ICC news June 26, 2011

No major issues discussed on opening day

ESPNcricinfo staff
39

The ICC's five-day annual conference got off to a tepid start in Hong Kong, with none of the crucial issues - the Decision Review System, constitutional amendments regarding governance, or Associate involvement in the 2015 World cup - being discussed on the opening day. Instead, the first day of meetings contained a presentation on the ICC's rankings system and discussions on playing conditions.

The major issues up for debate on Monday, June 27, are the Future Tours Programme and whether the DRS should be implemented mandatorily in international cricket.

The ICC annual conference begins with a meeting of the chief executives committee on June 26 and 27, followed by the executive board meeting, on June 28 and 29, and the full council meeting on June 30.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Quazar on June 27, 2011, 8:41 GMT

    @teletnt...Hawkeye is used in Tennis only for a line decision... in or out, based on the actual point of landing. In cricket, it goes far beyond by predicting the ball path. The equivalent of the Tennis application would be using Hawkeye to only judge if the ball landed in line with the stumps, and if it hit the pad in line with the stumps. Please also read Sid Monga's excellent discussion (on the home page) on the need to refine UDRS further, rather than getting lost in India-bashing.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:41 GMT

    Hopefully ICC will let 4 or 6 Associate team to play 2015 cricket world cup. It can help to improve cricket all over the world.

  • Dale-force_winds_steyn_the_pitch on June 27, 2011, 8:04 GMT

    "The major issues up for debate on Monday, June 27, are the Future Tours Programme and whether the DRS should be implemented mandatorily in international cricket."

    If the FTP draft is going to be spoken about today, where does the FTP draft released yesterday come from?

  • khurramsch on June 27, 2011, 7:50 GMT

    for DRS use the technology to know its faults and rectify them. if u are not using it u never know what flaws are there. for Rotation policy: ok if icc want to chnage but give each nation 1 turn. its not fair that some has got benifit & now when turn of other came u r changing.about govt involvment its good. but why evrybody thinks its only pakistans problem?in pak presidnt only apoints cheif nothing else. what about bangladesh,SL,zimbabwe where boards are directly under sports ministry & minister.

  • muski on June 27, 2011, 7:46 GMT

    Guys- Hawkeye is a hypothetical technology. DRS based on Hawkeye is hpyothesis over hypothesis. We saw the ludicrous use of it in the world cup by Billy Bowden. Technology if used should be flawless( like the 3rd umpire who assists in run out, stumping etc) . Maybe the BCCI bosses must have got offended to Aussies not giving the Hot Spot Technology. So be it and let us do things manually as being done for hundreds of years now. Let the quality of umpiring improve and let them not be too dependent on technology to assist them

  • on June 27, 2011, 7:46 GMT

    This is going to sound stupid and absurd to a lot of people. Take it with a pinch of salt though. How about the UDRS is implemented, but we get rid of umpires totally? All one would really need is a third umpire at that point. All this 'referral' and 'well timed call' is total bullshit that only serves to give more ad time, while we sit at home and wait for the decision. Implementing new technology is always good, and I am a supporter of the UDRS, but notice that it's a system that disproves umpiring decisions. So everytime an umpire gets one wrong, he should be fined a portion of his match fee. If its good for players it should be good for officials too. If they make more than a certain number of errors in a match, they should undergo a competency hearing. Such drastic changes should be made, and the use of UDRS should be mandatory for every decision, and not just a few decisions, because that is not how the game of cricket is played. If one decision can be changed, all of them can.

  • DaredevilsUnlimited on June 27, 2011, 7:32 GMT

    As we all know that BCCI offfice bearers are a law to themselves sitting on the the riches created by Indian public.There is ulterior motive of not going for the latest technolgy which they should come out. The best thing to cricket will be for ICC to pass the resolution by brutal majority just to show where selfish office beares of BCCI stands

  • on June 27, 2011, 7:00 GMT

    Since when has an infra red camera been military technology? Infra red cameras are commercially available. That is all hotspot is, an infra red camera pickin up the heat signature of the impact between bat and ball.

  • yorkslanka on June 27, 2011, 6:26 GMT

    @mrmmj- your comments about udrs reviews being a reason not to use it are strange? Don't blame the tech for the restriction put on it by the icc or teams that don't know how to use it. It should be mandatory in all tests and odi matches,simple as that.

