ICC annual conference June 27, 2011

Agreement on DRS after Hot Spot is made mandatory

248

The ICC chief executives' committee (CEC) has unanimously agreed to make a modified version of the Decision Review System (DRS) mandatory in all Tests and one-day internationals. The mandatory terms and conditions for the DRS that have been recommended to the executive board for approval consist of infra-red cameras and audio-tracking devices. The ball-tracking technology has been removed from the ICC's original compulsory list of DRS technologies.

This means India will, for the first time since 2008, be agreeable to using the DRS in a bilateral series when it tours England in July.

However, the DRS used in the England-India series will be without ball-tracking technology. For example, if the ball pitches outside leg stump and the batsman is given lbw, he can appeal against the verdict but the third umpire will not have the benefit of ball-tracking technology to ascertain where the ball pitched. On the other hand, if a batsman is given lbw and he thinks he hit the ball, the Hot Spot will resolve whether there was an edge or not.

The pitch mat was brought up during the discussion as the one element of the ball-tracking technology that could be used in the DRS so that the lbw could be covered using two technologies. It was, however, rejected by the BCCI, which did not want any element of the ball-tracking technology to be part of the modified mandatory requirements for the DRS.

While Hot Spot is the only infrared, thermal-imaging camera available in cricket, audio tracking referred to the high quality "clean and real time" replays from the stump microphones, and not the Snicko, an ICC official confirmed.

The CEC, which also approved the cricket committee's recommendation to reduce the number of unsuccessful reviews in ODIs from two to one, decided that the continued use of the ball-tracking technology as a decision-making aid will depend on the bilateral arrangement between the participating teams. Further independent and expert research will be carried out into the accuracy and reliability of ball-tracking technology.

A decision on how the cost of the DRS would be divided will be taken later. Last week, BCCI vice-president Niranjan Shah had said that the cost of using the DRS was as high as $60,000 per match. According to the ICC, however, that figure is closer to $5000 per day, with a maximum of $25,000 being spent on DRS per Test.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • spinkingKK on June 30, 2011, 10:14 GMT

    I thought Ball tracking is same as the hawkeye. But, the writer of this article says that without the Ball tracking, they won't be able to tell if the ball pitched outside the leg or not. I thought that is an entirely different technology where they just draw a shade between wickets and stop the video when the ball pitches and find out where the ball was pitching. If a DRS is going to be used without this technology, then it a joke of the year. To find out the inside edge (hotspot) and to findout where the ball was pitching and whether or not the pad hit the ball outside the line of the offstump should be the most fundamental aspects of DRS.

  • on June 30, 2011, 4:35 GMT

    from the subject of Discussion on DRS the topic is somhow changed to playing capability of Indian cricketers,many people saying that Indians play with pad more than bat. they are talking about legends like sachin lakshman dravid. they better understand that they know how to play more than any other cricketer. And talking about hawk eye, India has suffered and we have seen it in this worldcup. its not about how correct it is,either go for technology fully or leave LBW to the umpire. mixing both is causing cricket, we love cricket because of its simplicity and LBW system is makin it complex. Stand of SAchin was always same,and why India refused UDRS in most series only because there werent hot spot or snickometer. and without these only LBW descion was possible and we saw this in Worldcup. even there also lots of wrong decision were taken

  • BustIPL on June 29, 2011, 4:34 GMT

    Still feel that all three technologies i.e. sniko, hotspot and hawkeye should be used together and only upmires should be allowed a decision review. It will help umpires do so some self check in case of doubt. A remote device can be disigned which gives umpire some indication either green or red light. This can be a percentage which will endorse umpires decision. It is disgusting that umpires are treated like servants which is against the very nature of the game where umpire's decision is deemed final.

  • poderdubdubdub on June 28, 2011, 16:10 GMT

    I dont think DRS is fully effective without the use of the ball-tracking technology. How the LBW decisions would get resolved without knowing where the ball pitched? Alas money plays such a big role in forcing stupid decisions!!!

  • on June 28, 2011, 15:19 GMT

    We've seen evidence of hotspot failing many times. In the very last test between England and Sri Lanks hotspot failed. The opener nicked it, hotspot showed nothing, snicko gave a clear edge (high peaked impact noise) just as the ball passed the bat. The three technologies need to be used together, and people need to understand that there will NEVER BE PERFECTION. Hawkeye is very good - probably the most accurate of the three technologies. It is proven to be far better than the Umpires eye alone, it is accepted without question in tennis. This is not fact V fiction. Hotspot is not "fact" it makes mistakes, as I mentioned above, as will snicko when used alone. We have three senses to bring into play here. sight, sound and touch. Let's use them all. @ crikkfan - this is not an "either/or" situation. It's a "some/all" situation. THis is probably the worse of all situations, and shows the ICC as cowering wimps in the face of BCCI bully tactics. An utter disgrace!.

  • simpleguy2008 on June 28, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    I request BCCI to please go for the hawk eyes for the LBW decision bcoz there will be more appealing for lbw decision as indian batsman play with their pads rather then using their bats.

  • thaamansaranya on June 28, 2011, 10:43 GMT

    This clearly shows that BCCI follows Sachin Tendulkar's Views... Eariler, Sachin stated DRS are not 100% errorfree, so, it will not be correct if we use the system..Now, Sachin says I am not against DRS, (if) provided Snicometer and Hot spot....

    Sachin, You rule Indian cricket both "On the field as well as Off the filed"...

    Really the "GOD" of Cricket...

  • heat-seeker on June 28, 2011, 8:29 GMT

    As a few others have noted, Sharda may be wrong here... the pitch mat on replays is not Hawkeye per se. We could still use the pitch mat for the TV umpire to review if the ball pitched outside leg stump on an lbw shout.

  • heat-seeker on June 28, 2011, 8:28 GMT

    As a few others have noted, Sharda may be wrong here... the pitch mat on replays is not Hawkeye per se. We could still use the pitch mat for the TV umpire to review if the ball pitched outside leg stump on an lbw shout.

  • randika_ayya on June 28, 2011, 8:01 GMT

    @mrmonty: Ball tracing is not thrown under the bus at all :) ust that India 'agreed' to implement DRS in matches that they play without it. All other full member nations WILL use ball tracking in matches that DO NOT involve India, whos eego was too large to accept ball tracking since playing it down for a while, but needed to ensure DRS for the England tour after allegedly been hard done in the first test in WI

  • spinkingKK on June 30, 2011, 10:14 GMT

    I thought Ball tracking is same as the hawkeye. But, the writer of this article says that without the Ball tracking, they won't be able to tell if the ball pitched outside the leg or not. I thought that is an entirely different technology where they just draw a shade between wickets and stop the video when the ball pitches and find out where the ball was pitching. If a DRS is going to be used without this technology, then it a joke of the year. To find out the inside edge (hotspot) and to findout where the ball was pitching and whether or not the pad hit the ball outside the line of the offstump should be the most fundamental aspects of DRS.

  • on June 30, 2011, 4:35 GMT

    from the subject of Discussion on DRS the topic is somhow changed to playing capability of Indian cricketers,many people saying that Indians play with pad more than bat. they are talking about legends like sachin lakshman dravid. they better understand that they know how to play more than any other cricketer. And talking about hawk eye, India has suffered and we have seen it in this worldcup. its not about how correct it is,either go for technology fully or leave LBW to the umpire. mixing both is causing cricket, we love cricket because of its simplicity and LBW system is makin it complex. Stand of SAchin was always same,and why India refused UDRS in most series only because there werent hot spot or snickometer. and without these only LBW descion was possible and we saw this in Worldcup. even there also lots of wrong decision were taken

  • BustIPL on June 29, 2011, 4:34 GMT

    Still feel that all three technologies i.e. sniko, hotspot and hawkeye should be used together and only upmires should be allowed a decision review. It will help umpires do so some self check in case of doubt. A remote device can be disigned which gives umpire some indication either green or red light. This can be a percentage which will endorse umpires decision. It is disgusting that umpires are treated like servants which is against the very nature of the game where umpire's decision is deemed final.

  • poderdubdubdub on June 28, 2011, 16:10 GMT

    I dont think DRS is fully effective without the use of the ball-tracking technology. How the LBW decisions would get resolved without knowing where the ball pitched? Alas money plays such a big role in forcing stupid decisions!!!

  • on June 28, 2011, 15:19 GMT

    We've seen evidence of hotspot failing many times. In the very last test between England and Sri Lanks hotspot failed. The opener nicked it, hotspot showed nothing, snicko gave a clear edge (high peaked impact noise) just as the ball passed the bat. The three technologies need to be used together, and people need to understand that there will NEVER BE PERFECTION. Hawkeye is very good - probably the most accurate of the three technologies. It is proven to be far better than the Umpires eye alone, it is accepted without question in tennis. This is not fact V fiction. Hotspot is not "fact" it makes mistakes, as I mentioned above, as will snicko when used alone. We have three senses to bring into play here. sight, sound and touch. Let's use them all. @ crikkfan - this is not an "either/or" situation. It's a "some/all" situation. THis is probably the worse of all situations, and shows the ICC as cowering wimps in the face of BCCI bully tactics. An utter disgrace!.

  • simpleguy2008 on June 28, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    I request BCCI to please go for the hawk eyes for the LBW decision bcoz there will be more appealing for lbw decision as indian batsman play with their pads rather then using their bats.

  • thaamansaranya on June 28, 2011, 10:43 GMT

    This clearly shows that BCCI follows Sachin Tendulkar's Views... Eariler, Sachin stated DRS are not 100% errorfree, so, it will not be correct if we use the system..Now, Sachin says I am not against DRS, (if) provided Snicometer and Hot spot....

    Sachin, You rule Indian cricket both "On the field as well as Off the filed"...

    Really the "GOD" of Cricket...

  • heat-seeker on June 28, 2011, 8:29 GMT

    As a few others have noted, Sharda may be wrong here... the pitch mat on replays is not Hawkeye per se. We could still use the pitch mat for the TV umpire to review if the ball pitched outside leg stump on an lbw shout.

  • heat-seeker on June 28, 2011, 8:28 GMT

    As a few others have noted, Sharda may be wrong here... the pitch mat on replays is not Hawkeye per se. We could still use the pitch mat for the TV umpire to review if the ball pitched outside leg stump on an lbw shout.

