ICC annual conference June 27, 2011

Cook, Kandamby welcome DRS implementation

ESPNcricinfo staff
  shares 18

England's new one-day captain, Alastair Cook, has welcomed the ICC's decision to make a modified version of the Decision Review System (DRS) mandatory in all Tests and ODIs.

"I believe DRS helps get more right decisions, which is the most important thing," Cook said ahead of the first ODI against Sri Lanka at The Oval. "What we need is players getting the right decisions, whether they are in or out, and that is the end of the matter. I think technology to get those decisions right is the best way forward and we need as much available as we can to get the right decisions."

Thilina Kandamby, who led Sri Lanka to victory in the one-off Twenty20 and will remain in charge if Tillakaratne Dilshan doesn't recover in time for the first one-dayer, shared Cook's opinion on the issue. "Personally I feel technology has to come in," Kandamby said. "I feel cricketers and umpires might make mistakes. We are all human, so it has to come in to a certain extent."

Former New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming also voiced his support for the system, but added that it would remain a "compromise" until all countries wholeheartedly backed it.

"It is a situation where we have to come," Fleming said in New Delhi. "We had to accept it one day. The use of technology has become a must in modern day cricket. The technology is there to get rid of bad decisions. But there are some aspects which is not acceptable to some of the boards. It is a compromise until all the countries are totally convinced about it."

The DRS has been a controversial issue at the international level, with the Indian board and players opposing its implementation on the grounds that the ball-tracking technology was not sufficiently reliable. The ICC's new ruling will do away with ball-tracking as one of the mandatory review tools, and will rely primarily on the use of infra-red cameras and audio-tracking devices.

This means that India will, for the first time since 2008, be agreeable to using the DRS in a bilateral series when they tour England in July. However the DRS used in that series will be without the aid of ball-tracking technology. For example, if the ball pitches outside leg stump and the batsman is given out lbw, the batsman can appeal against the verdict but the third umpire will not have the benefit of the ball-tracking technology to ascertain where the ball pitched. On the other hand, if a batsman is given out lbw and he thinks there is an inside-edge involved, the Hot Spot can resolve whether there was an edge or not.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Udendra on | June 29, 2011, 9:17 GMT

    Except HAWK EYE everything is fine - those should be implemented!

  • POSTED BY on | June 28, 2011, 8:05 GMT

    do any body can explain the mechanics how hwak eye decide which sample of points to use to draw a line to determine ball tracking.

  • POSTED BY himanshu.team on | June 28, 2011, 7:29 GMT

    This is a very correct decision by the ICC. They have removed the system that was causing maximum wrong/uncertain decisions fromt eh DRS. The predictive ball tracker has been banned, that does not mean that umpires can not know if the ball pitched in line with the stumps or not. However, the decision can not be overturned becuase they will not check if the ball woudl actually hit the stump or miss it. That is left for the on field umpire. As long os the predictive element is full proof or very close it should nto be used. If there has to be an error let it be an umpiring error only. Most howlers happen due to edges missed by umpires or wrongly picked by them. The worst form of DRS was during the WC, when the elements that needed to be there were missing and those which were dubious were present. Now ICC has corrected it. Moreover they have said that an expert team will look into the predicitve element and I am sure they will re-introduce it in a way that is fair for all.

  • POSTED BY on | June 28, 2011, 5:37 GMT

    I dont know why do people think Hawk Eye is a problem, It can determine the exact path of ball through its trajectory! Its plain science. And for those who still dont understand the 2.5 M rule it is because the cricket ball can SWING! & it moves in the air a lot & many times it will swing near to the batsman rather then many yards infront of him, if it did move much earlier swing bowlers woudnt have been a trouble in the first place.

  • POSTED BY Horn.OK.Please on | June 28, 2011, 5:22 GMT

    Hawk eye need not be there, but we can at least have the virtual strip that is superimposed upon the actual delivery to let the third-ump know where the ball pitched. That's a ridiculous compromise to make.

