What’s going on umps? You are given the tools then you totally stuff it up. It appears that India were right all along – the DRS is useless and we shouldn’t use it.
The first incident to test the DRS was in the opening match between England versus Australia at the MCG. England’s pint sized batsman James Taylor (not to be confused with the American singer-songwriter who wrote “I’ve seen Fire and I’ve seen Rain”) was single-handedly holding the Australian bowling attack at bay.
Struck on the pads by Hazlewood, Taylor was given out by umpire Aleem Dar. With the ball on a leg side trajectory, Taylor quite sensibly called for a DRS review.
TV umpire Billy Bowden reviewed the decision and over-ruled the on-field call as the technology had concluded that the ball was passing outside leg stump. That is, Taylor was given not out on review.
So far, so good. But now things went a bit haywire.
Straight after the appeal, the Aussie fielders noticed that James Anderson was dawdling down at the non-strikers end.
The ball was thrown at the stumps, hitting them, leaving Anderson short of this crease. Billy Bowden then reviewed this play. This is not actually a DRS review as close run outs are reviewed in any case but it was decided by technology that James Anderson had been run out.
Now anyone who has followed or played even backyard cricket can tell you that once a batsman has been given out, the ball is dead. D-E-A-D.
It is no longer in play. That’s why we don’t have double-plays like they do in baseball.
If you appeal and the umpire doesn’t give it out or the umpire is taking his time deciding (especially for an lbw shout) the ball is well and truly in play.
And this is where the umpires seemed to have got it wrong. They have taken the tack that the review by the batsman has suddenly made the dead ball ‘live’ – the old Lazarus effect.
Now remember these umpires are not like you and me, they are highly experienced international umpires. Not only that but Billy Bowden doesn’t even have the excuse of having to make a split-second decision like the on-field umpires.
He had enough time to google the ruling for goodness sakes. Paddy Effeney’s article How do the penguins prepare for a Cricket World Cup?” shone some light on Billy Bowden’s preparations. I didn’t see anything there about Billy actually reading up on the rules.
It’s all very well to say this decision had no effect on the game because England were well and truly beaten already. It did rob Taylor a chance of a century of course but more importantly, if it was a very tight contest, presumably the same decision would have been made.
Imagine if that was in a final between India and Pakistan?
Speaking of India and Pakistan, if you need to give a moniker to a contest, this one should be called the ‘Greatest show on earth’ as it could be the greatest rivalry in world sport.
I will explain the incident.
Pakistan’s Kamran Akmal pushed at a ball from Ravi Jadeja. MS Dhoni and the Indian fielders appealed but the umpire decided that he hadn’t hit it and gave a not out call. The Indian team called for the DRS review.
The television replays showed that it was a close-run thing. The ball was so close to the bat that you almost felt that he had made contact.
In the absence of Hot Spot, only Snicko could shed any more light on this. And Snicko was not convincing. There was no sharp spike on the graph but a barely perceptible movement.
It could be anything – a moth, the sound of the pads creaking, a crack of the batsman’s knee. There was absolutely no evidence that could overturn the on-field call and yet this is precisely what happened.
By any measure and past history of DRS, this decision should never have been overturned. Again, this decision probably had no effect on the game but it is not the point.
All this gives further ammunition for India’s arguments against the DRS. The action on the field and in the stands at this Cricket World Cup has been excellent – we just need our umpires to toe the line.
Akshay
Guest
LOL...Kamran Akmal????Seriously??Lazy journalism..
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
No, because if DRS is available it is still up to the teams to decide whether to ask for the DRS to be used. Nobody is forced to use it. On the other hand if the DRS is not available the teams do not have the choice.
Mining Man
Guest
To answer your (first) question: Yes, Anderson would have been run out. Anderson had left his crease and taken off before the appeal was upheld. Maxwell had fielded the ball and committed to throw down the stumps before the appeal was upheld (regardless of whether he let the ball go before, or after, the finger went up). Whether the LBW was given out or not was inconsequential to these actions and outcome, being that Anderson was found short of his ground in either case. The only thing that could save him (and give Taylor hope of reaching triple figures), was an LBW appeal incorrectly being given out, followed by the Umpires correctly ruling dead ball and playing on. Another scenario to waste time pondering: it's a Test, 4th innings and the scores are level, last wicket, last ball of the 5th day, and the result is a draw instead of a tie (or vice-versa).
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
You can't blame DRS for Anderson getting out. Yes, DRS showed him out, but the umpires should not have reviewed it in the first place.
Chris
Guest
Armchair Expert
Guest
Correction, my last sentence should of read: or is it out?
Chris
Guest
by that same logic isnt it hypocritical of australia to play against india without drs despite australia having faith in the drs system?
Armchair Expert
Guest
The other scenario that I'm curious about is if the batsman is given out lbw and reviews, the 3rd umpire detects an inside edge and overturns the lbw, is the ball dead if it was caught off the pad? or is it a dead ball?
Chris
Guest
but the argument for drs is that it is better to have it than not to, it is not that it is the equal of man but that with drs man is way way better. im all for drs if it is perfect but it seems that drs is involved in a wrong decision almost every week. and you cant let drs off the hook because it was the umpires who made the decision because umpires are part of the drs so its still drs stuffing up.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
It's interesting Perry. Maybe they should introduce the double play. Run at your peril.
Perry Bridge
Guest
As much as I see the reasoning to be a 'dead ball' once the finger is raised - and certainly we don't do double plays. The troubling aspect here is that what if that occurred on the last ball - 1 run needed to win - ball strikes pad - players scamper through for a leg bye - appeal for LBW upheld by umpire - players get through for the legbye - but, it's not counted despite the DRS reversing the umpires call. Clearly - unlike an example of completed runs counting prior to a run out (if run out attempting the third) - in the LBW case, the run clearly wasn't completed prior to the incorrect decision. The dilemma were the ball not to be considered 'dead' is that the appealing side even with the hand being raised would continue to 'play on'.....which is what Maxwell did (which is interesting in itself). And - certainly in my last ball scenario the batting side would be hoping to be able to 'play on'.
BigAl
Guest
Umps and technology may not be up to scratch, but this has been more than compensated by good old Mother Nature. - how good was that sunset at the Adelaide Oval ... !
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Still a long way to go to beat old Jonesy. Bowled against the West Indies in a test 1991, he started to walk off not realising a no ball had been called. He starts to go back, a West Indian runs him out and the umpire upholds the appeal. Classy work all 'round.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
A general reply to some of the responses. The heading of the article "Umpires and Technology" was meant to emphasise "and". It would have read better as "Umpires with Technology" or "Umpires use of Technology off to a bad start.." I pose a question. Would Anderson have been run out if Taylor was not given out? Surely he would have had his wits about him and made sure he was in his ground. It was the use of a DRS review that actually triggered the poor decision. Mike from Tari brings up another occasion with a questionable catch behind (which I didn't see). It used to be a case of going with the umpires call unless the decision was clearly proved to be incorrect. Why has this philosophy changed all of a sudden? And while I am at it, why aren't they using hot spot?
AussieKiwi
Guest
You are all class as usual.
Mining Man
Guest
Can we get over the hand-wringing that Taylor was robbed by the Umpires? In the event that he was given not out (which he really should have been - it was a pretty lousy verdict for a ball clearly going down leg), then Anderson would still have been (legally) run out, leaving Taylor stranded on 98no. Anderson had left his crease and Maxwell had thrown down the stumps oblivious to the LBW verdict. Ironically, the outcome delivered by two umpiring errors was technically correct, with the second cancelling the effect of the first.
Abubakr Mela
Roar Rookie
Aussies were no match in any case.
Cantab
Guest
I think the Anderson run out was the worst decision I've ever seen. The umpires literally didn't know a basic rule. DRS is not new, this is the first time we have seen this 'double out', purely because everyone knows you can't do it. It's not okay for umpires to not know the rules. I was also astounded that the Aust team appealed in the first place and even more so when they didn't withdraw the appeal. After the 4 umpires failed, Jeff Crowe should have stepped in, the guy already has a black mark against his name from the 2007 final.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Neither of these were the fault of the technology - human error pure and simple. And I find it interesting that although India claim they have no faith in the DRS, they're quite prepared to use it when available if they think they're going to benefit from it. Hypocrisy much?
BBA
Guest
Agree with the sentiments above the wrong decisions were not as a consequence of DRS, but umpire errors. DRS proved in a fairly definitive way that Taylor was not LBW and that Anderson was outside of his crease. Therefore DRS was right. The umpires made the errors in both cases, incorrectly ruling Taylor our LBW and letting the runout stand after the review. BTW I think Taylor would have still prefered the not out rather than being given out LBW incorrectly. PS I find it amusing that DRS only gets criticised when wrong decions are made and never thanked when it allows a wrong decision to be corrected. If a tally was kept I am sure that DRS will be coming out on the right side (i.e. allows for more correct decions to be made).