  • randika_ayya on June 28, 2011, 8:01 GMT

    @mrmonty: Ball tracing is not thrown under the bus at all :) ust that India 'agreed' to implement DRS in matches that they play without it. All other full member nations WILL use ball tracking in matches that DO NOT involve India, whos eego was too large to accept ball tracking since playing it down for a while, but needed to ensure DRS for the England tour after allegedly been hard done in the first test in WI

  • on June 28, 2011, 5:07 GMT

    When politicians head sporting organisations, these kinds of half-baked solutions to crucial problems are inevitable. Once again the might of the Indian money has won the day. I hope all the 50-50 lbw decisions go against India and the team loses the next couple of series' because of bad umpiring and the World no.1 status slips away.That is the only way this arrogant cricket board will come around to the complete implementation of DRS with hawkeye. Otherwise there is no hope for people like me, praying for the right balance between bat and ball in these days of docile pitches.

  • on June 28, 2011, 4:29 GMT

    Now after the ONE UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT...there will be 5 genuine cases where a team WONT BE ALLOWED TO USE THE TECHNOLOGY even though everything is in place...WILL NEED ANOTHER MEETING AFTER 6 MONTHS BY ICC'S Cricket commitee to increase the number of referrals to FOUR.!!!!!!!!!!!...why cant ICC be more intelligent and show some sensible foresight?

  • on June 28, 2011, 4:22 GMT

    viewer frustration will CONTINUE AS ALWAYS....BECAUSE.....NUMBER OF UNSUCESSFUL REVIEWS IS oNLY ONE...ONE...ONE...........SO ALL THIS COST INCURRED AND DISCUSSIONS WILL COME TO A BIG ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOO....IN THE SECOND INSTANCE...........(GOD SAVE CRICKET FROM SUCH ADMISNISTRATORS WHO MAKE ONE CORRECTION AND ADD 3 WRONG DECISIONS TO IT!!!!!!!

  • on June 28, 2011, 4:07 GMT

    I thought it was the ball tracking that got India into Finals when Tendulkar was given not out on a LBW decision against Pakistan.

    Not sure why that was a bother for India.

  • me54321 on June 28, 2011, 2:23 GMT

    Funny listening to all the detractors going on about the cost of DRS, but at the same time insisting on Hotspot. From what I've heard Hotspot is the main reason for the high cost, which is why it wasn't in the minimal requirements for the original DRS. It would be interesting to see the cost of DRS broken down to see how much each element of it is. Anyone know???

  • Jaggadaaku on June 28, 2011, 2:13 GMT

    The DRS really needed the modification and specific definition and meaning. These new modification will bring the revolution in the cricket. They should also specify the LBW rule in DRS. This DRS system still looking little vague in LBW decision.

  • Octa on June 28, 2011, 0:14 GMT

    i fully support this decision - i never trusted the tracker it never seemed to gel with what i could see with my naked eye and id rather agree with the decision made than be confused so going with hot spot and hi def audio (which i found to be one of the best tools anyway) is a great decision - bravo BCCI for sticking to its guns (no im not Indian)

  • TheMightyBradburn on June 27, 2011, 22:05 GMT

    The current HotSpot cost as quoted by the manufacturer is USD 10,000 per day for a four-camera setup or 6,000 for a two-camera installation. At the moment Australia and England broadcasters use four cameras, whilst NZ uses two.

  • crikkfan on June 27, 2011, 21:34 GMT

    popcorn hilarious - ricky ponting as an example? he is an example of how not to be on the cricket field maybe. he couldnt even accept 3rd umpire decision in a more recent event and had an ugly spat with the on-field umpire. thanks to that he has lost any shred of respect among all the cricket world including his very own countrymen - check peter roebuck's articles on him. he finally 'accepted' public demands and gave his resignation as captain i guess. other than that i agree that you have to accept the umpires decision (barring the howlers that can now be vindicated by hotspot/snicko) . This decision finally validates why India (mainly Sachin Dhoni) have been resistant to DRS.

  • on June 27, 2011, 21:27 GMT

    Ths line tracking ruling in the Eng v Ind series sounds a bit dumb. Why do they need line tracking to see whether the ball pitched outside leg stump or not when this can be figured by folks sitting at home in front of their telly without the line tracking?

  • mrmonty on June 27, 2011, 21:19 GMT

    @popcorn, And we know what a gentleman Ricky has been ever since he got that bad decision (hundreds of years ago). btw, I am glad that ball tracking has been thrown under the bus.

  • on June 27, 2011, 21:01 GMT

    The review system may be mandatory but as the article clearly indicates that ball tracking will not be a part of any of India's matches; thus the ball tracking technologiy's use will be up to the 2 participating teams. the ball tracking technology seemed to have eliminated the "strech forward and never be given out" notion. It goes both ways because I'm sure India's spinners would like to have the ball tracking. Anyway I guess half a loaf is better than no bread.

  • beyondcricket on June 27, 2011, 20:22 GMT

    The on field umpires are still the best to judge an lbw decision, obvious errors in judgement like a bat pad or a nick can be eliminated using hot spot and snicko...

  • SRT_GENIUS on June 27, 2011, 20:18 GMT

    @Nampally: "India being a leader in the computer technology" ? And what is "India's current stand in technology" ??? Explain please!!!!

  • on June 27, 2011, 20:07 GMT

    Swann wants it? $60,000 a day? Umpire gets better results? All totally and verify incorrect statements plucked from thin air and going against every piece of evidence and logic - much of which is right here for you to check on cricinfo. How does it help England spinners but NOT Indian ones? Could someone draw me a logic diagram to explain that piece of linguistic/paranoid nonsense.C heck the last series stats (The Sri Lanka series just finished). England were a net LOSER on referrals, as they have been in 4 of the last 5 series it has been used in. If you're prepared to just make up nonsense facts to support your argument and shout people down when they challenge you, in the end your duplicity will be found out.

  • frommoonman on June 27, 2011, 19:23 GMT

    Just think of SRT's LBW appeal in WC SF against Pak - There is NO WAY that ball from Ajmal was going to miss the stumps BUT the Hawk-Eye suggested that it was thus saving Sachin (and India). This alone shows the ball-tracking is not perfect so leave it alone and embrass the Hot-Spot and Real High Fidelity Live Audio (not the Sniko) as they are as close to 100% as it can get.

  • on June 27, 2011, 18:22 GMT

    Well, good decision. Something's better than nothing.

  • crikkfan on June 27, 2011, 17:57 GMT

    Finally good sense prevails. Hawkeye or VirtualEye have always been unreliable. What happens in this scenario - a batsman is not given lbw because main umpire thinks it is bat-pad. If fielding team refers decision, will 3rd umpire give batsman out once he confirms from hot spot that it is not bat-pad , say ? Or because he lacks ball-tracking technology and lets say it is a close lbw and not dead-certain lbw, would he uphold main umpire's decision and give benfit of doubt to batsman? Would main umpire communicate by radio to third umpire that he 'thinks it is out' save for a bat-pad? Thoughts welcome on this scenario. There may be other tricky scenarios - which can be resolved only partially by hotspot or snicko.

  • popcorn on June 27, 2011, 17:57 GMT

    Now the Indians will not keep whining about Umpiring decisions on lbw. The On field Umpire's judgement is final. The use of DRS for snicks is very minimal. So it's back to the gentleman's game of accepting the umpire's decision as final. Ricky Ponting would have got a century on debut were it not for the umpire's poor decision giving him out lbw in the Test against Sri Lanka. He accepted the umpire's decision.

  • Nampally on June 27, 2011, 17:38 GMT

    I am glad to see that BCCI has finally come to its senses and is accepting DRS.Every country had accepted DRS except India. So all the people cannot be wrong all the time.. Also India being a leader in the computer technology should lead the world by setting a good example. BCCI's attitude was totally contrary to India's current stand in technology. I am surprised the ball tracking technology is not being used in the India Vs. England test series starting july 2011. Is the fear of costs involved? Already BCCI have been expecting a sum of $12K/day in implementing the technology instead of $5K/day. The costs should not be of concern to BCCI after making so much profit from IPL alone. India needs more worldly wise people at the helm of BCCI otherwise we will get some real dumb decisions.

  • baskar_guha on June 27, 2011, 17:36 GMT

    Those who think ball tracking (post impact) is reliable, please register for a refresher course in physics. You obviously weren't paying attention the first time.

  • Herath-UK on June 27, 2011, 17:32 GMT

    Great News,vindication to the collective efforts of all countries barring India. Sri Lanka was the first country came out supporting it since the first game DRS was used against India. Ranil Herath - Kent

  • indianpunter on June 27, 2011, 17:23 GMT

    though not optimal, i think this is a step in the right direction and BCCI has finally seen the light ( i hope). It was clear to all and sundry that BCCI was being an ignorant dinosaur and i am sure they have been placated in the ball tracking issue. While hot spot is probably the most fool proof tech, i have serious doubts about ball tracking. How does hawkeye judge the bounce of a 5th day wicket, compared to that of a first day wicket. How does it account for the wind which can change frequently? My 2 cents is that, use hawkeye to see if it pitched in line and maybe the height and leave the rest to the umpire. ( no prediction !!). That plus snicko and hot spot should make it worthwhile.

  • indianpunter on June 27, 2011, 17:21 GMT

    though not optimal, i think this is a step in the right direction and BCCI has finally seen the light ( i hope). It was clear to all and sundry that BCCI was being an ignorant dinosaur and i am sure they have been placated in the ball tracking issue. While hot spot is probably the most fool proof tech, i have serious doubts about ball tracking. How does hawkeye judge the bounce of a 5th day wicket, compared to that of a first day wicket. How does it account for the wind which can change frequently? My 2 cents is that, use hawkeye to see if it pitched in line and maybe the height and leave the rest to the umpire. ( no prediction !!). That plus snicko and hot spot should make it worthwhile.