  • POSTED BY segga-express on | June 28, 2011, 4:07 GMT

    The point I'm making is even if their are issues with the predictive element why prevent the non-controversial tracking element be used? The original DRS system only allowed the tracking element of Hawkeye and prohibited the use of the predictive element. The tracking element allows for greater accuracy in decision making than just using raw images and hotspot. Although why people complain about the predictive element is beyond me when a quick look over any website of these companies explains how the technology works and proves its accuracy.

  • POSTED BY crickeyt on | June 28, 2011, 3:08 GMT

    The example in the last paragraph about LBW decisions where the ball pitches outside leg does not make sense. It does not require ball-tracking to determine that. Just replay the video with lines joining the two pairs of stumps on the pitch and you can see whether the ball pitched outside leg. No tracking or prediction is required.

  • POSTED BY segga-express on | June 28, 2011, 2:13 GMT

    @Sunny Chahal - The point I'm making is tennis doesn't make a prediction and neither does Hawkeye prior to impact upon the pad - it genuinely shows where the ball actually went. For the purposes of showing whether a ball pitched outside leg stump there is nothing more accurate. The age and condition of the ball and wicket have nothing to do with that. Nor does it play any part when it comes to making the prediction of the trajectory - the prediction uses the information from the delivery to show where it would end up. The MCC have researched it extensively. And before anyone argues they may have a vested interest, they pay part of the money to supply the DRS system so financially they have no interest in showing the system to be accurate - they only wish to improve the game.

  • POSTED BY on | June 28, 2011, 0:01 GMT

    @ segga-express.. i surely back technology as well my friend but at the same time we have to look at the circumstances under which it is being used.. going by your example of tennis.. neither we can compare a hard tennis court to a rather unpredictable cricket pitch nor we can compare an always new tennis ball to a used cricket ball.. so using hawk eye isnt worth it when we can look upon some other technology thts out there.. m sure they ll find a better option..lets all just pray tht watching cricket gets better and better...

  • POSTED BY on | June 27, 2011, 23:04 GMT

    @Goldeneye075: The wicket mat, as far as I know, is not provided by Hawkeye. So in all probability, the third umpire will use the wicket mat combined with the slow-motion replay to assess where the ball pitched. Why do we need Hawkeye to tell us where the ball pitched when we already have a slow-motion replay and a wicket mat?

  • POSTED BY Udendra on | June 29, 2011, 9:17 GMT

    Except HAWK EYE everything is fine - those should be implemented!

  • POSTED BY on | June 28, 2011, 8:05 GMT

    do any body can explain the mechanics how hwak eye decide which sample of points to use to draw a line to determine ball tracking.

  • POSTED BY himanshu.team on | June 28, 2011, 7:29 GMT

    This is a very correct decision by the ICC. They have removed the system that was causing maximum wrong/uncertain decisions fromt eh DRS. The predictive ball tracker has been banned, that does not mean that umpires can not know if the ball pitched in line with the stumps or not. However, the decision can not be overturned becuase they will not check if the ball woudl actually hit the stump or miss it. That is left for the on field umpire. As long os the predictive element is full proof or very close it should nto be used. If there has to be an error let it be an umpiring error only. Most howlers happen due to edges missed by umpires or wrongly picked by them. The worst form of DRS was during the WC, when the elements that needed to be there were missing and those which were dubious were present. Now ICC has corrected it. Moreover they have said that an expert team will look into the predicitve element and I am sure they will re-introduce it in a way that is fair for all.

  • POSTED BY on | June 28, 2011, 5:37 GMT

    I dont know why do people think Hawk Eye is a problem, It can determine the exact path of ball through its trajectory! Its plain science. And for those who still dont understand the 2.5 M rule it is because the cricket ball can SWING! & it moves in the air a lot & many times it will swing near to the batsman rather then many yards infront of him, if it did move much earlier swing bowlers woudnt have been a trouble in the first place.

  • POSTED BY Horn.OK.Please on | June 28, 2011, 5:22 GMT

    Hawk eye need not be there, but we can at least have the virtual strip that is superimposed upon the actual delivery to let the third-ump know where the ball pitched. That's a ridiculous compromise to make.

