Your views on the umpire referral technology...

[Feed]

Decision to give Roach out correct: match referee Match referee Chris Broad has defended the controversial dismissal of West Indies tailender Kemar Roach that delivered Australia a 35-run third Test win in Perth. More... Match referee Chris Broad says umpires got controversial decision right December 21, 2009 Match referee Chris Broad has defended the controversial dismissal of West Indies tailender Kemar Roach that delivered Australia a 35-run third Test win in Perth. Roach was adjudged caught behind by on-field umpire Billy Bowden off Doug Bollinger on the final day and requested for a review of the decision by third umpire Asad Rauf. After a lengthy review of all available technology, Rauf upheld the original decision even though the Hot Spot footage was inconclusive. Broad said Rauf had made the correct decision as the stump microphone had picked up a sound of ball hitting bat. "The third umpire, when reviewing the decision, used a range of technologies that were available to him, including the slow-motion replays, amplified stump microphone sound (at normal speed and slow motion), approved ball-tracking technology, pitch mat generated by the ball-tracking technology and Hot Spot footage," said Broad in a statement from the ICC. "While the Hot Spot was not visible on the bat during the review, the noise of the ball hitting the bat was picked up by the stump microphone which was sufficient for Asad to recommend to Billy to uphold his earlier decision. "It must be remembered that there needs to be conclusive evidence to over-turn the decision of the on-field umpire as the DRS has been designed to eliminate the obvious umpiring errors."

[ludhianvi]

They are good and the system is there eliminate glaring mistakes or shockers. The number of reviews is also good. It is important to note that the benefit of the doubt goes to the Umpire not the batsman in this case. For example, Hussey is given LBW and then appeals the decision yesterday in the ongoing Boxing day match between Pak and Aus. The video replays show that the ball is partly in line with the stumps at the point of contact, and hawkeye shows the ball hitting just the outside of the off-stump. So, the benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire who had originally given it OUT and the decision stands. There has to be conclusive evidence to overturn the umpire's decision.

[urbestfriend]

I'm all for this system and it should be used in all format of the game(may be t20 is an exception in the interest of time). I'd have thought Indian board supporting this system after knowing what we have gone though down under. We'd have easily won sydney test , if URDS was available.

[msb1991]

I really like the UDRS. I enjoy the 'umpire's call' aspect as it helps reduce the undermining of the onfield umpires and retains the advantage of such things as getting a big stride forward (as the original decision will be 'not out' if it goes to 'umpire's call'). I do think that they should look to streamline the process though and get a quicker decision, as a long delay can hinder the atmosphere of a match. The appropriate timing for the snickometer, hotspot and hawkeye should be covered by the TV departments, so a decision can be made quickly and it should definitely be made sure that hotspot and especially snicko are available for all series, regardless of the TV host.

[PotterManiac]

The main objective is to make the game fair right? So why not the UDRS?