  • on June 27, 2011, 17:19 GMT

    BCCI have again played a trick here, they have accepted the UDRS but what is the use of UDRS without Hawk eye ??, because they know hawkeye will assist Swann nd other English bowlers on England tour..Shame on BCCI

  • yorkslanka on June 27, 2011, 17:15 GMT

    i dont see why hawk eye is being removed, surely that's like reomoving one of the tyres from the car and expecting it to perform better? is this another result of a tantrum form the bcci as the world is getting used to now?

  • PureTom on June 27, 2011, 17:09 GMT

    They will be able to tell where the ball pitched.If they use hot spot properly it'll show you 100% accurately where the ball pitched, so "line" calls on LBW's could still be debated, but not "length".

  • knan on June 27, 2011, 16:52 GMT

    As per this article quote - audio tracking referred to the high quality "clean and real time" replays from the stump microphones, and not the Snicko, an ICC official confirmed - unquote. So snicko and Hawkeye are not mandatory !!!

  • on June 27, 2011, 16:46 GMT

    lbw referal should be there till point of impact for outside leg stump bowl pitching and inside edges but that will mean only batsman would be able to refer not bowlers or maybe umpires should tell for what they have given it wrong that would be 100% write

  • Dumia on June 27, 2011, 16:45 GMT

    Only reason y Indian players don't like DRS is their ego gets the better of them. All bowlers want to take the reviews without thinking about others and both the openers are definite to waste the two opportunities when batting...

  • Dr.Vindaloo on June 27, 2011, 16:36 GMT

    Can someone please tell me, honestly, why BCCI doesn't like Hawkeye? It is clearly nothing to do with the technology, which is a massive improvement on the human eye, and nothing do with money, which the BCCI has coming out of its ears. Hawkeye is only controversial because the BCCI is determined that it should be. Their position on this is ridiculous, and it is another example of how they leverage their power in the game with no thought at all for their responsibilities to it. They should face up to their responsibilities and stop the odious politicking that they continually indulge in. Let's see how their position changes once Tendulkar and Dravid cop a few rough ones in the upcoming series in England. I think this will have more influence on the BCCI's stance than any financial or technological developments. Pathetic.

  • cscscs312 on June 27, 2011, 16:34 GMT

    Illustrating perfectly why Indians are world leaders in bureaucracy.

  • on June 27, 2011, 16:31 GMT

    The title of this story is in itself wrong. Its a different DRS. 90% of all decisions are LBW's.

    Why don't they just make the 3rd umpire step in, use TV replays and help with decision making. Really...will the 3rd umpire please stand up?

    Else..why waste a seat for him.

  • on June 27, 2011, 16:31 GMT

    It is a huge defeat for BCCI. They have acted as head strong and an organization full of contempt for others. BCCI officials and Indian Batsmen (Not Bowlers) who opposed this with passion must reconcile and accept it. They should work towards improving new technology rather than opposing progress. As to the BCCI officials I suggest go back to organizing corrupt and debauch IPL.

  • DJLillis on June 27, 2011, 16:25 GMT

    To everyone that is going on about how good it is going to be with snicko, read again "audio tracking referred to the high quality "clean and real time" replays from the stump microphones, and NOT the Snicko, an ICC official confirmed."

  • on June 27, 2011, 16:14 GMT

    thanks God we're back to international cricket council from indian cricket council

  • on June 27, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    Perfect. The dodgy Hawkeye is out, and the brilliant Hot-spot is in. Finally, logic and reason have won over irrational demands. Kudos to the Indian Board; I am not a huge fan of them but we must give credit where credit is due

  • on June 27, 2011, 16:07 GMT

    Hot Spot is fine, as are audio tracking devices, but the ball tracker / trajectory map needs to be used for lbw's / catches till the point of impact - that would eliminate obvious errors as well. True, projections, by definition are probabilistic, but usage of technology to depict actual fact should be maximized.

  • simpleguy2008 on June 27, 2011, 15:52 GMT

    ICC how will u go for lbw decisions.

  • on June 27, 2011, 15:35 GMT

    Jeeze... Along with the changes to ODIs this culminates in perhaps the ICCs finest moment, most certainly of recent times.

  • cricsure on June 27, 2011, 15:32 GMT

    Good decision, what's the point in having the tech & not using it, I'd say predicor path tech/hawk eye shd also be used, most of the times commentators use it just to comment, it's being used in other sports like Tennis very succesfully. End of the the right decision has to be made.

  • vverma on June 27, 2011, 15:30 GMT

    Nice. This ensures that a test match between Zimbabwe and New Zealand will never make any money. And given that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe do not have a test series with India and major test teams till 2020, they might as well kiss test cricket good bye. It is also a good incentive for associate teams to quit fooling around in ODI cricket and go back to more useful things. And once we have achieved ICC's grand vision of only Australia, England, India, Pakistan and South Africa playing international cricket, all of these teams would be in the top 5 and everybody will be happy ever after.

  • Venki_indian on June 27, 2011, 15:11 GMT

    Good..BCCI finally forced ICC to take sensible decision..BCCI won the battle :)

  • brittop on June 27, 2011, 15:11 GMT

    To my mind, Hawkeye is more reliable than Hot Spot. We've seen Hot Spot fail to pick up edges that Snicko reveals. And this article does not say that Snicko will be used (presumably because it's still too slow). Also, surely, even if the predictive path (after the pad is struck) element of Hawkeye is not used, the "where the ball pitched" element could be used?

  • NP_NY on June 27, 2011, 15:09 GMT

    @Nayeemul Hossain Choudhury: When you say "Now what will India say", what do you mean? Do you mean the the Indian cricket players or the Indian cricket fans or the BCCI or the Indian politicians or the Indian Gods or Bollywood? Most Indian fans have always been "for DRS and not against". Most Indian cricketers and even BCCI was in agreement with it as far as the right technology is uses. This has forced ICC to consider the best possible technology available which is good for cricket. So get your facts right instead of blindly asking questions.

  • sanath007 on June 27, 2011, 15:08 GMT

    HAWK EYE SHOULD BE THERE AS WELL, AT LEAST WITHOUT THE PREDICTIVE PART TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER A BALL PITCHED IN LINE OR NOT

  • on June 27, 2011, 15:08 GMT

    This is very good decission

  • Jarr30 on June 27, 2011, 15:06 GMT

    Finally BCCI got what they wanted, they desperately wanted HoT spot technology with DRS, which I do not agree on as the HOT SPOt tech is more expensive than DRS. The issue here is that the home side has to brunt all the cost for Hot Spot technology.

  • poderdubdubdub on June 27, 2011, 15:05 GMT

    DRS is here to stay lets improve it, Ball Tracking Technology is a MUST, they will have to bring it back albeit after improvments.I wish all the nations think about developing the game of cricket.

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:59 GMT

    see again, BCCI ruled it, and ruled it so RIGHT! BCCI only had problems with 'Hawk Eye' and thus it's successful in getting it removed from DRS unanimously. BCCI : the uncrowned king of world cricket!

  • S.Gurumurthy on June 27, 2011, 14:58 GMT

    AFTER VERY ELABORATE AND LENGTHY DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS THE I.C.C. HAS DECIDED TO SPEND 25,000/- POUNDS PER TEST WHICH I FEEL TO COSTLY AS MANY COUNTRIES STATED ABOUT POOR ATTENDENCE AND LACK OF SPONSERS FOR THE TEST MATCHES.I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THE NEW DRA SYSTEM SHOULD BE ON EXPERIMENTAL FOR ONE YEAR AND REVIEW THIS SYSTEM BENEFIT THE GAME OR NOT

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:51 GMT

    It is only HotSpot. Not even Snicko as many seem to believe. "While Hot Spot is the only infrared, thermal imaging camera available on cricket, audio tracking, an ICC official confirmed, referred to the high quality 'clean and real time" replays from the stump microphones, not the Snicko." I think as of now Snicko has a lag in terms of synching up the video to the audio to indicate the exact moment when the "spike" occurs. Would lead to too much delay. So now a third umpire will have to listen to 'clean and real time' audio (whatever that means) to decide if it was glove or bat or pad ..or even nothing! Thats weird!!! I was under the impression that HotSpot was an issue because it was developed as a military technology and the Australian government did not want it to be used in "sensitive" countries like the sub-continet. Wonder what has changed.

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:48 GMT

    It will be interesting to check what fraction of the increase in correct decisions came from Hawkeye and how much from the other two technologies. Not too sure this is the way to go. Also, isn't HotSpot much more expensive than Virtual Eye and/or Hawkeye?

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:36 GMT

    Hawk- Eye technology is very successfully used in tennis for the ball tracking. It is very disappointing to see blocking of this.

  • inswing on June 27, 2011, 14:30 GMT

    A compromise that is better than nothing. But the most useful part has been left out due to misunderstanding and lack of education. Ball tracking is extremely reliable and is useful in the most controversial situations. It is shocking that people believe the the project ball path is random or arbitrary. Even sillier is the fact that you cannot check where the ball landed, because it does not involve any projection of the path, only the actual recorded spot. One can only hope that after a few more obviously wrong LBWs, hawk eye will be made mandatory too.

  • Mark00 on June 27, 2011, 14:27 GMT

    Ball tracking is great in theory but people need to realize that the actual line projected on the image is done by a human operator. The operator is not a licensed umpire and is not held accountable to ICC standards for ethics. This is serious problem.

  • Vilander on June 27, 2011, 14:27 GMT

    1,Good job ICC, BCCI happy because predctive fiction of hawk eye is out, rest of the world is happy since drs is in effect. 2,Now the next step is to get some technology similar to hawkeye which finds out where the ball pitched moving in from which direction and swing considering the windpatterns etc, the rest of the trajectory after pitching would have to be based on human judgement on field. 3,Find a way to get top associate nations into the tours mix.

  • CricSamraat on June 27, 2011, 14:26 GMT

    Niranjan Shah convinced his ICC colleagues as the decision is unanimous. Let's stop piling on anyone now. Let's not keep on pontificating endlessly.

  • Stark62 on June 27, 2011, 14:25 GMT

    Why has hawkeye been discarded?

    Do you want umpires to give decisions, which are going above or wide of the stumps?

    Just imagine being given out, when the ball is clearly going over the stumps!

