We're using technology, what seems "a bit silly for me" is then saying well it's only hitting the stumps a little bit and so we'll go with the human instead of the technology.
The whole point I've tried to make for weeks now is either we trust the technology to be accurate, or we don't. If dorkeye says it is hitting the stumps (at all) then go with it, or scrap the whole damned thing. We don't say the batsman is not out if the ball bowls him but only clips his stumps, why say it when that's what dorkeye shows!!?!?!?
The problem is any system has to be accepted by the players, if they see the ball hitting the stumps according to dorkeye then they will question it, I don't think I've ever seen "umpire's call" with the ball missing the stumps yet that could be wrong if we're saying it is only "49% certain" or whatever the absurd benchmark is for uncertainty.
So decisions, regardless if using reviews or just humans, need to fulfil these three basic premises :
- it is simple to impliment and understand
- it is consistent and reliable
- it is accepted and trusted by the players
DRS fails on all three, and I don't blame the players on the final one of the three (assuming I haven't missed anything) That is the key, it most certainly isn't consistent and reliable since it is used as a tactic and still wrong decisions go through review and don't come out right
One basic aspect of having to be overwhelming evidence to overturn is a flaw, sounds nice if the main reason for having it is to back your umpires, but when you turn to a player and say "it looks out mate, but it isn't out enough that we're going to reverse the umpire's not out call"
Goalline technology will supposedly tell if a ball crosses the line or not in football, they won't give a "well it was close enough that we'll stick with the referee", it will decide it. Umpires are humans, we all make mistakes, and the technology exposes real howlers so wtf are they so worried about borderline decisions getting reversed?!?!?!?!
Anyway, moving on. I was doubting that the aussies were going to build towards a lead at one point, Mr Broad turning up for a change. But Rogers and Watson built innings and Rogers has done what no England batsman did despite nine of them getting a start - gone on to a big score.
England really need to knock the aussies over this morning, ideally well before lunch Anything much more than a 60 runs lead and England won't be happy, altho0ugh the aussies do have to bat last.
How many the aussies get in front will obviously depend on the remaining batsmen, but also the impending new ball and how well England bowl first thing. England really need at least one early breakthrough, if the aussies put on 10, 20, 30 runs before a wicket then England will be even more on the back foot.
Cook is in a tricky situation, often he'd put on a part-timer and the spinner to hurry up the new ball and keep the opening bowlers fresh, can he afford to do this with the aussies only 16 runs behind and it being likely to be the best conditions for his quicks? I was surprised he didn't bowl Root yesterday given Lyon got four wickets, two wrapped up in swing and so went with Trott instead.
Crucial morning, if the aussies get to lunch England are in real trouble. England really need to pick up regular wickets and maybe even polish off the last 2-3 with the new ball. If I were Clarke I'd be wanting 300+ , although the aussies may fall short of par as well.
