody sound or thuddy sound or no sound at all. All fielders appeal what did you hear? Againg you have 0.3-0.6 of a second to be sure. Furthermore before this your eyes are diverted to the bowler to check for a no ball then raise to the point of the ball. All within 0.3-0.6 of a second. Try it and see if you can. Umpiring is not easy its mentally and physically draining. Techgy will make umpiring more difficult so yes who would be an umpire.

  • sundarb on August 11, 2013, 22:07 GMT

    Excellent write-up. Another aspect that must be highlighted is that, the umpires working at the first class level - when they transition to the elite level, that is when their decisions are completely scrutinized with DRS. It is a step function, not an easy transition up the ladder and therefore very rough on the umpires. Players have been saying (as well as writing) during this series that they like DRS because it gets more decisions right. And they do have a point. But at what cost? Certainly not at the cost of undermining the umpires. The problem as I see it is in the implementation of the system. Let's get full respect back to umpires and give them adequate technology to make sure they give right decisions. No more reviews. TV umpires should be empowered more to give their opinion (today they simply relay the evidence), and on-field umpires can be equipped with more technology to get decisions right. If all evidence has been considered prior to decision, what is there to review?

  • on August 11, 2013, 21:42 GMT

    Thank you Mr Coverdale for this article. As an umpire (albeit for football) I know exactly what it is like to go out there, call at how we see it, get ridiculed even for making the right decision and be condemned to high heaven. Nobody knows how hard it is to make a decision after one showing when things happen very quickly. Its all very well to sit there, watch replays in slow motion and then say "what a bafoon, how can he/she make that decision?" The answer is quite easily. It just happens to ALL umpires. I have neve met an umpire who hasn't made a mistake, but I also have not met a player who has made a mistake." What DRS is doing to umpiring right across the board is creating low self esteem to the extent that people are now afraid to make decisions. I remind everyone once again that there is a shortage of umpires in every sport and DRS is just increasing to that shortage. Why bother ? If anyone things they can do a better job, take it up, we need you !!!!

  • Thegimp on August 13, 2013, 5:40 GMT

    Hill had a shocker, let's not mince it. Umpires have always had to make close calls and we have always forgiven the odd error, but in this series you can only laugh because not to do so will simply depress. I just find that I'm glad I'm only watching and not playing because then I would be ropeable. To say that it's acceptable that he got three right and three wrong is a joke. 50/50 isn't good enough. Ask your employer, if your boss says it's OK for you to get 50% of your work decisions correct then I want your job.

  • Cricket_theBestGame on August 13, 2013, 1:56 GMT

    @JB Baxter - i completely agree with you. its a tough job no doubt. you did raise a valid point of umpire having to look at the NO ball then look up and see the rest of the picture. maybe just maybe, this is the reason why most umpire err because their attention is diverted for that 1 second from watching No ball and looking up?

    it explains why Dharmasina regularly checks for No ball. ...so why not help them and handover checking the No ball to 3rd umpire? then onfield umpire can keep looking at the batsman where all the action is. if there is a No ball 3rd umpire can whisper into onfield umpire. just like now when umpires check for it after a batsman is cleaned bowled..would be no differnt. though it would give more time to umpires..

  • ballsintherightareas on August 12, 2013, 19:25 GMT

    Well said. Absolutely right.

  • quarterjack on August 12, 2013, 13:47 GMT

    Is giving the bowler "the benefit of the doubt" any more fair than doing the same for the batsman? Should a ref give a penalty if he's not sure or refuse it for the same reason? One side is going to be angry with the decision. Keep some form of review, but limit its use to LBW, which is probably the most contentious decision an umpire can make. Take a leaf from baseball's page: show the feed only to the umpires, and only to the field umpires, not a third or fourth official. The crowd doesn't need to see it. Keep the challenges, and tie an unsuccessful challenge to some form of mark down -- a loss or addition of two runs, say. Decision-making must remain in the hands of the umpires on the field.

  • on August 12, 2013, 13:28 GMT

    Super article. The situation is not helped either by commentators (Mark Nicholas is often a guilty party) second guessing appeals using phrases like "must be" then saying very little when the umpire's decision is shown to be the correct one and their guess found to be wrong. A little more humility and empathy and a little less grandstanding would go a long way. Would be great to see Sky or Ch5 (perhaps via the analyst) do an in depth feature on being an umpire to give people a better insight as to their role rather than at times hiding behind the technology and countless slow motion technologies. A start might be to show the piece in real time speed. The commentary from Geoff Boycott summed it up for me when reviewing a bat pad decision in England's first innings saying that he didn't need to look at it on DRS he could see it on the replay. Something not afforded to umpires in the first instance.

