It was a sour end to a magificant win by Sri Lanka. Even the Lankans would have wanted to win it the fair way. But this debate is always closed with the notions that interventions would slow down the game and it would lose the aspect of human error as the players are human are better off judged by humans.
The idea three appeals per innings by both captains or coaches is a good one. This would not cause too many delay and would allow to cover for such mistake which are one or two in number per innings.

Right, Rob. It (a bigger role for the third umpire) will be there in place sooner or later. But the game is as English in its core as you are! A change such as this will be considered radical by the pundits that be and there will be many more Sidebottoms bottoms up before we reach that stage of modern, rational and progressive control of the game.
And when it arrives all will say it could have been decades ago, mate!!

Absolutely agree - it is becoming a bit like World Wrestling Federation (or should I say WWE) nowadays. Ball hits pads, the bowler goes up appealing for LBW, the keeper and the close in fielders plead with tears in their eyes at the perceived injustice and the umpire gives it out. Replays show that big inside edge. Batsman has to walk (if he doesnt like Yuvraj who waited a bare 10 secs he is fined). The big replay screen shows the idiocy of the decision, the third umpire does nothing! Heck, even the onfield Umpire who sees the replay does not do anything. The examples are countless, ball brushing the shoulder, caught behind given. Ball hitting pad outside leg and pops up to be taken by a fielder - catch given. It is all becoming a farce now. If some idiot tells me that that is the beauty of the game - I can suggest a good psychiatrist.

You are indeed a Whingeing Pom.
Shit happens. Get over it.
Consult a certain Sachin Tendulkar about the last time he played in England.

Spot on Rob, its about time. It was indeed a thick inside edge. Difficult to see in real time, but in truth, such moments come about, on average, about once an innings. How ridiculous that we have a means of countering such inaccuracy, and yet we don't use it. Bring on the teleref. Arm him with a screen, with hawkeye, and with that brilliant hotspot the Aussies use for inside and outside edges. Let's get the decisions right for a change.

While i tend to agree with you. Where were you all these days when howlers were handed over by OZ,Pommie and SA umpires to the Asian and the Westindian teams.. You are at best as you have stated a fully-qualified Whingeing Pom. keep it up.

The on-field umpire should have access to the relevant technology. Then he can refer to it when in doubt before he makes the final decision. This Test match saw three wrong decisions- Michael Vaughn's dismissal in the first innings, Jayasuruya in the second innings, and Sidebottom. All of them match defining. How long would it have taken for the umpire to make a referral and make the right decision? Cricket has to get with it!

I am still surprised that Asad Rauf is given cricket games to umpire. I can't remember watching a game where he hasn't made at least one bad decision. Maybe they should have a shake-up and retraining for the men in the middle, too.

this seems happens all the time... increasingly so nowadays when we have the technology to identify these umpiring errors.

let the best side win... and lets decide the best side with all the technology at our might. I have no tolerance for the romantics who prattle on about "human error" and "glorious uncertainties".

Its going to happen, might as well be now.

You say "No blame should be attached to Rauf" and that it did look out in real motion. Then how can you say Rauf made a fool of himself??. He made a mistake yes but saying that third umpire could have saved him from making a fool of himself is uncharitable to say the least.

Why are such comments made only when 'injustice' is done to England. Why no comments when Sangakkara was given out in Australia?
Either we embrace technology 100%, go in with all that is available or leave it to the two men in the middle. You can't have technology only when it suits one team but not the other!

Oh for the love of humanity stop crying...asian teams are routinely screwed over by umpires, particularly against white teams...but you don't their supporting pundits dedicating a whole blog to taking broad sides against one poor decision by an umpire. If this was more of routine then Darrel Hair and Rudi Koertzen have provided enough material over the years to fill encyclopedias...

I think that it is high time that technology is used to its full extent to assist umpiring.

An excellent article as usual, Rob, and I agree completely with your arguments. As do the majority of cricket watchers, I expect. I don't see any valid reason for technology not to be used to verify every umpiring decision concerning lbw, caught behind, run out or anything else contentious.

Just one complaint: it's very irritating when journalists copy great writers (count the ways). Just skip the artifice, your writing is fine and better off without it.

I think this is the beauty of the Cricket as a game. We should appreciate the sportsman spirit. Same thing happened with Sangakara not long ago when he was nearing a double hundred against Australia. Rudi was the man at that time. Similarly Sri Lanka lost the match.
It is all part of the game. In my opinion, this chance/luck factor should be there in the game/

Aha ... as soon as England looses ... the knives are out and bad mouthing of umpires begins. I distinctly remember Indians getting as many as 12 bad calls against them and none for the Englishmen during the recent trip by the Indians in England !!! There were no calls or even a passing remark about umpiring !!! The shoe is on the other foot ... learn to DEAL WITH IT !!!