  • POSTED BY segga-express on | June 28, 2011, 4:07 GMT

    The point I'm making is even if their are issues with the predictive element why prevent the non-controversial tracking element be used? The original DRS system only allowed the tracking element of Hawkeye and prohibited the use of the predictive element. The tracking element allows for greater accuracy in decision making than just using raw images and hotspot. Although why people complain about the predictive element is beyond me when a quick look over any website of these companies explains how the technology works and proves its accuracy.

  • POSTED BY crickeyt on | June 28, 2011, 3:08 GMT

    The example in the last paragraph about LBW decisions where the ball pitches outside leg does not make sense. It does not require ball-tracking to determine that. Just replay the video with lines joining the two pairs of stumps on the pitch and you can see whether the ball pitched outside leg. No tracking or prediction is required.

  • POSTED BY segga-express on | June 28, 2011, 2:13 GMT

    @Sunny Chahal - The point I'm making is tennis doesn't make a prediction and neither does Hawkeye prior to impact upon the pad - it genuinely shows where the ball actually went. For the purposes of showing whether a ball pitched outside leg stump there is nothing more accurate. The age and condition of the ball and wicket have nothing to do with that. Nor does it play any part when it comes to making the prediction of the trajectory - the prediction uses the information from the delivery to show where it would end up. The MCC have researched it extensively. And before anyone argues they may have a vested interest, they pay part of the money to supply the DRS system so financially they have no interest in showing the system to be accurate - they only wish to improve the game.

  • POSTED BY on | June 28, 2011, 0:01 GMT

    @ segga-express.. i surely back technology as well my friend but at the same time we have to look at the circumstances under which it is being used.. going by your example of tennis.. neither we can compare a hard tennis court to a rather unpredictable cricket pitch nor we can compare an always new tennis ball to a used cricket ball.. so using hawk eye isnt worth it when we can look upon some other technology thts out there.. m sure they ll find a better option..lets all just pray tht watching cricket gets better and better...

  • POSTED BY on | June 27, 2011, 23:04 GMT

    @Goldeneye075: The wicket mat, as far as I know, is not provided by Hawkeye. So in all probability, the third umpire will use the wicket mat combined with the slow-motion replay to assess where the ball pitched. Why do we need Hawkeye to tell us where the ball pitched when we already have a slow-motion replay and a wicket mat?

  • POSTED BY segga-express on | June 27, 2011, 18:33 GMT

    I remember reading an article about research into Hawkeye's accuracy carried out by the MCC cricket committee, including Geoffrey Boycott. They found that it was accurate to within 1mm for the projections (i.e. where the ball will go after hitting the pad). Furthermore, tennis successfully uses the tracking element of Hawkeye with no complaints so surely at the very least they should use Hawkeye to show where the ball pitched and struck the batsman. BCCI flexing their muscles and throwing their toys out of the pram yet again. Would Tendulkar being given out on 99 at Lord's to a ball pitching outside leg or missing the stumps change their mind?

  • POSTED BY ranga_s on | June 27, 2011, 17:13 GMT

    ICC just trying to save their face....Hawk-Eye was used thus far without any fuss by 9 test playing nations....Only India refuse because they doesn't have a clue on how to use it.....Hawk-Eye is an accurate methods and they give the 2.5m rule accepting the flaw...if that's where the flaw is why scrap the rest......No body ever complained about Hawk-Eye inability to track the ball properly when it came to where the ball pitch....If the system is not 100% at 2.5m point use common sense...thats why God gave people heads and brains......ICC decision mocks the rest of the world....simply going around the issue and eventually dishing out what BCCI wants.....thank god India won't lack spinners...if and when they dnt have quality spinners they'll say no to HotSpot too as it won't be of any help....Just pathetic.....

