How is what evidence of anything?How is that evidence of anything at all, though?
I'm mainly saying that Erasmus made a bad decision without properly considering the evidence, and had the DRS been more of a conversation he might have made a better decision. After all he possibly didn't even know the reason why Dar didn't give it out and may have thought he just misjudged the line of the ball and had made a howler.
I think that Dar showing dissent at the decision is some evidence that the decision was bad - after all, as was often pointed out in the past (when the debate over the merits of technology was more finely balanced than it is now) the onfield umpire does have a view unavailable to television - ie. a three dimensional view (albeit obviously with the limitations of seeing it once, and at pace). It is the reason why DRS works best as it does (needing clear evidence to overturn a decision), rather than decision making being completely subcontracted to the technology.
Last edited: