Tag Archives: cricket

The Ashes: 4th Test Preview

August 9, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , Leave a comment

Time has travelled at break neck speed at times during this Ashes series: it seems like only yesterday that fans were debating the selection of Agar over Lyon for the first test. All of a sudden the Fourth Test is upon us from the Chester-le-Street ground in Durham. The good news that this brings is that Australian fans are only 2 test matches away from hosting the return battle between these two teams.

The Ashes will remain in the hands of England regardless of the result of the next two test matches but for the Australians there is much to be gained from pushing for a draw in this series, particularly given the thoughts of most when it came to Australia’s prospects at the start of the tour and again after the Lords debacle.

Here are my keys to victory for the fourth test:

1. The Pitch: Reports from England suggest that the pitch that has been presented for this fixture again meets the guidelines for pitches set by Andy Flower and the ECB: it is again dry and hard. Only four test matches have been played at this venue and all of them have been won by England. That said I do not really consider there to be a form line coming from this result given that past combatants at the ground were Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the West Indies. Wicket takers at the ground have been the fast bowlers rather than the spinners so the doctoring of the pitch may have little play in the result. That said, if the wicket turns, as it would appear it is designed to do, the match will really be in the hand of Graeme Swann.

2. England’s tactics: There is less to be gained for England in a win than in just playing for a draw given that they have already won the Ashes. The English can afford to play defensive cricket and are, seemingly, quite proficient at it. That said, a negative or defensive mindset may play right into the hands of Australia who will be going all out for a victory.

3. The Toss: The winner of the toss in each test match has been the team in this series so far that has had the better of the test. This again looks like a test match where the team batting first will be very difficult to best. That team will be looking to score, as a minimum, 400 and bat midway into the second day.

4. Is Ryan Harris fit? The best bowler in the third test was Ryan Harris and he has a history of not playing three test matches consecutively. If he plays for Australia in this test match it will be a massive fillup for the team. This focus on Harris is not to say that Jackson Bird will not be a good replacement however Harris provides an X factor to the Australian team which is hard to define. Simply, if Harris is in the team I think Australia has a better chance of victory.

5. Can Jimmy bounce back? England’s best bowler and a bowler many argue is a better bowler than Dale Steyn (I respectfully disagree) had a test match he would rather forget at Old Trafford. 0/116 off 33 overs does not make for pretty reading and whilst he secured two wickets in the second innings they were when Australia was chasing fast runs and where lower order. When Anderson bowls well and takes wickets England are very tough to beat.

This will be another enthralling test match. For England there is an 11 game streak of failing to lose a game at stake whilst Australia is trying to avoid adding to a 7 game losing streak. Cue the late nights, coffee and banter!

The Ashes: 4th Test fun fact or worrying statistic depending which team you follow

August 9, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , 1 Comment

Many people have wondered where England’s recent dominance of cricket at Test Match level has had its genisis. One only needs to look at this fact for an answer: in the last test match played at Chester-le-Street Englands bowling attack was Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Onions and Swann. For this test match their bowling attack will be made up of four of those very same five bowlers. Whilst there have been some minor tweaks to the English bowling line up in the intervening period it is apposite to note that there has been remarkable consistency in the selections of England’s bowlers in the last 4 years. Steve Finn and Monty Panesar aside, players selected outside of the five “in play” for the fourth test match (Tremlett, Tredwell, Patel, Shahzad and Sidebottom) have been selected as injury cover on basically all occasions.

If you need further convincing of England’s consistency in this area consider this: England have played in 53 test matches inclusive of the last time they played in Durham on 14 May 2009 and since that time Messrs Swann, Anderson and Broad have played in 49, 49 and 44 of those test matches respectively.