  • Calypso_Kid on August 12, 2013, 12:39 GMT

    Yes, DRS has shown up umpires. But the number of failed reviews has also shown up the players. Nicks & close LBWs are fiendishly hard to judge, even by the man holding the bat. So let's accept the DRS genie is out of the bottle and get its use right.

    The excuse for not using DRS on every iffy appeal is that it delays the game. But we have delays anyway, as parties confer whether to risk one of their two precious reviews. So let's cut out the middlemen and go straight to DRS, just like the TV stations do anyhow.

    And if DRS devalues umpiring skills, so what? Umpires are servants of the game, the contest is not about their skills. They will still be the judges of a myriad things: wides and no-balls, catches close to the ground, short runs, intimidatory bowling, was a stroke played, unfair play in all its forms. And of what is so palpably out or not-out that referral is pointless.

    Whole series have been decided by umpiring mistakes and the sooner DRS takes us past that, the better.

  • Sigismund on August 12, 2013, 12:19 GMT

    Wel said again, Brydon. My immediate thought when Hill gave Harris not out was that it was an excellent decision, and the only right one. It looked and sounded as though he might well have hit it. It has to be not out - those are the rules! You've got to do better than that if you want to get him out. Inevitably, though, dismay for poor Tony Hill was shortly to follow. Those commenters who don't agree 100% with this article have completely lost the plot. Judgement, the skill of the umpire, is not about technicalities; it is about the balance of evidence and the upholding of sporting justice. The 12 on the elite panel are the very best in the world at doing this, and the current system is making a mockery of them. Most of us have to make do with accepting decisions from some bloke from the other team who doesn't know the rules; but we still manage OK. Give the umpires their integrity back; they are the lynchpin of the game.

  • timallen1950 on August 12, 2013, 11:30 GMT

    The answer is, only allow the umpire to use the DRS when he is unsure. That way he can give each of his decisions with greater confidence and is not open to ridicule. We should be supporting umpires not leaving them open to humiliation.

  • itismenithin on August 12, 2013, 9:59 GMT

    Fully agree with the article, Umpires are humans and bound to make mistakes. The question to be asked is can the Umpires get any better, is it possible for human eyes to spot those fine edges. If not why ridicule the umpires? One of my fears when DRS was introduced was loss of respect of umpires and i can see than happening now. If we need quality umpiring then we need to respect the their job. In the current form even technology is not 100% so there isn't really strong case for it to replace umpires completely.

  • on August 12, 2013, 9:56 GMT

    In order to avoid this DRS controversy I suggest the following. No public TV replay of the HAWK EYE. The decision is reviewed by the third umpire and an out or not out decision given. This would stop all the arm chair umpires from giving an opinion from sometimes 6000 miles away.

  • liz1558 on August 12, 2013, 9:39 GMT

    In the Oval Test of 1976, Bob Willis was bowling with serious pace, WI were about 10/1 and he had Viv Richards plumb in front - as stone dead as Harris - falling over his front pad. Everyone went up; Even Viv himself seemed to have a sheepish look. The umpire shook his head, and Viv went on to 291, and WI to 687/8. The umpire: Dickie Bird. He really was a not-outer.

  • vaidyar on August 12, 2013, 9:16 GMT

    1. If the decision had not yet been conveyed, why did the players leave the field? Wasn't that showing dissent? I agree, whether you see it on the screen or not, you've to wait for the decision before leaving. 2. I don't understand why they show ball tracking, hot-spot and all that on the giant screen on the ground. I agree that's not the feed being seen by the 3rd ump at that moment, but still. Players should not be watching it as it unfolds, right? Especially when its not as "simple" as a run-out/stumping call. It is the Umpire's Decision being reviewed, let them review it in the 3rd Ump's chamber and after the decision relay it on the screen. Players can also get on with it and don't get to stand and watch and dissect the decision with the Umpire standing nearby.

  • santoshjohnsamuel on August 12, 2013, 9:11 GMT

    Mr. Coverdale is thanked for lending his voice in favour of umpires. However, i would argue that his approach regarding the use of technology is flawed. If we agree that Test Cricket is a different kind of game (gentleman sounds a bit out of place) game and that even at its most intense, certain things are a strict no-no, then we need to accept the fact that technology, at least the way it is used now, is creating a problem for the umpires, and contributing to a demise in their primacy in the field. The LBW should be taken out of the purview of the DRS, except in cases where the batsman can ask for a review if there is an inside edge or where the umpire himself can ask for a review if he feels his LBW not out decision was a result of spotting an inside edge that never was. The umpire is best equipped to spot LBW decisions and it should stay that way. A carte blanche to technology and at the same time upholding the ethos is the game is not possible.