  • chandru66 on June 27, 2011, 14:20 GMT

    How about this for DRS? Every batsman gets to use DRS once and the same for the bowling team as well. They can appeal only once against every batsman. the batsman can appeal again if he is successful the first time. This will avoid people like sehwag using DRS immediately once he is given out and leaving the lower order batsmen with no choice. But when the captain is a bowler like Afridi, then it will again be a problem. Perhaps one appeal against a bataman per bowler rather than the bowling team? Of course, the umpires need to track all these info.

  • Kaze on June 27, 2011, 14:20 GMT

    Nothing is 100% accurate so the people who think that need their heads examined. Snickometer cannot tell you if a sound is ball on bat or ball on pad you, the human, will have to determine it. Hot Spot cannot tell you the same thing too. So it will come down to the decision of a human and that is where silly people will nitpick about the system.

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:18 GMT

    If you thought LBW decisions were on a high before, wait 4 months from now.

  • on June 27, 2011, 14:14 GMT

    Finally DRS made compulsor with slight changes ...

  • SnowSnake on June 27, 2011, 14:12 GMT

    Great decision. I don't care for "sniko", but "hotspot" is very reliable. Just because "Hawk eye" is rejected does not mean that it cannot be considered in future. I think ICC can iron out the review process for hawk eye and may consider it again in future. Delaying the decision on hawk eye may also bring the cost of technology down. Good job by both ICC and BCCI.

  • couchpundit on June 27, 2011, 14:01 GMT

    This whole DRS is a joke... Third umpire needs to intervene pro-actively when howler of a decision is made... and we should do away with Review system. Having 2 reviews means ICC is confident about on-field umpiring decision in which case why do you need DRS?

    Third umpire needs hotspot, snickometer with pitchmap as his tools, and he should be pro-active when a wrong decision is made...there by eliminating on-filed umpiring errors. Third umpire should intervene for wron boundary calls pro-actively saving time.

  • InsideHedge on June 27, 2011, 14:00 GMT

    Credit to the BCCI - what we have now is some consistency. DRS assists the umpires but only when an advanced technology such as HotSpot is available. DRS with only ball-tracking techno is inferior to an umpire making a decision based on his knowledge. Unfortunately, the BCCI is very poor at PR and communications; had they released a press statement explaining the reasons for their opposition, we wouldn't have given birth to a whole new set of haters. Still, some ppl are just plain jealous and will go out of their way to criticise.

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:55 GMT

    It seems that India will do as much as they can to prevent the Swan fella getting wickets against them. They are running scared already.

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 27, 2011, 13:51 GMT

    I would love to know what methods Niranjan Shah used to estimate $60,000 as opposed to ICC stated $5,000 a day for DRS systems in place?? One of them isn't telling you the whole truth.

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:49 GMT

    Good change of stance. Why is ball tracking technology needed merely to determine where the ball pitched wrt the centre line? Any camera could tell you that. We only need to know if it pitched outside the leg stump. The on field umpire would be keen to know and could ask TV umpire.

    There need to be enough hot spot cameras to cover the batsman from all angles otherwise the umpires will be in hot water even for genuinely right decisions.

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:46 GMT

    Hawk Eye technology is better than general Umpire decision. I don't know how BCCI expecting 100% perfect .I had not seen any umpire decision is 100% perfect

  • Pandeyjii on June 27, 2011, 13:41 GMT

    Confirmation to @Aby22 : DRS will NOT be used for the 2nd and 3rd test between India and west indies, in fact it will not be used in any ongoing series whatsoever, it will be used compulsorily in other new series like India touring England (as DRS requires the venue to prepare for the use of the technology, which takes a little time and can not be done overnight, and secondly when a technology is not used for any part of the series and used in other part of the same series it may affect the final outcome of the series which may not give homogenous results for the series).

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:38 GMT

    Nice decision but the controversies will keep on coming!

  • KingOwl on June 27, 2011, 13:38 GMT

    I understand (to some extent) why not to use technology to PREDICT the trajectory of the delivery. But, what I don't understand is why not to use technology to determine where the ball PITCHED. Does not make sense to me at all. Am I missing something? Or is ICC stupid, as usual?

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:38 GMT

    $60,000 a day is utter nonsense. Yes you can win an argument if you begin with a false premise stated as fact. A complete system - bought an PERMANTENTLY installed on a ground costs around $200,000 (or 3 days and one session at the ficticious rate quoted) So $60,000 a day - or $200,000 FOR EVER (i.e less than the cost of having it done on a day-by-day basis for one test or first class match) Ok folks, shall we hire Hotspot for 5x$60,000 = $300,000 for this test match...or buy it OUTRIGHT and have it for every game ever on this ground for $200,000 Ummm, yeah tricky choice... For idiots

  • jagatr on June 27, 2011, 13:32 GMT

    For once, the BCCI got it right! Too often, hawk-eye is used as a 'predictive' tool to 'guess' the line of the ball after pitching/seaming/spinning...if it isn't 100% accurate, leave it to the umpire to decide...he is in the best position, right behind the stumps. Hot-spot is a much better way to use technology - all it does it presents evidence about the point of impact of the ball (bat or pad)....it doesnt make any value judgement or pretend to be able to "predict the trajectory". IMHO, if the umpire cant predict the line/trajectory, not can hawk-eye!

  • diehardcricketfan3 on June 27, 2011, 13:29 GMT

    @ BeatTheChamps: i agree with you...

  • couchpundit on June 27, 2011, 13:28 GMT

    @lonsharim- You sound sensible, but problem with BCCI in accepting Hawk Eye even for figuring out where the ball land's is, then it would mean BCCI has some faith in Hawkeye...thereby leaving its gate open for more negotiation, which i guess they dont want to do.

    But atleast getting DRS on board is way better than having nothing, Over a period we can hope to have more for LBW decision. But my only issue is Since Hawkeye is not 100% perfect to correct erring umpires...why do we have to add additional erroring mechanism to chaos.

  • danuk87 on June 27, 2011, 13:22 GMT

    BCCI please learn the system for your local players first, lolz, other wise it will be same as older one

  • couchpundit on June 27, 2011, 13:21 GMT

    @robheinen - > Funny you are calling hotspot flawed. Can you justify HawkEye? If so i am eager to hear your argument or lack of it with same degree of explanation you had given for Hot Spot.

  • Angad11 on June 27, 2011, 13:18 GMT

    Looks like another victory for BCCI, since they said they will agree to DRS only with the use of HotSpot. Having said that, i totally believe this is a step in the right direction for the benefit of cricket.

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:10 GMT

    DRS cannot change the worst umpiring never ever...

  • TATTUs on June 27, 2011, 13:01 GMT

    Excellent decision. BCCI has had an influence over this decision. A rare occasion when the BCCI has influenced in doing something right. Another decision pending is the case of Ireland.

  • timelord24 on June 27, 2011, 12:53 GMT

    what a stupid decision from the ICC. from now onwards even if the ball hits the batsman a little high on the pads,the 3rd umpire will not have the benefit of hawk eye to look at the trajectory of the ball. in such a situation the hotspot is completely useless.

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:52 GMT

    Excellent decision. But where do people get the idea that snicko is part of the DRS? It has never been a part of DRS and still isn't. They are going to take the audio from stump microphones in real time replays. They are not matching soundwaves to slow mo replays as with snicko. I don't see India's great problem with Hawkeye, perhaps it's because of their spinning pitches that can produce odd deliveries with exaggerated bounce or spin from footmarks etc.. At any rate, i'm quite sure the rest of the test playing nations will happilly keep on using Hawkeye.

    Just waiting now on the WC format i suppose, fingers crossed for the associates!

  • DaveS99 on June 27, 2011, 12:49 GMT

    The example they give for using ball tracking doesn't make sense. Ball tracking is to predict where the ball would have gone if the pad had not intervened. So by not allowing its use to check where the ball had pitched (outside leg stump in the example) is not using ball tracking but looking at a slow motion replay with the mat overlay. Surely it makes sense to allow the system to check facts. I understand the reluctance to depend on predictions, but not facts.

  • SyedKabirHussainy on June 27, 2011, 12:47 GMT

    If you can see number of reversed discisions till today due to DRS, you will notice that 70-80% are LBWs where tracking of projection become mandatory. Its a success of ICC over BCCI towards a point where India will, in future, eventually agree on overall DRS inclusive of ball projection to hit wicket.

  • Andy26 on June 27, 2011, 12:45 GMT

    VICTORY FOR DEMOCRACY!!!!!

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:39 GMT

    Here one Major Point Yet Remain - 2015 WC's 10 Teams..........I am agree with 10 teams WC but also in favor of other teams like Ireland etc.............Here I want to suggest ICC one thing to sort out this - Do qualify 2011 WC top 8 teams for 2015 WC and other two teams space will fill with Qualifying Tournament between 2011 WC 9th, 10th No. Teams and World Ranking No. 11-14 Teams........ Tournament's Top Two Teams will Qualify for WC 2015........Do this Concept Compulsory - Surely It will Improve Cricket and WC Popularity as Well with this ICC can do many thing 1. Worlds Top 10 Top Teams WC......2. Lowest 2 teams need to qualify(any test team).....3. ICC can give chance to non test playing nations.

  • Niall on June 27, 2011, 12:39 GMT

    So it rather looks like ICC stands for the Indian Cricket Council right now.

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:39 GMT

    It's nice to see the ICC taking a leadership role in international cricket matters, which it has been mandated to do; and stop leaving it up to the present vicious cycle where the fittest survives, to the disadvantage of the weak!

  • Ben1989 on June 27, 2011, 12:32 GMT

    Aby, I don't think so, it still hasn't been approved from the board, that's what I gather from above anyway

    refer to this comment in 1st paragraph. (''The mandatory terms and conditions for the DRS that have now been recommended to the Executive Board for approval on Tuesday'')

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 27, 2011, 12:30 GMT

    @ZshanKhan: Hot Spot and Hawk Eye are two different technologies which only mildly complement each other. They're used to give two completely different kinds of decisions. It is good that Hot Spot is being used, but disappointed that Hawk Eye is being rejected (for now). At least it is a step in the right direction.

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 27, 2011, 12:28 GMT

    Good decision to implement at least "part" of the DRS. It is at least a step forward. I am however fully in favour of Hawk-Eye, which I hope becomes standard in the future. At least this is a step in the right direction.

