There was high farce again on Friday when the Indian team was refused the wicket of David Warner on 70.
The fielding team went up as one when a short ball from Varun Aaron appeared to be gloved down the leg side to wicketkeeper Wriddhiman Saha.
The beseeching mass appeal was turned down. The bowler was demonstratively upset and so was his skipper, Virat Kohli, who over-questioned umpire Ian Gould as to why it was given not out.
>>FOLLOW THE LIVE SCORES OF THE AUSTRALIA VS INDIA TEST MATCH
Gould could easily have responded, “If you had agreed to use DRS like everyone else you could find out for yourself.”
Replays indicated that Warner had in fact gloved the ball through to the keeper.
Earlier, in India’s first innings, Nathan Lyon was the recipient of a free wicket when Saha was given out caught at slip by Shane Watson. Saha stood his ground for an instant after the finger was raised before trudging off the ground shaking his head.
No wonder he was dismayed, replays indicated the ball had come off his pad. However, like Aaron later in the day, there was no right of appeal.
India continue to display their intransigence towards the decision review system. Their argument is that the system is not totally foolproof. That may be the case, but in the vast majority of referrals it provides an effective and accurate outcome. So much so that the other nine Test-playing nations happily use it.
But not India.
And as such, every one of their opponents is denied the opportunity to avail themselves of the technology whenever they play them. How in the world one nation can opt out and in the process deny its opponent the use of DRS is ridiculous.
Would such an outcome happen in other sports?
Imagine if, for argument’s sake, Roger Federer felt that the hawk-eye tracking system used at Wimbledon was not a reliable arbiter of line call decisions – keeping in mind it can rule a ball in or out to a measurement of one millimetre – and as such said he did not wish to use it.
It is inconceivable that he would be allowed his request and should he march through to the final his seven matches would be played without the technology available to his opponent. Tennis authorities would certainly not yield to one man’s belief.
The NFL – which comprises 32 teams – utilises a DRS whereby each coach is allowed to ask for two decisions to be reviewed per match.
Again, if for example the Green Bay Packers said to the NFL commissioner they did not believe in the replay system, would they be allowed to sit aside from the other 31 teams and go through the season refusing opponents its use?
Again, the answer would be no.
A few years back the ICC amended the standard playing conditions for Test cricket by removing the ability of nations to refuse the use of artificial lights to supplement natural light should the conditions warrant it.
Nowadays the only time a ground’s lights are not utilised is when the host board conveys to the ICC pre-series that it believes said ground has inefficient lighting. Otherwise the use of lights is a non-negotiable for all Test nations.
Prior to the re-drafting of the standard playing conditions India steadfastly refused to play with the aid of artificial light. They were forced to fall into line, however, when the ICC stated that teams could no longer veto the use of lights in Test cricket, thus allowing the paying spectator to see more for their money.
Previously, on several occasions, Australia said to India they was happy to play under lights but the decision was vetoed by India simply saying “no”. In the end the Indian team was given no choice.
The same should happen with DRS.
If nine out of ten Test nations are happy to use DRS then majority rule should see India told to fall in line.
And until such time as the ICC has the fortitude to simply lay down the law, no Indian captain or player should be asking why a decision did not go in their favour. The option is there for them to answer such a question whenever they wish.
eddie
Guest
I don't understand why India refuse to use the DRS. The Australian team have benefited from dubious umpiring decisions for so many years now. Why do you think Ricky Ponting had such a good average. He'd get out legitimately at least once on his way to scoring a tonne. Most of the time, it would be caught behind where he'd refuse to walk. Today was no different. An LBW decision where the ball was going over the stumps. I have trained as an umpire and I don't understand where the benifit of the doubt was especially since the ball would have missed the stumps.When the Australians appeal, they're the ones that get the benifit of the doubt, not the batsman. This poor decision helped bring on a second wicket as well. So far this tour, a top order Indian batsman has been given out caught of the helmet, caught off the shoulder and caught because the ball hit the pads and not the bat. Not including LBW decisions that weren't hitting the stumps. It's normal to give a batsman not out LBW if the ball may have been hitting the stumps as there is an element of doubt (Steve Smith should have been out for padding up against a quick bowler), against a spinner, well thats a bit harder to prove how much the ball was turning. It's all good to say that it's their fault for not using the DRS, but what about the umpiring decisions itself? Is it the Indians fault that they're not Australian? The Australians always get in the oppositions face, now Kholi is the bad guy for giving it back. Some things are just so obvious. India should use the DRS instead of being punished for not using it.