I don't know if the Sri Lankans will actually give a hoot, Imran, they won, and they would rightly point out that was the only possible positive result. And they would also rightly point out that Sangakkara was sawn off in Hobart, a far greater injustice as he had a slim hope of winning the game for Sri Lanka, not saving the game. Simply put, what goes around comes around, so its not worth getting too angry or upset over a single decision, as no doubt crucial decisions will go for England and against Sri Lanka in the future.

Nice piece Rob. I don't entirely agree though.

The modern game, with it's featherbed pitches, short boundaries, bouncer restrictions, ball "tampering" regulations, and so called "sledging" patrols is already too heavily weighed in favour of the batsman. I'm not sure if Greenpeace has labelled "the Cricket Batsman" as endangered yet, but I'm sure that's coming also. (Perhaps it is the "Bowler" who should be considered endangered?)

Sponsors won't shell out the big dollars that modern cricket administrators are requesting for their product (don't always blame the sponsors; they'd like to pay less for their sponsorship as well)if the game only goes for three days. So the answer is make it harder for a side to take 20 wickets.

The batsman gets more and more protection, while the weapons that all the great bowlers of the past have used have gradually been eroded away. Bats are thicker, wider and lighter. Batting equipment is also similarly better, lighter and more plentiful. If it gets fractionally dark, wet or in some cases, plain old windy, the batsman can't play is the game is suspended.

Bowlers used to be able to drive a batsman back with a short pitched ball. Bowl a bouncer now and the batsman knows that another can't legally be bowled to him for the rest of the over, so forward he comes; you can't pick the seam with your fingernails to get that extra bit of purchase; you can't "intimidate" verbally anymore, but it appears ok for a batsman to suggest that a bowler go back to grade cricket after smacking him for four. What happens when a bowler gives a batsman a send-off thses days. You can't even show a batsman where the pavilion is anymore. (Most batsman seem to forget where it is once they've been in the middle for a while...)

Four piece balls have not changed dimension or make up for many many years, stump height and bail width is also the same and fielders cannot be placed in certain areas.

The game is played by humans and should be judged by them. Too many third umpire referrals for lbw's, catches and quite often stumpings are given not out because of the "benefit of the doubt law". I don't oppose that law in itself, as it is a cornerstone of our great game, but if an umpire is going to refer a decision to a third could it be that he has his own doubts? If that's the case, the decision is not out and the game goes on.

I would be bitter if I were you Rob. England should never have lost that game after the first innings lead. Sure Sidebottom got a shocker but what about the lack of application from most of the top order (Bell and Prior obviously excepted)in the second dig. If a couple of those lads gritted their teeth England might have survived the extra 15 minutes. Bad decisions effectively handed England the 2005 Ashes (see Kasper dismissal in the Second Test) so you should take the good with the bad. Sangakarra is in the form of his life. His average for 2007 is amazing albeit inflated by scoring a bundle of runs against Bangladesh. England will need to work out a plan to dislodge him and perhaps work on slips fielding to have any chance to level the series.

Now what have your wingeing Sri Lankans got to say
about the umpiring - Rudi was a thief when he gave Sanga - is Azad also a thief to give Ryan ??? I would like to see what the lankan scribes have to say about this - Sack Rudy and promote Azad ???
Bloody hipocretes Yar !!!

The manner of England's loss must leave a bitter aftertaste unfortunately. Better the match was drawn or Sri Lanka had won without the umpiring error.

There are plenty of precedents the most recent of which was Sri Lanka's loss to Australia in the 2nd test. Arguably, Sangakkara, who was on song and nearing a double century when wrongly given out, would have seen them through to their first win on Australian soil.

Clearly, a fail-safe system for adjudicating appeals would need to be devised if both victory and draw are to be legitimately earned. Cricket would stand to lose some of its appeal in this age of instant slow-motion replays if the imbalance is not redressed quick. It might well be best that the opposing captain or player is allowed to appeal the decision.

sorry mate, but no ifs and buts in the game. i am sure you will appreciate the fact that vaughn shouldve gone earlier than he did (he may not have lasted too long but he was out pretty plumb). these decisions are part of the game and i would believe that a lot of the charm will go away from the game if you allow the third umpire to poke his nose everytime. Not too long ago, Sachin got a howler in england when he was given out to Flintoff, but i don't remember people asking for more involvement of the third umpire... its a human mistake and it happens. from time to time. but i wud rather remember the game for its highs than its lows...

As an Australian I was pretty annoyed to see Sankakara given out when he was in Hobart. He was clearly deserving a double ton and a shot at victory on Aus soil and to be robbed like that was pretty well, f'ed. Use the technology if its there i reckon, all teams get poor decisions its true and just because its reflected on because a whinging pom seems bitter is no reason not to use it. As long as it goes the other way though, when bowlers (like Hoggard having Hayden & Symonds plumb LBW in one innings in the last Ashes where they both went on to centuries) also get the benefit of the tech as well. In that case, the third ump should be able to radio down and say "mate, thats plumb, send him on his way!"