  • wrenx on August 12, 2013, 9:03 GMT

    "Rightly, Hill had given Trott the benefit of the doubt" If we want to restore respect to umpires, we really, really need to let go of this misguided and antiquated idea of "giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt." This was always just a crutch for umpires with no sound logic behind it - it's a convention that never should have existed in the first place. Decisions should be made on the balance of probabilities. Captains should be penalised more heavily for incorrect reviews to stop speculative use. Ditch the old thinking, give umpires more latitude to reach decisions.

  • Hatter_Mad on August 12, 2013, 8:56 GMT

    Also the fact that the players had quit the pitch magnified this incident, which was an unfortunate coincidence.

  • wrenx on August 12, 2013, 8:45 GMT

    "Rightly, Hill had given Trott the benefit of the doubt" If we want to restore respect to umpires, we really, really need to let go of this misguided and antiquated idea of "giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt." This was always just a crutch for umpires with no sound logic behind it - it's a convention that never should have existed in the first place. Decisions should be made on the balance of probabilities. Captains should be penalised more heavily for incorrect reviews to stop speculative use. Ditch the old thinking, give umpires more latitude to reach decisions.

  • ramli on August 12, 2013, 8:38 GMT

    Ball tracking is horrendous ... in what way does it enhances the umpire's decision is unexplainable ... the pitch map is the only reliable thing ... point of impact is okay ... hitting the stumps or not should be left to the judgment of the umpire ... even to detect bat-pad thing is becoming a challenge for technology ... then why DRS at all?

  • Hatter_Mad on August 12, 2013, 8:22 GMT

    You could argue the opposite is true - plenty of English batsmen have walked in this series (Trott, Broad - albeit not always!, Pietersen) when they know they've snicked the ball and, crucially, know that they'll be reviewed anyway.

    Surely that is a return to the "golden age"?

    At least we're having the debate, soccer refs and linesmen are constantly harrangued by players who think nothing and trying to con the ref in the first place.

  • Narkovian on August 12, 2013, 7:46 GMT

    Great isn't it ?... This modern world we now live in. Wonderful technology, used wrongly or badly. Ask.fm. , Bullying on twitter. , Kids becoming couch potatoes in front of their X Boxes, Most people spending 24 hours a day on their phones talking or texting nonsense. Now we have technology slowly destroying our game. Or certainly its ethos and sportsmanship. Personally I find the interminable time taken to revue decisions, let alone the incomprehensible results,mindblowingly annoying and frustrating. Welcome to the 21st century. Bring back Dickie Bird !!

  • on August 12, 2013, 7:46 GMT

    I dont think anybody would love to be umpire to face such humiliation,,,if they are not respected by players,,, why they should come in business?? Let everything do by machines,,,,,,, beauty of game is in manual umpiring only,,,,

  • on August 12, 2013, 7:18 GMT

    this is very true! gives the spectators and tv audience a different perspective - but it will only matter to the genuine fabs of the game!

  • on August 12, 2013, 7:18 GMT

    DRS is not a finished product yet. It is still WIP (Work-In-Process). It may or may not turn out to be an excellent and effective product.

    However, it has already achieved one thing...that is the major bad taste in the mouth I am left with after reading this piece. DRS has eminently succeeded in humiliating a group of well respected, well intentioned gentlemen standing in the middle, taking tough decisions... who were just humans; whereas their predecessors, who might have had committed more howlers, not only escaped from such humiliation, but also were kept on exalted pedestals.

    I can quote several instances of blatant howlers from the past; but those well respected retired remain well respected. I should know the plight of the retired, being a 74 year old retired one myself.

  • on August 12, 2013, 7:14 GMT

    This is a great article, in response to which serious action should be taken. It is easy enough to remind players about their duty towards the spirit and upbringing of the game. And for those that are ignorant, giving the match referee additional power to reprimand them is easy enough too. Its just not cricket for players to be legally able to disrespect an umpire, an umpire who is part of neither team, an umpire who does not receive the same reception from fans as players do, and an umpire who is paid less than a player. If players respect umpires, spectators will follow in turn.

  • jmcilhinney on August 12, 2013, 7:02 GMT

    @Vivek Thuppil on (August 12, 2013, 2:22 GMT), the vast majority of the controversies surrounding DRS are only controversies BECAUSE of the BCCI's opposition to the system. If DRS had been accepted universally then many, if not most, of the examples held up as DRS failures by Indian fans blindly defending the BCCI would be accepted as successes. Take Brad Haddin's dismissal at the end of the first Test. He was given not out on the field but that was overturned on review. Haddin himself said that he edged the ball so obviously the correct decision was made and yet there are those who claim that that was a controversial decision and vindicates the BCCI. Quite the opposite: DRS corrected a mistake and that demonstrates why the BCCI's position is wrong. There have been very few genuine DRS mistakes in this series and all could be fixed by tweaking the protocols without any need for changes to the technology in use.