Conversely, in the same period the Australian selectors have deigned to select the bowlers from the following phalanx of players:
PM Siddle
MG Johnson
BW Hilfenhaus
NM Lyon
RJ Harris
NM Hauritz
SR Watson
DE Bollinger
JL Pattinson
MA Starc
JM Bird
SPD Smith
PJ Cummins
XJ Doherty
GJ Maxwell
TA Copeland
SR Clark
MA Beer
AC Agar
PR George
MC Henriques
JW Hastings
CJ McKay

During the same period in question Australia has played in 49 test matches. At the top regarding number of test matches played during the period is Siddle with 37. Thereafter, players no longer in the mix for test selection in the form of Messrs Johnson and Hilfenhaus are the next most used during this period. It has been argued that Australia’s bowling attack has been in a state of flux since the retirements of McGrath and Warne and these numbers do not lie. What these numbers also suggest though is that Australia has either suffered an injury epidemic during the same period OR simply has not had the confidence in its own bowlers to stick with them after a poor performance.

It is amazing that after a 51 month hiatus in test matches at Chester-le-Street that the same bowlers will be used by England as the last time a game was played there. It is not amazing that England have retained the Ashes and have been dominant during that same period: they have been consistent in their selections and their players have responded. That fact is a sad indictment on either the efforts of the Australian NSP OR their medical staff.

Cricket: Don’t like a DRS decision? Don’t blame the 3rd Umpire!

August 8, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , 1 Comment

I have written a bit recently about various interpretations of the laws of cricket as well as changes I would like seen made to said laws. As part of my rereading of the laws for the first time since I had a crack at becoming an umpire nearly a decade ago, I have read for the first time the Playing Conditions as they relate to the Decision Review System (DRS). For those interested, you should check out Appendix 2 to the ICC's Standard Playing Conditions for Test Matches.

Now there has been much angst and, dare I say it, vitriol directed at the 3rd umpires in the current test series between England and Australia directed at decisions made upon review of decisions using the DRS. Considerable newspaper column inches have been used to lament such decisions and social media timelines have been swamped with responses to such decisions that have trod the length of emotions from mockery right through to hatred. That got me thinking about about the process that the umpires go through in undertaking a DRS review at the request of a player.

Let's take the now infamous Usman Khawaja decision in the 3rd test recently completed at Old Trafford. I think everyone concedes that the on field umpire got the original decision wrong and that the 3rd umpire got the review decision wrong. The question of how this happened has been hot on the lips of many including the Prime Minister, so lets have a look at what the Playing Conditions prescribe should happen upon a review being made.

Clause 3.3 of Appendix 2 of the Standard Playing Conditions is the key and provides (in full) as follows:

 

a) On receipt of an eligible and timely request for a Player Review, the on-field umpire will make the sign of a television with his hands in the normal way.

b) He will initiate communication with the third umpire by confirming the decision that has been made and that the player has requested a Player Review.

c) The third umpire must then work alone, independent of outside help or comment, other than when consulting the on-field umpire.

d) A two-way consultation process should begin to investigate whether there is anything that the third umpire can see or hear which would indicate that the on-field umpire should change his decision.

e) This consultation should be on points of fact, where possible phrased in a manner leading to yes or no answers. Questions requiring a single answer based on a series of judgements, such as “do you think that was LBW?” are to be avoided.

f) The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpire’s questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out.

g) The third umpire should initially check whether the delivery is fair under Law 24.5 (‘fair delivery – the feet’) and under Clause 42.4.2(a) (‘full toss passing above waist height’), where appropriate advising the on-field umpire accordingly. See also paragraph 3.10 below.h) If despite the available technology, the third umpire is unable to answer with a high degree of confidence a particular question posed by the on-field umpire, then he should report that the replays are ‘inconclusive’. The third umpire should not give answers conveying likelihoods or probabilities.

i) Subject to paragraph 3.3 (j) below, specifically when advising on LBW decisions, the requirement for a high degree of confidence should be interpreted as follows:

i) With regard to determining the point of pitching the evidence provided by technology should be regarded as definitive and the Laws as interpreted in clause 3.9 (a) below should be strictly applied.

ii) With regard to the point of impact

– If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the point of impact is between wicket and wicket (i.e. in line with the stumps), the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball at the moment of interception is in line within an area demarcated by a line drawn down the middle of the outer stumps.

– If an ‘out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the point of impact is not between wicket and wicket (i.e. outside the line of the stumps), the evidence provided by technology should show that no part of the ball at the moment of interception is between wicket and wicket.

iii) With regard to determining whether the ball was likely to have hit the stumps:

– If a ‘not out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is hitting the stumps, the evidence provided by technology should show that the centre of the ball would have hit the stumps within an area demarcated by a line drawn below the lower edge of the bails and down the middle of the outer stumps.