Very selective in choosing an incident. It happens to all teams in all places. As you are now a Pom take a glance back at the 2005 Ashes and spot the obvious umpiring errors in each match.

If I am right only Australia, England and South Africa want the tradition of human element kept in umpiring exactly because they rarely are on the short end of the stick.
Stop crying foul mate, either speak up for injustice in every case or stay quiet when injustice is done to you.
As for as Pointing and Australia are concerned they should have said sangakara was not out and have real contest, when it happens in your favour you stay its umpire's decision otherwise Australia blame opposition for not walking off the field.

How do you spell Hypocrite.

Well done Asad Rauf. If we have few more of such decisions against the English, we will soon get to use technology during the games.

What is funny is we stop the game to check whether the ball crossed the boundary line. Most times there is only one run at stake in those boundary calls. A wicket is certainly more valuable in cricket than a run but for some reason the powers to be don't want to entertain any of the available options.

and vaughan was out in the first innings and not given...whats the point of whinging?...These things even out. Its a part of cricket. Third umpires will only cause the game to become monotone. As u know, test cricket is struggling for most parts of the world and making the game slower surely isnt going to help. I dont get the point of writing these articles, its a part of cricket. If a bitter taste lingers in ur mouth, it should. 1. For writing this article. 2. For england giving up such a lead and being out played by sangakarra and co, and batting with no real purpose. End of the day, lanka deserved to win.

Lads, shake it off. "a bitter taste lingers"? Thats a shame. England were beaten, not withstanding the comment about Sidebottoms resistance in the first innings, I wouldnt have given him much longer out there anyway. I think all and sundry were surprised at Sidebottoms resolve in the first innings, but to say that he would've done it again, seems to stretch Mr. Everetts abilities. Also, its not the first time that decisions like this occur, cast your mind back to Kumar Sangakkara in the land of OZ and Mr. Rudis blunder, but there was an apology, man to man, and that was it, no bitter taste, no pomme blogs for that either. Simply put, for the time being, its part and parcel of the great game, and put even simpler. May be you boys should grow up, this test, I guarantee, will not be remembered for the decision to give Sidebottom out LBW. Which is certainly the way it should be.

Tough!!!! game is good as it is, leave a bit of the element of human error in it. it's good for the game, even if unfair on the players. And the only reason we have so much detail now is bcoz of tecnology, so don't say that it happens more now than before. And let's be honest, Sidebottom like any other tailender was never going to be given the same treatment by the ump as a proper batsman, it happens all the time.

It's amazing how quiet everyone is when such decisions go against the Asian teams.I can recall a period of time when Inzi was given out incorrectly 4 times in as many test matches.
They say that incorrect decisions balance themselves out... Vaughan should have gone earlier but then you would say that "He got lucky"...

I agree that third umpire has to be proactive so that glaring wrong decision,however unintentional, could be avoided.Sachin has got it many times at crucialjunctures.Dravid & others have been at receivingend many times.Last series against pakistan at edengarden,dravid got itwrong in both the innings but for that ,he would have created a world record for most no. of consecutive centuries.even in the last test at the same venue he was declared out when going strong & perhaps one more century.As you have rightly pointed it out had the 3rd.umpire been proactive ,such things could have been avoided.
I HAVE OPINED IN AN EARLIER BLOG THAT PLAYERS BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO APPEAL,IF THEY THINK THE DECISION IS NOT RIGHT.THIS IS THE ONLY SOLUTION AS THE THIRD UMPIRES ARE NOT PROACTIVE.PERHAPS A CHANGE IN THE LAW MAY HELP THEM TO BE SO.

I really supported your comments of failure of third umpire to pickup the walkie talkie and inform the head umpire about his error, but I wonder why the same sentiments were not expressed when Sangakkara was given out by umpire Rudi Kirtsen which ultimately denied his double century and a probable record chase

I am not surprised that another blooper was made here. In the years I have seen test cricket - the frequency with which Sri Lankan bowlers especially Muralitharan get the benefit of the doubt while playing at home is rather alarming !
Wasn't Vaughan given out dubiously in the first innings as well ? And who was the bowler in that case ???

Yup, Just like you said. England lost ONLY because of this decision. How unlucky.
p.s. Can't believe the flak Asad Rauf is receiving for this one decision. He was superb through out the match to withstand Monty's over-enthusiastic appeals and England's pressuring tactics. Does this have to do something with the whining (i wonder)?