  • jmcilhinney on August 12, 2013, 6:55 GMT

    @dynamco on (August 12, 2013, 2:03 GMT), HawkEye showed that Rogers "might" have been out LBW but so little of the ball was shown to be hitting the stumps that any umpire calling that out would probably be criticised for that. The right call was made in that case: not out caught and not out LBW.

  • on August 12, 2013, 6:54 GMT

    Perhaps it would be much easier if they'd abandon "umpire's call". If it's clipping the stump it's out, if it's missing not out, end of story.

  • on August 12, 2013, 6:50 GMT

    I still remember onces Dhoni's statement on DRS that, If Bowler makes mistake then he will leak run, that bowler has to accept it, If Batsman makes mistake then he will get out, batsman has to accept it, If umpire makes mistake then why no one is ready to accept it? Umpire mistakes are part and parcel of the game... Indian Team is ready to go with umpire decision, we don't want DRS.

    Sorry to hear Tony Hill's story, and of course he is the only we have had this kind of embracing movement on grand...this is too low...

    DRS should be given to umpires, not the player/captain. if he is uncertain, he should able to check with third umpire, before take the decision...Player/captain must accept that decision on spot with no review.

  • jmcilhinney on August 12, 2013, 6:50 GMT

    @Bunbarian on (August 12, 2013, 0:13 GMT), it's worth noting that Ryan Harris had already walked off when the England players did so they were really following his lead. I'm not trying to blame Harris but neither should the England players be singled out. It was a slightly unusual situation because it was the last wicket and Harris knew he hadn't hit it and could see how plumb it was on the first replay. He was just keen to get off so he could be ready to bowl and the England players just followed his lead, but the DRS protocols had to be followed by the umpires. It was inconsiderate but not malicious and probably not a scenario that the ICC had previously considered. I don't think that anyone needs to be fined but, as I said previously, I think that a rule requiring all players to stand their ground until the official decision is given would be a good idea.

  • on August 12, 2013, 6:21 GMT

    The entire premise that umpires have never been ridiculed before is completely false. Since replays started umpires have been second guessed more and more vehemently. That is what led to the calls (and implementation) of video review in the first place!!!! That errors are pointed out in real time is the only difference, and yes that has an affect on the umpires. But to suggest that the umpires have never been scrutinised before is untrue.

  • on August 12, 2013, 6:18 GMT

    Respect for umpires was something which was taught in schools. Apparently the players today have forgotten the lesson! So how do we get the players to respect the umpire? Certainly bringing more legislation into an over-legislated game is not a solution. Should match referees penalise players? Maybe. But then there would be discrimination again as has happened in the past. Different sets of rules will be applied to different sets of players.

    Bottomline is we do not have an easy solution. Perhaps the umpire on the field needs to earn that respect so that he doesn't become a subject of contempt from players. And he could do that by getting the decisions right. Plus carry himself in a manner by which he wouldn't be pushed around.

  • on August 12, 2013, 5:56 GMT

    @JMC, it should already be pretty clear that dissent is not tolerated. The match umpires really need to clamp down on this and several other areas too.

    I think that somehow the umpires have bought this upon themselves to some degree and I don't say that lightly as someone with no regard for umpires, I have the greatest respect for the men in white coats, across all sporting codes. I just feel that this review system has been made about giving the benefit of the doubt to the umpires, it needs to be benefit of the doubt to the batsmen and then you will see these incidents of blokes getting out when clearly not out reduced greatly. That is how the game has always been played and should continue to be played. DRS should be there to assist the umpires in making the correct decision, not just there as a tool for confirming all but the ugliest of decisions.

  • on August 12, 2013, 5:31 GMT

    Yes I am totally with JB Baxter. I do umpiring in club cricket. and you do make mistakes. Do somebody appreciate umpires when they make good decisions? This DRS has made it worst for everybody. Batsman should take bad decisions with the good. Tony Hill made some amazing decisions in past few years. One bad series that doesn't mean that he is a bad umpire. Its like Sachin having a bad series with the bat so he is a terrible batsman. The players should respect the umpires and should have waited for the decision from Tony Hill. This is not respect leaving the field while everybody is waiting for umpires decision. Before criticizing umpires first try it yourself pls.

