- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Just three days in to the Test series against India there have been more stories than sundries. Ed Cowan’s triumphant arrival on the international scene. The ‘Little Master’ falling short of his 100th international century. Ben Hilfenhaus returning from the cricketing wilderness.
Australia’s under-fire senior batsmen winding back the clock with a potentially match-winning partnership. Perhaps best of all, the return of Joe the Cameraman in a Segway crash destined to see him immortalised on YouTube.
However, every intriguing story regarding these first three days has been intruded upon by three letters.
DRS.
So let’s get all the necessary DRS history, misconceptions, and controversy out in the open and then move on.
The Decision Review System was introduced to international cricket in 2009, and is still very much in its infancy.
DRS allows a dismissed batsman to appeal his dismissal or the fielding captain to appeal a not-out ruling using the technology at the hands of the third umpire.
This technology includes HawkEye’s ball-tracking system for lbw appeals, Hot Spot’s analysis of what the ball hit, and slow motion replays for line calls or the cleanliness of a catch.
Each side is allowed two incorrect reviews per innings, and once these have been used the team cannot question the on-field umpire’s decision until the next innings.
Regardless of DRS, the on-field umpires are allowed to refer to the third umpire in a number of situations, such as run-outs, stumpings, hit wickets and clean catches.
Furthermore, when the third umpire is called upon for assistance they must inform the on-field umpire of all circumstances, regardless of whether the on-field umpire has asked for them. As the ICC’s Third Umpire DRS rules and regulations state:
”The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpire’s questions.
“In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly.”
In June this year, the ICC ruled DRS would be a mandatory part of international cricket. However they recanted in October, ruling DRS would only be part of a Test series as long as both nations agreed to its use.
This is why the current Test series is being played without DRS. While the Australians are big fans of its use, it has a number of notable critics including former players such as Joel Garner, former umpire Dickie Bird, and current Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
As such, the Indians were not in favour of using DRS in this series. The system is not in place and that’s that.
Only that isn’t that. Because instead of accepting India’s – and therefore the umpire’s – decision for the rest of the series, we’ve decided to play the game of what-if’?
What if we had DRS? Ed Cowan might have made a century on debut. Mike Hussey might have made a run in the first innings. James Pattinson might have taken Ravichandran Ashwin’s wicket on 7, giving Australia 24 more runs in the first-innings buffer.
And with every one of these decisions that go against Australia the question is asked, why did India say no to the technology?
Of course no one asked this question when Ricky Ponting was ruled not out yesterday on 15, when replays suggested he was plumb. Nor did anyone suggest Brad Haddin’s first innings of 27 should only have been 19 when Zaheer Khan’s delivery would have hit halfway up middle stump.
Instead these are viewed as a bit of karmic justice – as though there is some vast Indian conspiracy which meant Cowan and Hussey’s wickets and Ashwin’s reprieve were the result of Indian cunning rather than poor umpiring.
Because that’s what it was, poor umpiring. While it is naïve to suggest an umpire should get every lbw decision correct, misses as obvious as Hussey and Cowan’s should not be acceptable in this day and age, particularly when the on-field umpires can consult the third umpire of their own accord.
But every story has been “DRS could have saved the day for Australia” instead of “Umpire gets it wrong”. And three days in to this four-Test series, the story’s old.
So let’s hear the final word on it from Brad Haddin, who may have reached his conclusion after a little luck went his way.
“That’s the rules of this series, life goes on. Simple as that I think.”
So do I, Brad. Now, can the rest of the country get on board?
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.