Stuart Broad edged to first slip. Not out. Brad Haddin feathered to the keeper. Not out. One apiece you would think.
To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with a player not walking. In Year 12 I nicked one to first slip, stood my ground and was given not out.
The next ball I let everyone around me know I had smashed it, and told the umpire I couldn’t believe he had missed it.
I went on to make a match winning score in our only win of the season but a week later I belted one onto my pads and was given out by the same umpire. Swings and roundabouts, as they say.
For over 100 years Test match cricket has functioned perfectly fine on the premise that umpires umpire and players play. Quite simply that’s how it should be.
England can point to the dismissal of Jonathon Trott as the evener for Stuart Broad’s howler but Phillip Hughes’ 51% of the ball pitching in line with leg stump was just as contentious as Trott’s.
At the end of the day this has been one of the best Test matches of my lifetime, without a doubt top three, and the focus of this article is the Decision Review System.
Well played England you won the Test match by using your reviews better than the other team. Because after all that’s what cricket is all about isn’t it?
Call me a whinger if you like but I hate the DRS. Always have and always will.
We were better off without it when Aleem Dar’s Broad clanger would have paid for itself with another chance for Brad Haddin at the death. The result might not have changed but at least we would have poetic justice.
The best news about it all is that the cricket is back on Thursday, at Lord’s. Strap yourself in!
A View From the Top
Roar Pro
Definitely agree. As I say umpires should umpire and players should play. If that means umpires can use the DRS then so be it, but players shouldn't have any input. As kids we were all taught to respect the umpires decision but we have this farce where players are challenging umpires in International cricket
A View From the Top
Roar Pro
I didnt walk because of the very thing that happened the next week. If I had walked the first time, do you think it would make a difference second time around if I had said I hit it? Not a chance. Swings and roundabouts as they say. I was always taught to respect the umpires decision
Top Secret
Roar Pro
hit it to first slip and was given not out. hilarious. As for umpires umpire and players play, part of playing is playing with integrity. How can you smash it to first slip (Broad) and stand there guilty like you just stole some money out of your Grannys purse. No integrity. Bit like taking your shoe off 2 minutes before lunch trying to waste time.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
I think using technology to improve umpiring decisions is the only way forward for improving decisions. Any DRS that leaves it up to the players to call for a review is flawed, and the 1st Ashes Test match clearly showed that. It is actually an abdication of the umpiring responsibility to players who's primary focus should be using all possible legal means to win the match. Reducing the reviews to 1 and players agreeing to only use it for 'howlers' doesn't really improve the situation because. Michael Clarke has clearly stated that he knew he had hit his pad but not the ball, that suggests that he believed the decision to give him out was a 'howler' so almost certainly would have appealed, even under a 'howler' only agreement. The appeal would have been lost and no more reviews would have been available for any subsequent 'howlers'. Any time we have a player sprawling anywhere near the boundary to stop a 4 there seems to be an automatic, unrequested review, to see if a finger nail might have been on the boundary when touching the ball and I've heard no real complaints. Surely a wicket is such a significant event in cricket that any vaguely possible dismissal deserves at least a quick review. DRS ultimately relies on human decision and therefore will never be perfect, the Trott decision comes to mind but, as good as the current umpires might be, greater use of DRS, controlled by the match officials, not players, can be used to improve overall decision making. That's what I'm in favour of.
A View From the Top
Roar Pro
Definitely the Australians gambled more and in this case they lost. But at the end of the day I think its disappointing that the use of a referral system has been so influential to the result. The sides should be separated by cricketing ability not DRS ability
A View From the Top
Roar Pro
Valuable contribution Merv. Such a shame the DRS wasn't around in 2005 wasn't it? As I've said, no problem with Broad, I just think players should play and umpires should umpire. Novel thought that
MervUK
Guest
"you're a whinger"
James
Guest
its interesting to think without drs, just relying on umpires calls who would have stayed and gone. i like drs, it adds something to the game but i think there should be only 1 per team and teams should use it like the english have done this test. dont take punts, take it when you know that someone is out or not out. this way it removes the howler because teams will always have it.