ICC annual conference June 30, 2011

ICC moots sponsors to fund revamped DRS

23

The ICC will look for sponsors for the DRS to overcome the financial hurdles that less wealthy cricket boards will face in implementing the cost-intensive referral system now mandatory in international cricket.

"There is the possibility that we could raise a sponsor to cover the cost of the DRS," ICC CEO, Haroon Lorgat, told ESPNcricinfo. The chief executives' committee agreed on Monday to make a modified version of DRS mandatory in all internationals, with the use of the ball-tracking technology made optional, and Lorgat said he could see a situation "where we may well cover all costs of the technology".

The cost of the DRS is currently estimated at $5000 per day, with broadcasters, technology providers and home boards in a constant debate about who should bear the cost.

The minimum requirements for the tweaked DRS are the expensive infra-red cameras and the audio tracking devices, and Lorgat said the resulting uniformity - which doesn't exist in ball-tracking technology - was adequate to seek commercial support for the system. "It is still sufficient to be able to commercialise it and find a sponsor that would be interested."

The uneven acceptance of the DRS in the past, with the BCCI resisting its implementation in bilateral series involving India, had made financial backing for the system difficult, Lorgat said. "You cannot sell a product if there's uncertainty around its use and that was a stumbling block in the past."

Lorgat said he did not believe that the new ruling, which omitted the ball-tracker technology from the list of mandatory requirements, would make the system inconsistent. The ICC, he said, had worked its way through a process that had begun with differences over an aspect of the review system and was keen to address the concerns of its doubters, in this case the BCCI. "It is incumbent on all of us who are trying to implement (it) and trying to find agreement to work towards getting there ... if that means we have to convince certain people who are unconvinced about the accuracy and the reliability of the ball-tracking technology, that's what we have agreed to do. But where we have got absolute agreement, we've all agreed to install that."

The question of using only one part of the ball-tracker technology, like the pitch mat to check where the ball had landed, was not raised, Lorgat said, "There wasn't complete satisfaction with the use of the ball-tracking technology and we've just left that out."

The use of the ball-tracker based on bilateral agreements between boards, Lorgat said, would let those who believed in its veracity use the system. Over the next few months, he said the ICC would carry out an independent assessment to provide the back-up of the ball tracker's accuracy and reliability. "I think we must just be patient for the next few months until we've done that exercise and hopefully we come to a point where everybody is satisfied with its accuracy."

The assessment, he said, would be thorough, because "if there are people who are happy or unhappy about the technology, we have got to disprove that and so I'm not keen to take (only) elements of it (the ball tracker) before we come up with a scientific evaluation." He said there was no time-frame for this assessment of the ball tracker.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on July 2, 2011, 16:36 GMT

    I wonder how the percentage of right decisions is made.. We keep saying humans get 92% right and with the aid of drs we get 97% right.. So how come we do not know what is one hundred percent right anyway?? What are the decisions calibrated against, be it drs or umpires?? Or is it just a number thrown to our faces for us to be impressed by drs??? Legitimate questions.. Anyone care to answer?

  • on July 2, 2011, 12:44 GMT

    good decision by ICC. they should implment drs in all international matches

  • on July 2, 2011, 12:40 GMT

    first steve bucknor, now darrel harper who is next ?

    In times to come there will be no umpires to officiate matches that involves indians

  • satanswish on July 1, 2011, 9:30 GMT

    When money can rain in IPL, why so much fuzz about sponsoring for HotSpot??

  • on July 1, 2011, 8:26 GMT

    I personally dont trust DRS, since this technology can be altered before we (audience) see the decision. Plus its not 100% reliable. Example: sachin tendulkar LBW in semifinal of WC 2011... DRS failed to even locate the correct impact, hence showed faulty result. I guess Umpires decision should be followed since that iss the beauty of the game.....

  • on July 1, 2011, 8:21 GMT

    DRS sponsorers - Blah blah *random tag line* can already imagine it happening !!! DLF maximum....max mobile time out...y not bla blah DRS ???? :D

  • on July 1, 2011, 4:55 GMT

    @Venkataraman Ramaprasad : when a ball has been called a no ball by an on field umpire, den even if it is caught anywhere, the fielding captain cannot refer the decision via DRS as it has already been declared a no ball......

