West Indies v Australia, 2nd Test, Port-of-Spain, 3rd day

Gibson critical of DRS use

Daniel Brettig at Queen's Park Oval

April 17, 2012

Comments: 59 | Text size: A | A

Kemar Roach appeals to the umpire, West Indies v Australia, 2nd Test, Port-of-Spain, April 15, 2012
West Indies have not been happy with umpire reviews during this series © AFP
Enlarge

West Indies have found it hard enough playing against Australia without the added obstacle of an inconsistently applied and supported Decision Review System, the coach Ottis Gibson has said. Adding his voice to the growing number of international cricket figures calling for consistent use of technology or none at all, Gibson said the hosts were finding it hard to understand a system that has given them more hindrance than help.

Expecting to be censured by the ICC for his comments, Gibson said his team had wanted to provide a sterner fight for Australia than had so far been the case, but had their task made more difficult by the DRS. Its use in the series has been affected by WICB budgets precluding the host broadcaster from using Hot-Spot or Snicko technology, leaving many replays ambiguous and decisions based on the interpretations of the umpires Ian Gould, Marais Erasmus and Tony Hill.

"I can't say what I really want to say about the DRS because the ICC will sack me or ban me or whatever," Gibson said. "If the ICC is going to use DRS I think they should use all the technology and I think if we haven't got all the technology we shouldn't use it at all.

"Over the course of the two Test matches, the way that it's panned out, the decisions that have gone against us. In Barbados we had a man out [Michael Clarke] and then he was given not out with the use of the cameras and so on. To us sitting watching it, we didn't see anything conclusive to say that he had hit it or not hit it so therefore we thought that the decision the umpire made in the first instance should have stood instead of being overruled.

"There's been a lot of little things that have gone against us in Barbados and here as well and it's tough. We know the Aussies are better than us and we know we have to give them a challenge but then all these little things go against you. You can't cry over spilt milk, you've got to keep getting yourself up and keep going. It's tough but the guys, credit to them they've kept coming back and they've been very competitive."

Gibson said the system was one of the problems he was trying to negotiate with his young team, which fought well to tie the ODI and Twenty20 series against Australia. They are now staring squarely at a 2-0 deficit in as many Tests after Nathan Lyon's spin tore through the Caribbean side in the final session of day three in Trinidad.

"Everything in coaching, especially when we're trying to build a side is hard," he said. "It's hard sometimes to keep the guys motivated as well when they come off the field after a long hard day and feel like all the little 50/50s are going against them in the middle as well. You have to talk them through those situations as well. I think to be fair to the guys they have managed to stay tough.

"The guys have hung in. They played some pretty good cricket for the most part but, like was mentioned before, it was just those little parts - one bad hour - and we have to try and overcome that hurdle. We've got over a lot of hurdles to get to where we are that moment to play some pretty competitive cricket but we just need to overcome those little situations where one bad hour is killing us."

As for the 20-minute delay at the start of the day's play, caused by a power outage that robbed the ground and the world of television pictures, Gibson said it had been another sign of the fact that television was such a major player in the conduct of professional sport.

"I suppose most things in cricket, and sport in general, are controlled by TV and there was no TV feed for the umpires and the officials to deal with DRS and all that sort of stuff," Gibson said. "The umpires brought us back off the field then we had a little discussion that we're here to play cricket and cricket used to be played without TV so let's get on with it, so we came back on - it wasn't much of a distraction for us.

"There was no TV feed in the whole ground at the time so the officials would not have had DRS for instance, so they came off the field and together they had an opinion, with the match referee and the two captains and the management from the two teams, and we decided let's go play cricket."

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

RSS Feeds: Daniel Brettig

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (April 20, 2012, 20:00 GMT)

Most people who are supporting DRS here are talking how it is supposed to be used only to correct major blunders and not to be used for very close calls... I have only one question for these people... Are there any major blunders that cannot be corrected by just viewing the TV replays??? Do we need this very expensive technology that has not been yet tested to be accurate and may or may not be available depending on lighting, frame rate, budget constraint etc etc etc???

