ICC defends use of DRS despite controversy in 1st Ashes Test

Jonathan Trott was wrongly adjudged out in the first Ashes Test after the Hot Spot didn’t show an inside edge © Getty Images

Dubai: Jul 16, 2013

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has come out in support of the controversial Decision Review System (DRS), which was not found consistent, during the Trent Bridge Test between England and Australia.

The ICC conducted a review of the decisions and said that DRS has improved by 5.5 percent since 2012-13.

The umpires made a total of 72 decisions, which is well above the average (49) for a DRS Test match. The umpiring team was assessed to have made seven errors during the match, out of which three were uncorrected decisions and four decisions were corrected using the DRS.

As such, the correct decision percentage before reviews stood at 90.3 per cent but climbed to 95.8 per cent as a result of the use of the DRS. This represented an increase of 5.5 per cent in correct decisions, which was the average increase from DRS Test matches in 2012-13.

The three decisions that were marked as uncorrected errors included one against Jonathan Trott when a correct LBW decision was overturned. The other involved Stuart Broad (catch at slip and LBW not offering a shot) but these couldn’t be corrected as Australia had no reviews available.

When coupled with the conditions, with reverse swing and spin playing an important role, and the added intensity of the first Ashes Test, it was a difficult match to umpire.

“The umpires did a good job under difficult conditions. This reflects the caliber of umpires [Aleem] Dar, [Kumar] Dharmasena and [Marais] Erasmus who have consistently performed at a high level,” ICC Chief Executive Dave Richardson said.

“However, like the players, umpires can also have good and bad days but we all know that the umpire’s decision, right or wrong, is final and must be accepted.”

“While the ICC has complete faith in the ability of its umpires, our confidence in technology is also strengthened by the fact that there was an increase in the number of correct decisions in the Trent Bridge Test through the use of the DRS.”

“Technology was introduced with the objective of eradicating the obvious umpiring errors, and to get as many correct decisions as possible. If it can help increase the correct decisions by 5.5 per cent, then it is a good outcome, but we must continue to strive to improve umpiring and the performance of the DRS,” he added.