FTM Disco Pants

The whole idea of the review system was, I thought, to eliminate the element of human error in the decision making part of the game. Why then should each side only be allowed two incorrect reviews per game? It completely defeats the purpose of the review system.

I understand that the whole idea of limiting the number of reviews per team per innings is to help maintain a certain level of fluidity in the game. But surely, especially in Test match cricket, the emphasis should be on achieving the correct decision. In Twenty20 cricket or even 50-over cricket there is an argument to say that the pace at which the game is played should be of paramount importance but that argument cannot be applied to the five-day game.

On the third morning of the first Test Mike Hussey should have been given out for LBW. It looked plum to the naked eye and the review system quickly showed that it was. Except it wasn’t given by the umpire and England had used all two of their reviews for the innings, so Hussey was allowed to go on and make that brilliant 195.

My point is that just because England had previously made two incorrect reviews, why should they be punished for an incorrect umpire’s decision? It didn’t take long, less than a minute, for it to become clear to all those watching on TV that the incorrect decision had been made. Why then could the third umpire not signal to his on-field colleagues that Hussey should be sent back to the dressing room?

My suggestion is that we take the review system out of the hands of the players/captains. Allow the third umpire to overturn incorrect decisions when he sees fit and we can then get back to the whole point of the review system; eliminating the possibility of human error in the umpires decision making.