It is so unfortunate that many captains (including Ponting) and many fans still argue for the old-style all-powerful (and in case of Hair, Rogue as well) on-field umpires doing everything including making wrong decisions. I think it is about time third umpire role is increased to a new level. I have seen many a series and matches turning on their head due to fatal on-field umpiring mistakes. As I am a Pakistan fan, I can quote England-Pakistan series last year, Australia-Pakistan match in Colombo, Australia-Pakistan match in Hobart in 99 and many more.

you and jonathan agnew are indeed whingeing poms. i seem to remember that when asad rauf was giving correct front-foot lbw decisions infavour of monty panesar against the west indies this summer, he was universally praised amongst english cricket pundits as being a "brave" umpire...

I'm less sure than Rob that this particular decision affected the outcome of the game. Even if we assume Sidebottom would have held on - possible but far from certain given that he was facing Murali with a new ball in his hand - with only Panesar and a crocked Hoggard to keep him company that final 15-20 minutes would have been a pretty testing time. The game was lost by England's top order, not by Umpire Rauf who, in my opinion, is one of the best in the game. But this does not really alter the importance of the general point Rob makes. Sangakkara got an absolute shocker in Australia; Tendulakar was, as Suraj rightly says, sawn off over and over again in the recent England-India series. As an England supporter it pains me to say it, but you could make the case that England's Ashes 2005 victory was assisted in large measure by 3 umpiring errors - Kasper given out caught behind at Edgbaston when his hand was off the bat at the material time, Martyn given out LBW when he got an inside edge as big as Sidebottom's, and Katich given out LBW to Harmison when the ball was plainly clearing the stumps by about 6 inches. No doubt there are many other examples which could be given in series occurring all over the world. Technology can't get everything right but it can significantly cut the error rate. That is fair not just to the players (would Katich have been dropped if the innings that was cut short had helped the Aussies retain the Ashes?), but also to the Umpires, who come under intolerable pressure when they get things wrong.

Yeh poor Rudi got sacked for acknowledging his error. Is anything going to happen to Rauf? The result is not the thing, it's the respect the players have for the umpire and his decision making. Rauf must be removed, as per Rudi, or do we only remove the ones who admit their mistakes. We seem to get rid of the good umpires like Hair (love him or hate him he was an excellent umpire who all but a few of the cricketers respected)and now Rudi. Any batsman/bowler must go on to the pitch knowing that the decisions are in the hands of capable individuals who realise that the batsmans/bowlers jobs are at stake. If I was a player now I'd be very weary of having this man umpire, especially as he hasn't had the decency to apologise. We all make mistakes be man enough to admit it because then you will be very carefull next time when making decisions.

Stop whining about the Asad Rauf's decision! It was a lonely error committed in about 6 month on his part! I bet if it was not a Pakistani Umpire, people would have digested this easily!

Nice to see the usual level of Asian hypocrisy out in full force among previous comments. Any umpire - and particularly one with white skin - giving a decision perceived to be wrong (note, it doesn't actually have to be wrong)against a player from the subcontinent is routinely villified, has his integrity questioned and on occasion, accused of being a racist.

There are already more than a dozen such examples among the comments posted here; Mr Steen dares to point out that the Pakistani umpire made an error (and, a fact the majority of commenters appear ignorant of, HE IS NOT BLAMING THE UMPIRE) and all that he gets is a litany of "yes, but what about all the times it happened to us" as if that makes any difference.

I look forward to laughing at the bleating of the likes of Manoj and Rajesh the next time one of their heroes gets triggered and wonder if it will all just be a part of the game that evens itself out then?

Stop giving racist comments. You guys forget your own lame umpires right? Forgot that idiot David Sheperd who got it all wrong always and what abiout that Palmer who threw sweater at Aaqib Javaid in Old Trafford, 1992. Look up your own spine and feel the injustice done by your own countrymen on us. Rauf rocks and you dont! Thats a fact, be a man and take it on your face! Pooh U

Very selective you wingeing pom.umpires from OZ,ENG,SA & NZ do it all the time against the asian teams.It happens to asian teams all the time,when umpires from OZ,ENG,SA& NZ are involved in matches with asian teams Vs above mentioned teams. This is because these umpires mainly give the benefit of the doubt against the asians everytime they are in doubt and also depending on how strong the appeal is when ruling against asian teams.This is a fact. just take a stroll down memory lane to refresh your memory you wingeing pom. this is because they consider asians to be cheats whenever they appeal and when in doubt the benefit is always given to the batsman as it should be. but does not always work in the reverse.
So let them bring on the technolgy you wingeing pom.they should not waste time using it to decide on whether or not it is a boundary,for the sake of a single run, speacially in test cricket.just take the fielders word for it & if in doubt rule in favour of the batsman. We welcome this as this will enable PAK,IND,SL&BAN to win/save more matches as they are the most disvantaged by poor umpiring decisions.

I'm must admit that a loss to Sri Lanka doesn't hurt as much as most losses. After all it's only a game of polo.

I would be interested in a certain Mr Atherton's POV on this one. He was disgusted at the uproar on Tendulkar being given out incorrectly on numerous occasions on the recent tour of England. I suppose he would be equally quick to brush off English complaints about umpiring errors...

