The International Cricket Council has backed the three umpires and the use of technology in the game following a controversial first Ashes Test.
England’s 14-run win over Australia at Trent Bridge was marred by a series of umpiring blunders and while acknowledging some mistakes, the ICC on Tuesday defended the performances of its officials and the Decision Review System (DRS).
Of the 72 decisions on-field umpires Aleem Dar and Kumar Dharmasena, as well as third umpire Marais Erasmus, had to make, the ICC pinpointed seven errors had been made.
Three were uncorrected decisions, the first of which the technology was at fault in England’s second innings when Jonathan Trott was given lbw when he was originally given not out.
The other two were against Stuart Broad – including the not-out call from Dar when the English batsman nicked Ashton Agar to Michael Clarke at slip – when Australia had no reviews available.
Four decisions were corrected by DRS.
Therefore, the ICC said, as a result of technology being used, the correct decision percentage rose from 90.3 per cent to 95.8 per cent.
“The umpires did a good job under difficult conditions. This reflects the calibre of umpires Dar, Dharmasena and Erasmus who have consistently performed at a high level,” ICC chief executive David Richardson said in a statement.
“However, like the players, umpires can also have good and bad days but we all know that the umpire’s decision, right or wrong, is final and must be accepted.
“While the ICC has complete faith in the ability of its umpires, our confidence in technology is also strengthened by the fact that there was an increase in the number of correct decisions in the Trent Bridge Test through the use of the DRS.
“Technology was introduced with the objective of eradicating the obvious umpiring errors and to get as many correct decisions as possible.”
“If it can help increase the correct decisions by 5.5 per cent, then it is a good outcome, but we must continue to strive to improve umpiring and the performance of the DRS.”
Chris
Guest
Agree completely Capt. It seems recently we've become incredibly intolerant to any kind of error, and more than that, we always assume Hawkeye is correct and the umpire is wrong, when there's a significant margin for error on the predictive element. That's why we have "umpire's call", yet that decision was roundly criticised, but it was fine. It would have been fine if it had been given not out too, because it was tight. That's been the case for 100 years. It's called cricket.
The Capt
Guest
+1 Chris, It was Clark and the Aust Team that wasted the decisions. Yes the DRS was to be used for the Clangers, but if the side wants to waste them on 50/50 LBW decisions then thats their choice. I would perfer to see it used for edges and catches only, and leave the LBW to the umpires. A suprising note, is that most people have been blaming the DRS for costing us the first test, however cricket has survived almost 200yrs without the use of DRS. Thats what sport is all about, you get good decisions and you get bad ones. All it takes is an umpire to loose focus for a slpit second and it happens. In fact there is never enough credit for umpires. Lets face it, its a sh*t job. You stand at one end, and have to concentrate on every ball thats bowled, along with the bowlers front foot, make a decision on LBW's in a split second, thinking where that ball was piched (travelling sometime over 120km/hr), would it hit the stumps, did it get an inside edge, did the ball carry etc. Repeat for 6 balls. You then move to square leg, where you nned to judge short balls, and potential run outs. You do this all day, and only get breaks at drinks and regular breaks (lunch/tea). At least the players can go down to 3rd man for a stretch, or mid on/off, chase after a ball to freshen up the mind. The public needs to get off the Umpires case, and let them judge and accept that some calls will be shockers, and others correct. But that is life.
James
Guest
the problem with that is that every single ball will be reviewed, the game will get insanely tedious. not to mention the difficulty in implementing drs all over the world. the technology costs money, quite a bit. its not a problem in australia, england, south africa and to a degree india but the rest of the cricketing world would prefer to spend money on feeding the people who live in those countries and giving them actually clean drinking water than spend it on technology. granted in the long term it will pay off but we cant forget this aspect of forcing countries to have drs.
Chris
Guest
It was the fault of Clarke, for burning his reviews on ridiculous lbw appeals that were never going to overturn the decision and weren't even close. If he's going to use it that way, then that's what happens.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
While a 5.5% increase is a definite positive for DRS, it doesn't compensate for the fact that the most obviously erroneous decision, Stuart Broad not being given out when the ball clearly deviated from the bat, the 'howler' that most needed to be over turned was not. That was not the fault of the technology, it was the fault of the umpire and the current limited player initiated DRS. The DRS process needs to change to further improve the effective use of the technology, cricket has natural breaks between each ball so use those for a preliminary review after each appeal, if their is any possibility the decision was incorrect review further. Require players to be in place ready to bowl the next ball immediately the review process is complete, it might actually speed some games up. :-)
Jayvan Collins
Roar Pro
", the first of which the technology was at fault in England’s second innings when Jonathan Trott was given lbw when he was originally given not out." - If technology was at fault it would not have been listed as an error by the umpires. The ICC have deemed this a mistake by umpire error. Perhaps if the side on hot spot was available he would not have over turned the decision, however, the fact that it was unavailable and he overturned it makes it an error. As it most likely should've been benefit of the doubt to the umpire - original decision stands.