England were left seething on Thursday after a video review howler left their first Test hopes hanging in the balance.
Star batsman Jonathan Trott was filthy at being given out lbw early in England’s second innings, despite evidence to suggest he hit the ball not being available to the third umpire.
On-field umpire Aleem Dar turned down Mitchell Starc’s appeal, but the Australians wanted the decision reviewed.
Man upstairs Marais Erasmus then overturned the decision despite it emerging he didn’t examine all the evidence.
“Trotty hit it and was given not out on the field. Whatever happened after that I’m not sure,” said perplexed England fast bowler, James Anderson.
“It’s frustrating that it got overruled or overturned. I’m not sure what went on.”
Reports suggested a fault to do with the television broadcast meant Erasmus didn’t see a crucial side-on view of HotSpot which appeared to show a nick before the ball cannoned into Trott’s pads.
Given the malfunction, England were scratching their heads as to why the benefit of the doubt wasn’t given to the batsman and demanded an immediate explanation from the ICC.
England were left reeling at 2-11, before Alastair Cook (35) and Kevin Pietersen (35) steadied the ship with the home side 2-80 at stumps with an overall lead of 15.
England also felt they should have had miracle man Ashton Agar out stumped for 6, with Australia still 84 runs in arrears.
But Erasmus fairly enough deemed there wasn’t conclusive evidence, and Agar went on to make 98 runs and give Australia a 65-run first innings lead.
Agar said he felt he made it back into his ground when facing Graeme Swann, but England keeper Matt Prior was adamant he’d taken the bails off in time.
“I thought it was out, yeah. But I saw it on the big screen, so hard to tell,” said Anderson.
“(Prior) was pretty confident it was out.”
The bad luck hasn’t been one-sided though, with Australia having three lbw reviews go against them so far in the match, because of the decision of the on-field umpire.
In the first innings James Anderson was given not out, but Hawk-Eye showed the ball could have been clipping leg and the decision couldn’t be overturned.
Joe Root received the same benefit in the second innings.
In Australia’s first innings, Chris Rogers was given out by the on-field umpire over a line-ball call, which meant that when reviewed, the decision stood.
James Anderson (5-85) and Swann (2-60) got England on a roll early on day two, before loose bowling let the Australians fight their way back.
Simon
Guest
If trot's dismissal is a howler, then what was Broad's . Give your Buttocks ago.
Simon
Guest
Agar - The Scorpion
Tony Tea
Guest
Your headline "England filthy at video umpire howler" implies that it was indeed a howler. Is that what you think? For the record - the phrase "benefit of the doubt" appears precisely nowhere in the Laws of Cricket. And as for “(Prior) was pretty confident it was out.” Well, I burst out laughing every time I read that sentence.
Geemacaitch
Guest
Of course, we could know why Dar gave it out, if he tells us. It would also (coincidentally) be the easiest way out of this for the ICC if Dar said: "I didn't think that he hit it; but, I thought that it was slipping down leg side". I think the point is, of which doubt is the batsman to be given the benefit? The doubt cannot be whether or not the umpire might have thought that the ball had been hit. There was no clear evidence here to suggest that there was a doubt that he may have hit it, if the umpire originally thought that he didn't hit it. In any event, he missed it, so in this case everyone should move on.
jameswm
Roar Guru
I sure hope that's why Dar gave it not out, because it pitched on middle and was hitting half way up middle. You can't get more out than that.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Fined? Did he go too low?
jameswm
Roar Guru
You don't refuse to make a decision just because one view isn't available. The 3rd ump makes the decision ont he evidence available. And on that evidence, he missed it.
jameswm
Roar Guru
He was puting a couple of hours later, too. I kept enjoying it.
Disco
Roar Guru
We shall never know why Dar gave it 'not out' but it's possible he felt the ball was hit. Anyway, there's a major flaw in the system if the technology required to uphold the fielding side's review of the umpire's decision isn't available. In such a circumstance it would arguably be fair for the batsman to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Geemacaitch
Guest
I would like clarification on whether when the umpire says "not out", is it to be understood that it is not out in relation to every possibility? However, if that is not the case, which must be the only logical understanding of how it works, then if Aleem Dar said "not out" because I think that he hit it, I can understand that there is some issue with a lack of clear evidence to overturn it. In saying that, I thought on the several replays he missed it but clipped his boot, which one could understand if it felt to Trott like he had hit it. However, if Dar said "not out" because I think it either pitched outside leg stump/ was going over the top and/or was missing the stumps, then Erasmus was not overturning anything to do with whether or not he hit it. The umpire's reason for the decision would naturally shift who the "umpire's call" favours in a particular situation.
Simon
Guest
So true, the pad's movement made it look like it was an edge. But when slowed right down you see it just sails right past the bat. Trott should get fined for descent. He carried on way to much, I thought he chucked a major wobbly.
Genius Selector
Guest
Nothing like a bit of justice. Rogers shouldn't have been given because the ball was going down leg or just clipping at best and Trott was rightfully given, now we're even.
Stu
Guest
Sorry, but this has really got my goat. There was clear daylight between the ball as it passed Trott's bat - did no one notice that? What's got the English in a spin is the movement of Trott's pad as the ball hit it, which makes it look like he hit it. Go watch the replays again - there is daylight. Couple that with the front on hot spot showing nothing as he followed through, and nothing on snicko - he's not got anywhere near it. For me, there was no doubt. Move on.
JGK
Roar Guru
Snicko didn't show anything either. Trott's pout back in the dressing room was almost my highlight of the night (in a night full of them).
Disco
Roar Guru
That's all well and good but the on-field umpire gave it 'not out'. Without the proper side-on view being available to Erasmus at that time there really wasn't sufficient evidence to over-rule Dar's decision. England were a bit unlucky during that day's play what with Agar being afforded a very crucial (9/133) benefit of the doubt that isn't readily seen these days; there was no evidence that Agar had anything behind the line. Anyway, these things happen, and I suspect the boot will be on the other foot soon enough.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Benefit of what doubt? Replays showed he missed it. It wasn't the 3rd umpire's fault the other evidence wasn't available. And england don't know what that other evidence would have shown, because it was never recorded. The other times there's an inside edge, you can see a definite movement. This time you couldn't see any. And the front on hot spot showed no contact. Memo to Trott - don't miss straight ones.