I can't believe that anyone would actually think that a Ryan Sidebottom decision would affect the outcome of the match. Ridiculous. Please get over it. England have had so many decisions in their favour that it's a bit of a joke that Englishmen whinge whenever the odd one goes against them. Just ridiculous.

I agree with the idea of giving each team at least a couple of chances to appeal against dubious decisions.

However, this change will emerge once people ask for it irrespective of their national affiliations. It's great to see Sri Lankans (the great cricketers that they are) to ask for a change. But as for you Rob, why didn't you write this piece when Sangakkara was given out in Australia? It would have made for a much more substantial argument as opposed to now, when you wrote it just when the Poms were at the receiving end.

Rob, fair points. But, 'proactivity' of the third umpire is as dangerous as Asad Rauf's human error.

Sidebottom edges into pad, finger goes up, moment of disgust, walks to boundary, enters changing room, throws bat... suddenly third umpire has walkie-talkies to umpire, and... "quick, Ryan, you're back out there!"

And what about the other way round? Murali appeals for a catch behind that the umpire turns down. Third umpire sees that actually, he middled it into the keeper's gloves. Is that in the third umpire's 'proactivity' boundaries? By the time the umpire's examined it, the next ball has been bowled and hit for six. Chaos.

In this case, the third umpire would become as important, if not more so, than those out in the middle. He/she would be expected to correct EVERY decision that the umpires get wrong. Correct one and not the other... inconsistency. [Inconsistency second time round is worse than first]. From there it would be hawkeye correcting every LBW decision.

As a fellow pom, yes it does leave a slightly bitter taste. But I believe that 'proactivity' of a third umpire is a very dangerous precedent to set.

agreed. but you could have advocated this a long time ago. for example...when the asian teams were being given raw deals by the 'non asian' umpires. i think you get my drift here, rob, no need to get into name calling (umpires and players). by the way, its very nifty (and smart) to label yourself before anyone can throw salvos at you. ah, you englishmen, you think of everything! perhaps you are not a whingeing pom..you are just(maybe) a whingeing person of a different color!

Why blame Rauf?? What about Billy Doctrove missing the LBW shout Shoaib had against Jaffer in the first test that Doctrove missed and motioned that there was an inside edge when there was none? or the ball tampering fiasco with Hair & Doctrove when it was proven that there was no evidence of tampering. All umpires do make mistake but it is not fair to lay blame at one.

After the 1992 World cup where England beat SA by unsportingly taking their time to get back on the field, England should be the last to complain about any dubious decisions. Fact of the matter is EVERY SINGLE TEAM has had bad decisions go against them. Live with it.

It is disappointing to see such a wonderful match now being talked about for that one bad decision. Things like this happen all the time, its cricket, if it happened to a batsman like when it happened to sachin and sangakarra recently then its something to actually moan about, but moaning about it when it happened to a tailender is just stupid! Sachin and sangakarra's fans dealt with it without this much whinging- time for you guys to do the same! This match should be remembered for murli's and sanga's records- congrats to them!

This is the same Asad Rauf who gave lbw's when bowlers were bowling around the wicket last summer in England/ India series. They praised him then for being bold.All the umpires make mistakes. Leave Asad Rauf alone.

While writing this I keep reminding myself that I too have made a couple of real howlers when umpiring, and I'd much rather get a first baller than leave the field knowing that I've well and truly triggered some poor sod who didn't deserve it.

Umpiring discussions and opinions have been with us since the game started and, even though most of us do accept the umpire's decision as final, the advent of technology has pointed out to us all that the guy in the white coat doesn't always get it right. We have technology that tells us what speed the bowler's bowling, where the ball hit on the bat or the pads, whether someone was on the Newcastle Brown Ale the previous evening, helmet cams, umpire cams, stump cams and jockstrap cams. Yet the game doesn't want to use the technology to get the important decisions right!

I've said elsewhere that the top level umpire runs the risk of becoming nothing more than a glorified coat stand once technology starts taking a bigger part in adjudications. But surely top players deserve the best decision making they can get? Having confidence in the adjudication team has to be part of that. There will be times when replays offer nothing further to the decision making process and so the benefit of the doubt must remain for those circumstances.

I'm all for batsmen who prop forward to spinners and pad the ball away thinking they won't be given out lbw being told "P*** off! You're out!". Pads are supposed to be protective wear after all.

Having a proactive third umpire seems a sensible step forward. Ball hits pad, fielding side burst into song and dance routine begging for the finger to be lifted. Third umpire buzzes down with the message "That's not out" or "That's out" as appropriate. Match referee then fines the fielding team for overdoing the appeals.

