Furball
Evil Scotsman
From the article on cricinfo:
The dismissal where he hit his shoelaces would probably have been reversed had Dravid opted to refer it. This was a case of understandable umpiring error (when a batsman plays at a ball and there's an audible nicking noise as it passes the bat normally it's a safe bet to assume that the sound you've heard is ball hitting bat), real time it just sounded out, and Dravid opted not to refer because Tendulkar had told him that there was a pretty huge noise as the ball passed his bat. The decision to give Dravid out had absolutely nothing to do with the DRS system as it wasn't called for by the batsman, and ironically using the technology would have saved Dravid.
Dravid's dismissal to Swann at the Oval showed up the limitations of hotspot, but given that there was a deflection visible on the slowmotion replays, the third umpire was perfectly entitled to give him out. Dravid himself admitted in interview after the match that he had hit it. So we use technology to ultimately arrive at the correct decision. How is that controversial?
Dravid's dismissal in the ODI series was less clear cut, but on replay there was a massive noise that could only have come from bat hitting ball. IMO, that's fair enough with regards to enough evidence to overturn a not out decision, particularly as the noise that was audible could only have been cause by Dravid hitting the ball. Snicko then confirmed the edge, meaning that once again the correct decision had been arrived at. So where's the controversy there?
The above is complete rubbish.
The dismissal where he hit his shoelaces would probably have been reversed had Dravid opted to refer it. This was a case of understandable umpiring error (when a batsman plays at a ball and there's an audible nicking noise as it passes the bat normally it's a safe bet to assume that the sound you've heard is ball hitting bat), real time it just sounded out, and Dravid opted not to refer because Tendulkar had told him that there was a pretty huge noise as the ball passed his bat. The decision to give Dravid out had absolutely nothing to do with the DRS system as it wasn't called for by the batsman, and ironically using the technology would have saved Dravid.
Dravid's dismissal to Swann at the Oval showed up the limitations of hotspot, but given that there was a deflection visible on the slowmotion replays, the third umpire was perfectly entitled to give him out. Dravid himself admitted in interview after the match that he had hit it. So we use technology to ultimately arrive at the correct decision. How is that controversial?
Dravid's dismissal in the ODI series was less clear cut, but on replay there was a massive noise that could only have come from bat hitting ball. IMO, that's fair enough with regards to enough evidence to overturn a not out decision, particularly as the noise that was audible could only have been cause by Dravid hitting the ball. Snicko then confirmed the edge, meaning that once again the correct decision had been arrived at. So where's the controversy there?