However, where the evidence shows that the ball would have hit the stumps within the demarcated area as set out above but that:

• The point of impact is 300cm or more from the stumps; or

• The point of impact is more than 250cm but less than 300cm from the stumps and the distance between point of pitching and point of impact is less than 40cm, the original decision will stand (i.e. not out).

– If an ‘out’ decision is being reviewed, in order to report that the ball is missing the stumps, the evidence of the technology should show that no part of the ball would have made contact with any part of the stumps or bails.

j) In circumstances where the television technology (all or parts thereof) is not available to the third umpire or fails for whatever reason, the third umpire shall advise the on-field umpire of this fact but still provide any relevant factual information that may be ascertained from the available television replays and other technology.

k) The on-field umpire must then make his decision based on those factual questions that were answered by the third umpire, any other factual information offered by the third umpire and his recollection and opinion of the original incident.

l) The on-field umpire will reverse his decision if the nature of the supplementary information received from the third umpire leads him to conclude that his original decision was incorrect.

Now: having read all of that I have to say I have renewed appreciation for the process that the umpires have to go through in a short period of time under intense scrutiny.

That said: the biggest thing that I got out of reading the law is this: the 3rd umpire at no point makes a decision. That is right, read sub-clause (k) above again … it is the on-field umpire that makes the decision having asked questions of the 3rd umpire about the decision and received answers. Given the prohibition in sub-clause (e) on questions like “was it out?” it is obvious that the destiny of every DRS referral rests heavily on the questions being asked by the on-field umpire to the 3rd umpire.

If we return to the Khawaja example again: the role of the 3rd umpire in that scenario is to answer the questions posed by the on field umpire and feedback what he is seeing in real time. If the on field umpire wasn't convinced, and we have to assume that he was not, that what he was being told by the 3rd umpire was enough to show that his decision was wrong then he has NO option but to maintain the original decision.

All of this leads to this conclusion: the responsibility for a DRS decision still rests with the on field umpire armed with the extra information the 3rd umpire has provided him. So the next time you are baying for the 3rd umpires blood perhaps you ought shift your ire to the man in the white hat and black trousers on the playing surface because it is he who is actually making the decision!

The Ashes: The Silicon Tape Fiasco … what do the laws say?

August 7, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , Leave a comment

Much has been made in the press, Australian principally granted, of an allegation, which has been denied in the strongest possible terms, that certain players participating in the current Ashes series have used silicon tape to mask the hotspot “flare” caused by an edge.

Law 6 of the Laws of Cricket deals with the Bat and provides:

1. The bat

The bat consists of two parts, a handle and a blade.

2. Measurements

All provisions in sections 3 to 6 below are subject to the measurements and restrictions stated in Appendix E.

3. The handle

(a) One end of the handle is inserted into a recess in the blade as a means of joining the handle and the blade. The part of the handle that is then wholly outside the blade is defined to be the upper portion of the handle. It is a straight shaft for holding the bat. The remainder of the handle is its lower portion used purely for joining the blade and the handle together. It is not part of the blade but, solely in interpreting 5 and 6 below, references to the blade shall be considered to extend also to the lower portion of the handle where relevant.

(b) The handle is to be made principally of cane and/or wood, glued where necessary and bound with twine along the upper portion.

(c) Providing 7 below is not contravened, the upper portion may be covered with materials solely to provide a surface suitable for gripping. Such covering is an addition and is not part of the bat. Note, however, 8 below.

(d) Notwithstanding 4(c) and 5 below, both the twine binding and the covering grip may extend beyond the junction of the upper and lower portions, to cover part of the shoulders as defined in Appendix E.

4. The blade

(a) The blade comprises the whole of the bat apart from the handle as defined above. The blade has a face, a back, a toe, sides and shoulders. See Appendix E.

(b) The blade shall consist solely of wood.

(c) No material may be placed on or inserted into either the blade or the lower portion of the handle other than as permitted in 3(d) above and 5 and 6 below, together with the minimal adhesives or adhesive tape used solely for fixing these items, or for fixing the handle to the blade.