  • Notredam on June 27, 2011, 5:36 GMT

    Irelnd deserve test status and more international matches...come on icc

  • Quazar on June 27, 2011, 8:41 GMT

    @teletnt...Hawkeye is used in Tennis only for a line decision... in or out, based on the actual point of landing. In cricket, it goes far beyond by predicting the ball path. The equivalent of the Tennis application would be using Hawkeye to only judge if the ball landed in line with the stumps, and if it hit the pad in line with the stumps. Please also read Sid Monga's excellent discussion (on the home page) on the need to refine UDRS further, rather than getting lost in India-bashing.

  • on June 27, 2011, 8:41 GMT

    Hopefully ICC will let 4 or 6 Associate team to play 2015 cricket world cup. It can help to improve cricket all over the world.

  • Dale-force_winds_steyn_the_pitch on June 27, 2011, 8:04 GMT

    "The major issues up for debate on Monday, June 27, are the Future Tours Programme and whether the DRS should be implemented mandatorily in international cricket."

    If the FTP draft is going to be spoken about today, where does the FTP draft released yesterday come from?

  • khurramsch on June 27, 2011, 7:50 GMT

    for DRS use the technology to know its faults and rectify them. if u are not using it u never know what flaws are there. for Rotation policy: ok if icc want to chnage but give each nation 1 turn. its not fair that some has got benifit & now when turn of other came u r changing.about govt involvment its good. but why evrybody thinks its only pakistans problem?in pak presidnt only apoints cheif nothing else. what about bangladesh,SL,zimbabwe where boards are directly under sports ministry & minister.

  • muski on June 27, 2011, 7:46 GMT

    Guys- Hawkeye is a hypothetical technology. DRS based on Hawkeye is hpyothesis over hypothesis. We saw the ludicrous use of it in the world cup by Billy Bowden. Technology if used should be flawless( like the 3rd umpire who assists in run out, stumping etc) . Maybe the BCCI bosses must have got offended to Aussies not giving the Hot Spot Technology. So be it and let us do things manually as being done for hundreds of years now. Let the quality of umpiring improve and let them not be too dependent on technology to assist them

  • on June 27, 2011, 7:46 GMT

    This is going to sound stupid and absurd to a lot of people. Take it with a pinch of salt though. How about the UDRS is implemented, but we get rid of umpires totally? All one would really need is a third umpire at that point. All this 'referral' and 'well timed call' is total bullshit that only serves to give more ad time, while we sit at home and wait for the decision. Implementing new technology is always good, and I am a supporter of the UDRS, but notice that it's a system that disproves umpiring decisions. So everytime an umpire gets one wrong, he should be fined a portion of his match fee. If its good for players it should be good for officials too. If they make more than a certain number of errors in a match, they should undergo a competency hearing. Such drastic changes should be made, and the use of UDRS should be mandatory for every decision, and not just a few decisions, because that is not how the game of cricket is played. If one decision can be changed, all of them can.

  • DaredevilsUnlimited on June 27, 2011, 7:32 GMT

    As we all know that BCCI offfice bearers are a law to themselves sitting on the the riches created by Indian public.There is ulterior motive of not going for the latest technolgy which they should come out. The best thing to cricket will be for ICC to pass the resolution by brutal majority just to show where selfish office beares of BCCI stands

  • on June 27, 2011, 7:00 GMT

    Since when has an infra red camera been military technology? Infra red cameras are commercially available. That is all hotspot is, an infra red camera pickin up the heat signature of the impact between bat and ball.

  • yorkslanka on June 27, 2011, 6:26 GMT

    @mrmmj- your comments about udrs reviews being a reason not to use it are strange? Don't blame the tech for the restriction put on it by the icc or teams that don't know how to use it. It should be mandatory in all tests and odi matches,simple as that.

  • Notredam on June 27, 2011, 5:36 GMT

    Irelnd deserve test status and more international matches...come on icc

  • teletnt on June 27, 2011, 4:44 GMT

    I forgot to mention in my previous posting that I am a fully qualified umpire with 10 years experience. I remember attending the bi-annual Umpires' Convention in the West Indies a few years ago and a then Test umpire expressed his distrust for Haweye and technology in general. He felt that the so-called tram lines could be moved to make an umpire look bad. Thankfully that viewpoint was never adopted by the rest of the world and no-one can deny the positive impact on the game that technology has brought. So improve the method of use, I agree; train the tv umpires to use it better, yes; teach players to stop appealing for NONSENSE and return the games highest values of integrity and honesty, certainly; and then maybe the captains who keep getting their DRS appeals turned down will make better use of them and then the hypocritical arguments about its accuracy will disappear. (After all we all know that Dhoni was one of the captains who got most of his DRS appeals turned down at the WC)