  • Ian316 on June 27, 2011, 12:26 GMT

    finally, the monopoly of the BCCI and MSD has come to an end! about time someone stood up to the minority of players who are "scared" of technology! if you are a good enough player, you should welcome the DRS, as it brings fairness and take away the element of human error. all the more reason why i was surprised by SRT's stand on this.

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:22 GMT

    Not sure why some commentators are getting all worked up and claiming DRS (without Hawkeye) will not apply to LBW decision and will therefore be ineffective. The article seems quite clear that Hot Spot WILL be used to review whether the batsman got an inside edge for a lbw decision.

    The article is less clear about whether line decisions relating to LBW's (e.g. whether the ball pitched outside leg stump, whether the batsman was hit outside the line) can be referred. It seems that that they can be referred but the third umpire has to make up his mind on that question by looking at replays (perhaps with the addition of a pitch mat) to judge whether there is sufficient evidence to overturn the on-field umpires decision.

  • Psychopathetikka on June 27, 2011, 12:21 GMT

    Why have Shahid Afridi and Irfan Pathan become the most popular searches on cricinfo??? Weird..

  • DaisonGarvasis on June 27, 2011, 12:19 GMT

    ICC and all its advocates were successful making it look like BCCI is against DRS. They simply try to ignore the fact that when going to adopt technology ICC was trying to take half of the technology on board. Anyway, with hotspot if there is a nick is there it will be known. Many dubious decisions can be corrected that way. This is all BCCI was asking for. What was strange was ICC's exaggeration on BCCI's stand.

  • on June 27, 2011, 12:19 GMT

    BCCI was always in favor of hotspots and snickometer.....So the coming series against England would be very interesting as DRS would be available... :)

  • shrastogi on June 27, 2011, 12:19 GMT

    Good decisions. I only wish that ball pitched outside leg stump also should come under purview of DRS. Height is questionable but pitching of the ball should be easy to determine.

  • sanjeevmukherjee2006 on June 27, 2011, 12:19 GMT

    i think apart from DRS system, powers should be given to third umpires to see if there was any nick wen a batsman is given lbw or if the bowlers have bowled a no ball by crossing the line.

  • Nutcutlet on June 27, 2011, 12:08 GMT

    @spiritwithin: thank you - you are correct, but the BCCI weren't in favour of DRS and now they are! They must be congratulated therefore on giving ground and paying more than lip-service to the technology - and because I like adverbs and believe (probably naively) that matters are resolved with due propriety among the gentlemen of the ICC, I felt 'graciously' was apt in that it bestows some dignity on those who have conceded the point. Grace is in short supply these days, don't you think? What about the use of the accepted technology for LBs though? That has to be an issue that needs clarification, gracefully done, I would hope!

  • taniap on June 27, 2011, 12:02 GMT

    Finally!!!

    For the record, I don't agree on waiting till everything is perfect to solve an obvious problem. Let's say the ball tracking/hawkeye was flawed, but it still is better than human eye isn't it? Then why not use it until better technology comes? After all that is why there are so many versions of the same product in other areas....

  • Horn.OK.Please on June 27, 2011, 11:59 GMT

    So what's the scene here? People were talking like BCCI owned the world of cricket - no,they did not. Just because they had an opinion that didn't align with the rest of the world.

    It's always good to have a devil's advocate and in this case it was the BCCI.

  • WTEH on June 27, 2011, 11:56 GMT

    Does this means they are going to remove Anwar's 194 from the ODI records. As I can remember Anwar scored only 67 runs by himself until Afridi came as the runner. If they are to make a ruling of the runner, that should have been the match to consider!

  • HarshalBaviskar on June 27, 2011, 11:53 GMT

    Wow, feeling vindicated! Nothing in press release of ICC says that they will not use ball tracking with pitch map. or that it is or is not part of the minimum standard. Disappointing as it is, how can any such thing be "Universal" when it is "subject to availability and commercial considerations"? It still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

  • no_second_chance_for_batsman on June 27, 2011, 11:48 GMT

    GREAT...this was just matter of time and I was waiting to hear about this from ICC.... BCCI has no other option but to accept it & the same is true with some names in current Indian team. ...Cheers, kumar

  • Deva on June 27, 2011, 11:26 GMT

    Well, DRS being made mandatory is good for cricket. But I would liked to have had Hawk eye as well. The contentious point about Hawk eye has been about "how sure is that the ball will travel in the same trajectory and hit the stumps after the point of impact......But instead of creating the virtual ball that will travel towards the stumps, why cannot there be virtual stumps at the point of impact...???? all we want is whether the ball will hit the stumps at the point of impact....and we can achive this if we can have virtual stumps..

  • drak47 on June 27, 2011, 11:25 GMT

    @NUTCUTLET - ''BCCI bowing graciously'' ??? R U for real? I think the world bowed to the BCCI because everyone else wanted Hawke-eye technology to be the forefront of UDRS. Because the BCCI pushed for it, they alone are single handedly responsible for this altered UDRS format. U need to understand the BCCI basically got what they wanted. Certainly didn't bow down buddy.

  • Munkeymomo on June 27, 2011, 11:23 GMT

    So if a ball pitches blatently outside legtump and is given out, and the batsmen refers it, the third umpire can see this obviously. Is the decision overturned? I like hotspot and snicko, necessary technologies, but hawkeye is needed too.

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:17 GMT

    I think it took time but the decision is made at last. Now its necessary to add 'Snicko Meter' technology to trace the edge. Its a good technology to have when its the case of edge. Omitting Hawk eye technology kept the DRS incomplete. It should be introduced soon so that the LBW decisions related to the pitching line of the ball. Overall the good decision is made and we cricket lovers are happy.

  • kumarcoolbuddy on June 27, 2011, 11:17 GMT

    @Neeraj Sharma, you will feel the pain only when you experienc eit. India had that experience in the past and so the result. Just try to understand why India is not agreeing despite so many wrong decision against them. Everyone says that DRS helped INDia in WC but still why BCCI is not agreeing?

  • CSreekumar on June 27, 2011, 11:15 GMT

    Good decision in end. BTW, hawk eye cant be trusted as it wont consider the late swing/spin. Also the 2.5 meter rule for LBW also is a topic for discussion.

  • SudharsanVM on June 27, 2011, 11:14 GMT

    Really a good decision by ICC. Hope ultra slow motion also available

  • rockdworldxi on June 27, 2011, 11:11 GMT

    All of you who are talking abt lbw decision ane inside edges on the pad first read the article n then comment

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:07 GMT

    a great decison by icc but when does the mandotry period start and can hot spot be used on edges on lbw and i think icc and all boards should sit together and look back at hawk eye but atleast what is 100 % correct is there

  • harmske on June 27, 2011, 11:06 GMT

    OMG - what is this? the ICC actually taking decisions, that too good ones! Blimey! What's next, the associates actually getting a qualification round for 2015 WC??? Glad to see hot-spot being included in the Eng-Ind series, along with snicko. Along with the number of referrals being slimmed from 2 to 1 in ODIs. Never thought I'd say this, but well done the ICC!

  • maddy20 on June 27, 2011, 11:06 GMT

    Why no hawk-eye for England tour? Are ECB stricken with poverty? Anyways good decision by the ICC however they should made the hawk-eye compulsory as well. The only problem now is to obtain the required number of hotspot cameras.

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:06 GMT

    The basic facts are that WITH hawkeye, as has already been proved in tennis, players and spectators don't feel cheated by decisions. The amount of controversial decisions on LBWs before this technology was causing more and more animosity between teams given the increased technology available to broadcasters. I really don't understand India's concerns as even if there are inaccuracies, then they are there for both sides. Besides, Hawkeye has helped spinners, traditionally an Indian strength.

  • Sarlana on June 27, 2011, 11:02 GMT

    Yes, it is confirm for the second test staring Tuesday June 2011

  • Poliwag060 on June 27, 2011, 11:00 GMT

    UNLUCKY INDIA! WHEY BETTS!

  • on June 27, 2011, 11:00 GMT

    all the people who r thinking that inside edges in lbw decision will not be not reviewed are totally lost

  • 12kris on June 27, 2011, 10:57 GMT

    The best news for cricket lovers! Now they have only to change that archaic law pertaining to "....the bat or a part of the batsman's body inside the crease at the time of the bails coming off.." to be modified as "....the bat or.....being grounded before the bail comes off, provided there is no attempt by the batsman to reverse direction...." Also the mandatory use of 'hotspot' is what it should be! Thank you ICC!

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:57 GMT

    Sorry but again even after all this....Cricket would be played under different rules in different countries.....is it fair???? BCCI is just throwing its weight around......

  • avinash_vem on June 27, 2011, 10:57 GMT

    @aby22: I guess it will be compulsory only from the England series....

  • mayankjindal on June 27, 2011, 10:55 GMT

    If a batsman is not given out LBW by the umpire because he thinks there is an inside edge and the bowling team thinks otherwise, will they have to first ask the umpire why has he given the decision as not out - due to line decision or ball missing the stumps or due to inside edge? Because they can now only refer in case of an inside edge. And if the umpire thinks it was an inside edge, then does he further state whether he would have given it out if there was no inside edge? Beacuse only point of contact or inside edges can now be referred under DRS. So, if the third umpire concludes through hot-spot that there is no inside edge, then does he ask the on-field umpire that whether in his opionion the ball was going on to hit the stumps? As the third umpire cannot use the ball tracking or give his opinion on the same. This make it a lot confusing...

  • Shan16966 on June 27, 2011, 10:53 GMT

    Cmon, bring hawk eye back in. Spinners will find it harder to get wickets. Somebody was talking about the toothless tiger? Well at least the tiger has chewed something with borrows teeth.

