Did Umpire Erasmus just robbed us the first test?

[bharat297]

I support DRS, but it should only be in the hands of the 3rd umpire. The 3rd umpire has a live feed of the video footage, plus hotspot, snicko and hawkeye. If he suspects a decision, he can review it and overturn the decision. We can put a time limit (say < 90s) to review the decision. If you can't determine it in < 90s, then it's clearly not a howler of a decision and the original decision can stand.

[bowl_out]

We can put a time limit (say < 90s) to review the decision. If you can't determine it in < 90s, then it's clearly not a howler of a decision and the original decision can stand.

Intersting take. But the problem comes in cases where the 3rd umpire has to overturn the on-field umpire's decision of ruling a batsman OUT. Take Usman Khawaja's case in Ashes... On first look, it looked not out. It needed 5-6 replays to confirm it was NOT OUT.... And for some reason the Sh1thead Dharmasena stuck with the on-field umpire's decision...

[bharat297]

Intersting take. But the problem comes in cases where the 3rd umpire has to overturn the on-field umpire's decision of ruling a batsman OUT. Take Usman Khawaja's case in Ashes... On first look, it looked not out. It needed 5-6 replays to confirm it was NOT OUT.... And for some reason the Sh1thead Dharmasena stuck with the on-field umpire's decision...

Yeah I remember that decision. I think that is simply a case of the 3rd umpire making a mistake in the scenario. If you watch the video, you can confirm in around 30-40s that he did not hit it. CLpxMSoEIYI

[moniker]

I support DRS, but it should only be in the hands of the 3rd umpire. The 3rd umpire has a live feed of the video footage, plus hotspot, snicko and hawkeye. If he suspects a decision, he can review it and overturn the decision. We can put a time limit (say < 90s) to review the decision. If you can't determine it in < 90s, then it's clearly not a howler of a decision and the original decision can stand.

The third umpire is usually paid a lesser match fee than the on-field umpires, probably for the following reasons: 1) He does not need to stand in the sun all day, it is physically less challenging 2) He does not need to monitor each and every ball, the third umpire comes into play only when the on-field umpire refers a decision to him Now if the third umpire is going to monitor each and every ball bowled closely, that's going to increase his workload. The ICC has to increase their match fees then.

[HouMac]

Ummm, did you watch the last day? It evened out. Murali Vijay was out lbw twice in the 4th innings. Virat Kohli got a life in the 4th innings too.

[vishalvirsingh]

i support DRS... Dhwan was clearly NOT OUT Rahane was never OUT there wud be more OUT decisions too - scoring will be less but yes we need DRS

[philcric]

I support DRS, but it should only be in the hands of the 3rd umpire. The 3rd umpire has a live feed of the video footage, plus hotspot, snicko and hawkeye. If he suspects a decision, he can review it and overturn the decision. We can put a time limit (say < 90s) to review the decision. If you can't determine it in < 90s, then it's clearly not a howler of a decision and the original decision can stand.

May work for decisions which were given OUT, but not for the ones which were given NOT OUT. It's not practical to review every NOT OUT decision.

[putrevus]

you cannot complain about umpiring it evened out, even Rahane was a not howler by any stretch.

[AmreekanDesi]

I believe that the bad and good decisions dealt to a team tend to even out over a course of a test match hand DEFINITELY over the course of a series. So no issues there and don't refute that argument. But the issue is the importance and impact that a wrong decision has over the course of a match, Murali Vijay not being given out in the first innings when he was clearly out is not comparable to an in-form Rahane being subject to a dubious decision on the last day of the test match with less than 100 left to chase!