  • teletnt on June 27, 2011, 4:27 GMT

    It would be nice if people did a little research into DRS BEFORE making emotional comments. DRS is based on the technology which has been used in lawn tennis for quite a long time and which is accepted by players around the world as normal. My question to all those in support of the BCCI is this: what is the difference between DRS and Haweye? Don't they both predict the path of the ball after the point of contact? Don't they both allow the umpire to see edges of the bat? So why accept Haweye and reject DRS? Further, wasn't there the same arguments raised against the use of Haweye and the run out slow motion replays when they first came out, that they are not 100% reliable? As a Trinidadian I was amused to see how many decisions in the recent Test match and ODI could have been reversed in favour of Indian & WI batsmen if it were being used, just ask Kohli if he thinks it should be used. The arguments against it are disingenuous at best and laughable at worst.

  • kristee on June 27, 2011, 4:19 GMT

    The suspicion that they're benefited by the field umpires or at least they fancy so is getting more and more strong by the BCCI's objection to DRS.

  • abanwait on June 27, 2011, 4:07 GMT

    Why is it so difficult for everyone to understand why BCCI does not want the DRS. I m an Indian, I hate the reason, but here it is: BCCI has no problem with DRS, its a handful of players who for some reason do not like it, probably because it is inconsistent. TRUE. \But its also true that human umpiring has made blunders too. So basically to keep these players, knowingly Tendulkar and Dhoni, who mind you are very influential, happy! These players bring alot of TRP and business to BCCI, so they just cannot go against them. I hate it, but That's it!!

  • popcorn on June 27, 2011, 3:43 GMT

    Today is THE DAY! Whether ICC,backed by Member Countries otherthan India vote for DRS MANADATORY in ALL Tests, ODIs and T20s, and / or, India gets thrown out of the ICC, and / or, India surrenders meekly.

  • VanDeVan on June 27, 2011, 3:33 GMT

    @Siddharth Mishra: India's insistance on Hotspot. Refer to ESPNCricinfo article 'No Hot Spot for World Cup'. Its a military technology which needs approval and return of the equipment after use. How does that affect the equation?

  • Baundele on June 27, 2011, 2:49 GMT

    I can find a solution for the UDRS problem. India, England and Australia will have 10 reviews, weaker teams (in terms of board power) like Pakistan, SL, Bangladesh, WI, SA, NZ will have only 2 reviews. If BCCI wants, they can negotiate for 20 reviews for India as well.

  • kalyanbk on June 27, 2011, 1:02 GMT

    Certain technologies like hotspot was not used in the world cup because Australia would not export that military technology to India. Right now we have different technologies used for drs in different countries. We must achieve consistency in that all technologies are equally available in all countries to accept drs. For example a Zimbabwe vs Bangladesh match in Harare should also have hotspot, super slowmo, snickometer and hawk eye. Even if governments suspended export regulations, will it be financially viable to transport and use that tech in Zimbabwe?

  • MrMMJ on June 26, 2011, 23:10 GMT

    @Saif Rehman, You say that do not forget that Sachin was saved by UDRS..... Precisely this is another case of doubting the UDRS. If UDRS suggest that ball was missing the stumps then it was missing the stumps, period. But if it was not missing the stumps then Umpire was right and your position in DRS is wrong. U can not pick and choose the situations to make your point. India won against pakistan fairly and squrely and as per UDRS ball was missing the stumps.

  • MrMMJ on June 26, 2011, 23:02 GMT

    Is DRS is only about technology as lot of people pretending it to be technology only. I can understand that technology cuts the human errors but in case of DRS "technology" is mere euphemism so people can swallow a half cooked system. Just 2 reviews for one team per inning that too in tests. New recommendation is just 1 review per inning for ODI's. Then how the "Technology" is helping here. DRS is just not " Technology" but pretending as TECHNOLOGY is being used.

  • on June 26, 2011, 22:32 GMT

    am an Indian and I really think there is more to it (India's reluctance to embrace DRS). Otherwise even a kid would say that DRS is the way to go ahead...

  • Robster1 on June 26, 2011, 22:14 GMT

    ICC - DRS right now, for all. No BCCI exemption. What are the BCCI trying to protect one wonders ?

    And by the way, can we please have an annual test championship now - not in another decade's time.

  • Cricman123 on June 26, 2011, 22:04 GMT

    The BBCI is rediculous. There are no good reasons not to use it, so why not use it??