5. Covering the blade

All bats may have commercial identifications on the blade. Type A and Type B bats may have no other covering on the blade except as permitted in 6 below. Type C bats may have a cloth covering on the blade. This may be treated as specified in 6 below.

Such covering is additional to the blade and is not part of the bat. Note, however, 8 below.

6. Protection and repair

Providing neither 4 above nor 7 below is contravened,

(a) solely for the purposes of either

(i) protection from surface damage to the face, sides and shoulders of the blade or

(ii) repair to the blade after damage material that is not rigid, either at the time of its application to the blade or subsequently, may be placed on these surfaces. Any such material shall not extend over any part of the back of the blade except in the case of (ii) above and then only when it is applied as a continuous wrapping covering the damaged area.

(b) solid material may be inserted into the blade for repair after damage other than surface damage. Additionally, for protection from damage, for Types B and C, material may be inserted at the toe and/or along the sides, parallel to the face of the blade.

The only material permitted for any insertion is wood with minimal essential adhesives.

(c) to prevent damage to the toe, material may be placed on that part of the blade but shall not extend over any part of the face, back or sides of the blade.

(d) the surface of the blade may be treated with non-solid materials to improve resistance to moisture penetration and/or mask natural blemishes in the appearance of the wood. Save for the purpose of giving a homogeneous appearance by masking natural blemishes, such treatment must not materially alter the colour of the blade.

Any materials referred to in (a), (b), (c) or (d) above are additional to the blade and not part of the bat. Note, however, 8 below.

7. Damage to the ball

(a) For any part of the bat, covered or uncovered, the hardness of the constituent materials and the surface texture thereof shall not be such that either or both could cause unacceptable damage to the ball.

(b) Any material placed on any part of the bat, for whatever purpose, shall similarly not be such that it could cause unacceptable damage to the ball.

(c) For the purposes of this Law, unacceptable damage is deterioration greater than normal wear and tear caused by the ball striking the uncovered wooden surface of the blade.

8. Contact with the ball

In these Laws,

(a) reference to the bat shall imply that the bat is held in the batsman’s hand or a glove worn on his hand, unless stated otherwise.

(b) contact between the ball and either (i) the bat itself

or (ii) the batsman’s hand holding the bat

or (iii) any part of a glove worn on the batsman’s hand holding the bat

or (iv) any additional materials permitted under 3, 5 or 6 above shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being struck by the bat.

The placing of silicon tape on the bat for a purpose other than as an adhesive or to prevent or repair damage to the blade, shoulders or edges of the bat would obviously fall foul of this law.

The question then becomes: what is the punishment for breaching Law 6?

There is no specific provisions of the Laws that deal with punishment for breach. The ICC Code of Conduct for Players does provided some guidance however. It provides inter alia that the following will be Level 1 offenses under the Code:

1. In clause 2.1.1 a breach of the ICC’s Clothing and Equipment Regulations during an International Match; and

2. In clause 2.1.8 conduct that is relatively minor but that brings the game into disrepute or is contrary to the spirit of the game.

Apropos clause 2.1.1 above the ICC Clothing and Equipment Regulations provide in Part D Section 2 that:

It shall also be prohibited under these regulations for any individual to wear any clothing or use any equipment that has been changed, altered or transformed (whether to comply with these regulations or otherwise) in any way that, in the opinion of any Match Official, undermines the professional standards that are required of all elite players.

The penalty for such an offence, if proven, is set out in Article 7 of the Code of Conduct which prescribes that for a first offence the sanction is a warning / reprimand and/or the imposition of a fine of up to 50% of the applicable Match Fee.

It would seem likely, in my view, that if a player has put silicon on the edge of his bat for the explicit purpose of defeating the DRS there is another possible charge that could be laid that carries with it much more severe sanction. It is a Level 2 offence under the Code for a player to make any attempt to manipulate an International Match for inappropriate strategic or tactical reasons. An argument could be made that wilfully purporting to defeat the DRS is an attempt to manipulate the game. The penalty for such an offence is the imposition of a fine unto 90% of the players match fee and / or unto two Suspension Points. A single suspension point would see a player miss a One Day Match or a T20 International. A penalty of two suspension points could see a player miss a test match.