  • pradeep_dealwis on July 1, 2011, 4:40 GMT

    @ Venkataraman Ramaprasad : Umpires don't call no-balls immediately like they used to. They only call after the play is completed. That's a part of the reason for the Free Hit to be brought up. Hence players do not take undue risks except on the Free Hit, and by that time any review of the previous ball will be completed.

  • on July 1, 2011, 1:36 GMT

    Consider this. When a no ball is declared the batsman takes a chance to score as many runs as possible by taking risk as he cannot be out except run out or handling the ball. Supposing he is caught on the boundary line and on replay by DRS the ball is found to be legitimate, can the bats man be given out? This is impossibly and not fair. Any amendments to this?

  • SRT_GENIUS on June 30, 2011, 23:51 GMT

    @Caveman: sponsor would be offered a blanket deal across all countires for a period of time (they don't get to pick and chose matches).

  • on July 2, 2011, 16:36 GMT

    I wonder how the percentage of right decisions is made.. We keep saying humans get 92% right and with the aid of drs we get 97% right.. So how come we do not know what is one hundred percent right anyway?? What are the decisions calibrated against, be it drs or umpires?? Or is it just a number thrown to our faces for us to be impressed by drs??? Legitimate questions.. Anyone care to answer?

  • on July 2, 2011, 12:44 GMT

    good decision by ICC. they should implment drs in all international matches

  • on July 2, 2011, 12:40 GMT

    first steve bucknor, now darrel harper who is next ?

    In times to come there will be no umpires to officiate matches that involves indians

  • satanswish on July 1, 2011, 9:30 GMT

    When money can rain in IPL, why so much fuzz about sponsoring for HotSpot??

  • on July 1, 2011, 8:26 GMT

    I personally dont trust DRS, since this technology can be altered before we (audience) see the decision. Plus its not 100% reliable. Example: sachin tendulkar LBW in semifinal of WC 2011... DRS failed to even locate the correct impact, hence showed faulty result. I guess Umpires decision should be followed since that iss the beauty of the game.....

  • on July 1, 2011, 8:21 GMT

    DRS sponsorers - Blah blah *random tag line* can already imagine it happening !!! DLF maximum....max mobile time out...y not bla blah DRS ???? :D

  • on July 1, 2011, 4:55 GMT

    @Venkataraman Ramaprasad : when a ball has been called a no ball by an on field umpire, den even if it is caught anywhere, the fielding captain cannot refer the decision via DRS as it has already been declared a no ball......

  • pradeep_dealwis on July 1, 2011, 4:40 GMT

    @ Venkataraman Ramaprasad : Umpires don't call no-balls immediately like they used to. They only call after the play is completed. That's a part of the reason for the Free Hit to be brought up. Hence players do not take undue risks except on the Free Hit, and by that time any review of the previous ball will be completed.

  • on July 1, 2011, 1:36 GMT

    Consider this. When a no ball is declared the batsman takes a chance to score as many runs as possible by taking risk as he cannot be out except run out or handling the ball. Supposing he is caught on the boundary line and on replay by DRS the ball is found to be legitimate, can the bats man be given out? This is impossibly and not fair. Any amendments to this?

  • SRT_GENIUS on June 30, 2011, 23:51 GMT

    @Caveman: sponsor would be offered a blanket deal across all countires for a period of time (they don't get to pick and chose matches).

  • on June 30, 2011, 22:06 GMT

    Why does ICC and its member boards themselves launch research into such technologies , that way at least they would have proprietary technologies.This DRS in nothing but entertainment tool and would prove costly to boards and T.V. viewers.

  • bestofluckindia on June 30, 2011, 21:45 GMT

    Every cricket lover has his eyes and ears open for DRS news nowadays. It seems there should not be a problem to find sponsors for DRS. Imagine a full crowd at lords in India vs England game watching at the big screen for a DRS review with BIG HEADLINE of the sponsor. Even for Weaker boards it shouldn't be any different.

  • Da_Punjabi on June 30, 2011, 19:06 GMT

    I got an idea for DRS sponsorship... Make the 3rd umpire box that of a sponsored one of the DRS. 2 mins consumed can be perfect 2 min advertisement.

  • on June 30, 2011, 17:58 GMT

    For me INDIA still won that debate abt UDRS ...

  • Caveman. on June 30, 2011, 17:35 GMT

    Sponsors for DRS? Wonder how many sponsors will be ready to foot the bills in a Bangladesh-Zimbabwe series? In any case, it appears honest mistakes creep into the arrangements made by sponsors and broadcasters too (just check the article on Dhoni's dismissal). Oh well, BCCI is the villain, and anything said against the villain's opinion should be the manna from heaven.

