Monday, 15 July 2013

Trott's dismissal exposes DRS Achilles heel

THIS is not being a whinging pom as I was described on Twitter last evening, but the lbw of Jonathan Trott on Thursday simply should not have stood.

For those not up to date, Trott was given not out by Aleem Dar who clearly thought Trott hit the ball.

When referred, TV pictures appeared to show some sort of deviation when the ball passed the bat – ie Trott hit it.

Yes Hawkeye said it would have been out but we are constantly told DRS is there to eliminate the awful decisions, was there conclusive proof that Dar made a howler? Not for me.

Clearly not for Dar either as he shrugged his shoulders when he overturned the decision – why overturn it? Why not say to Marius Erasmus the third umpire there was no conclusive proof and he will stick with his not out decision?

It also showed the anti DRS brigade have a point, as the side on camera was not working because it had recorded Root's dismissal the ball before.

Irony upon irony, had England referred that decision Trott may not have had to come to the wicket as he may have been reprieved.

For me the episode has created a problem still not resolved by the ICC, how can a decision be properly checked on referral if all of the technology is not available?

Surely Erasmus should have been honest with Aleem Dar and said we think it's out, certainly based on Hawkeye but we can't check the side on camera so your decision could stand?

What is clear is those who oppose the use of technology now have a bat to attack with while the ICC have a huge headache.

When England's innings does come to a close there will be doubt about whether one of their wickets was truly out, it's like the time before DRS was introduced.

And that for me is just not cricket!

No comments:

Post a Comment