Posted by Meety on (April 19, 2012, 5:00 GMT)

@zenboomerang/johnny Rook - in actual FACT the 3rd Umpire does NOT "overrule" the on field Umpire at any stage. They advise. The decision to overturn a decision rests SOLELY with the on-field umpire. The benefit of the doubt factor in umpiring decisions has been eroding for 20 years now, particulalrly in refernce to fron foot LBWs. So MAYBE zenb maybe you need to improve your understanding??? @johnny rook - the benefit of doubt to the on field umpire only really exists in the interpretations of what can over-rule a decision, mainly regarding LBWs, whether the middle of the ball was hitting the stumps or not. With limited technology available to a 3rd umpire, then the umpire has less to advise the on-field umpire. Not hearing the interractions but I would say the on-field wasn't satisfied wiith his original decision. If the 3rd Umpire says he has nothing to show that Clarke hit it, the relay of that info MAY of been what caused the reversal.

Posted by brittop on (April 18, 2012, 22:34 GMT)

Most people seem to think that Clarke didn't hit it. The third umpire (or more precisely the on-field umpire in consultation with the 3rd umpire) obviously agreed and thought the evidence was conclusive, so overturned it. @aiksa & @zenboomerang - not sure it actually says in the laws or ICC regulations that the batsman should get the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by PunchDrunkPunter on (April 18, 2012, 21:22 GMT)

You can't polish a Television Umpire Review Decision System!

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 20:05 GMT)

Gibson...Gibson...i am sick of Gibson...selecting the wrong team...talking about young team....i thought teams ...were selected on merits of players...but not so for W.I....we will continue to be second to every team...Sammy should quit.......stop taking the embarrassment...u r not a test player...come on Gibson...Chanders...Gayle...Sarwan...Bishoo..Ramphal..Narsingh.. Ramdin...etc..is not good for you...know u r complaining about DRS...again Gibson is totally in competent as coach...W.I will never go any where with Gibson.

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 18:10 GMT)

I'm a big fan of the DRS, but Gibson's right: it's either all or nothing. The complete package must be offered, and if it can't be offered, then DRS shouldn't be used. Hopefully the full DRS package eventually becomes standard in all Test series. I also think that, if the intent is to prevent major errors, they might want to think about giving coaches or the third umpire the responsibility to refer/make calls on decisions.

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 17:50 GMT)

I like the DRS, but as usual the umpires will use the system to favor the bigger teams.I know that it was only one incident but in this short series clarke's wicket would have made a deference, just like how the last wicket partnership made a deference for Australia.

Posted by samincolumbia on (April 18, 2012, 17:41 GMT)

This cannot be happening...somebody agreeing with India on DRS!! Let's insult and ridicule him for doing so. LOL. Thank you Gibson for speaking your courage and giving a resounding slap to the "we-oppose-everything-BCCI-does" camp!!

Posted by nafzak on (April 18, 2012, 15:53 GMT)

Gibson should stop the crying foul. The fact is Gibson is playing with one man short and he would not admit it. Sammy is a decent player but not up to test standard. He plays every match as if it's a T/20. His bowling strategy is to contain not get wickets and his stats is average at best when compared to other bowlers in the same matches in which he has played. His batting also leaves a lot to be desired. For him, it's either a big hit or nothing. Yes, he will score an occasional 40 or 50, but that's it. Gibson throws people like Deonarine under the bus with his comments before the match and really puts more pressure on his own players. He mentally messed up Sarwan and wanted Shiv to retire. He should apologise to Shiv for asking him to retire & how to bat. In the last ODI WC, his strategy was to play every match as if it's T/20e & misread the pitch in the 1st test match against Pak last year and the Pak captain was laughing about. Otherwise, I think Gibson is a nice guy.

Posted by noplay on (April 18, 2012, 14:33 GMT)

DRS has joined the long list of things and people that Gibson does not want... Gayle, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, Deonarine (he is waiting for Samuels to return). and possibly Rampaul. Too bad. He wanted a young team, well he has that. Turn them into world beaters just as you are trying to make Sammy into a cricketer

Posted by bvnathan on (April 18, 2012, 14:18 GMT)

DRS as a full package with its constituents need to be consistent for use, to ensure there is a fair decision being made. The absence of other useful components like Hot-Spot, Snickometer etc. makes the use of DRS irrelevant and inconsistent, as the decisions taken by the umpires (on and off the field) may not be correct. There is no need to portray Gibson 'as a Cry Baby'; it is human psychology to feel betrayed when the decision by abridged DRS system goes against the team. The question that need to be asked is 'Does the limited DRS review system helping in officiating of the matches by the umpires?". It would be great to hear the report from the umpires officiting the matches - pros and cons of using limited DRS system in matches

Posted by Aussasinator on (April 18, 2012, 13:53 GMT)

All said and done, WI have given a hard, tedious time to the Aussies. Aussies owe it to their bowlers, both with the ball and bat.