  • ssenthil on June 27, 2011, 10:51 GMT

    Who alla re Making noise about Hawak Eye, Have you all read the Article Headline at least? It's clearly mentioned that Hawak Eye is Optional. Even inside the Article it says "The committee also decided that the continued use of the ball-tracking technology as a decision-making aid, will depend on the bilateral arrangement between the participating teams.". So Stop Whining. More over Hot Spot and Snicko still will be used in LBW Decisions to find there is any inside edge, while the tracking which is not even Accurate of 75% is now made Optional. How people Blindly believe a Technology Tracking which is not even sure it's 75% Accuracy while not believing the Human Judgment? Still I would Like to have a Virtual Eye instead of Hawak Eye, VE can indicate where the Ball is Pitched and where the impact is made. That will reduce the Blunder LBW Decisions when given out if the Ball pitched out side Leg stump. Let Hawak Eye come up with Better Tracking to be Included. Hail BCCI and ICC ;-)

  • Ozcricketwriter on June 27, 2011, 10:49 GMT

    Woot. Woo hoo. BCCI actually admitting to fault.

  • nvpar on June 27, 2011, 10:43 GMT

    About the cost difference of the technology according to ICC and Shah, maybe there is some sort of tax levied in India for the equipment brought in? Can somebody explain? You never know with Indian government :)

  • khurramsch on June 27, 2011, 10:42 GMT

    hawkeye should be used coz half of the decision changed by UDRS was for LBWs for line. now if its not used then when unpires think balls missing stumps & in real it is hitting no body can reverse it if hawkeye not used. its better to make it more corect instead of removing

  • concerned_cricketer on June 27, 2011, 10:41 GMT

    $25000 per test match. What an atrocious waste of money! It will have to be weighed up against the money that comes in from the test matches. And ICC should now invest some money in R&D for a good ball tracking technology.

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:40 GMT

    i agree with lonsharim's comment here. Ball tracking HAS to be used to determine if the ball pitched outside the leg stump as well as if the impact was in line with the stumps. These 2 things will bring decision making with the DRS closer to 100% accuracy than in its current shape of acceptance. Afterall, if the idea is to eliminate howlers (at least) the LBW howlers are usually in the form of pitched outside leg or hit outside off.

  • mightymf2000 on June 27, 2011, 10:37 GMT

    Hawk Eye I think is a MUST for the DRS. As you can refer LBW desicons.

  • CricketMaan on June 27, 2011, 10:34 GMT

    The challenge will be for teams like England, Aust, SA who will opt for both technology, but could get confused as when they play India, they cannot appeal for LBW, but when they play other teams they can..that will confuse the players and captain. ICC still wishy washy...

  • ssenthil on June 27, 2011, 10:31 GMT

    At least they should have made Virtual Eye as mandatory. It will show where the ball is Pitched and Where the Impact is. But then, still it's in the optional List, so the countries Apart from India will get all 3 Technologies.

  • me54321 on June 27, 2011, 10:30 GMT

    It's a watered down version, but something's better than nothing I suppose. I guess the rest of the world will carry on using the full DRS, and the BCCI will carry on being stubborn just because they can, at least until Dhoni and Tendulkar retire. One thing that annoys me slightly is all these people confidently slating hawkeye, and saying how snicko is a must have technology, when everyone who actually knows about the DRS knows that snicko won't be used as it takes a good few minutes to form. Sound technology probably means stump mike, which is considered less reliable than hotspot anyway.

  • timelord24 on June 27, 2011, 10:24 GMT

    hawk eye technologu cannot be used to determine if the ball pitched outside leg stump?

  • rajithwijepura on June 27, 2011, 10:23 GMT

    most of the problems had with LBW decisions. Not with catches (edging). Now with or without DRS doesn't make any different. Now as Mr. BCCI said, DRS is worthless without ball tracking

  • monis11 on June 27, 2011, 10:21 GMT

    No Ball tracking technology? Hotspot & Sniko are true and does the job as defined. If a batsman refers an LBW for review with his right to see an inside edge; camera shows no edge but pitched way down the leg side or ball will miss the stumps by miles; What would be then?

  • ssenthil on June 27, 2011, 10:20 GMT

    Aby22: In the Middle of the series the Arrangements can't be changed. So India vs WI series will go without UDRS

  • PrameshP on June 27, 2011, 10:19 GMT

    I am really happy about that the UDRS will be apply in India Vs England Test series. For Speculator it is badly needed, I want to say Thank you very much to ICC at last you justified what is difference between ICC & BCCI.

  • Ankarvi on June 27, 2011, 10:18 GMT

    DRS without hawk-eye is waste. It would have been better if hawk-eye is also made mandatory. This doesn't make sense according to me.

  • sameer997 on June 27, 2011, 10:18 GMT

    Hawk eye gone..:) no more ridiculous decisions now atlest hot spot is much more conclusive....

  • johnathonjosephs on June 27, 2011, 10:18 GMT

    better than nothing.... let the indians take baby steps

  • correctcall on June 27, 2011, 10:17 GMT

    This means that games against India will be played under different conditions than all other Internationals (assuming everyone else uses UDRS fully as they have in the past). That will degrade all statistics because they will not be on a like for like basis. The decision is better than total outright rejection - but it is only a small step in the right direction. If this is a taste of decision making that can be expected when Srinivasan hegemony is "cemented" in place at the ICC from 2014, then cricket will be poorer for it because it risks losing customers and viewers.

  • rkannancrown on June 27, 2011, 10:16 GMT

    Cricinfo headline leave a lot to be desired. the bone of contention was ICC wanting to ram down HawkEye and now this has been done away with. The ball tracker technology proved to be a disater in the world cup and was found to be no better than the umpire's judgement. it was also unreliable in case of pitches with variable bounce, especially with a batsman playing forward. The insistence on using inadequate technology was at the root of the problem and now this has been accepted by the boards like Australia & England which were campaigning against BCCI.

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:16 GMT

    Fair decission as ball tracking does not take into consideration the nature of the pitch and it gives uniform lenth on all the five days with out taking the pitch detoriation. test match is all about 4th days pitch and 5th days pitch which desides the fate of the test.

  • Evilpengwinz on June 27, 2011, 10:15 GMT

    Think this is a brilliant decision, keeps the teams who are happy with the current system happy, and keeps the BCCI happy too. Wonder if there'll be DRS without Hawkeye when India come over here next month now.

  • Naren on June 27, 2011, 10:12 GMT

    It is ridiculous to leave out Hawk Eye completely. Ateast they should have used it to determine if it pitched outside leg. That would remove one of the shocker. They are only saying the predictive path after it hits the pad is not 100% reliable. Why not use it to atleast determine where the ball pitched outside leg or even if it hit in line with the stumps etc?

  • hattima on June 27, 2011, 10:11 GMT

    Hawk-eye should have included minus the predictive part. That's the part that many players do not like, and for very good reasons. It's human prediction vs prediction by a software which hardly takes account of factors like uneven bounce, bowler's individual variation, weather etc. I was once horrified seeing a batsman being hit on a full and being given LBW on the basis of the predictive element of the Hawk-eye. There is no evidence, statistical or otherwise, that the predicitve element of Hawk-eye is any better than an elite pannel umpire.

  • reginphilip on June 27, 2011, 10:09 GMT

    finally!! very good, but lbw decision should also be subject to DRS. But atleast edges, catches, etc. can be referred now. How many referals can a team make in an innings?

  • vivek461 on June 27, 2011, 10:08 GMT

    many cric fans including me are happy and relieved today by icc & bcci.

  • Smithie on June 27, 2011, 10:07 GMT

    This result simply requires the rest of the ICC Elite umpiring panel to follow on the great work of Daryl Harper to force India to see the overwhelming benefits of Hawk Eye. Keep up the good work Daryl in the 2 &3rd Tests against the West Indies.

  • spiritwithin on June 27, 2011, 10:07 GMT

    @randika_ayya...>>>What about LBW decisions in which an edge is involved? Are they beyond DRS too for the India-England tour?>>> y dont u read the whole article clearly before asking these kinda questions?its written CLEARLY that when edges r involved the player can refer to hotspots & snickometer,and its also written that UDRS will be used in ind-eng series

  • CharlieAlanJakeHarperFamily on June 27, 2011, 10:06 GMT

    @randikayya buddy bcci was always against hawkeye/virtualeye now than its removed its a win-win situation for us and if u dont understand plain english dont hoot and blabber nonsensical words got that bud

  • Gully_11 on June 27, 2011, 10:06 GMT

    Lovely....Now it will be more fun to watch the game. No more bad lucks for batsmen as well as bowlers....cheers.

  • rohiitian on June 27, 2011, 10:02 GMT

    The idea is to eliminate howlers. Now the delivery pitching way outside legstump, or which is definitely missing the stumps, either going over or by the side is going to be ignored if given out. Pointless. They have to include the non-predictive aspect of Hawk-eye. Anyway only India, its opposition and the viewers will suffer. Im certain all other nations will play with Hawk-eye given that its optional, and this decision has been made to appease BCCI.

  • Munsta101 on June 27, 2011, 10:02 GMT

    The player can still refer ANY decision if he wishes. So yes of course if the batsman has nicked it on to his pad and been given out LBW, the decision will be reversed by the evidence provided by Hotspot and/or Snicko. If the batsman gets given out LBW and he thinks it hit him outside the line then he can still refer the decision but it will be unlikely to be reversed without Hawk-Eye. Whether the third umpire would overturn such decisions just by viewing the replay in slow motion without the aid of Hawk-Eye I assume will be up to the individual umpire.

  • Provenance on June 27, 2011, 10:01 GMT

    Any sarcastic or acidic comments from Indian/Non-Indian fans is totally uncalled for. Yes, BCCI agreed to (or rather in a subtle way was made to agree to) the use of DRS. Hot Spot is the best technology available. True that Ball tracker from Hawk Eye gives good results in many cases but in certain conditions like: (i) reverse swing on a dead sub-continent pitch (ii) an instance when Brendan Nash was out LBW when the ball didn't bounce at all in Sabina Part test; and (iii) strong wind blowing side ways when a bowler bowls a drifter.There will be many more instances....Hawk Eye can never predict that..It may be beneficial for the likes of Swann but people who bowl lot of arm balls or doosra? (remember Ajmal's overturned LBW in WC SF match?) or Wasim Akram...with his reverse swinging deliveries...impossible.... ..but can't stop laughing as poor Hawk Eye owners were the first to come in and then came Hot Spot... LoL

  • Prats6 on June 27, 2011, 10:01 GMT

    Good beginning , just a question what happens if an inside edge is given out? Worth a challenge or not?

