Like hundreds of thousands of cricket lovers, probably millions of people around the world, I watched in horror as Kumar Dharmasena, the television umpire, supported the decision by the New Zealand umpire Tony Hill to give Usman Khawaja out caught behind from a snick that did not happen.
The decision of the on-field umpire was acceptable, with the reservation that Khawaja had the right to challenge it with all the modern technology available to the television umpire.
The ball from Graeme Swann was of a full length. Khawaja made a half-hearted swat/drive at it. The ball lept from the pitch, turned viciously and was caught by wicket-keeper Matt Prior high above his shoulders while it was careening off to second slip.
The batsman was so stunned, initially, by umpire Hill giving him out that it took him a couple of seconds to think about lodging his appeal against the decision.
But the referral was made. And then the madness started.
It was clear from the first pictures of the dismissal that Khawaja got nowhere near the ball.
So it was infuriating that Dharmasena played the tapes time and time again from several different angles. It was as if he was searching deliberately for some evidence, any evidence, or the possibility of evidence that the fatal nick was made.
But the tapes refused to provide even a flicker of evidence. The last re-runs of the tapes provided no evidence of a snick and compelling evidence of NO snick.
So like virtually everyone watching around the world, and Shane Warne in the television commentary box, I sat back, relaxed and waited for the decision to allow Khawaja to continue his innings.
When umpire Hill raised his finger to confirm the dismissal I literally fell out of my chair.
The bottom line about this decision is that there has to be some retribution against Kumar Dharmasena for his grievous mistake. That retribution should be an immediate sacking.
It is just not good enough for the integrity of the umpiring system that a mistake as obvious and as inexplicable as this is allowed, as the cricket phrase has it, to ‘go through to the keeper.’
Cricket is a game where respect for the decisions taken by the umpires is integral to the ethic and spirit of the game. It is ‘just not cricket’ to show dissent to the umpire.
But when the umpire trashes the decision-making process he throws into jeopardy the entire process of adjudication.
And there is a further matter to consider. We live in a litigious age. It can only be a matter of time before a player takes an umpire and the cricket bodies that support that umpire to court to explain why decisions that can’t be explained away have been taken.
The bottom line is that with all the technology available to the television umpire there should not be a single case of a mistake being made. Where a mistake is made the incompetent umpire has to be dismissed, forthwith.
Kumar Dharmasena made a mistake that can’t be explained. He has to go. The form of dismissal should read: Caught Out For Incompetence.
Rugby is Life
Guest
Doees Khawaja use the magic tape?
scott
Guest
David, what is your point? The DRS should be used to show evidence of the batsmen being out. The evidence needs to be conclusive that the batsmen is out, otherwise he is NOT OUT. The benefit of doubt should always go to the batsman and not the umpire. Its a crazy situation when the system is trying to rule over the umpires decision. If its referred it should go away from the field umpire and move to the 3rd umpire to prove it is out. Otherwise , NOT OUT.
Chris Martin
Guest
Another failure. Who'd of thunked it ? 7 tests top score 65. He doesn't have it at this level.
AlanC
Guest
If we can rely 100% on the "technology" in LBW decisons why the heck can't we have the computer deciding on catches. At least we'd takeout the (in)human variability.
AlanC
Guest
Hehehe, Even the great Geoffrey Boycott has called for his sacking...but only after he added a couple blunders that hurt Engerlund!
Cammo
Guest
My gut feeling with the introduction of DRS is that on field umpires are more likely to give a normally "benefit of doubt" call out, knowing that the batsman has the option to call drs in his defense. In the past if the ump was unsure it was generally not out. Now it seems unsure=out and review it if you feel you shouldn't be. Seems to have taken too much importance away from getting the initial decision correct.
SandBox
Roar Guru
my memory is failing me. I think it was Waugh for Hayden and Ponting for Symmonds. Not too important who was who, was just agreeing with what you said
rossco
Guest
But won't it be the same umpires? The elite 12 include 8 from England and Australia who won't be allowed to umpire in these games. Leaves the same 4 - Dar, Hill, Dharmasena and Erasmus -to do the job. Perish the thought!