  • nashdwaj on August 12, 2013, 5:15 GMT

    I agree with Brydon on this article. It is inhuman to subject umpires to this much scrutiny and finally humilation. Can you imagine standing for 5 days with utmost concentration required on every ball ? No player need to do this in a test match. Now add to this Big Brother scrutiny and humilation...mistakes are bound to increase. DRS in the present form has to go. We need to go the drawing board and create a Umpire Decision Assist System. There will be no reviews by players. There should be 2 off field TV umpires assisting the umpires on-field. All Out/Notout decisions could be quickly reviewed to bolster on-field umpires. If it is a out decision obviously they have plenty of time to review it until another batsmen comes. If it is Notout decision, technology should be progressed so that 2 off-field umpires are able to quickly check up on any howlers. Path prediction from hawkeye should not be used at all and not be shown also to the viewers. Should be UDAS or Decision Assist

  • AhmedEsat on August 12, 2013, 4:25 GMT

    This shows brilliant insights. Well done Bryan.

  • ReverseSweepRhino on August 12, 2013, 4:05 GMT

    If wrong decisions can be corrected swiftly, they should be. While an umpire may be slightly humiliated when he finds his original decision is incorrect, there are two teams who stand to be even more humiliated if they lose a game based on an erroneous call.

    While the umpire's pride might take a slight hit for a few minutes, a player's career, a captaincy and even a nation's pride is at stake at the same time. Wrong decisions can have impact ranging from the trivial (a tail-ender is erroneously given not-out, only to be cleaned bowled in the next delivery) to massive (the fate of an entire series with national pride at stake).

    It is better to have that error corrected as quickly as possible, rather than have the original wrong decision stand. Besides, the media and home viewers will spot the mistake anyway. As an umpire, would you rather be laughed at by a few thousand people in the stands, or have millions blame you for a wrong decision?

  • jmcilhinney on August 12, 2013, 4:01 GMT

    While some might find it nit-picky, I also think that it would be a good idea to mandate that all players stand their ground until a review has been completed. Sure, in the case of Ryan Harris' dismissal it was in all the players' interest to get off the field and prepare for the change of innings as soon as possible. I understand that. The thing is though, if we want umpires to get decisions right then it is important that everything is done to keep their confidence up. While I'm sure it was not the intent, all the players walking off and leaving Tony Hill to raise the finger to himself (pun only slightly intended) did show a lack of respect and that is bound to chip away at an umpire's confidence and reduce the likelihood of their getting it right in future. Technology is here and it's here to stay but the ICC needs to do all it can to protect umpires because they are a precious commodity.

  • jmcilhinney on August 12, 2013, 3:53 GMT

    Certainly dissent is an issue. DRS has legitimised dissent in a manner of speaking but the ICC needs to make sure that genuine dissent doesn't become commonplace. KP took things too far but even Usman Khawaja's reaction was too much. Yes, he got a bad decision even on review but bad decisions have been a part of the game for a long time and it's never been acceptable to swear about it in full view of the crowd. Save it until you're back in the dressing room. As for KP, I don't even think that there was anything wrong with his decision, either on-field or on review. HotSpot casts some doubt but there was a clear noise with no other obvious cause and umpires have been using that as evidence of an edge forever. I think that, at the very least, the ICC should have quiet word to both teams and tell them that no further such outbursts will be tolerated and they should make the same clear to all other teams before their next series.

  • jmcilhinney on August 12, 2013, 3:46 GMT

    I'm not sure that DRS has actually increased pressure on umpires to get it right. Surely it has eased that pressure because there is now a safety net for incorrect decisions. It was the introduction of technologies now used in DRS as part of the TV broadcast that increased the pressure. People were already grumbling about incorrect decisions because they could see the replays but, before DRS, noone could do anything about it. Now at least the players have some recourse if they think a decision is wrong.

  • on August 12, 2013, 3:38 GMT

    good article....

  • vswami on August 12, 2013, 3:21 GMT

    There is a lot of merit in preserving old fashioned virtues of respecting authority of an umpire. I would reckon respecting authority and preserving the stature of an umpire is more important than correcting an odd decision here and there with technology. After five years, no one will care who won or lost a particular match, but the loss of authority of an umpire will be with us to stay.

  • on August 12, 2013, 2:49 GMT

    Players should respect umpires,,, every team is treating umpires like a dirt,, like a ball counting machine only,,,,,KP thinks himselof as only unique player in world,, he bats as if he is obliging his team and never value his wicket

  • SmashingBaby on August 12, 2013, 2:31 GMT

    Well said Brydon Coverdale! Maybe the ICC should ban replays at the ground, particularly hawkeye and hotspot replays. It is pretty silly to show the players and the crowd the replays WHILE the 3rd umpire is making his mind up. If they want to see them they can watch the match highlights on TV when the day's play is over. P.S. players who show any dissent AFTER the decision is reviewed using DRS should get on the spot fines, maybe even match bans - Kevin Pietersen's behaviour in the 3rd test was a disgrace and completely unjustified, particularly since Usman Khawaja was dismissed earlier in a similar fashion. We need technology in my opinion, but players are not behaving in a sportsmanlike manner at all, towards the other team or the umpires.