Some of the howling, pleading and general rain dance routines that constitute "appeals" are childish in the extreme and should be clamped down upon. Cricket is supposed to be a gentleman's game. When did you last see Adam Adamant or John Steed running around howling waving a cricket ball around? (See IVA Richards appealing for a caught decision on RJ Bailey, England tour of West Indies 1989-90).

If I want to see hammed up histrionics I'll go into town on Friday night and watch the Carling Space Cadets as they fall out from the pubs at closing time. If I've paid £30 to see a day's test cricket (or whatever Murdoch's demanding for a subscription) then I want to see proper cricket, not screaming to match the couple living just down the road who have a good barney every Wednesday night!

"What if the umpire had got that decision right?" is one of those theoretical questions which can never really be answered. Would the results of test matches have been changed if the umpire had made a different decision? We may like to think so. Ultimately we will never know. I've yet to meet a deliberately malicious umpire. I've met one or two whose interpretations of the Laws seemed a little unusual but when they get a decision wrong it hurts.

Umpires are human too. Has the ICC really got the bottle to give them the support they need?

Lets face it!. Sidebottom is no Bradman. And you bring this up just because it happened against England. Can somebody count how many times sachin got a bad one in the last couple of years. Rob is not bothered when it happens to somebody else. Rob, do you understand that you are over-doing it, as if this is the greatest injustice done to somebody in the cricket history. You are talking about Rauf making fool of himself. Look at You!!!

First of all, there are some fatuous comments here. Murders happen all the time - doesn't make them right. And do bad decisions even themselves out over time? How? We must assume that umpiring mistakes are not deliberate (otherwise we’ve got a far bigger problem than just human error!) so they're not going to make exactly the same mistakes for each team. It's fatuous to suggest this always happens.

I'd say it makes sense to use the technology for the sake of the umpires. Why can't they be allowed to use the technology themselves either to confirm or dismiss their decision? That way, they can say they thought the batsman was in or out but couldn't be sure enough so went to the TV replay. If it's clear-cut enough, then change the decision. It's still in the hands of the umpires, but they can use TV to make better decisions rather than make mistakes and then have them replayed ad infinitum on YouTube.

As one of the earlier posters pointed out, there are delays to the game for boundary calls. Any LBW or caught decision that the umpire is not happy to make in real time should, at their own behest, go to the TV replay. The decision is still theirs to make. If they don’t use the technology for a dodgy decision, then the umpire’s credentials can be looked at.

well done to the plucky little sri lankans! both teams played well and the rub of the green went with Sri lanka on that lbw decision! that is the beauty of the game. Only have to look at the way Sanga was given out in Hobart to know what goes around comes around! looking forward to next game already!

i suppose this is a case of sour grapes. We have been on the receiving end of these decisions from numerous umpires, even in the world cup finals when they mattered the most. However, the poor decisions come into light only if they are against the English or the Aussies... Strange.. or Food for thought perhaps...

For Monica

The ICC have already stated that Rudi Koertzen was not being punished for the Sangakkara error. "If all umpires are sacked for making one mistake, there won't beany left". He was shifted to the India-Pak Series to fill in for Billy Bowden who fell ill. Asad Rauf on standby couldn't takeover as Pakistan was playing.

Even Simon Taufel, consistently voted the Best Umpire, gave both achin and Saurav out wrongly on the last tour. No complaints then, which is as it should be.

It was a bad decision, yes but it is part of the game. If you want to fix it, the solution is NOT the TV and third umpire, but a plan to make the on field umpires better -- more accountability, more training, more retraining, and continuous evaluation in match situations and maybe in non match situations as well. We have wisden rankings for batsmen and bowlers. Why not blaze a trail and start one for umpires?

No point complaining. It's a better deal all round now we have neutral umpires. I mean, who can forget the shockers that got given in favour of Qadir (hilariously mocked on "Spitting Image" in a classic sketch) or how long it took Miandad to be given out lbw in his own country? Just another example of racist bigotry against the poor downtrodden Asians I guess. (Interestingly, white bowlers who throw have to remodel their actions or quit the game. I'm just sayin'.)

Good article, but I don't see how a third umpire could act quickly enough to save an umpire from making a "fool" of himself. Perhaps a referal system can be justified; 3 per innings for a side is... too much. Perhaps 3 per match. But I do enjoy the uncertainties caused by human error... No doubt that Sidebottom got a raw deal but there have been "rawer" deals given to more players in GREATER circumstances (and I'm not simply going on about the latest Hobart shoulder jab) that it might have been more credible for you to come up with this article. And if as one of your comments read, best team win... Sri Lanka was the better team in Kandy. If the 3rd umpire played a pro-active role in 2001, England's so called "great victory" wouldn't even exist. I was glad that Sangakarra pointed that out in his article. Let's be real about that flawed English achievement without glorifying it no-end.

The best soln would be to allow two appeals (per team) against the decision which could be refered to the tv umpire.Afterall such shockers happen just once or twice during a test match.