All in all this is a sorry saga that needs to be dealt with with alacrity. If there is a case there for anyone to answer, the match referee must move swiftly to deal with it. The more likely course though is that there is no case to answer because the test match in question is completed and no complaint was made during the match.

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see what steps are taken by the MCC and ICC in the next round of rule changes to pre-empt attempts to thwart the DRS and to install a clear offence in the Code for doing just that.

Memo to the MCC and ICC: change the laws or lose the fans … you choose!

August 7, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , 2 Comments

The laws of cricket are an evolving ever changing beast. It seems like ne’er a year goes by when some tinkering to the rules is done by the MCC and the ICC. Based on my current viewing of test match cricket over the last 12 months, and indeed longer, I think there are some rules of the game that require immediate attention by the framers of the laws.

For the uninitiated: the Marylebone Cricket Club is the framer of the Laws of Cricket and they apply to all two innings matches. The International Cricket Council has supplemented those laws with the Standard Playing Conditions for Test Matches and the Standard Playing Conditions for One Day Internationals.

The last major changes to the laws occurred on 30 September 2010 when the law regarding bad light, among other laws, was amended to grant the umpires sole discretion on the issue of whether the light is too dangerous for play to continue.

There are three changes to the Laws of Cricket / the Standard Playing Conditions for Test Matches that I would like to see implemented for the good of the game. They are:

1. Use of Substitute Fielders

Law 2: Substitutes provides:

In cricket, a substitute may be brought on for an injured fielder. However, a substitute may not bat, bowl, keep wicket or act as captain. The original player may return if he has recovered. A batsman who becomes unable to run may have a runner, who completes the runs while the batsman continues batting. Alternatively, a batsman may retire hurt or ill, and may return later to resume his innings if he recovers.

This Law has been amplified in the Standard Playing Conditions in this way:

If a fielder fails to take the field with his side at the start of the match or at any later time, or leaves the field during a session of play, the umpire shall be informed of the reason for his absence, and he shall not thereafter come on to the field during a session of play without the consent of the umpire. (See Law 2.6 as modified). The umpire shall give such consent as soon as practicable.

If the player is absent from the field for longer than 8 minutes:

2.2.1 the player shall not be permitted to bowl in that innings after his return until he has been on the field for at least that length of playing time for which he was absent. Such absence or penalty time absent shall be carried over into a new day’s play and in the event of a follow-on or forfeiture, this restriction will, if necessary, continue into the second innings.

2.2.2 the player shall not be permitted to bat unless or until, in the aggregate, he has returned to the field and/or his side’s innings has been in progress for at least that length of playing time for which he has been absent or, if earlier, when his side has lost five wickets.

The restriction in clauses 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 above shall not apply if the player has suffered an external blow (as opposed to an internal injury such as a pulled muscle) whilst participating earlier in the match and consequently been forced to leave the field. Nor shall it apply if the player has been absent for very exceptional and wholly acceptable reasons (other than injury or illness).

In the event of a fieldsman already being off the field at the commencement of an interruption in play through ground, weather or light conditions or for other exceptional circumstances, he shall be allowed to count any such stoppage time as playing time, provided that he personally informs the umpires when he is fit enough to take the field had play been in progress.

Similarly, if at the commencement of an interruption in play through ground, weather or light conditions or for other exceptional circumstances, a player is on the field but still has some unexpired penalty time remaining from a previous absence, he shall automatically be allowed to count any such stoppage time as playing time.

2.2.3 Substitute fielders shall only be permitted in cases of injury, illness or other wholly acceptable reasons. ‘Wholly acceptable reasons’ should be limited to extreme circumstances and should not include what is commonly referred to as a ‘comfort break’.

If the current Ashes series is anything to go by the restriction on being off the field for more than 8 minutes is being used as a basis to subvert Standard Condition 2.2.3. Players from both sides in this series appear to take one over jaunts off the field seeming at will and at times whenever they choose. A good example is the case of Graeme Swann who appears to be off the field consistently in the over before he is called on to bowl. What could he be doing in the change room that would constitute a “wholly acceptable reason” as defined in 2.2.3. Swann is not the only offender but at the moment is not in breach of the laws because he is only off for one over and thus is not in breach of the 8 minute limitation set by the rules.