David
Guest
If in doubt not out...No thats not the test here Thats the test for the on field umpire If you think that there was merely doubt then the 3rd umpire was correct The on field umpire gave him Not Out. DRS has to show a lot more than doubt. It has to show that it was *clearly* Not Out Of course in this case I think it was clearly not out,
W
Guest
he must not be happy with rudd sending his asylum seeker friends to PNG.
Homer
Guest
As I recall, Steve Bucknor officiated in 8 tests and 14 ODIS AFTER the Sydney Test in 2008, but lets not let facts get in the way of a good narrative. Cheers,
Beardan Returns
Roar Rookie
I find it hilarious all of the people who want technology now are complaining about it. I dont like technology in sport. Cant stand it. Accept the umpires decision, even if they are wrong, and then get on with things.
TomT
Guest
@WorldsBiggest, I totally agree- the umpiring is embarrassing. This Ashes series has been totally ruined by rubbish decisions and poor sportsmanship ( Broad comes to mind). Bring on Summer here in Oz when the Poms come out here and have to cope with a real summer and, hopefully, fairer umpiring.
Arthur fonzarelli.
Guest
Only way to eliminate human error from DRS is to have a "jury" of 3rd umpires to review a decision . Maybe if there were 3 or 5 umpires in the review box - they could discuss the decision and come to a group consensus . This would eliminate the shocker made my the individual under pressure acting alone .
Brendon
Guest
Wouldn't have mattered Dave, we would have beat you with half a batting line up and one bowler back in those days.
Brendon
Guest
Reading the rules, above, I'd agree, it seems that the decision is 90% down to the field umpires decision, but Dharmasena must have still said it was inconclusive or correct would he not? it would be very interesting to hear what was said by Dharmasena. It appears that the DRS process has effectively removed any benefit of the doubt rulings in favor of the batsmen. They might need to re-write some rules to restore the old way of the batsmen having the benefit on 50/50's, we still seem to get a lot of these and to also put the actual decision in the hands of the 3rd umpire, no point in having him in what appears to be an advisory role only.
Floyd Calhoun
Guest
Agree with that. Broad has it coming to him, make no mistake.
sheek
Roar Guru
Harry, The fact that Khawaja might have been looking shaky early on, should have nothing to do with the decision, as you well know. I recall Mark Taylor's innings, when he equalled Bradman's score of 334 against Pakistan in 1998. Taylor was dropped twice before reaching double figures, a third time before reaching 20, & a fourth time at 92. However, once he reached his century, he just kept batting on like 'ol man river.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi Jayvan, It works as James alluded below/above. Just like 'retired hurt.' If a batsman is injured & able to resume his place before the end of the innings, all good. Otherwise, tough luck. The same with 'wrongful dismissal'. If it can be resolved before the innings is concluded, all good. Otherwise, tough luck. If such a mechanism was in place, Khawaja would be told this morning he was 'not out' & free to resume after the fall of the next wicket. Australia's score would be corrected to 2-303 & Swann's bowling figures changed to 1-82. But why should it come to this? These matters should be resolved on the pitch, at the time it occurred. There's nothing wrong with the technology, it's the stupid rules put in place that stuff the whole thing around. The onfield umpire punts the appeal upstairs & asks a simple question, "is this out or not out." The TV umpire after reviewing as much data as possible in a reasonable time, responds with a simple reply - either enough evidence for "out", or NOT enough evidence for "out". For chrissake, it's not rocket science.
dasilva
Guest
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/603632.html Basically Snicko is too slow and they can't give 3rd umpire access to it in a timely matter. It's quicker to get a hotspot than it is to get a snicko analysis. However they are developing Real Time Snicko as stated in that article that the creators are hoping will eventually be incorporated into DRS.