It is one of those classic Ashes moments that polarises opinion ad infinitum and one that may well have sealed a first Test win for England.
When Stuart Broad seemingly belted the cover off an Ashton Agar ball, that then deflected off Brad Haddin’s gloves and into the awaiting hands of a jubilant Michael Clarke late on day three, the unthinkable happened.
With Australia all out of reviews, Aleem Dar ruled it not out.
Within an instant, social media whipped into a frenzy. Commentators referred to their Decision Review System (D.R.S.) commentary handbook rule 1-A which clearly states that in the event of any controversial decision, we must trot out the word “howler” ad nauseam. The D.R.S. again came under heavy fire from many angles.
But in reality, it’s not the D.R.S that is the problem. In its current form, if used properly, the system could work okay. There are three factors that contributed to what ended up being a disappointing passage of cricket:
Aleem Dar’s howler
It appears that even the most staunch, one eyed, English supporters were adamant that Broad hit the ball.
I’m yet to hear anyone suggest otherwise. Dar’s decision was simply a bad one. The biggest “howler” since Michael J Fox ordered a keg of beer on Teen Wolf back in 1985.
It was the catalyst to the ensuing farce.
Australia’s use of the D.R.S.
The Aussies elected to review two lbw decisions that to the armchair expert, didn’t look out at first glance, let alone on further inspection.
They were more a gamble than a bid to right an obvious wrong.
It would not at all surprise if Broad’s decision to stand there innocently was partly based on a gamble of his own; knowing that a wrong decision would stand.
Stuart Broad not walking
It seems pretty obvious that Stuart Broad’s chances of winning the Adam Gilchrist spirit of cricket award aren’t looking too hot, in fact he may be more chance of winning an Academy Award.
Broad stood there like he’d gone nowhere near the ball; a player with less nous may have been half way off the field.
There was and will continue to be hue and cry over his decision not to walk, but these days many don’t. It is a disappointing part of the game for me but nonetheless still a part of the game. Broad sold it with a poker face that Daniel Negreanu would be proud of.
In the end, it’s these factors that made the Day 3 debacle happen. If you remove any one of them, the right decision would be reached.
While the D.R.S. may need some eventual fine tuning, it was in no way to blame for this poignant moment at Trent Bridge.
Follow Rob Sheeley on Twitter – @robshots
Cantab
Guest
I don't have a problem with the DRS, captain miss use it, then they pay the price, then people complain about it.
James
Guest
The DRS works, only sometimes. Sure it would have seen Broad sent on his way, but what about the lbw on Bell that was overturned? There was no way that ball was missing ths stumps and then Phil Hughes being given out based on very marginal evidence. The point is that DRS can remove howlers but it creates decisions that are inconsistent with the way that umpires have always adjudicated on the game.
Ray Charles
Guest
Well put Robshots and I agree with ciudadmarron about the 3rd umpire checking the close ones. However this may see the Indians appeals go to an even higher level. You can see them now all running towards the outfield shouting and jumping around gesturing to the 3rd umpire.
ciudadmarron
Guest
Unfortunately they wouldn't be happier, because the technology would still allow them to see the howlers. The biggest issue is that rather than being about fairness it is about whether or not a team has any appeals left. DRS says that the umpires word is not final, except when it is, sometimes, a situation which is logically untenable and puts more pressure and scorn on umpires, as we have seen in this test. The only solution is to have the third umpire review every close decision; within seconds he can be in the umpires ear to say, the technology has shown it is/isn't out. Then there are no ridiculously contrived decisions to be made about how many appeals are left but pick and players know that the correct decision is made either way.
Seano
Guest
The best thing Australian cricket can do is refuse DRS like the Indians do, you get a bad decision such is life, the players fans and umpires would be happier. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Robshots
Roar Guru
Thanks for the kind words, Daniel Negreanu is a fairly successful poker player, there's probably a wiki page that will elaborate more than I can. It's great to get feedback, I appreciate it.
Robshots
Roar Guru
You're right mate, it is specifically designed so that the u pores original call stands most of the time, that way they can say, "hey look only 7% of our original calls were over turned" without mentioning each one has the rules heavily weighted so they can't be. I made the 7% bit up.
Top Secret
Roar Pro
This is an excellent article, and very funny too. I just didnt get the reference to Daniel somebody but that might be cause i am not into poker?? Fantastic article. All correct. Should have alot of hits. The Michael J Fox line was hilarious. And Clarke's use o the DRS has been pathetic. The two LBW's was not trying to fix an obvious wrong, it was trying to sneak in a wicket despite the fact neither were close to plumb. On first viewing before replays, you knew what the verdict was going to be. I look forward to your next article. Hopefully as good as this one.
Wobbly
Guest
The technology tolerances are what they are, acceptable. The ICC's stupid arbitrary laws are what is causing outcomes that are no better than accepting neutral umpiring mistakes. When in the same test, a batsman can be given NOT OUT when hawk eye project 40% of the ball witll hit leg stump, another is OUT when the ball is projected to graze leg stump, another is OUT when 50% of the ball pitches on the line of leg stump (for an LBW) and another is given NOT OUT when they edge to slip. Technology = blameless ICC = illogical bureaucrats