Posted by barrick on (April 18, 2012, 13:53 GMT)

Whatever technology is implemented, it will have limitations by its very nature, whether it be Hotspot not picking everything up, the margin of error on Hawkeye, or the human intervention needed to create Snicko. The purpose of DRS was to elimiate really bad decisions, almost perversely, those which could be seen to be wrong without reference to DRS! However, the finer the margin involved in the decision, the more likely it is that the relevant limitation of the DRS will be reached and exposed. To my mind, the reason that issues around the accuracy of the DRS arise is because it is more and more being used for marginal decisions, rather than shockers. If sides were limited, even in Test innings, to 1 review per side, then we'd have less of these dubious calls, as teams would be reticent to lose their only review carelessly, but still have the ability to correct poor decisions. At the moment, we are replacing the umpire's uncertainty with that of the DRS, but only believe the latter.

Posted by MWaqqar on (April 18, 2012, 13:30 GMT)

Why dont Gibson and others like him understand DRS is to correct obvious wrong decisions like ball pitching down leg, bat before pad in case of LBW. DRS is serving 100% to correct big mistakes. In case of close decisions, decision of on field umpires stand. So DRS is good enough, Gibs Srinivasan others should try to understand.

Posted by Philip_Gnana on (April 18, 2012, 13:29 GMT)

What is Ottis going on about? The recent series in Sri lanka against England was played on these very tight budget restraints. We need to be able to use all that is available to apply fairness. It is not the technology that is at fault but the way each umpire applies hence the need for consistency. As technology improves more need to be absorbed wherever possible (finance). The umpires in my view have always given the benefit of the doubt to the major players and teams. This is where all falls down. The UMPIRES on and off the field. The system is in place to nullify the blunders that we see so often. Let us not bother about the marginals that goes either way. Umpires (on field) are human like the rest of us and their application of the rule may vary according to their judgement. So the TV umpire is the main one who needs to be consistent and he should be better trained and be prepared to make the difficult decisions. Philip Gnana, Surrey.

Posted by Rally_Windies on (April 18, 2012, 13:09 GMT)

so lets see.. (1) Chanerpual can't bat (2) Gayle is unfit (3) Doenarine is unfit and will be dropped as soon as Samuels returns. Regardless of his excellent performace (4) it is the ICC's fault that your players can't use the DSR system correctly .. (5) and the problem is that they are "young" ? Well what do we have coaches for? (6) and if the problem is that they are young? what happen to all the old men? You had a problem with their age...

So the West Indies problem is basically we have players who are too young or too old .......... and Chanderapul can't bat, Gayle is not physically fit, Doenarine is not fit and the ICC is inconsistent ....

the problem IS NOT THE COACH ! ! !

Posted by dinosaurus on (April 18, 2012, 12:58 GMT)

I think that the DRS has shown interesting things - that umpires generally do a great job as well as that they sometimes make a hash of what is a very tough job. It also shows that some players' opinion on the "I wuz robbed" issue is simply not to be trusted. As others have said, you can't just review in hope, you have to be sure, possibly particularly in LBW decisions. The way I see it is that, if there isn't a strict limit on the number of unsuccessful reviews, that encourages those reviews "in hope".

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 12:56 GMT)

It's every-one's and every other thing's fault that WI is NOT winnng. I wonder what conditions and systems the Australians are playing under, in the West Indies ? It it the same system as the WI team, or are they different, Gibson ? Use what you have at hands in an intelligent way, not foolishly ! It is your responsibility as a "so call" coach to teach them how to use the system to their advantage. A bad workman always quarrels with his tools. And you are a bad workman !