markismo
Guest
Harry T you are on the money, hawkeye is best limited to tennis (consistent hard surface) but the attributes of cricket (cracks/ ball wear/ humidity etc) make predicting ball trajectory on both the x and y axis an educated guess. Also this type of simulation software really needs to be 'calibrated' on each pitch it is used on, and at timed intervals as the conditions change over time (eg pitch wear) but this clearly isn't done. All I think its doing is offering us is some high-precision ambiguity... that we now need extra layer of rules to over-compensate eg. ball predicted in contact with stumps by x millimetres then umpires call and the like. In a word ... WOFTAM.
JB
Guest
If I was an umpire trying to catch Mitch Johnson at 150 kms an hour trying to see if his foot is over the line first then pick up a swinging ball after being out there for 6 hours crash into pads or bat, which one was first. I would want(and should get) all the help that I can. Bloody tough gig
JB
Guest
That's a ridiculous statement, the umpires were abismal and India were robbed, they may have held out for a draw, but that is no fault of the Aussie cricketers.
JB
Guest
The real question is was it any less correct than the umpires decision? I have seen loads of howlers overturned by Drs and very very few go the other way surely on balance this proves a drs system ultimately improves the decision making and allows for a fairer result? I also think it is a deterrent for match fixing officials another layer of review makes it less appealing for scummy bookies to get in the ear of an umpire.
Nick
Guest
No, not really. It was a series marred by absolutely ridiculous home town decisions that saw the balance of the series tilt towards the arrogant Australian side. A side that was lambasted by ther own media following their on field performances in victory that contrasted so significantly from the attitude of the victorious English only months before in the 2005 series. It was a series that pretty much ended Bucknor's career as a top level umpire. India were the better side and had it robbed from them. That's why I'm so surprised that India refuse to adopt DRS. It would have won them the series in that instance.
BargeArse
Guest
Bull-dust. Complete misrepresentation. Arrogant?
Don Freo
Guest
There is such a thing. Not a rule but the first guideline in any umpiring development course. It's another way of saying, "Don't guess."
Nick
Guest
There's no such thing as benefit of the doubt. It's not in the rules of the game. Myth
anchorman
Guest
From what I can gather, it is just that the BCCI wont pay for it. But It should be as Warnie said the other day that the ICC actually pay for it in all counrties, and that would stop the kerfuffle. I just think that the BCCI are holding the ICC and the rest of the test playing nations to ransom.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
Agree that LBWs are questionable using Hawkeye and should just be the plaything of ch9 and nothing else.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
PS DRS and autopilot are two totally separate issues and the use of one in no way affects the use or non use of the other. Anyone who thinks that they are related is struggling to think at all let alone to think logically
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
Except toilet paper is for wiping not catching How do you go to the toilet?
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
Indian cricket doesn't use DRS but that doesn't mean Indians don't use technology in general Doesn't take much to work that one out.
Tony Loedi
Roar Guru
I think we've all missed the point of this article. What I believe Glenn is saying is what we've all known for awhile and that is India has more power than the ICC. Glenn's right no other sport in the world would let one participant play by their own rules. The fact is the ICC have allowed the use of DRS meaning they want the technology apart of the game so every nation should jump on board.
Bobbo7
Guest
Perhaps the BCCI feel India will be given the tub of the green most of the time and therefore DRS will not be of assistance to them.
Shortfineleg
Guest
Because DRS helps better decision making. Its not brain surgery.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
If cricket was run by the Indian Cricket board and friends, then they would still not be playing under artificial light. Enough with the Indian cricket board owning cricket. if they did, they would be #1 in al formats. Last I saw, they aren't.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
I understand many of the 'Fors' and against on DRS. But surely, at least, snicko and pure video replays can be used in cooperation. (Don't start the argument that people can click for it. No way the keeper with his glove can and the amount of cameras on scree, that a slip could click without being seen.)
Rob na Champassak
Roar Guru
Indian pilots do use automatic pilot. Indian batsmen also use padding and helmets. People use technology that is available to them, but they don't have to use every stupid thing that's thrust in front of them. Do Indian pilots wear their lifejackets every time they fly? No? Why not? The technology is there.