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:00 GMT

    It is not clear what is meant by 'Hawk-Eye optional in modified version'. Does it mean that in some matches it will be used and in some matches it will not be used?. Ball tracker system was immensely helpful to the on-field umpires to take a correct decision. It was used in establishing 1. whether the ball had pitched outside the line of leg stump 2.whether at the time of impact ball is in line of the stumps or outside the line of stumps 3. if it is hitting the stumps or not etc. etc. If this facility is taken away from the umpires a lot of controversies will emerge again in LBW decisions as before. If we take a look at the recently concluded series the most decisions reversed were LBW decision. Young players careers will be at stake again if wrong decisions are given against some potential future stars.

  • on June 27, 2011, 10:00 GMT

    he....lol....lol India made to eat humble pie....hurray!!!!!! to the ICC - well done! stick to your guns and dont be a toothless tiger in Indias den.

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:57 GMT

    For those of you who are wondering if inside edges (for lbws) can still be referred, I suggest you all to read the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the above article before panicking ("On the other hand, if a batsman is given out lbw and he thinks there is an inside-edge involved, he can get the decision reviewed since Hot Spot can resolve whether there is an edge.") Does that convince you people???

    Despite the fact that UDRS has been agreed upon, I'd still say it is advantage BCCI...

  • Makkered on June 27, 2011, 9:56 GMT

    To all People who think BCCI was against UDRS. please read carefully the BCCI statement. They are against HAWK Eye not against Hot Spot or Sicko'... Please read before jumping....Blind people.

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:56 GMT

    I CANNOT BUT FATHOM INDIA'S RELUCTANCE TO USE DRS,WE PROBABLY WERE THE TEAM WORST AFFECTED BY BAD DECISIONS, AND LOGICALLY SHOULD HAVE OPTED FOR THE DRS LONG BACK, ANYWAY BETTER LATE THAN NEVER, THE DRS IS NOW MADE MANDATORY AND IT IS REALLY GOOD FOR CRICKET, NOBODY SHOULD FEEL CHEATED IN AN INTERNATIONAL MATCH,HAWK EYE CANNOT BE 100 PERCENT TRUE AS PITCH CONDITIONS ARE SO VERY DIFFERENT ROUND THE WORLD, THAY MAY HAVE TO PUT PRESSURE SENSORS UNDER THE PITCHES TO GET A CORRECT VIEW OF THE BALL,TO MUCH FOR A GENTLEMEN'S GAME I SUPPOSE, WELL WE CERTIANLY NOW LOOK FORWARD TO ERROR FREE GAMES IN FUTURE. RAVI N PRASAD.

  • Makkered on June 27, 2011, 9:47 GMT

    Worth a lot rather than spending in Hawk Eye technology. Great decision.

  • spiritwithin on June 27, 2011, 9:47 GMT

    @Nutcutlet..''BCCI bowing graciously'' is not the appropriate word to describe coz BCCI was always in favor of HOTSPOTS & SNICKOMETER

  • Aby22 on June 27, 2011, 9:47 GMT

    Can anyone confirm whether the DRS will be compulsory for the 2nd test between India and west indies ?

  • Salim_123 on June 27, 2011, 9:46 GMT

    At last the ICC has agreed to the majority. However, the bulk of the complaints come from LBW decisions which is not there and as seen in the Worl Cup lot of decisions which were genuine LBW were not given out but reversed due to DRS. SO ICC is clever has agreed but ensured that BCCI are also kept happy.

  • spiritwithin on June 27, 2011, 9:45 GMT

    good that hawk eye is discarded,hotspot,snickometer is a 100% accurate technology and will be used to check edges,inaccurate hawk eye if used then its better to go with umpires,facts over probability

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:44 GMT

    so they are going to spend thousands of dollars for next to zero improvement in the game? sounds like the worst possible outcome.

  • lonsharim on June 27, 2011, 9:43 GMT

    I think its a fair compromise and progress. Countries that have more faith in ball tracking technology will still opt for it in their bilateral series while India will stick to Hot Spot and Snicko At least DRS is now mandatory for all international matches with a bare minimum agreed by all boards I think the mandatory requirements could have been increased just slightly for ball tracking, i.e use it at least to assist umpires determine where the ball has pitched. If it is outside the leg stump for example then its clearly not out. If the impact has been outside the offstump and the batsman has offered a shot then it is not out. To reject ball tracking completely and taking LBW decisions outside DRS is not very clever. I accept in good faith India's objections with Hawk Eye. India does not want to trust the predictive element of bounce and variation is fair enough. But can it not tell with 100% accuracy where the ball pitched?

  • robheinen on June 27, 2011, 9:41 GMT

    That is a lot of money just for the satisfaction of spoiled lookers-on. And if you really scrutinise the system you'll find that ithas as much margin of error as a normal umpire does. Take the example of the ball hitting the bat outside hotspot's view and being caught behind. It will be given not out, whereas the umpire - having viewed the same situation from a different angle - will give it out. A review will turn over his decision. Or the situation where a bat hits the still hard pitch as the ball passes by with the blade of the bat covering the the spot where the ball passes it. There will be a sharp noise registered by snicko, without the ball hitting the bat.The original decision from the umpire - not out - will be unjustly overturned. These example only go to show that technology has its flaws, since the ultimate decision will always be made by men. And humans are fallible and always will be. Rememeber the Daryll Harpers volume switched off.

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:40 GMT

    Excellent decision by ICC given the current situation on the subject. DRS is great for the game but Hawk Eye was always controversial therefore leaving out LBW's decision to umpires is a good one, although it will still remove howlers such as bat-pad given LBW's..but feel sorry for Mr.Swaney as he will miss out on quite a few wkts when they play IND next month since Hawk Eye has helped him quite considerably in past...but again BBCI has shown its power weight behind this decision as ICC delivered what exactly BCCI wanted... nevertheless its a way forward and better than nothing.

  • ShibuM on June 27, 2011, 9:38 GMT

    Niranjan Shah is using Alien technology? BCCI is one of the main reason we cannot develop much on cricket.

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:38 GMT

    gr888888888888888888888888

  • randika_ayya on June 27, 2011, 9:38 GMT

    Manohar exposed for lying about Hawk-eye cost per game! What about LBW decisions in which an edge is involved? Are they beyond DRS too for the India-England tour?

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:35 GMT

    BCCI wins the DRS battle !!!!!!!!!

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:32 GMT

    There we go....DRS will take lot of burden away from onfield umpires....

  • BeatTheChamps on June 27, 2011, 9:30 GMT

    'DRS made mandatory' seemed like great news but on reading the details, it's like anti-climax. Ball tracker not mandatory, means the main reason for which DRS was used, i.e. giving LBW decisions, will still be done by on field umpires. What remains is close in catches and edges. It will be useful to get help of technology in noisy subcontinent but in places like England, it ain't gonna make much difference..

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:30 GMT

    That is way too expensive for one match. Wrong decisions are as much a part of Cricket as any other parameter which the player can't influence. Let's admit it, we wouldn't be screaming down the Aussies if not for the 2007 Sydney test ;-)

  • tick on June 27, 2011, 9:29 GMT

    1-bcci a rich board is complaining of cost of drs???2-what is that indian are afraid of lbw decision...they complain so highly of bells lbw but forget tendulkars lbw turned down and umpire was as shocked as saeed ajmal that he bowled doosra u can check replays..how the hell ball turned offspin..????any answers

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:28 GMT

    phew tht's gud news, in the whole scenario it's the edges tht matters so lbw decisions let them be with the umpire anyways hoping for a fair india england series now :P yoohoo

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:27 GMT

    Congratulations to all who support this DRS system.

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:25 GMT

    Great stuff BCCI...thumbs up for making DRS mandatory. I would have liked that Hawk-Eye included as well.

  • ARIF3011 on June 27, 2011, 9:24 GMT

    DRS for ball tracker will not be used for checking lbw judgement of umpire. However hot spot technology will be used fully. What if a batsman edges the ball onto his pads but umpire gives him out lbw? Hot spot review would declare him not-out, but the lbw decision is completely the on-field unpire call. so it is waste of having hot-spot review. I am totally confused. Why they can't have all possible technologies applicable in the DRS?

  • candyfloss on June 27, 2011, 9:24 GMT

    One more thing, There is ambiguity as to whether the only the ball tracker has been done away with which is mostly based on presumption,I still hope they do use the pitch map to detect where the ball has pitched and hawk eye only to determine the point of impact whether in line or not.Hope there are clarifications regarding this.

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:23 GMT

    So the BCCI have finally done something that is good for the game! :-)

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:22 GMT

    Way to go ICC.....but ind-eng series should also have hawk-eye......considering the pitches there.......lbw's are tough calls.....bounce and swing.....

  • nvpar on June 27, 2011, 9:21 GMT

    Now we can really use DRS to eliminate the howlers. But I still like to see third umpire intervening rather than players asking for a review.

  • palla.avinash on June 27, 2011, 9:18 GMT

    what about lbw decisions on hawk eye ,most of wrong decisions come from lbw only.i am upset hawk eye is taken away as the major wrong decisions come in lbw.but happy at least is made mandatory.but his may prove useless in some matches without hawk eye.

  • Hazzak on June 27, 2011, 9:18 GMT

    So why won't they use the hotspot technology for determining inside edges for LBW decisions?

  • Ennarkay on June 27, 2011, 9:18 GMT

    "The leg-before decision for that series will be completely that of the on-field umpire,"------Does this mean an LBW, wrongly given after an inside edge goes unnoticed, will have to remain uncontested? or not?

  • sanjeevmukherjee2006 on June 27, 2011, 9:17 GMT

    fantastic decision, thanks all the boards and yes lbw is a dicey case for eg at jamaica it was double paced wicket so it was hard to judge whether the ball will hit the stumps or not but now it is good that howlers will be removed

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:16 GMT

    absolutely fanatastic.....cricket will become a more fair and just game from now on......thanks BCCI. luck/bad luck wont decide the fate of cricket matches......gr8 gr8...

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:16 GMT

    Shah says it costs $60k per Test. ICC says it will be $25k. Who is right?