  • Karthik_1982 on June 26, 2011, 21:56 GMT

    @Andy: The poorer boards are in support of DRS, I agree but they are not in support of their boards taking up the cost of implementing it. They support with an in-clause of broadcasting company taking the cost. Isn't it ironic; everyone agrees unless it doesn't fall on them. BCCI doesn't approve this becoz they see the bigger picture of cricket economics not others.

  • Vidhyash_B on June 26, 2011, 21:38 GMT

    Its not at all about the money. There is no way to prove the accuracy of the DRS technology. the ICC says that accuracy of umpiring decisions has gone up from 92 to 97% because of the tech. How can they make this claim when they have openly agreed that the technology is not fully accurate? The ICC has no way of figuring out what would have actually happened (actual trajectory of the ball) in the case they think that the decision by DRS is accurate. If at all, the Hawk Eye is good enough for tracking only till the point of contact. Extrapolating the trajectory beyond that is BS. There are a zillion factors like nature of the pitch (how much the pitch spins or bounces), the direction of the wind and even the placement of cameras for the hawk eye that can affect the prediction of the trajectory of the ball. Its a pity that the ICC does not have enough engineers to question this technology. Someone has to ask the questions and BCCI is rightly doing so.

  • ZshanKhan on June 26, 2011, 21:09 GMT

    @saif rehman: Yes you are quite true with your assessment but you seem to forget that Tendulkar was graciously dropped 4 times by amazing Pakistani fielding. It's quite ammusing how people intentionally try and forget such small things.

  • on June 26, 2011, 20:37 GMT

    @AndyZaltzmannsHair what a reply, spot on. hopefully this will silence these kind of people. i 200% agree with you

  • Sabbir007 on June 26, 2011, 20:30 GMT

    SSSSShhhhhhhhh!!! Don't tell anything against BCCI! Do all you forget that,it is the lord of ICC!And why they support drs? If any weaker country beat them with its help?

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 26, 2011, 19:48 GMT

    @karthik_1982: " So do u think WI, NZ, SL, Pak, Bang & Zim can afford these cost for each match when their board r running in lose.".... Why is it the BCCI's concern whether these boards can or cannot afford it? Almost all of the boards, even the poorer ones, have come out in support for DRS and all have at various stages implemented DRS. So ask yourself why is it that the richest board in world cricket is making up excuses? When did it ever care about other cricket boards financial problems? If the poor boards support the DRS and I'm sure are willing to bear the financial burden then why is the BCCI objecting? This whole stance from the BCCI is not only silly, it is blatantly farcical and hypocritical. It is the equivalent of 'political spin', trying to make yourself look good when you have bad PR. Here the BCCI is pretending to care about the financial plight of others.

  • Karthik_1982 on June 26, 2011, 19:35 GMT

    I don't understand y ppl r blaming BCCI for not using DRS.... the cost to implement $60K these technologies have to be borne by the respective boards. ICC or broadcasting company r not ready to take up this cost. So do u think WI, NZ, SL, Pak, Bang & Zim can afford these cost for each match when their board r running in lose. Unless ICC or broadcasting company takes up the expense BCCI will continue to oppose this. Actually BCCI is protecting the poor boards. Just because Aus & Eng can afford it doesn't mean it has to be made compulsary.

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 26, 2011, 19:24 GMT

    The BCCI's stance on DRS is so silly, it is making Ijaz Butt look good. That's how silly it is.

  • on June 26, 2011, 19:07 GMT

    do not forget tendulakar was saved by this..................................

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:41 GMT

    the ICC should make Match Referees a thing off the past . Umpires should be helped.That meeting is a talk shop .

  • EAMi on June 26, 2011, 18:39 GMT

    @Shiv Shanker Gaur Stop trying to justify BCCI's moronic stance on the UDRS. Even if the LBW technology is somewhat flawed it is still better than many umpires own decision making skills. Overall the UDRS is an invaluable asset in getting decisions right.

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:25 GMT

    There is no technology in the world which is 100% foolproof. A combination of Hotspot, Hawkeye and Snicko seems to provide a fairly balanced system which can be relied on by and large - it is certainly better than just a human eye and ear in a close decision. Wonder why the BCCI doesn't use it considering that it did help us win the WC - maybe some super egos and quest for cash at work here...

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:19 GMT

    Regarding DRS, why is it only India thinks that it has technical flaws? Is India the only country that suffers from DRS flaws and not England, South Africa? Heck even NASA softwares have flaws!!! The entire world can see in the video screen how the decision is being made, there are field umpires involved, 2nd umpire involved and then the TV umpire reviews and gives his/her decision and ultimately the field umpire decides, even if it is not conclusive. Where is the flaw here?