Posted by OT12 on (April 18, 2012, 12:50 GMT)

I fail to understand why players and coaches are complaining about DRS, all it do is give you an option to make the wrong decision right I mean it cannot over turn a delivery or do magic for you, all the players needs a crash course on DRS, I really think ICC needs to take off it's size 5 diaper and be a brave kid and tell all the boards this DRS thing is mandatory we will facilitate the 50% cost of it for the first year till you find a sponsor for yourself, we (ICC) will provide training to all contracted players on how the system works. All I see ICC doing is making good for nothing decision which are not helping game at all.

Posted by Digimont on (April 18, 2012, 12:35 GMT)

"You can't cry over spilt milk". Well, Mr Gibson, you then proceed to do a very good impersonation of you crying over spilt milk....nuff said...

Posted by zenboomerang on (April 18, 2012, 12:11 GMT)

@johnnyrook :- "BCCI will foot the bill since it generates 70-80 % of the ICC revenue"... You are joking aren't you?... Try telling that to the ECB or CA... Funny how NZ can afford DRS yet its cricket finances are almost zero compared to India... Re: "simple TV" - even runouts cannot be called accurately on normal TV camera's... The current Oz camera's now run at much high frame rates & these by themselves are much more expensive than Hawkeye, Hotspot or Snicko...

Posted by zenboomerang on (April 18, 2012, 12:08 GMT)

@johnnyrook :- "In case of review, benefit of doubt goes to the on-field umpire and not to the batsman"... Try reading the rules & come back to me... If the 3rd umpire rules that Clarke didn't hit the ball or replays couldn't show that it did hit the bat then he over-ruled the on-field umpires & gave him not out - clearly giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman... That is very clear & eaily understood by most people...

Posted by PutMarshyOn on (April 18, 2012, 12:00 GMT)

I suppose the DRS gives people something to argue over and adds a bit of drama here and there. Those chasing 100% accuracy will never get it (there are infinitely many points in a line); if it is applied to every decision we will be lucky to get 60 overs a day; if it is selectively applied there will be misuse & abuse. Get rid of the damned thing & tell the coaches & players that the day they stop making mistakes the umpires will follow suit - otherwise shut up and man up.

Posted by jupiterlaw on (April 18, 2012, 12:00 GMT)

Why is Gibson lashing out at the ICC? All the technology was available to him if he wanted it. The article clearly states that the host's (WICB) budget precluded the host broadcaster from using Snico and Hot-spot, so that is not the ICC's fault. He should have lashed out at his own board for being so poor.

Posted by TheLight on (April 18, 2012, 11:47 GMT)

Of course its difficult to motivate a team Gibson..............especially when the coach (Gibson) criticizes his own players in the media and have given preferential treatment to some while discarding others...........................until you fix this,there will continue to be an issue of motivation.............and RESPECT because your own players think you are two-faced.

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 11:37 GMT)

That technology thing will always be an issue. Yes I do agree it is how it's being used by the players. U will always thing u r not out & very rarely will yr partner tell u not to review. So let the boys in the dug out make the call. They can quickly c what's happening on their laptops. Players will look to the dug out for the call. I will go for tech any day. We'll have to live with the human side of things.

Posted by StoneRose on (April 18, 2012, 11:22 GMT)

This is sour grapes from Gibson. The situation is far better with technology, even if its flawed. That's not to say if difficulties were ironed out things would not be better - because they would be better - but to say 'all or nothing' with technology is wrong. All is best - some is second-best, and nothing is worst.

Posted by sifter132 on (April 18, 2012, 9:56 GMT)

Not sure what Gibson is complaining about really. EVERY team has little things go against them. That's not DRSs fault - its luck. His only example was the Clarke call, and yeah I can see his point. But I can also see Clarke's POV, where there was ZERO evidence that he hit it on video - he clearly thought he didn't. Why SHOULDN'T the call be overturned? How clear does it have to be that he didn't hit it before Gibson is happy eg. If hotspot was there and showed no mark would Gibson have been happy to accept a Clarke not out call? I would wager probably not...

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 9:40 GMT)

The teams themselves are referring decisions that are right in thefirst instance then whinging about the technology. WI keep referring marginal appeals when bowling (out of desparation?) and plumb LBW's when batting (the individual batsmans ego?). How Brave thought he was not out is beyond me. Why the batsman backing up didn't just tell him "mate - that looks as plumb as it gets". Selfish use by batsmen and "overy hopeful" use by fielding captains. DRS is a great addition to the game - I love it when used right, but the inconsistent application of technology is not good. For WI here and England a few weeks ago several DRS reviews were altered from the standing upmires decision (Bell and Cooke in the 1st test) for no reason that was obvious - or even marginally apparent. The same tech everywhere, and the standing umpire is not over-ruled unless it's a howler. Even my aunt mildred can understand those pronciples - why can't the ICC?

