Australia in West Indies 2012 April 20, 2012

Gibson fined for criticism of DRS use

ESPNcricinfo staff

West Indies coach Ottis Gibson has been fined 20% of his match fee for criticising the lack of consistency in the use of the DRS.

His comments, made during the second Test between West Indies and Australia in Port-of-Spain, were found to be breaching the ICC Code of Conduct and he was charged with a Level 1 offence relating to inappropriate public comment, to which Gibson pleaded guilty.

"In the pre-series meetings it was agreed that players and coaches should not engage in negative media comments," Jeff Crowe, the ICC match referee, said. "Ottis accepts that he overstepped the mark during the game and has now accepted his sanction.

"The incident took place on Tuesday when, during the post-third day's play media briefing, Gibson challenged the efficacy of the Decision Review System (DRS) and its implementation by the match officials."

Hot Spot is not being used in the ongoing three-Test series for budgetary reasons - as it was not in the recent England-Sri Lanka contest - and its absence meant several close replays remained inconclusive, leaving decisions to be made based on the umpire's interpretation.

"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 had 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."

One contentious incident involved Michael Clarke in the first Test in Barbados, where he was given out caught-behind but the decision was overturned upon review, though Gibson argued there wasn't sufficient evidence in the replay to suggest the original decision was wrong.

"Over the course of the two Test matches, the way that it's panned out, the decisions that have gone against us," he said. "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."

The charge against Gibson was laid by on-field umpires Marais Erasmus and Ian Gould, and third umpire Tony Hill.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Andrew on April 23, 2012, 2:27 GMT

    @satish619chandar - I'm not going to keep going over the rules, however, there is a clear difference in interpretation between you & I, with elements of the UDRS out of action, that means the umpires (who are human & have their own instincts/interpretation), have more scope to wander from the rules. At the end of the day, quite a few people thought the decision was correct in the end, however, the same methodology if used in other cases around the world could of turned decisions. UDRS IMO is not flawed when presented with all the technology, it's the interpretation that is questionable. Regardless, I would much rather a slight quirk in UDRS, than cop the barrage of whinging & conspiracy theories that can boom out of certain corners of the cricketing globe, particularly as the technology is only going to get better.

  • Khair ul on April 22, 2012, 7:30 GMT

    It is the DRS technology as such but the manner in which it is used which is the subject of criticism most of the time. Umpires are being regularly inconsistent and ICC should provide them with clear guidlelines. Gibson is right in feeling aggrieved. Clarke was given out by the on-filed umpire. It was reviewed and in my understanding the objective of the review is to look for clear evidence that the umpire's decision was incorrect. In Clarke's instance, we could see no definitive proof that he was not out.

    I also don't think gaggind criticism of DRS is right. Gibson was not criicising the umpire directly. His criticism was about the application of DRS.

  • Simon on April 22, 2012, 4:19 GMT

    To use the argument that Team personnel have to agree to non criticism of rules before every series - therefore critics speaking up get what they deserve, is at a minimum, disingenuous. If the people who are at the coal face are not allowed to highlight the shortcoming of rules and tools (the DRS) when examples are fresh, then the original stated aim of the DRS will not be tweaked to be an advantageous tool for umpires. The DRS was originally touted as a tool to reverse the effects of umpire shockers, so it should be called for by any of the (4) umpires to review - just as the no ball is. Once again bureaucracy wins out over common sense, as the people directly involved are not allowed to comment.

  • Zorina on April 21, 2012, 23:28 GMT

    DRS sucks. No one cares that Clarke may not have been out. Now coaches want wickets in the protest room

  • Neil on April 21, 2012, 21:55 GMT

    So the ICC consider it inappropriate for Gibson to express some, by most people's judgement, fairly innocuous comments about DRS. This would appear to indicate that they think it's important to support the technology and allow it some time to gain acceptance in the international cricket community. Well, here are a couple of tips. How about taking a tiny little slice of the massive pie currently being consumed (and produced) by the current IPL and ensuring that all elements of the technology are available for every test, in every country. Better still, how about mandating that one nation can't just decide independently that it doesn't want to use the technology at all, as India recently did in Australia. Sure, the series was a level playing field but to allow one country to just do as it likes on the issue and heavy handedly fine a coach for some pretty minor comments about it's inadequacies demonstrates the double standards at play in the ICC.

  • Gautam on April 21, 2012, 15:43 GMT

    People blame IPL for commercialization and yet here we see DRS Tech vendors have successfully, via paid TV commentators, have managed to make DRS synonymous with buying their expensive technology. This is commercialization with Finesse - which western media has been so adapt for last 70+ years - starting with Hitler. In any case, comments here have been pretty good, particularly by Duane, JohnnyRook, pat_one. To summarize and add couple of my own: (1) Primary objective of DRS is to eliminate howlers (2) Howler is something that most UNBIASED people would QUICKLY reach conclusion that decision was wrong, just by looking at it live or on replay (3) To this extent, TV replays is more than sufficient to eliminate howlers. If you really need high-tech that uses infra-red and other senses which no humans possess to prove a decision - it cannot be a howler (4) Umpires can check their opinion via replay BEFORE making decision via replays (5) Lets use savings to bring the game to the poor

  • Sammy on April 21, 2012, 15:01 GMT

    Nice to see ICC/ECB/ACB promoting democracy and allowing people to voice their opinions unlike the evill BCCI that's always muzzling freedom of expression!!

  • charlie on April 21, 2012, 14:59 GMT

    Coach Gibson has a right to comment as long as he is willing to suffer the con sequences for his actions and not like some individuals who,even, say the wrong things and still claim to be right .It's an accumulation of events which caused the coach to vent his frustrations at that time .I think Those who have been watching the events throughout would agree that there were other inconsistencies which lead to this .

  • Sudhakar on April 21, 2012, 12:39 GMT

    Gibson is right. DRS is based on work-in-progress technology and ICC's rules are inconsistent. There was more than one occasion when WI was at the receiving end in the first test. Anyone else in his position would have blasted ICC. Or if he was Andy Flower he would have at least rushed to the referee's room for clarification!! He didn't do either and his 20% fine is on the higher side

  • Phil on April 21, 2012, 12:09 GMT

    @satish619chander: What the regulation actually says is "the on-field umpire will reverse his decision if the nature of the supplementary information received from the third umpire leads him to conclude that his original decision was incorrect". He must have believed this to be the case.

  • No featured comments at the moment.