ICC news

Universal DRS falls at board table

Sharda Ugra

June 26, 2012

Comments: 105 | Text size: A | A

The ICC president Sharad Pawar chairs the Executive Board meeting at the annual conference, Kuala Lumpur, June 26, 2012
Sharad Pawar chaired the Executive Board meeting in Kuala Lumpur © Getty Images
Enlarge

The universal application of the Decision Review System (DRS), which was recommended by the ICC's cricket committee and by its Chief Executives Committee, has met an expected and swift end at the ICC's Executive Board meeting in Kuala Lumpur. It is believed the issue was discussed at the meeting but was not put to a vote. The development came a day after India publicly and unambiguously repeated its opposition to DRS, when most other countries are believed to support it.

Those present at the meeting, which was chaired by ICC president Sharad Pawar, say the DRS question came and went without a murmur, with the BCCI being the sole objector to its universal acceptance. The issue was not put to an open vote despite support for the DRS from most Full Member nations as well as the majority of the playing community. The development effectively retained the DRS in its current form - a mutually agreed arrangement in bilateral series.

The motion for the universal application of the DRS was put to the Executive Board by the CEC on Monday, also through a "unanimous" non-vote, with the BCCI's opposing stance being noted and the matter not being put to vote. The CEC said it was satisfied with the improvements in technology in the fourth year of the DRS, which included new Hot Spot cameras and independent ball-tracking research.

It is understood that an appeal by a majority of the Full Member nations to the ICC for the sale of centralised rights to the DRS to a single sponsor was also not likely to gain traction due to the BCCI's opposition to the technology itself.

With the matter not being put to vote by the Executive Board, the DRS returned to the position it has held since October, when the Board overturned the decision it took at the 2011 ICC annual conference in Hong Kong. The cost of the system will still be borne primarily by the host broadcasters and technology providers, rather than the ICC, even though the DRS forms part of the umpiring operations.

Most of the other CEC recommendations, particularly the amendments to ODI regulations, were approved by the Executive Board. The only issue that raised some debate was cricket's inclusion in the Olympic Games via the Twenty20 format. The ECB was reportedly opposed to the idea.

The Executive Board will meet again on Wednesday to settle issues regarding a constitutional amendment, the fourth in 16 years, to the process of appointing the ICC president - making the presidency an annual ceremonial term and creating a parallel and more powerful post of chairman. Today's meetings were attended by the board presidents of the 10 Full Member nations and three representatives of Associate and Affiliate nations. It was chaired by Pawar, the outgoing president, along with the ICC vice-president Alan Isaac, the chief Executive Haroon Lorgat and the ICC's principal advisor IS Bindra.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Sharda Ugra

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by gdalvi on (June 28, 2012, 13:46 GMT)

@ Freddy and other DRS lovers: Freddy's comment's is classic example what is is wrong: "When Gayle reviewed, the DRS was inconclusive and therefore the onfield umpire's decision of OUT stood. The DRS has done its job." - What kind of kindergarten logic is this? After paying large amounts for technology - "DRS was inconclusive" and yet "DRS has done its job". DRS's job was to REACH CORRECT CONCLUSION - not reaching conclusion is not a success, but rather a FAILURE of DRS. If Expensive DRS keeps "not reaching conclusion" on key decisions like Gayle and Dravid - what is point of having DRS? When it does reach conclusion - more than 90-95% of time same conclusion could have been reached simply looking at slow motion camera - and for free !!!

Posted by bobmartin on (June 28, 2012, 11:34 GMT)

Posted by hems4cric on (June 28 2012, 09:19 AM GMT)

"Ok.. let me get this straight.. BCCI does not want DRS... check! ICC and other 9 boards want DRS..check! ICC says upto the boards to decide to use or not to use DRS..check! where is BCCI telling other boards not to use it" Simples !!! By not agreeing to it's use, because of the ICC regulation requiring both teams to agree, no other team can use it when they play India. India therefore has a veto on it's use...and the match has to played in that respect on India's terms..

Posted by Sakthiivel on (June 28, 2012, 11:13 GMT)

@Mahesht : We are amazed with your Knowledge.. Hats off !!

Posted by Praxis on (June 28, 2012, 10:57 GMT)

ICC needs to make the technology behind DRS & how it works open to public, as we are seeing hundreds of misleading comments stemmed from ignorance. BCCI also needs to come with a better excuse other than "its not 100% full-proof", it sounds too silly. There are some issues that even a normal cricket fan would be able to point out, like, the frame-rates of the cameras, reducing costs of hot-spots, same standard of DRS everywhere etc. Sponsor for DRS is also needed as countries like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka can't afford this technology in every or any series. Unfortunately ICC won't be able to reduce the cost or get sponsors unless BCCI changes its stand.

Posted by hems4cric on (June 28, 2012, 9:19 GMT)

Ok.. let me get this straight.. BCCI does not want DRS... check! ICC and other 9 boards want DRS..check! ICC says upto the boards to decide to use or not to use DRS..check! where is BCCI telling other boards not to use it? Its just saying we dont want it. Why is everybody hell bent on pushing it on BCCI? You want it use it.. who is stopping you? So if a salesman comes and shows you something, you dont like it but others do, would you go ahead and pay for it even if you dont like it?? I guess all the people here would, for the GOOD of the world and spirit of humanity etc etc...

Posted by Mahesht on (June 28, 2012, 9:18 GMT)

If BCCI logic were to applied to common life ..

All ATMs must be close down, as it is not 100% fool proof .. some misuses happens .. all people should go back and stand in queues for hours in the banks ..

Rail accidents happen, so Railways must be closed and people use bullock carts again to commute ..

and so on .. doesn't even this silliest logic sound foolish to guys defending BCCI here ????

Posted by Sakthiivel on (June 28, 2012, 7:15 GMT)

Srilankans here first check whether their cricket board is ready to take DRS. Why they not using in the current series. Then only they can talk about BCCI.

Posted by ashokvasant on (June 28, 2012, 5:27 GMT)

BCCI's objection to the UDRS is unreasonable. The argument that it is not 100% proof is specious. Nothing in life is 100% correct. DRS idea is to eliminate howlers. All decisions may not be perfect through the DRS but it causes the least of heart-burns and prevents umpires being treated as idiots. In fact, the umpires must ask for the DRS to protect themselves from ridicule.

ashokvasant

Posted by yomeshk on (June 28, 2012, 2:40 GMT)

Can someone please answer me where was BCCI involved in the current SL vs Pak test series? It was one of the 2 teams who refused to use DRS and still people blame BCCI? Everyone wants to use DRS but no one wants to pay for it. They want BCCI to bear the expenses? Why should BCCI do that? Mr. Greig said that India should support DRS. How can India support DRS in a Pak vs SL Test series? The problem is people have to criticze BCCI and it has become a notion that 'no DRS = BCCI's fault'.

Posted by Voice.O.Reason on (June 28, 2012, 1:31 GMT)

So India is not in favour of DRS because (a) they can only bat, and DRS doesn't favour batsmen, (b) they had a bad experience using the DRS in the past, and (c) it costs a lot of money, and if made mandatory, India will be paying for most of the cost of implementing DRS for other teams' matches. Excellent case, and made my India's opponents no less. So, then, how do the constructive critics here propose to address these concerns (in a way that would be easier than just not advocating universal DRS)?

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Sharda UgraClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days