As delighted I am about victory, that decision left me feeling a bit uneasy as well. I could understand if it was a thin inside edge but this was so blindingly obvious to the naked eye even in real time.

A professional cricketer shouldn't be given out if technology shows clear doubt. Professional umpires shouldn't be allowed to look foolish in the same circumstances. Therefore if in answer to an appeal the umpire thinks the batsman is out, surely a quick referral to the third umpire could confirm that he hasn't made a mistake? Under no circumstances should players be allowed to query an umpiring decision.

Good one, Topaz. We've already experienced the lows of our "heroes" being given out incorrectly, and bcoz we know it can happen again, we accept the element of human error, if only to stir our emotions. Of course we get cheesed off when it happens, but so what? What's cricket without the emotions of its fans. As for the racist comments, just stop it! It's a human error not black/brown/white against another. The days of BLATANT wrong decisions (no neutral umps then) were waved good bye decades ago. Yes, then, it did happen.
As an aside, living in Oz, I read and hear the sour grapes about the fact that Murali went past Warnie. They just can't handle someone going one better on one of their own. Now THAT makes me laugh out loud! Good on you Murali.

The 3rd umpire is not a perfect solution because then there is an even bigger problem of where to draw the line - eg. are we going to check front foot no-balls, every LBW appeal, etc? How about Ponting's catch down the legside in Hobart with no appeal. As Phil Johnson said, "a very dangerous precedent". So in my opinion, lets accept the good with the bad, at least for now. Something like 2 3rd umpire appeals per team per hour is a good idea for the future.

And to the Asians here - please stop embarrassing yourself with your hypocritical accusations of racism (I'm a Sri Lankan living in Australia). Every white man is not a racist. Maybe you only remember the bad decisions against your own team, esp Tendulkar.

Interisting - I agree you are a whineing POM now. Basis of my comment - we did not see you calling for pro-active support from the 3rd umpire when the incompetence of ICC's on-field umpires assisted England with incorrect outs being handed to Sachin / Saurav / Rahul of India during our last series there.
If you honestly expect ICC to take action like what you are suggesting, I guess you will have to wait till a couple of Aussies are given out incorrectly, resulting in Australia losing a critical game & that gentlemen is not likely to happen while Herr Richardson is in charge. By the way, Mr. Richardson is still to reply to my charges of Racial Discrimination against Indians by his umpires & match referees.

Oh, I would love to see british third umpires doing something about Tendulkar's caught behind, appealed by Flintoff & co. and given out by brit umpire again. At least, here the umpire at the ground was not Sri Lankan.

Get over it man, and if you can't then change the system at your home or, at least, write about it. Just let us know if you people are fair as you pretend to be. :-).

Specific to Mr. Sharath's comment - my concern is not just the human errors, but the visible double standards applied by Herr Richardson's match referees. Indians & Pakistanis normally suffer the highest possible penalty for any action on the field of play. I have documented a whole list of bigger offences from Australian, English & West Indian players where the ICC match referee had taken no action and requested him to help me understand how his match referees & umpires cannot be considered to have a discriminatory policy.No Reply!
My guess - Umpires who err against Indians / Pakistanis & match referees who allow Ricky Ponting / Brian Lara to abuse umpires / criticise umpiring decisions / Glen McGrath to abuse Sachin etc. without any action but penalise Virender Sehwag / Harbhajan Singh for smaller offences are just following boss' orders.
PROVIDE ME WITH EXAMPLES OF AUSTRALIA LOSS IN MUST-WIN GAME TO UMPIRING ERRORS. AUSTRALIA ONLY WIN MUST-WIN GAMES THROUGH UMPIRING ERRORS.

great idea, cause now adays players like sangakkara, mahanama,aravinada, chamara,yvaraj, lara and most of the great westendies... are rare, most are neutral some are cheaters like pont.. cheat (recent srilanka tour in a... - he was not desent enough to claim that the ball he caught hit ground before, but chamara did)human can make mistake but deliberate cheating is another thing i beg ICC to start what rob has suggest before our next a... tour.

Chetan, my dear fellow, Australia do not lose must win games so you won't find such an example.

Note to Chetan
I have been reminded of Australia vs West Indies Test at Adelaide in 1993 when Craig McDermott was controversially given out by none other than Darryl Hair when Australia only needed 2 runs to clinch a series win. Australia subsequently lost that series. Good enough for me.

The great Sunil Gavaskar once termed English Cricketers a bunch of whiners.The uncalled for furor on a decision that did not affect the outcome of the match shows that their are others too afflicted with this characteristic.

To all the whingers from the sub-continent.If you can be bothered to watch any of the SL-England series after the glut of runs you're getting in the Indo-Pak series you'll miss a sirring battle between England's 11 and Sri Lanka's 13(i.e.the two "neutral" umpires).I hope I come back in my next life as a Test Umpire so hat I can travel the world and give dubious decisions favouring the home team. Neutral umpires?? You're having a laugh!!

