It still comes down to human error to me. If there is doubt about hotspot, drop it. If they are confident in hotspot, then let it be the final decider. Don't let the umpire consider it and make his decision despite the evidence.Mystical_Titan wrote:But it's because the system is flawed that those making the decisions aren't making the right ones. And the fact that there have been several decisions upheld, despite Hot Spot giving CLEAR evidence to the contrary, just goes to show that the umpires themselves have no faith in the system.
And even KP's decision today came down, I would think, to umpire error. The classic standard is, when there is doubt, it goes to the batsman. Clearly there was doubt in the umpire's mind if he chose to ignore hotspot's evidence. That being the case, he ought to have given benefit to the batsman.
To me, a sound as the ball goes past the edge should be the last thing on the list of deciding factors.
All that said, I am keen to see how the Aussies respond to this. When it's one of their batsmen that is given out controversially they are all up in arms demanding explanations from the ICC and calling for a review of the review system. Let's see how consistent they are.
A UK publication is already calling this "the most controversial DRS calls of the series," which I think is a bit of an exaggeration, but it just goes to show that teams and fans get most upset when they are on the wrong end of the DRS. Truth be told, I doubt that it would change were there no DRS. The Aussies would still be up in arms for controversial decisions against them, and England for decisions against them. Then they'd be insisting that technology be introduced to eradicate such decisions.