  • on August 12, 2013, 2:22 GMT

    DRS is destroying the gentleman's game. Every single controversy, every embarrassment is a huge vindication of the BCCI's stand against this flawed, corporate pocket-lining embarrassment to the sport.

  • dynamco on August 12, 2013, 2:03 GMT

    the unfairest cut is when the replay shows 49.5% of the ball is hitting the stump that would have been sent cartwheeling but for the batsman's pad intervention and the decision remains the onfield umpire's (mistaken) call and the appealing side unfairly loses a review. The DRS is supposed to stop howlers but either way the onfield umpire's decision is upheld in the 49% scenario. The daft thing is that the appeal 'How's that' covers all ways of being out under the laws of cricket but not under DRS as was shown with another Hill blooper in the Rogers' appeal against caught behind -caught decision reversed - the replay showed Rogers was actually out LBW, but he remained NOT OUT under DRS and did not lose a review for his side. ICC should use the Laws of Cricket fully. A bouncer above head high is a No Ball under the Laws - hook it and get caught and it's not out but it's called a Wide in Test cricket and you can be stumped off a wide.

  • on August 12, 2013, 1:05 GMT

    Well said.

  • on August 12, 2013, 1:05 GMT

    Great article. The lack of respect is a disgrace. It's easy to get it right with all that tech. All these leg stump lbw would never have been out before drs. That was how it was. Benefit of the doubt to the batter. They only get one life. The bowler gets hundreds of chances.

  • jmcilhinney on August 12, 2013, 0:43 GMT

    I suspect that one reason that we've seen such a high proportion of incorrect decisions in this series is that the umpires are feeling the pressure created by there being such a small pool eligible to stand in this series. With only 2/3 of the elite panel neutral, it means that the rest have to officiate back-to-back far more than usual. I don't think that anyone who hasn't done it can appreciate what it must be like to have to maintain your concentration for every ball for all 5 days of a Test match. At least the players get numerous chances to relax. I wonder whether a one-off allowance can be made to allow non-neutral umpires for the return series, not as a punishment or even indictment of those standing in this series but more to relieve some pressure on them and help them get more correct decisions.

  • landl47 on August 12, 2013, 0:18 GMT

    This morning, of the last 5 Australian dismissals, 4 were reviewed. Two showed that the umpire was right to give the batsman out. Two showed that the umpire was wrong to give the batsman not out. The 5th was not reviewed and the umpire got the decision wrong. That's three wrong decisions out of 5 dismissals, two of which were corrected. The TV audience saw the other dismissal was wrong.

    Obviously the misguided opposition to the DRS has to stop. Umpires get more decisions wrong than does technology. Equally obviously, the current process is wrong- it just leads to illogical conclusions and humiliation for the umpires

    Give the game back to the umpires, all 3 of them. Had that been the case this morning then 1. All 5 decisions would have been right first time and 2. The umpires would not have been made to look foolish and inadequate.

    Put in a couple of rules about time-wasting to avoid undue delay and we can get back to focusing on the cricket.

  • Bunbarian on August 12, 2013, 0:13 GMT

    Very good article, indicating the pressures now being placed on umpires. There seems no doubt that the England players showed complete disrespect for Hill in walking off the field before he gave his decision, and should all be fined heavily for dissent, or acting contrary to the spirit of the game. The same sanction should be applied to any team which does something similar in future. I would suggest a fine of between 50-80% of their match fees, would see that this sort of total disrespect is unlikely to occur again. I suppose we can say that at least cricket hasn't reached the deplorable level of football, where sometimes players are seen to jostle referees. The DRS isn't being used purely to rectify howlers, and I suggest this could be at least partially rectified by allowing only one appeal per innings: then players would be very careful about wasting them.

  • StickyWicket321 on August 11, 2013, 23:25 GMT

    Disgusting behaviour. So much for being the sport that respects umpires most. Walking off the field to laughter. Couldn't imagine how humiliating that is. And to all those that criticised india for DRS. Guess the Indians were right. It isnt nearly accurate enough and it does undermine the umpire. Massively. Lets hope cricket fixes the respect problem

  • satspeare on August 11, 2013, 23:20 GMT

    Oh for the days gone by of the umpire's decision, right or wrong is final!! however , we now have the technology to assist the umpire to make the correct decision - unbiased and in keeping with the rules of cricket. I wish that the review be taken out of the hands of the players and reside with the third umpire. reviews needs to be time limited and if not conclusive, then the call goes to the batsman's benefit as in the pas without the benefit of replays. this also removes the replays being made into a strategy and benefiting a few players while others are left to "live with it". This I feel is only fair and we then either use the technology or don't rather than selectively. for those who feel this will use up time - I would rather have all necessary decision reviewed and be correct as possible, losing a few minutes than the results of games be affected by the lack of available reviews remaining. The 3rd umpire has enough time to correct especially howlers but also all incorrect calls

  • ChandraaR on August 11, 2013, 23:08 GMT

    What the players did today was shameful. It displayed a complete lack of respect and courtesy towards the umpire. Forget Tony Hill, the umpire. This was bad manners towards Tony Hill, the person. Penalize a token amount from every player who was on the field at the time, if only to make a point. And how Kevin Pietersen was not penalized for dissent defies me. Now, sadly, this will become a talking point only when the next South Asian player gets penalized under similar circumstances.

