Matt Prior frustrated as technology proves a letdown

IS it possible to show dissent to a piece of machinery? That will be one for Ranjan Madugalle, the match referee, to ponder after this game.

IS it possible to show dissent to a piece of machinery? That will be one for Ranjan Madugalle, the match referee, to ponder after this game.

When England appealed for a catch behind by Matt Prior yesterday off David Warner, pulling hard at Stuart Broad, they called for a review when their appeal was turned down.

The replays showed no evidence of an edge on Hot Spot, so the review also went against them. A later verdict from Snicko, the technology not available to the third umpire, suggested that Warner had indeed edged the ball and that England had been right to call for the review.

The expressions of disbelief from England's players when the verdict came back clearly showed their unhappiness at the decision. It was the rough equivalent, in the good old pre-DRS days, of a batsman stomping off, shaking his head and looking at his inside edge after a dodgy leg-before decision.

If such obvious disrespect was made against an on-field umpire, the case for dissent would have been clear. In this instance, though, the England players were clearly expressing their lack of respect for a piece of technology, as confidence in Hot Spot has all but disappeared, from players and umpires alike. "There was disbelief because he hit it, that's why we referred it," Prior said after play. "When you are that sure, and it is still given not out, it is quite frustrating, so that's why there was a bit of chat around.

"Cooky and I were adamant he hit it and Snicko shows he did. It is pretty frustrating for everyone at the moment." The point of using technology to reduce the number of poor decisions was that the machines could judge better than men. If, as Prior believed yesterday (Sunday), human judgment was superior, the trust will not easily be regained. The inventor of Hot Spot has conceded that improvements need to be made and it is difficult to see the system surviving in its present format.

"I'm a big fan of DRS," Prior said. "But once it goes up to the third umpire, the decision that comes out has to be correct. Whether the technology needs to be looked at or how they use it, I don't know. But for the players that is the biggest frustration." Despite the recent litany of failings, from the system and those operating it, the fates of the players will remain in the hands of the machines for the rest of the series. Having been let loose on the game, there are disturbing suggestions that the machines may be exerting subtle control over the human mind.

How else to explain the aberration on the first day here when Kumar Dharmasena, the third umpire, failed to reprieve Usman Khawaja, despite glaring evidence that the batsman had missed the ball? Sitting alone in his eyrie, surrounded by those machines, the third umpire is particularly vulnerable to their influence.

There was further evidence in the morning session yesterday (Sunday) that the machines may be influencing human behaviour when Stuart Broad was dismissed, pushing forward to an off break from Nathan Lyon, the ball faintly brushing his outside edge on the way to Brad Haddin.

This is the same Broad who, during the first Test, had remained rooted to the spot when he edged to first slip. This time, however, Broad did not turn away in mock surprise at Australia's appeal. He walked. And he kept walking.

Perhaps the machines, having played their part in exposing Broad's brass neck at Trent Bridge, are working in a positive manner for the spirit of the game after all, bringing about profound changes in human behaviour that had previously been thought impossible. Maybe they should be respected by us all.

The Times