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?
Harry
Guest
Greg Chappell says its because the Indian batsmen reckon they will suffer from it i.e. they'd rather take their chances with the umpires, secure in the knowledge its a brave umpire indeed who sends one of those legends on their way with a 50/50 call. Can't agree with all these people who say it all evens out in the end and of course they'll now site Hussey's 1st baller and 4/89 as evidence. Two wrongs don't make a right. Would have been better to get these right the first time.
formeropenside
Guest
This is the key quote: "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." Any idea why the BCCI - sorry, the ICC - recanted?
lolly
Guest
This. I've had a gutload of fans and commentators banging on about the lack of DRS already. That was a bloody great win by the way. Impressed no end with young Pattinson.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Is it dissention if the Batsman, lets call him "Hussey" is given out, says, "I did not hit that", calls for DRS, and gets off? Where is the dissent? It isn't "I think you are wrong", it is "I did not hit that, I know it, yet was given out caught behind. Therefore, I will use the DRS, and overturn the wrong decision".
langou
Roar Guru
Whether or not DRS should be used and should be compulsory is a fair question but hopefully that question doesn't continue being raised and harped on about (particularly by the channel 9 commentary team ) every single time there is a contentious decision. It will be a long summer otherwise.
Red Kev
Guest
I disagree, all it does is absolve the umpires of responsibility. Why is it now the players' responsibility to check decisions. I have heard far too many commentators say some variation of "well he was out but they should have challenged". The players should have no part in the dismissal process beyond the appeal. There is no argument I have read here or anywhere else that justifies (a) shifting responsibility away from the umpires onto players; or (b) eroding the authority and respect for umpires and referees in sport. If umpires want to check anything that is fine, as soon as the players ate involved it is not.
Red Kev
Guest
Because the DRS is not respectfully asking a question. It is saying "I do not trust your judgement, I think you are wrong, someone else needs to make the adjudication." That is exactly the type of mentality that needs to be removed from all sports. The umpire's decision is final deal with it. Anyone who thinks the DRS is anything approaching respectful obviously didn't watch Ross Taylor challenging in the recent series.
Whites
Guest
What's everyone complaining about? Australia was hard done by in their first innings and Hussey goes on to make 4/89 in the second innings. It all evens out in the end.
Swampy
Guest
Couldn't agree with you more Matt. DRS also removes festering discontent with umpiring decisions as the doubt of a decision is no longer left to manifest in the player's mind through the day. Well less often anyway! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Matt F
Guest
Actually under the DRS rule the players are entitled to challenge. It's within the rules. There's aso a big difference between swearing/abusing the umpire and respectfully asking for clarification. Never seen a bowler casually ask an umpire why an LBW appeal wass turned down? Most umpires will happily answer. The system has also increased the number of correct decisions from 92% to 97%. I've never seen a player be fined for respecfully asking the umpire/referee/whatever a question. I have when they've sworn at or abused them, but not for politely asking a question, let alone using a challenge system that is within the rules. If anything using referral systems result in less abuse of umpires as players can now challenege the decision and be proven right or wrong which stops them from arguing with the umpires. Tennis is a good example of this. Umpires want to get decisions right. With the technology available during the broadcasts these days, their mistakes will be shown up and made public anyway. They'd rather that these mistakes be corrected on-field then not. The clear majority of umpires are behind the DRS. It is also the official view of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires.
Harry
Guest
Won't be a draw. I very much hope that this test isn't decided/swings on by a contentious umpiring decision in India's final innings.
Swampy
Guest
As hussey has been given not out 3 times where a DRS would have given him out on each occasion in this2nd dig do you think the Indians will review their stance? After all it is likely they will now at best get a draw but more likely lose this test match from here. A direct result of incorrect decision making. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Harry
Guest
Matt F makes excellent points pro the DRS. Hussey, having been given out incorrectly first ball in the 1st innings, had 3 decisions - all incorrect - go his way in the 2nd. In both innings use oif the DRS would have been fairer.
Red Kev
Guest
Matt sorry but you are 100% wrong. Challenging an umpire's decision needs to be removed from the game. What some (and note that it is only some umpires that agree with the DRS not all of them) umpires think does not change the fact that challenging the decision of an umpire or referee is wrong and should be removed from all sports. Dissent is what the match umpire rules on, it is referred to as unsportsmanlike conduct in most sports. You concede metres or a penalty in all codes of football for questioning the referee. You are often fined across all sports. Only the captain is entitled to respectfully ask for clarification on decisions. Using technology to reach correct decisions is in its infancy and will improve, once it stops delaying the game it will be much better (although at the moment all it has done is render umpires incapable of ruling on runouts); but questioning the umpire's ruling is wrong and merely erodes the authority of officials.
Rhys
Guest
I'm fine with the DRS. It just needs to be employed uniformly across the board. The problem at the moment is it's being used for some series and not others, and on occasions LBW is being excluded from DRS. It has to be all in - same conditions, same rules, same technology across all series. No system will ever be 100% infalible, but as Matt pointed out, surely 95% correct is preferrable to 85%.
Matt F
Roar Guru
The umpires don't think so and their view is the only thing that determines what is and isn't considered dissent.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Saying "I think you're wrong. Can I get it checked' *isnt* dissenting in a decision ?
Matt F
Roar Guru
But that's the point. The umpires don't feel that the players are showing them any dissent by referring decisions.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
MattF, I am perfectly in favour of the umpires being able to be assisted by technology - just like an umpire checks with square leg,. an umpire should be able to check with the third umpire. But to not only allow a player to dissent from the umpires decision but to get it reversed - that is against the spirit of cricket.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I can't speak for all Australian fans but, personally, my view on the DRS is the same now as it was before Boxing Day. The DRS is the best system we have for getting as many decisions as possible correct. Boxing Day didn't change my view, it just reinforced it, and I'd say the same thing if it was Tendulkar and Dravid instead of Cowan and Hussey. We have the technology to get more decisions right so why don't we use it? I'd rather get 95% of decisions correct then 85%. The thing that gets lost in the debate is that the umpires overwhelmingly support the DRS. They don't believe that it makes them look stupid, but that it helps them to get more decisions correct, which is the only thing that they care about. That's good enough for me. Here's just one example of a few umpires who support the system http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-156386.html