I would simply amend the Standard Condition here by removing the reference to the 8 minute rule. These players are professional cricketers: surely they can prepare themselves for a session of play, particularly given the massive about of support staff they have supporting them, and that preparation should include the emptying of ones bladder or getting a massage preparatory to bowling.

A mockery is being made of the laws at the moment and this change must be made.

2. Who can be a substitute fielder?

I have already set out the Law of Cricket dealing with substitute fielders above. Standard Playing Condition 1.2 deals with the nomination of players and provides:

1.2.1 Each captain shall nominate 11 players plus a maximum of 4 substitute fielders in writing to the ICC Match Referee before the toss. No player (member of the playing eleven) may be changed after the nomination without the consent of the opposing captain.

1.2.2 Only those nominated as substitute fielders shall be entitled to act as substitute fielders during the match, unless the ICC Match Referee, in exceptional circumstances, allows subsequent additions.

1.2.3 All those nominated including those nominated as substitute fielders, must be eligible to play for that particular team and by such nomination the nominees shall warrant that they are so eligible.

1.2.4 In addition, by their nomination, the nominees shall be deemed to have agreed to abide by all the applicable ICC Regulations pertaining to international cricket and in particular, the Clothing and Equipment Regulations, the Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel (hereafter referred to as the ICC Code of Conduct), the Anti-Racism Code for Players and Player Support Personnel, the Anti-Doping Code and the Anti-Corruption Code.

Can anyone explain to me why a team needs 4 substitute fielders? In the current Ashes series we have seen the England Fielding Coach on the field at semi-regular intervals as a substitute. I have two problems with that:

1. How can it be within the spirit of the game to employ a specialist fielding coach to help rest your players during the course of the game. The replacement of a tired fast bowler with one of the best fielders in England can hardly be fair can it?

2. It makes an absolute mockery of the tradition of selecting a 12 man team for the game to be played.

I would make an amendment to the law in this way:

1. I would reduce the number of substitutes back to 1 substitute being allowed per team as a maximum with each teams having the ability to name an “emergency” fielder in the event that 2 of their players get injured.

2. I would place a limitation on who can be a substitute fielder. My limitation would be to the effect that the substitute fielder may only be nominated in place of the official 12th man of the team in circumstances only where the named 12th man can play in a first class game else where whilst the test is being played AND the player nominated is a player from within the playing portion of the squad of an away country OR the player nominated is a player from within the state, province or county squad based at the ground at which the game is being played.

3. The imbibement of drinks at the fall of a wicket OR upon a DRS referral OR upon any other break in play

I have long been frustrated by the phalanx of “runners” that invade the field with eskies and drinks coolers at the fall of each wicket or when there is a DRS review or any time at all that any player is feeling a little thirsty.

Standard Playing Condition 15.3 is instructive and provides:

An individual player may be given a drink either on the boundary edge or at the fall of a wicket, on the field, provided that no playing time is wasted. No other drinks shall be taken onto the field without the permission of the umpires.

There is no other law in the game that is flouted more than this. Equally there is no other law in the game (DRS shenanigans aside) that receives more comment that this, at least from the guys I watch cricket with.

I come back to this point: these are professional cricketers nay they are professional athletes. The game has always been played in 2 hour sessions and their bodies should be conditioned to the rigours of a two hour stint in the field. I will not be convinced that a drink every time a wicket falls is necessary: I mean in a session when a wicket does not fall, when one would presuppose the fielding team is working harder because there has been no wickets, the fielding team does not get a drink do they?

I would amend the Standard Playing Condition to remove the words “or the fall of a wicket, on the field”. I would also consider removing the ability of the players to request a drink but would simply empower the umpires to decline such a request rather than the accession to each request that seems to happen now.

So they are my rule changes: I have been harping on about them long enough on twitter and to mates that it was time to put them down on the blog.

Many of you will have been expecting me to write about the DRS here. Enough has been written about it already for mine and I see no benefit in rehashing that old ground. My personal view has remained the same since its introduction: it should either be used to review every decision or not used at all.