What a load of dung is written about umpires only erring against Asian teams - So now what about Harper and Dar making a mistake about Pieterson's dissmissal which is a very vital decision - it only goes to show that the asians think that they are victimized wheras umpires make mistakes and will continue to make mistakes as long as they are human be it against asian teams or any other teams - it is just a fantasy in the eyes of some stupid or ignorant asians who think that the whole world is against their precious teams - grow up you idiots !!!

hi,
well i am new to this blog and when i was reading the comments of the posters it more looked like some rascist blog than any cricket blog.I dont understand why u r posting such comments.

An interesting thought, scenerios which have peppered the test series thus far. As we saw with Kevin pietersen's 'dismissal' in the fist innings where the ball clearly hit the ground- with the umpiries not referring. Later again Sidebottom involved the ball clearly carried to the diving fielder yet the third umpire over-ruled the decision as the ball missed the glove. One thing that is clear is inconsistancy- something which has been frequent and that the ICC must get sorted to prevent situations as we have seen. Many of the modern are keen on brining in technology and Jeff Crowe said himself yesterday they (ICC) may have to look at 'how it's written.' Surely it would only be good for the game- and prevent series of outburts and controversy which is ever growing in the so called 'Gentleman's game'

Ajay you are correct - this is more racist than anything else and that proves that the asians are as racist or even more racist than their Western counterparts - Lets hope you can convert your brothers and look at your innerselves before feeling animosity towards others.

I remember one test England V's Pakistan where David Sheppard allowed no less than 4 England wickets to be taken with no balls in what should have been a gripping last session of the last day. While everyone here was dissapointed (bitterly in some cases), it was accepted as umpiring error, A non asian umpire making error upon match-turning-error AGAINST his home side (this was while the "one home one neutral" umpire system was in place) England have lost wicket after wicket to poor umpiring decisions in this series, it will even out in the end, no need to accuse others of cheating or racial bias,

Simon - I agree with you. Australia only win must-win games. If Australians are incompetent enough to lose a cricket test match, ICC's allegedly neutral umpires will immediately pitch in with a few "human errors" which will help Australia regain the upper hand.
I have documented a whole stream of "human errors" from Herr Richardson's associates that have battered the living daylights from the Indian batting line-up. There is not one Indian batsman who has played consistently for the last 12 months who has not suffered at the hands of ICC's umpires at least once (in several instances, more than once).
Human errors from ICC adjudicators is a joke - it is ICC & maybe Rupert Murdoch as well's way of showing WHITE superiority over better sides from Asia.
Forget the umpires, we have seen 2 standards applied by ICC's match referees as well.
I repeat - I have documented details of what looks like ICC's adjudicators have a bias against Indians to Dave Richardson but no explainations.

Ponting was out to all but ICC's umpires on 17, went on to cross 50 & showed visible dissent when given out. Also Andrew Symonds was out to all but Steve Bucknor. We will be watching the ICC Match referee's actions / otherwise against Ponting - remember Indian Sehwag was handed a one-match suspension for a smaller offence to Bowden at Bangalore. We will also watch the umpires when the Australians appeal. If the umpires imagine a edges to give Indians out caught OR miss edges to give Indians LBW, we know today's errors are not errors.
I would then suggest that BCCI replace the entire Indian team with school boys against Australia.
At least they won't have to buy ICC's umpires & match referees to show themselves as World Champions.
The ethically correct thing to call ICC if Dave Richardson is unwilling to provide honest umpires to the cricket world would be INTERNATIONAL CHEATERS' CORPORATION.

Chetan,

Thank you for opening our eyes to a great conspiracy. Rupert Murdoch is manipulating the crooked figers of Billy Bowden et al.

Maybe its not racism , perhaps the whole ICC elite panel have been abducted by aliens!!!

I think we should be told !!!!

I think Dave Richardson Should be told that aliens have taken over the ICC.

Exterminate !!! Exterminate... Does not Compute BEEP ERROR.

Chetan One final question. What colour is the sky in your world.

This claim that white players get a better deal is hypocritical. Neutral umpires had to be introduced because of the outrageous home-town decisions that Indian and Pakistani umpires routinely gave. No batsmen visiting the subcontinent dare let the ball hit their pads, no matter where said pads happened to be.

Even with neutral umpires, the stats show that visiting teams everywhere have more of the marginal decisions go against them - it's due to crowd pressure, and no one is immune to it (no cowardice or bad faith on the umpires' part is implied - the effects are subconscious). Subcontinental crowds are just as vocal as any other.

It happens in other sports too. In fact soccer tournaments routinely make away goals worth more points than home goals in recognition of it.

Chetan, have a look at the replay of Ponting's dismissal. It was at least as bad a decision as Sidebottom's or as any the Indians have complained about.