ICC annual conference June 27, 2011

Cook, Kandamby welcome DRS implementation

ESPNcricinfo staff

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

  • udendra on June 29, 2011, 9:17 GMT

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

  • Dummy4 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.

  • Himanshu 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.

  • Dummy4 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.

  • Anand 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.

  • Thomas 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.

  • Rtn 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.

  • Thomas 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.

  • Dummy4 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...

  • Dummy4 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?

  • No featured comments at the moment.