  • Neela80 on August 11, 2013, 22:22 GMT

    I dont see why an incorrect decision made on field should not be corrected using technology. After all we are arriving at a correct decision arent we ? the number of onfield decisions upheld when compared to those overturned are very high. Which suggests that most umpires are getting it right the first time. I dont think any umpire (even if he is the best) should feel guilty of his decision being overturned. rather, they ("the whole umpiring unit") are using technology to arrive at a correct decision. It's a kind of a team work. Its like backing-up to a poor throw from the deep (to prevent a third run). The umpires should take DRS as decision confirmation tool not as a decision evaluation tool. After all it is your own team mate sitting-up in front of the TV to uphold or overturn your decision.

    As far as walking off the field is concerned, its similar to batsmen walking before the umpire gives decision. Tony need not have raised the finger to an empty pitch.

  • sherlockoz on August 11, 2013, 22:11 GMT

    Excellent article Brydon and one that should be compulsory reading for ALL players and Television commentators. The antics of ridiculing the umpires by Mark Waugh and Brendon Julian on the Australian TV coverage is a disgrace. How many viewings did it take to clearly show the hot spot on Chris Rogers glove before he was given out...I challenge these critics to give up the comfort of their TV lounge seat and venture into the middle as an umpire, see how they go. Let's have a reality TV program where armchair critics can TEST their skills as an umpire, that should make for good comedy viewing if they receive the same courtesy as the modern day umpires get.Your comparison with Dickie Bird is a great one, these umpires (who we revered) never had to face the same critique that today's umpires do, yet he had his 'howlers' just like all umpires do. There should be more emphasis on Television coverage showing the view (and timing) that the umpire has when he makes his decision.

  • SagirParkar on August 11, 2013, 22:07 GMT

    not just KP, but also Johnny Bairstow in this test match when he was LBW to Lyon.. it was downright disgraceful and completely unwarranted.

  • mhk21 on August 11, 2013, 21:40 GMT

    Hands down for the amazing article .... beautifully written .... completely agree with you .... i mean this is ridiculous for people to bash the umpires on their so called mistakes as the umpire has a single real time view of the scene .....these so called mistakes were good decisions a decade ago ..... if they wanna get every decision right try making a Robot for it as humans are bound to make mistakes !!!

  • Cyril_Knight on August 11, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    There is no doubt that DRS is affecting on-field decisions. Tony Hill never took so long to make his decisions in the past. The Harris lbw is a perfect example of an umpire leaving a decision to the fielding side, knowing they had a review left. Why would he make a decision? Natural instinct is to defer when placed under pressure, everyone would do it. DRS is damaging the game and more and more incorrect decisions will be deferred as umpires wilt under the constant challenge of their ability. Frivolous appeals only serve to increase this pressure.

    There is so much more wrong with the DRS system than right. It needs to be suspended at the end of this Test and not reintroduced until adequate trials are made.

    People forget that DRS has been introduced at the highest level without tests. If ICC are so sure it works then they should pay for it to be trialled in a first-class competition for an entire season. As it stands it does far more harm than good.

  • correctcall on August 11, 2013, 21:21 GMT

    You must earn respect like Taufel.

  • TheRisingTeam on August 11, 2013, 21:20 GMT

    Not surprised with Tony Hill. Even in the Zim-Ban test series, he made many awful decisions. We can understand umpires can make some mistakes but too many constantly especially the plum ones is just not on and spoils the game. Its important on-field umpires and especially 3rd umpire communicate properly so the right decision can be as precise as possible. I also do not like the idea of this "elite panel" because it doesn't prove anything at all.

  • TheRisingTeam on August 11, 2013, 21:20 GMT

    Not surprised with Tony Hill. Even in the Zim-Ban test series, he made many awful decisions. We can understand umpires can make some mistakes but too many constantly especially the plum ones is just not on and spoils the game. Its important on-field umpires and especially 3rd umpire communicate properly so the right decision can be as precise as possible. I also do not like the idea of this "elite panel" because it doesn't prove anything at all.

  • correctcall on August 11, 2013, 21:21 GMT

    You must earn respect like Taufel.