Posted by aiksa on (April 18, 2012, 9:30 GMT)

There is one basic rule in cricket which states that the benefit goes to the batsman. That should be rule # 1. When reviewing any decision, the umpire should give out ONLY if there is CLEAR & DOUBTLESS evidence, else the decision should go in favor of batsman. There have been many instances where evidence has not been clear enough and umpires have ruled against the batsmen after having to see many many replays. If rule # 1 is applied strictly, most of the objections and criticism will go away.

Posted by JohnnyRook on (April 18, 2012, 9:16 GMT)

And just curious, if WI has a cost constraints, why does it want to have Hawkeye/Hotspot anyways. When BCCI says it is expensive, nobody listens. I guess everyone expects ICC to foot the bill which indirectly means BCCI will foot the bill since it generates 70-80 % of the ICC revenue. Zim Cricket board is not even having enough money to televise SA series but despite of this grim financial situation, people still want fancy techs. I say cricket world has loads of urgent matters to spend money on. It shouldn't be spent on DRS which is strictly a good-to-have thing (assuming it is applied right). And by the way, why hss DRS become synonymous to Hawkeye/Hotspot. Why can't we just have simple TV replays in DRS to eliminate howlers. No fuss, no nonsense, nothing fancy, no extra cost, no inconsistent use, all howlers fixed. Everybody wins except for Hawkeye/Hotspot people obviously.

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 9:12 GMT)

West Indies still can produce a team that can at least fight good teams only if personal ego takes back seat. My pick would be Gayle+barath, Dbravo, Dbravo2, chander, (one batsman and keeper is needed) rampaul, roach, fidel, shillingford/Benn(if he is fit and willing to listen). Darren bravo as captain and they need to find a good keeper both with gloves and bat. No place for all other club grade cricketers. They also need a good coach who concentrates more of coaching job and must be highly experienced player like attapattu.Not 2-3 ODIS and same Test

Posted by JohnnyRook on (April 18, 2012, 9:01 GMT)

@ Buggsy, zenboomerang.... In case of review, benefit of doubt goes to the on-field umpire and not to the batsman. These are not my words but that of Simon Tauffel and Dave Richardson. So if a batsman is given out and there is no evidence of him being out in DRS, he should stay out. This is one major problem with DRS. Inconsistent use. WI has every reason to feel bad about Clarke decision.

Posted by mehulmatrix on (April 18, 2012, 8:50 GMT)

Wonder how come players/coaches at such level lack basic maturity. If its not clear about a decision, the benefit goes to the player right? And also they used up the reviews for wrong appeals, D Bravo was plumb lbw, but still they reviewed it!

Posted by Clyde on (April 18, 2012, 8:46 GMT)

If the umpires decide, I don't mind if they use a penknife or cake-mixer or golf tee, or even just their common sense. If the video technology is being ruled by TV, leave it entirely to TV. It does not interest me, and, as a spectator, I dare I and my peers rule, in the gentlest and politest sense, when it comes to those outside the pickets. The obsession with video is what used to be called a 'cheap thrill'. The putting of winning ahead of playing well is similarly cheap.

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 8:32 GMT)

If you have ben the fan of Richards, kalicharan, richardson, Sobers, marshal, garner, holding, I wonder you still watch these guys play 'cricket'

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 8:31 GMT)

The Problem with DRS is not how the umpires apply it, its how the Players apply it. It is there to correct shockers. NOT to correct half chance maybe it was maybe it wasn't. With LWB the margin is clear. More than half the ball must be hitting the stumps to overturn a not out, and it must be missing completely to overturn an out. This means the marginal call is left in the umpire's hands, as it should be. You only refer an LBW if its not out but plumb, our out but you inside edged or are very certain its going over etc. With catches the players should only refer if they are very confident the umpire is wrong. That is to say, its not a feather edge, its a thick edge to slip that the umpire missed because some sand blew in his eye or something. 3rd umpires should be directed to invariably go with the on field call. If you need more than 2 replays of the same view, its too inconclusive to over turn.