  • POSTED BY Willowarriers on | June 27, 2011, 16:40 GMT

    what is the logic for excluding the outside-legstump ball tracker?? You'd rather get a howler from an umpire than what?? what is the 'other' thing you are scared of? Surely an electronic device will only improve the situation and can point out exactly what happened with the outside leg stump LBW shout? I just can't follow the logic of not having this but agreeing to the rest of the technology. You can't just place all your faith in the umpires and hope they always get it right. They will not. An electronic eye can only help. And even if there are occasional mistakes how can that be grounds for refusing the technology? You are having errors anyways with the human umps... surely the electronic tech will only help... Its silly to think: humans and technology both make mistakes so simply go with human... I mean look at the potential for mistakes... Any day a human will go down to an electronic eye no matter how experienced... There is no contest...

  • POSTED BY crazier on | June 27, 2011, 16:36 GMT

    Ithink it is good to have drs. But the fact is still that if the ball is going to hit the middle or leg stump and if umpire gives the decision of not out then the bowler is haven't a chance to review it and how third umpire is going to have a look at where the ball has pitched

  • POSTED BY AndyZaltzmannsHair on | June 27, 2011, 16:00 GMT

    @Sehwagologist: The reason is that the DRS costs twelfty sixty bajillion dollars per second. And if it's implemented the moon is gonna explode.

  • POSTED BY Philip_Gnana on | June 27, 2011, 16:00 GMT

    When bad decisions start going against a team that seems to work wonders in them agreeing to the UDR System. We need to start somewhere and that is not going to be the perfect start for sure. We need to encourage and let the technique evolve to achieving near perfection. PERFECTION WILL NEVER BE ACHIEVED. Machines make mistakes too. Techonology is no exception but we need to be advancing on this front. Ball tracking is still judgemental and should be taken in line with the real time replays on one screen so that the third umpire can accurately see where the ball pitched. There was a time when we had the tramlines drawn on the pitch. This was of great help to all. Especially to the players on the field (batsmen, bowler & wicket keeper) and above all the umpire. Philip Gnana, New Malden, Surrey

  • POSTED BY goldeneye075 on | June 27, 2011, 15:41 GMT

    "For example, if the ball pitches outside leg stump and the batsman is given out lbw, the batsman can appeal against the verdict but the third umpire will not have the benefit of the ball-tracking technology to ascertain where the ball pitched. " - DRS is a good introduction, and wihout the ability to determine where the ball has pitched is ridiculous. I think they atleast should give the wicket mat to access where the ball pitched. This is like asking a person to eat , but with blind folded .. lol

  • POSTED BY CharlieAlanJakeHarperFamily on | June 27, 2011, 15:23 GMT

    why cant we develop more aleem dar and simon taufel so that even lbws r resolved as they exactly know ball has pitched outside leg or not certainly howlers will be eliminated indians have realised hence they r supporting it darren bravo was out both the times in 2 innings by ishant even ian bishop acknowledged that raina,dhoni,kohli wrongly given out snicko,hotspot would have helped hence DRS is welcomed very much

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY CharlieAlanJakeHarperFamily on | June 27, 2011, 15:23 GMT

    why cant we develop more aleem dar and simon taufel so that even lbws r resolved as they exactly know ball has pitched outside leg or not certainly howlers will be eliminated indians have realised hence they r supporting it darren bravo was out both the times in 2 innings by ishant even ian bishop acknowledged that raina,dhoni,kohli wrongly given out snicko,hotspot would have helped hence DRS is welcomed very much

  • POSTED BY goldeneye075 on | June 27, 2011, 15:41 GMT

    "For example, if the ball pitches outside leg stump and the batsman is given out lbw, the batsman can appeal against the verdict but the third umpire will not have the benefit of the ball-tracking technology to ascertain where the ball pitched. " - DRS is a good introduction, and wihout the ability to determine where the ball has pitched is ridiculous. I think they atleast should give the wicket mat to access where the ball pitched. This is like asking a person to eat , but with blind folded .. lol