  • donda on June 30, 2011, 16:51 GMT

    I think cost of DRS 5000$ per day is already far far lower than UDRS 60000$ per day.

    What all boards want, free bread and butter now.

    ICC needs to find sponsors for weaker boards like WI, NZ, PK, SRI , BANG and ICC should not pay to India, Aus, Eng, SA, these big boards can easily afford 5000$ per day. Specially BCCI can afford 5000$ without any doubt.

  • Prashant_Dhamija on June 30, 2011, 16:30 GMT

    This appears to be a good solution as financially weaker nations would be able to use mandatory DRS without any financial setbacks.

  • on June 30, 2011, 15:50 GMT

    OMG, how come this Lorgat dude is still around? Charles Darwin's theory was a fraud.

  • on June 30, 2011, 14:28 GMT

    Let us see how many cricket boards other than BCCI can pay for an efficient system. Barking dogs seldom bite.

  • CricSamraat on June 30, 2011, 13:38 GMT

    It is a sound approach. Makes sense. Scientific evaluation is the key. But, who will really devise details of the evaluation plan? As always, devil is in the details. Easier said than done.

  • SnowSnake on June 30, 2011, 13:04 GMT

    Even if a sponser is found, it is not a long term solution because sponsers will come and go. The cost of technology has to be brought down.

  • EVH316 on June 30, 2011, 12:34 GMT

    If this means we`ll have a "Citi moment of decision reviewing" then I`ll be almost happy to support the system where we just had to live with bad decisions. Please ICC, don`t do anything too soul-selling. On the face of it though, sponsorship is the right path to assuage squabbling over costs and ensuring worldwide uptake of the UDRS.

  • mm71 on June 30, 2011, 12:23 GMT

    Excellent. Now that all countries overruled BCCI/ India & want DRS implemented, they want India to pay for it too. Brilliant bunch of losers.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • mm71 on June 30, 2011, 12:23 GMT

    Excellent. Now that all countries overruled BCCI/ India & want DRS implemented, they want India to pay for it too. Brilliant bunch of losers.

  • EVH316 on June 30, 2011, 12:34 GMT

    If this means we`ll have a "Citi moment of decision reviewing" then I`ll be almost happy to support the system where we just had to live with bad decisions. Please ICC, don`t do anything too soul-selling. On the face of it though, sponsorship is the right path to assuage squabbling over costs and ensuring worldwide uptake of the UDRS.

  • SnowSnake on June 30, 2011, 13:04 GMT

    Even if a sponser is found, it is not a long term solution because sponsers will come and go. The cost of technology has to be brought down.

  • CricSamraat on June 30, 2011, 13:38 GMT

    It is a sound approach. Makes sense. Scientific evaluation is the key. But, who will really devise details of the evaluation plan? As always, devil is in the details. Easier said than done.

  • on June 30, 2011, 14:28 GMT

    Let us see how many cricket boards other than BCCI can pay for an efficient system. Barking dogs seldom bite.

  • on June 30, 2011, 15:50 GMT

    OMG, how come this Lorgat dude is still around? Charles Darwin's theory was a fraud.

  • Prashant_Dhamija on June 30, 2011, 16:30 GMT

    This appears to be a good solution as financially weaker nations would be able to use mandatory DRS without any financial setbacks.

  • donda on June 30, 2011, 16:51 GMT

    I think cost of DRS 5000$ per day is already far far lower than UDRS 60000$ per day.

    What all boards want, free bread and butter now.

    ICC needs to find sponsors for weaker boards like WI, NZ, PK, SRI , BANG and ICC should not pay to India, Aus, Eng, SA, these big boards can easily afford 5000$ per day. Specially BCCI can afford 5000$ without any doubt.

  • Caveman. on June 30, 2011, 17:35 GMT

    Sponsors for DRS? Wonder how many sponsors will be ready to foot the bills in a Bangladesh-Zimbabwe series? In any case, it appears honest mistakes creep into the arrangements made by sponsors and broadcasters too (just check the article on Dhoni's dismissal). Oh well, BCCI is the villain, and anything said against the villain's opinion should be the manna from heaven.

  • on June 30, 2011, 17:58 GMT

    For me INDIA still won that debate abt UDRS ...