Posted by Buggsy on (April 18, 2012, 8:28 GMT)

@satish619chandar: you mean the Clarke decision? zenboomerang covered it pretty well. DRS is always going to have some controversial decisisions, but it's still way better than it used to be. Have to say though, the recent Australia-India series is probably the best we've had in years with regard to umpiring without DRS so I'm not sure it really would have been any better with it.

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 8:27 GMT)

I too believe westindies should have gayle playing for them along with bravo, pollard , sunil naraine,cooper and russell .If they all play and then given the way on the av g they hit 4-5 sixes each..if all fire at a time .it could be that westindies will have 500 runs in 20 overs..:) even in tests and 50 overs the impact can be huge

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 8:19 GMT)

We are building a team"."we are developing". 'We are a young team". I am listening these from the time Ambrose and co, retired roughly around 15 years. When will they produce a good international team????When Australia landed, We knew the result somehow. PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE Try to get International level players and coach instead of excuses.

Posted by Meety on (April 18, 2012, 8:06 GMT)

@Al Willmott - yes, I didn't like that line, & I'm not a WI fan (or for that matter a current Test player)!!!!

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 7:59 GMT)

That is a little thing about Otis Gibson I'm not a big fan of, saying "Australia are better than us" and stating his comments publicly to Deonarine about how he was only temporarily in the team cause Samuels was out. Can't be very good motivation for his players. But the Windies do look better under him and Sammy.

In saying that - imagine how competitive this West Indies team might be right now if Gayle, Samuels, Duwayne Bravo, Narine, and Rampaul were playing. Still surprised Sarwan keeps getting overlooked too.

Posted by Snick_To_Backward_Point on (April 18, 2012, 7:51 GMT)

@Paresh - totally agree. The idea in the old days was simple: umpire's mistakes even out for both sides in a series. Both sides accept the umpires dont get it right every time. Umpires were fully supported and no dissent was tolerated. Umpire makes decision - Move on with the game. Using technology should be limited to run outs only. Its the only review you can be confident with. Do away with the rest.

Posted by zenboomerang on (April 18, 2012, 7:06 GMT)

@satish619chandar... Re: Clarke decision... Its pretty simple - Clarke asked for a referral & replays showed that he didn't hit the ball with the bat... You may say that it was inconclusive, but any doubt at all must go in the batters favour... Don't see what all the fuss is about...

Posted by one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on (April 18, 2012, 6:35 GMT)

First of all the DRS has been consistent for both sides. All the available technology would be good, but some, technology is still better. Australia has used it better and had clearly incorrect decisions overturned. The lbw decision does need some adjusting, especially prior to contact when drs involves ball tracking and not prediction. There should not be an 'umpires decision' field in this case the ball is either inline or not. Either way a referral should not be lost when it is decided that 'doubt' determines that we are to stay with the umpires call. Australia lost two in the first innings to "umpires call" and had an "umpires call" upheld while bowling - losing one referral. WI lost one to " umpires call" and may have referred another which was shown to just pitch outside leg if they had not wasted one already.

Posted by HadleeCrowe on (April 18, 2012, 6:09 GMT)

"We know the Aussies are better than us" Is this what any coach should be saying to the media????How does that affect the morale of the team you are coaching? This does seem to be excessive whingeing...

Posted by heathrf1974 on (April 18, 2012, 6:01 GMT)

If the ball is hitting the stumps but they go with the umpire decision which is 'not out' is because the tracking system has an error limit which is the width of the ball. So if the ball if shown to be partially hitting the stumps they go with the umpire's call. Some people blame the system but it is their lack of understanding of applying a mathematical model with error limits.

Posted by satish619chandar on (April 18, 2012, 5:01 GMT)

@unregisteredalien : System failure is for both sides.. Agreed.. But if one side is impacted by that, they will feel undone bty external factors for sure.. Everyone knows that Clarke shouldn't have been stayed there last game if not for tampered usage of DRS.. @Buggsy : Yes true.. But can you please justify the decision of Clarke last game?

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 3:39 GMT)

WI have played extremely well the whole series! By adding an invalid excuse, he is only taking the sheen off his side like Bangladesh did after the Asia Cup. The DRS situation has been same for both the sides and I haven't seen any bloopers being made. The technology is better than the umpires but the umpires haven't learnt how to interpret data.

