The winner and ‘Player of the Match’ for the first Test of the Ashes Series was, by far, the Decision Review System.
No player or umpire, apart from maybe Aleem Dar, affected the match in such a way.
Stuart Broad made 28 runs after he was mistakenly given not out, and the decision was unable to be reviewed due to Michael Clarke’s previous two unsuccessful review attempts.
Hypothetically, Australia would have clinched the match before the lunch break on Day 5, but no.
Acting outside the spirit of cricket, Broad refused to walk after obviously hitting the ball and being caught at slip, and umpire Dar gave him not out.
It has to be said that Broad refused to go not because he believed he did not hit it, but because he knew that Michael Clarke and the Australian’s had no reviews left.
The system reared it’s ugly head against the English as well though, with Joe Root choosing not to appeal his given out decision, despite replays showing he would have achieved a reprieve; having not hit the ball as was stated.
The following ball, Jonathan Trott was given not out LBW, but an Australian challenge on the decision was accepted and the English batsman was forced to go despite the fact that the key side-on Hot Spot angle, which may have shown an inside edge first, was not available.
A fuming England were later given an apology from the inventor of the Hot Spot system Warren Brennan, however it was little consolation given the see-sawing nature of the innings.
It is easy to see why India do not consent to the use of DRS in it’s current form, and the system needs to be changed to take the power of review from players, and to allow umpires to review decisions they are unsure of.
And, when technology is inconclusive, as in the Haddin dismissal to finish the match, the umpire’s original decision must stand, in this case not out.
The Decision Review system has already influenced this Ashes series to a ridiculous degree, and the ICC must make changes to combat this in the future, hopefully before the Ashes tour of Australia in 2013-14.
nickyc
Guest
That was the third umpire's decision, so I don't think you can blame Aleem Dar for that one.
Martyn50
Roar Rookie
Totally agree James. It's a guess by someone in a control box.Fiction. Unreliable as to where it's going. Run outs show when the ball hit the stumps and where the batsmen were etc. Facts. Same with ball hitting bats etc. Showing change of spin and direction of travel. Again facts.
Northern Pom
Guest
The DRS is for the correction of Howlers, but in this game there were other Howlers's from human error not the techmology itself which really affected the results, e.g the 3rd umpire not giving Agar out when he was stumped on 6 - His foot was on the line, which means that he was not in his crease.. e.g. Trott LBW when there was a double noise on the audio but the hotspot camera was not available as SKY had held it frozen to show their viewers that Root was not out the previous ball, and so cocked up the subsequent Trott DRS review for the umpires and the players. Great game made much closer by human error. But this is cricket and all participants are human (except SKY who are a bunch of numpties) and that's what makes cricket so great
Top Secret
Roar Pro
yes rellum, it wasnt as clear as mampara wants us all to believe. Not really clear enough to reverse a decision though at the end of the day the correct decision was made.
Rellum
Roar Guru
To be fair, that mark only appeared because the bat emerged from behind the pad. Wether it was from the ball or not was inconclusive. I would have loved from the to go more than one frame either side of the ball passing the bat from the front hot spot angle. The heat on the ball from where it hit the pitch was obscuring the potential mark on the bat.
swerve
Guest
Ret, nicely put.
swerve
Guest
Spot on James. "There is no controversy"
RobRoy
Guest
You could add Agar's stumping that should have been when he was on six...then went on to add another 92. How's that for possible impact upon the result! Seriously - nothing is perfect in life but Clarke needs to learn to be more judicious with the use of referrals.
soapit
Guest
there are probably thousands of still photos during that deivery where there is a gap between haddin bat and the ball. it only touched his bat for a tiny instant.
Matt Man
Roar Rookie
Yeah, I remember that. Wasn't keen on most of the Aussie players back then, but Gilchrist was a true legend. When kids at my school said they were out despite the umpire's/ref's verdict, I called it 'doing a Gilchrist'.
David
Guest
I wrote this, and after finishing it in anger at the result, I have to agree with you. It also comes down to the idea that if it is going to be used, it should be under the umpire's guide, when they are unsure, rather than a player referring because they don't want to be out and are hoping.
Chui
Guest
Are you a Queenslander Kaga? You sound like one.
James
Guest
Have to disagree with that. As a spin bowler myself I am all for batsmen not getting away with padding up or attempting to play a 'shot' by tucking the bat behind their pad but at the end of the day why should we place our faith in hawkeye anymore than the umpire particularly when the DRS can return the 'umpires call' decision.
James
Guest
its the first test, cant read much into it. the game was a complete one off in so many ways. more than 200 from the 2 last wicket partnerships for australia and cook and clarke both fail by their standards.
James
Guest
im sure agar was out but as you say yes benefit of the doubt but it was def a 50 50 call, most fans would have been ok yeah that was out but i wish it wasnt given. i was also amazed that the english didnt claim the haddin wicket with more enthusiasm. as you say as it went thru i heard the nick was like woots
James
Guest
for most people there is no controversy. the only people for whom it is are a minority of australian fans. most are taking it well. that it was out well not well as in happy. cause losing suxs.
nickyc
Guest
He made one terrible error with the Broad decision. Can't recall any other significant errors. He gave Hughes not out to an lbw appeal which was overturned based on where the ball pitched but it was very marginal.
nickyc
Guest
For years batsmen were able to kill spin bowling by playing forward and using their pads to block the ball while hiding their bat behind their pads in the knowledge that umpires would never give them out. For me one of the greatest benefits of Hawkeye has been the umpires' realisation that many of these balls would have gone on to hit the stumps. As a consequence umpires are now giving justifiable reward to spin bowlers with lbw decisions and forcing batsmen to play positively with their bats rather than negatively with their pads.
nickyc
Guest
Then presumably you wouldn't have any problem if "clangers" effected the result of a match in the absence of DRS? I can't remember the figures but while DRS isn't a cure all for umpiring "errors" - let's face it many so called errors are marginal and would tax anyone given the limitations of the human senses - it has at least reduced the number of errors overall even when taking into account some controversial decisions resulting from the system. I'm not saying it can't be improved but DRS reduces rather than enhances the chances that a major error will effect a match.
mampara
Guest
Top Secret...we must have different TVs then because on my TV there was a mark, clear as day, which miraculously appeared immediately appeared after the ball went passed the bat, even more amazingly on my TV there was a corresponding mark on the ball...???