  • ABP235 on June 27, 2011, 9:15 GMT

    Finally some part sense prevailed on some adamant jokers who resisted DRS and then complained that the umpires were biased! Well, dont brand me a Pakistani for these comments, I am not, I am very much an Indian and was aghast at the way BCCI was refusing to accept technology. However, I am shocked that the thermal imaging (or hot spot) with sound tracker is not used for an LBW decision! This is the most important problem in a LBW decision - whether there was an edge or not, before hitting the pads. So what if the ball tracker is removed? Onfield umpire very well can see the swing, bounce, deviation and movement of the ball, if not, he is not fit to be an umpire. But often, the thin or thick inside edges on the pad are not always caught, so, a third umpire can always assist the onfield umpire but should not be given the responsibility of making the decision by himself. When consulted, he can advise, using the hot spot, if the ball had hit the bat first or not.

  • JustOUT on June 27, 2011, 9:15 GMT

    Good.. Atlast BCCI bended to use DRS. And now BCCI will search for another reason to get rid of this, as Team India is very bad at using this Technology.

  • Nutcutlet on June 27, 2011, 9:14 GMT

    It had to come (exasperation over! Belated Hurrahs!) and the BCCI must be congratulated on bowing graciously to the weight of the rest of the cricket world's informed and unanimous opinion: hot spot & snicko are, to all intents and purposes, utterly reliable. The predictive technology offered by Hawkeye is more contentious although its time will come and probably quite soon. There is, however, one matter that has not been made at all clear: LB decisions are frequently a question of whether the ball has hit the bat, and if it did, whether it hit a pad first. Referring to thermal imaging/sound technolgy is vital in these instances in order to arrive at an accurate decision, yet 'leg before decisions...completely that of the onfield umpire.' Hmm. Something has been left at half-cock, has it not? This matter needs to be made ABSOLUTELY clear before everyone heads for the hotel bar to toast common sense. Somewhere the word "Unless" needs to appear in the final resolution!

  • ygkd on June 27, 2011, 9:13 GMT

    I would have thought thermal-imaging useful in some lbw decisions, for identifying situations where the batsman actually hits it.

  • shery2floyd on June 27, 2011, 9:11 GMT

    BCCI stand seems to be vindicated on Hawk Eye. Good move on Hotspot and snickometer as they are more accurate than Hawk Eye.

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:11 GMT

    What if the batsman inside edges the ball on to his pads and the umpire gives him out? Can he review the decision??

  • hm007 on June 27, 2011, 9:10 GMT

    wow, fantastic news for cricket.

  • qaiserjaan on June 27, 2011, 9:10 GMT

    At least some good news from ICC. Though UDRS with out Hawk Eye ??? again strange...Definitely it is due to influence of BCCI.It means the BCCI still not 100% agree on technology use and Indian Batsmen will be benefited of close LBW shouts.

  • agam99 on June 27, 2011, 9:09 GMT

    BCCI finally made everyone agree on use of Hotspot in DRS for all series and not just in home series of Eng & Aus..GREAT !!!

  • candyfloss on June 27, 2011, 9:09 GMT

    Well I am glad to know that we have finally fallen in line with everyone.The compulsory use of hotspot is also a good news.This further goes to prove that India was never against UDRS on the whole but hawk eye in particular.Whether the contention was wrong or not is a different issue,but all those people saying that India was against it because of getting favourable decisions from the umpire well your claims have blown up in your face.India has moved forward without compromising on principle which is wonderful.

  • NFriend on June 27, 2011, 9:09 GMT

    come on ICC,this is great to cricket.now what can BCCI do?

  • tmd1 on June 27, 2011, 9:07 GMT

    Shame if the Indians get some big inside edges and are given out LBW.

  • Sabbir007 on June 27, 2011, 9:07 GMT

    I don't understand, what is their problem with Hawk-Eye system? That means, they need something they can use against the minnows!!

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:06 GMT

    good news the reviews in. at least it is now fair.

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:05 GMT

    its a decision by icc.....................it (DRS)should help to minimize the number of wrong decision made by umpires.....................

  • Mephistopheles01 on June 27, 2011, 9:05 GMT

    Common sense! Anyone know what this means re lbws- can batsmen review and just use slow mo replays to see if it pitched outside off etc?

  • heat-seeker on June 27, 2011, 9:04 GMT

    This makes sense. The better technologies like Hotspot and ultra-slow-motion replays are more than enough to remove 99% of howlers... for the remaining 1%, the ICC need to improve the standards of umpiring.

  • Gazzypops on June 27, 2011, 9:03 GMT

    Surely this version of DRS can still be used for LBW decisions - as in, when a batsman hits the ball before the ball hits him? Hotspot and "sound technology" would work here, I'd've thought.

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:02 GMT

    DRS without ball tracker ridiculous

  • on June 27, 2011, 9:02 GMT

    That's more like it ......................

  • Smithie on June 27, 2011, 8:58 GMT

    That is a weak cop- out!!! Do we have to wait till Sachin retires to get the Full Monty?

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:57 GMT

    Good decision..win-win situation for both BCCI and those who were supporting it. The only confusing part was hawk eye so they made it optional. Sachin will be definitely happy. Good luck Swan :) your LBW percentage definitely going to go down. Cant wait for Ind-England..

  • drak47 on June 27, 2011, 8:56 GMT

    Excellent stuff. BCCI wins again. Hawke-eye is dodgy, we all knew this. It doesn't take wind, late movement and pitch deterioration into account. We all knew they'd out-muscle the old boys club. It was fine those years ago when england and aus had 2 votes each, now that the apex of the world is shifting, nobody can handle it. BCCI 5 RoW 0. Hahaha. :)))

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:54 GMT

    thats good news for cricket... but why not LBW decissions atleast bat pad decissions and pitching of the ball should also be taken into consideration regarding LBW if not hawk eye tracker

  • Sirchris on June 27, 2011, 8:53 GMT

    It's a good start, however Hawk-Eye should still be included in this if it helps to reduce absolute howlers. I have great respect for all of the ICC appointed umpires, but at the end of the day, they are still human and can make mistakes.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:53 GMT

    Surely LBW decisions can be refered where the hot spot technology can prove that the ball made contact with the bat before the pad so you can not say that LBW decisions stay with the onfield Umpire.

  • Lateralis on June 27, 2011, 8:51 GMT

    HotSpot is by far the least reliable piece of technology on offer for the DRS, particularly when it comes to marginal decisions such as slight nicks behind and is generally of limited use anyway. Poor decision from the ICC.

  • wnwn on June 27, 2011, 8:50 GMT

    At least it's a start. Hopefully we can incorporate the ball tracker in DRS in the next few years once the makers can prove that it is 100% accurate.

  • CharlieAlanJakeHarperFamily on June 27, 2011, 8:50 GMT

    This is fantastic BCCI has agreed but it has also removed hawkeye hotspot and snicko for edges and lbw by umpires and incase of inside edged lbw hotspot and snicko will deal with top class

  • Quazar on June 27, 2011, 8:48 GMT

    And non-Indian fans should note that even Mike Selvey of the Guardian sports desk had expressed reservations about hawkeye predictive paths, and suggested this very option... remove the predictve tool, but use the other tools in the UDRS.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    Finally, i though that this would'nt happen. In my opinion, the only contentious part of the whole DRS system was the LBW referral. Did it swing that much? Did it bounce that much? Was the batsman down the wicket by 2.5 meters? Since that is left to the umpires, that's fine (including Steve Bucknor; who was crucified). Anyhow, Kudos to ICC for a very tiny itty bitty small step towards getting things right. Now we need the Associates back!

  • deepakjm on June 27, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    Good i like it...this will be blessing in disguise for India.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    Now what will India say???

  • Quazar on June 27, 2011, 8:45 GMT

    Very good decision. It was the most sensible option... to remove the contentious predictive tool, while upholding the other helpful tools of the UDRS. Good sense exists!

  • Aussie_rulez on June 27, 2011, 8:45 GMT

    The inclusion of thermal imaging and snickometer has justified the authenticity of the DRS system... Now India will not disagree to its use, as the decisions made using this technology will be closer to accuracy.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:44 GMT

    What will the BCCI make of this? Lets wait and watch.

  • cricketkumar on June 27, 2011, 8:43 GMT

    the decision to include hotspot in DRS is appreciable..but why did they drop hawkeye from mandatory list?? it's ridiculous...what's the use of DRS if they r not gonna include lbw decisions..bcci in the new global governing body of cricket..the icc has been made redundant by it..

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:41 GMT

    Good call. Facts over fiction aka prediction.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:39 GMT

    Finally...some good news.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    Great News. Much appreciated. Good to see that better sense prevailed..finally.

  • ZshanKhan on June 27, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    I think (hope) everyone will be happy with this. Always preferred Hot-Spot over Hawk-Eye anyway.

  • ejsiddiqui on June 27, 2011, 8:34 GMT

    80% of the DRS is used for LBW calls, if you exclude it from DRS then DRS is a very small role to play

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • ejsiddiqui on June 27, 2011, 8:34 GMT

    80% of the DRS is used for LBW calls, if you exclude it from DRS then DRS is a very small role to play

  • ZshanKhan on June 27, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    I think (hope) everyone will be happy with this. Always preferred Hot-Spot over Hawk-Eye anyway.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    Great News. Much appreciated. Good to see that better sense prevailed..finally.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:39 GMT

    Finally...some good news.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:41 GMT

    Good call. Facts over fiction aka prediction.

  • cricketkumar on June 27, 2011, 8:43 GMT

    the decision to include hotspot in DRS is appreciable..but why did they drop hawkeye from mandatory list?? it's ridiculous...what's the use of DRS if they r not gonna include lbw decisions..bcci in the new global governing body of cricket..the icc has been made redundant by it..

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:44 GMT

    What will the BCCI make of this? Lets wait and watch.

  • Aussie_rulez on June 27, 2011, 8:45 GMT

    The inclusion of thermal imaging and snickometer has justified the authenticity of the DRS system... Now India will not disagree to its use, as the decisions made using this technology will be closer to accuracy.

  • Quazar on June 27, 2011, 8:45 GMT

    Very good decision. It was the most sensible option... to remove the contentious predictive tool, while upholding the other helpful tools of the UDRS. Good sense exists!

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:47 GMT

    Now what will India say???