Posted by VivGilchrist on (April 18, 2012, 3:34 GMT)

Would he be complaining if they were 1-0 up?

Posted by farkin on (April 18, 2012, 3:31 GMT)

maybe he should be having a go at "WICB budgets precluding the host broadcaster from using Hot-Spot or Snicko technology" instead of the icc for the drs also he is not saying Australia has to use the same drs too . he sounds like a bad tradesman who is blaming the tools he has to work with

Posted by c_Marsh_b_Lillee on (April 18, 2012, 3:11 GMT)

"We know the Aussies are better than us and..." Absolutely not! Never ever say this. Don't even think it, especially if you are the coach. Identify your opportunities and relish the challenge.

Posted by pauldk on (April 18, 2012, 2:52 GMT)

Ottis Gibson's comment: "If the ICC is going to use DRS I think they should use all the technology and I think if we haven't got all the technology we shouldn't use it at all." is strange. If one side in a test series is against the use of DRS, then it will not be used. Why didn't the WI just go against it (like India), when Hot-Spot and Snicko weren't available due to budget restraints?

Posted by   on (April 18, 2012, 2:51 GMT)

I have always said we dont need DRS, we need the element of doubt, thats what makes the game real. Too much use of technology will try to make the game too perfect. which is not required.

What we require is good umpires willing to take tough decisions.

Posted by Buggsy on (April 18, 2012, 2:48 GMT)

Here we go again. A team loses and they blame it on the DRS.

Posted by tinkertinker on (April 18, 2012, 2:47 GMT)

Windies need to move on from the victim mentality or they will never move up the rankings, with out without drs they are always complaining the umps are out to get them.

fact is better teams create more chances which means more 50/50's flow their way in the end.

Posted by unregisteredalien on (April 18, 2012, 2:11 GMT)

Whinge whinge whinge. International cricket is hard. The system is the same for both sides.

Posted by kitten on (April 18, 2012, 1:50 GMT)

There is a lot of sense in what Gibson is saying. Either you use all the technology available or none. India, I feel, has stated very clearly, that they leave everything to the umpires on the field, and until and unless technology improves, they will carry on doing so. No confusion. Period. One of the things which stands out as a sore thumb, is when an umpire says, 'Not Out', and the fielding side refers it. TV replays then show that two of the three are correct, and the third shows the ball hitting the leg or off stump, and with the caption, 'Umpires referal' or something to that effect. The result , even though clearly shows the batsman to be out, is considered not out, because the umpire deemed it so. Furthermore, and this is the sad bit, the fielding side, inspite of getting the TV referral right, and the ball hitting the stumps, loses one appeal!! That lost appeal is like adding salt to the wound. How stupid can one get? Let the appeal stay, at least some bit of comfort.

Posted by SpadeaSpade on (April 18, 2012, 1:44 GMT)

Ottis is right about Pup's decision reversal in the 1st test. Personally I thought Clarke missed the ball but the onfield umpire gave him out and there was nothing in the replays to suggest he either hit or missed the ball, so he shoudl have remained out. I also agree that the ICC should make all Technology Compulsary in all test matches. Surely there is enough money between the TV carriers and ICC coffers to get this in place. When Sniko , Hot Spot and Pitch mat are all used , I do get the feeling that the final decision is right 99% of the time.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Daniel BrettigClose
Daniel Brettig Assistant editor Daniel Brettig had been a journalist for eight years when he joined ESPNcricinfo, but his fascination with cricket dates back to the early 1990s, when his dad helped him sneak into the family lounge room to watch the end of day-night World Series matches well past bedtime. Unapologetically passionate about indie music and the South Australian Redbacks, Daniel's chief cricketing achievement was to dismiss Wisden Almanack editor Lawrence Booth in the 2010 Ashes press match in Perth - a rare Australian victory that summer.
Tour Results
West Indies v Australia at Roseau - Apr 23-27, 2012
Australia won by 75 runs
West Indies v Australia at Port of Spain - Apr 15-19, 2012
Match drawn
West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown - Apr 7-11, 2012
Australia won by 3 wickets
WICB Pres XI v Australians at Bridgetown - Apr 2-4, 2012
Australians won by 8 wickets
West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown - Mar 30, 2012
West Indies won by 14 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days