    When the entire world is oursourcing their softwares to Indian tech companies and India couldnt come up with an alternative software that can improve DRS it opposes,,, does it make sense at all? Arrogance of ignorance?

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:19 GMT

    DRS no need if umpires to do their job very well! everyone agaist india on DRS! its not coz of DRS its all abt they dont like bcci's domination nd their financial strength in world cricket especially england! they wanted their board and players to dominate the game... if ICC wanna use the technology it shud be in prior manner! but the worry is biosed umpires giving decisions agaist india! all these things cant be take india away from No.1! DRS must be used but with all technology!

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:00 GMT

    If premier boards like ECB and ACB has no objections on DRS then why India has objection over it. If its not fool proof then its not only for India, it will be for all nations.

  • on June 26, 2011, 17:02 GMT

    ICC got to improve DRS we have seen it affecting the Indian players. I am a fan of it n if the technology is there to be used then should we not be able to make full use of it. But the BCCI have 1 POINT that the DRS Isnt fool proof. It has various flaws and the major one is the LBW. GOT TO IMPROVE IT SOMEHOW! OR ELSE THERE IS NO USE OF TECH Hope something proudctive is sought to in the next few days !

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on June 26, 2011, 17:02 GMT

    ICC got to improve DRS we have seen it affecting the Indian players. I am a fan of it n if the technology is there to be used then should we not be able to make full use of it. But the BCCI have 1 POINT that the DRS Isnt fool proof. It has various flaws and the major one is the LBW. GOT TO IMPROVE IT SOMEHOW! OR ELSE THERE IS NO USE OF TECH Hope something proudctive is sought to in the next few days !

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:00 GMT

    If premier boards like ECB and ACB has no objections on DRS then why India has objection over it. If its not fool proof then its not only for India, it will be for all nations.

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:19 GMT

    DRS no need if umpires to do their job very well! everyone agaist india on DRS! its not coz of DRS its all abt they dont like bcci's domination nd their financial strength in world cricket especially england! they wanted their board and players to dominate the game... if ICC wanna use the technology it shud be in prior manner! but the worry is biosed umpires giving decisions agaist india! all these things cant be take india away from No.1! DRS must be used but with all technology!

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:19 GMT

    Regarding DRS, why is it only India thinks that it has technical flaws? Is India the only country that suffers from DRS flaws and not England, South Africa? Heck even NASA softwares have flaws!!! The entire world can see in the video screen how the decision is being made, there are field umpires involved, 2nd umpire involved and then the TV umpire reviews and gives his/her decision and ultimately the field umpire decides, even if it is not conclusive. Where is the flaw here?

    When the entire world is oursourcing their softwares to Indian tech companies and India couldnt come up with an alternative software that can improve DRS it opposes,,, does it make sense at all? Arrogance of ignorance?

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:25 GMT

    There is no technology in the world which is 100% foolproof. A combination of Hotspot, Hawkeye and Snicko seems to provide a fairly balanced system which can be relied on by and large - it is certainly better than just a human eye and ear in a close decision. Wonder why the BCCI doesn't use it considering that it did help us win the WC - maybe some super egos and quest for cash at work here...

  • EAMi on June 26, 2011, 18:39 GMT

    @Shiv Shanker Gaur Stop trying to justify BCCI's moronic stance on the UDRS. Even if the LBW technology is somewhat flawed it is still better than many umpires own decision making skills. Overall the UDRS is an invaluable asset in getting decisions right.

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:41 GMT

    the ICC should make Match Referees a thing off the past . Umpires should be helped.That meeting is a talk shop .

  • on June 26, 2011, 19:07 GMT

    do not forget tendulakar was saved by this..................................

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 26, 2011, 19:24 GMT

    The BCCI's stance on DRS is so silly, it is making Ijaz Butt look good. That's how silly it is.

  • Karthik_1982 on June 26, 2011, 19:35 GMT

    I don't understand y ppl r blaming BCCI for not using DRS.... the cost to implement $60K these technologies have to be borne by the respective boards. ICC or broadcasting company r not ready to take up this cost. So do u think WI, NZ, SL, Pak, Bang & Zim can afford these cost for each match when their board r running in lose. Unless ICC or broadcasting company takes up the expense BCCI will continue to oppose this. Actually BCCI is protecting the poor boards. Just because Aus & Eng can afford it doesn't mean it has to be made compulsary.