  • Cyril_Knight on August 11, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    There is no doubt that DRS is affecting on-field decisions. Tony Hill never took so long to make his decisions in the past. The Harris lbw is a perfect example of an umpire leaving a decision to the fielding side, knowing they had a review left. Why would he make a decision? Natural instinct is to defer when placed under pressure, everyone would do it. DRS is damaging the game and more and more incorrect decisions will be deferred as umpires wilt under the constant challenge of their ability. Frivolous appeals only serve to increase this pressure.

    There is so much more wrong with the DRS system than right. It needs to be suspended at the end of this Test and not reintroduced until adequate trials are made.

    People forget that DRS has been introduced at the highest level without tests. If ICC are so sure it works then they should pay for it to be trialled in a first-class competition for an entire season. As it stands it does far more harm than good.

  • mhk21 on August 11, 2013, 21:40 GMT

    Hands down for the amazing article .... beautifully written .... completely agree with you .... i mean this is ridiculous for people to bash the umpires on their so called mistakes as the umpire has a single real time view of the scene .....these so called mistakes were good decisions a decade ago ..... if they wanna get every decision right try making a Robot for it as humans are bound to make mistakes !!!

  • SagirParkar on August 11, 2013, 22:07 GMT

    not just KP, but also Johnny Bairstow in this test match when he was LBW to Lyon.. it was downright disgraceful and completely unwarranted.

  • sherlockoz on August 11, 2013, 22:11 GMT

    Excellent article Brydon and one that should be compulsory reading for ALL players and Television commentators. The antics of ridiculing the umpires by Mark Waugh and Brendon Julian on the Australian TV coverage is a disgrace. How many viewings did it take to clearly show the hot spot on Chris Rogers glove before he was given out...I challenge these critics to give up the comfort of their TV lounge seat and venture into the middle as an umpire, see how they go. Let's have a reality TV program where armchair critics can TEST their skills as an umpire, that should make for good comedy viewing if they receive the same courtesy as the modern day umpires get.Your comparison with Dickie Bird is a great one, these umpires (who we revered) never had to face the same critique that today's umpires do, yet he had his 'howlers' just like all umpires do. There should be more emphasis on Television coverage showing the view (and timing) that the umpire has when he makes his decision.

  • Neela80 on August 11, 2013, 22:22 GMT

    I dont see why an incorrect decision made on field should not be corrected using technology. After all we are arriving at a correct decision arent we ? the number of onfield decisions upheld when compared to those overturned are very high. Which suggests that most umpires are getting it right the first time. I dont think any umpire (even if he is the best) should feel guilty of his decision being overturned. rather, they ("the whole umpiring unit") are using technology to arrive at a correct decision. It's a kind of a team work. Its like backing-up to a poor throw from the deep (to prevent a third run). The umpires should take DRS as decision confirmation tool not as a decision evaluation tool. After all it is your own team mate sitting-up in front of the TV to uphold or overturn your decision.

    As far as walking off the field is concerned, its similar to batsmen walking before the umpire gives decision. Tony need not have raised the finger to an empty pitch.

  • ChandraaR on August 11, 2013, 23:08 GMT

    What the players did today was shameful. It displayed a complete lack of respect and courtesy towards the umpire. Forget Tony Hill, the umpire. This was bad manners towards Tony Hill, the person. Penalize a token amount from every player who was on the field at the time, if only to make a point. And how Kevin Pietersen was not penalized for dissent defies me. Now, sadly, this will become a talking point only when the next South Asian player gets penalized under similar circumstances.

  • satspeare on August 11, 2013, 23:20 GMT

    Oh for the days gone by of the umpire's decision, right or wrong is final!! however , we now have the technology to assist the umpire to make the correct decision - unbiased and in keeping with the rules of cricket. I wish that the review be taken out of the hands of the players and reside with the third umpire. reviews needs to be time limited and if not conclusive, then the call goes to the batsman's benefit as in the pas without the benefit of replays. this also removes the replays being made into a strategy and benefiting a few players while others are left to "live with it". This I feel is only fair and we then either use the technology or don't rather than selectively. for those who feel this will use up time - I would rather have all necessary decision reviewed and be correct as possible, losing a few minutes than the results of games be affected by the lack of available reviews remaining. The 3rd umpire has enough time to correct especially howlers but also all incorrect calls

  • StickyWicket321 on August 11, 2013, 23:25 GMT

    Disgusting behaviour. So much for being the sport that respects umpires most. Walking off the field to laughter. Couldn't imagine how humiliating that is. And to all those that criticised india for DRS. Guess the Indians were right. It isnt nearly accurate enough and it does undermine the umpire. Massively. Lets hope cricket fixes the respect problem