  • POSTED BY Philip_Gnana on | June 27, 2011, 16:00 GMT

    When bad decisions start going against a team that seems to work wonders in them agreeing to the UDR System. We need to start somewhere and that is not going to be the perfect start for sure. We need to encourage and let the technique evolve to achieving near perfection. PERFECTION WILL NEVER BE ACHIEVED. Machines make mistakes too. Techonology is no exception but we need to be advancing on this front. Ball tracking is still judgemental and should be taken in line with the real time replays on one screen so that the third umpire can accurately see where the ball pitched. There was a time when we had the tramlines drawn on the pitch. This was of great help to all. Especially to the players on the field (batsmen, bowler & wicket keeper) and above all the umpire. Philip Gnana, New Malden, Surrey

  • POSTED BY AndyZaltzmannsHair on | June 27, 2011, 16:00 GMT

    @Sehwagologist: The reason is that the DRS costs twelfty sixty bajillion dollars per second. And if it's implemented the moon is gonna explode.

  • POSTED BY crazier on | June 27, 2011, 16:36 GMT

    Ithink it is good to have drs. But the fact is still that if the ball is going to hit the middle or leg stump and if umpire gives the decision of not out then the bowler is haven't a chance to review it and how third umpire is going to have a look at where the ball has pitched

  • POSTED BY Willowarriers on | June 27, 2011, 16:40 GMT

    what is the logic for excluding the outside-legstump ball tracker?? You'd rather get a howler from an umpire than what?? what is the 'other' thing you are scared of? Surely an electronic device will only improve the situation and can point out exactly what happened with the outside leg stump LBW shout? I just can't follow the logic of not having this but agreeing to the rest of the technology. You can't just place all your faith in the umpires and hope they always get it right. They will not. An electronic eye can only help. And even if there are occasional mistakes how can that be grounds for refusing the technology? You are having errors anyways with the human umps... surely the electronic tech will only help... Its silly to think: humans and technology both make mistakes so simply go with human... I mean look at the potential for mistakes... Any day a human will go down to an electronic eye no matter how experienced... There is no contest...

  • POSTED BY ranga_s on | June 27, 2011, 17:13 GMT

    ICC just trying to save their face....Hawk-Eye was used thus far without any fuss by 9 test playing nations....Only India refuse because they doesn't have a clue on how to use it.....Hawk-Eye is an accurate methods and they give the 2.5m rule accepting the flaw...if that's where the flaw is why scrap the rest......No body ever complained about Hawk-Eye inability to track the ball properly when it came to where the ball pitch....If the system is not 100% at 2.5m point use common sense...thats why God gave people heads and brains......ICC decision mocks the rest of the world....simply going around the issue and eventually dishing out what BCCI wants.....thank god India won't lack spinners...if and when they dnt have quality spinners they'll say no to HotSpot too as it won't be of any help....Just pathetic.....

  • POSTED BY segga-express on | June 27, 2011, 18:33 GMT

    I remember reading an article about research into Hawkeye's accuracy carried out by the MCC cricket committee, including Geoffrey Boycott. They found that it was accurate to within 1mm for the projections (i.e. where the ball will go after hitting the pad). Furthermore, tennis successfully uses the tracking element of Hawkeye with no complaints so surely at the very least they should use Hawkeye to show where the ball pitched and struck the batsman. BCCI flexing their muscles and throwing their toys out of the pram yet again. Would Tendulkar being given out on 99 at Lord's to a ball pitching outside leg or missing the stumps change their mind?

  • POSTED BY on | June 27, 2011, 23:04 GMT

    @Goldeneye075: The wicket mat, as far as I know, is not provided by Hawkeye. So in all probability, the third umpire will use the wicket mat combined with the slow-motion replay to assess where the ball pitched. Why do we need Hawkeye to tell us where the ball pitched when we already have a slow-motion replay and a wicket mat?

  • POSTED BY on | June 28, 2011, 0:01 GMT

    @ segga-express.. i surely back technology as well my friend but at the same time we have to look at the circumstances under which it is being used.. going by your example of tennis.. neither we can compare a hard tennis court to a rather unpredictable cricket pitch nor we can compare an always new tennis ball to a used cricket ball.. so using hawk eye isnt worth it when we can look upon some other technology thts out there.. m sure they ll find a better option..lets all just pray tht watching cricket gets better and better...