ICC news August 14, 2011

Isaac backs Indian board on DRS

ESPNcricinfo staff
31

The ICC vice-president Alan Isaac has backed the BCCI's stance on the DRS, saying he too isn't convinced the technology works "well enough". The BCCI has expressed its reservations over the ball-tracking technology used for lbw decisions, saying it isn't fool-proof and Isaac felt the Indian board was "right". The BCCI, the other member boards and the ICC reached a compromise at the ICC's annual conference in Hong Kong earlier this year, making the use of ball-tracking optional for each series while agreeing to use Hot Spot for every international game subject to availability.

"In my experience they are very decent to work with," Isaac was quoted as saying in the New Zealand newspaper Southland Times. "Around the DRS [technology for umpires] for example the media have tended to give [India] the blame as to why the DRS is not being implemented, but it's not only them. I personally am not convinced the technology works well enough, so we've got to do something about that."

Isaac also claimed the BCCI was right about many issues concerning cricket but divergent views in the media tend to give the impression that they are muscle-flexing and difficult to work with. "Often when [India] hold a view, they are right, but various parts of the media have a different view, whether you're Geoff Boycott or whatever. So this perception has built up that A, [India] are hard to deal with and B, they control world cricket. But in fact they are good to work with and on the DRS I actually think they are right."

Cricket was hit by the spot-fixing controversy last year, plunging it into another crisis, and Isaac said a lot is being done to tackle the problem of corruption. "It is challenging. Allegedly there is a whole lot of money being spent betting on sport, not just on cricket and betting on sport in India is illegal so it's not like you can manage it.

"In New Zealand, Australia or Singapore it's legalised betting and you can monitor more closely where bets might take place.

"Part of what we are doing is making sure the education is there, making sure the sanctions are there, there's a heck of a lot of monitoring that takes place. You will be aware that guys are not allowed to take their cell-phones into the dressing room environment and all those types of things. There's a lot of surveillance in place."

Isaac, a former left-hand batsman who captained Wellington's second team, took over as chairman of New Zealand Cricket in 2008 and was nominated for post of vice-president of the ICC two years later. He will succeed Sharad Pawar as ICC president next year.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • CandidIndian on August 17, 2011, 19:25 GMT

    Sri1967 -Its not about India being no 1 or no 8,its about taking a stand.BCCI has problems with UDRS so they have every right to oppose.While Eng and Aus boards who are biggest supporters of UDRS should first convince their own players about it ,then try and convince BCCI.If Broad checks the bat of Laxman for Vaseline layer,or Ponting argues with umpire over decision given on the basis of UDRS obviously they dont have full faith on UDRS.So if they show dissatisfaction towards UDRS its ok and if Indian players or BCCI does ,then they are villains.We cannot have different rules for Eng and Aus ,and different rules for India or any other Asian country whatsoever.About umpires only twice India appealed to change the umpires,once in case of Bucknor and other Harper due to bad decisions given by them, but thats not dictatorship, even SA did the same in case of Steve Davis after he gave wrong decision in Durban test.

  • Sakthiivel on August 17, 2011, 18:53 GMT

    Many support DRS without knowing the nature of it. But many Technologies used in cricket has been a failure. As aus support these only because of income generate to its companies. Unfortunately many countries support DRS dont have money to get this in their series still they support blind saying tech tech tech.

  • Sri1967 on August 17, 2011, 7:48 GMT

    @CandidIndia and Rabin Thaman - Mate...isn't it better to have more accurate decesions than inaccurate? Tomorrow BCCI wil say since India is no 1, we cannot allow an umpire from Australia to stand in our match if Australia is no 2. Guys, let's go with the more than the less to keep this game's beauty and spirit.

  • on August 16, 2011, 23:55 GMT

    Majority of Eng-Aus-NZ fans along with some Lankans, Saffers plus Michael Holding act as if the only problem in world cricket is BCCI. For Pakistanis anything Indian is by default, poisoned. BD anyway is Pakistan as far as India goes. I suggest they all band together and throw BCCI out of ICC and proceed to resurrect the glory of world cricket. All these principled nations should treat with contempt the revenue from India and just stand for principles and ideals.

  • CandidIndian on August 16, 2011, 22:10 GMT

    Its a fashion to blame BCCI for everything.Aussies and Poms are biggest supporters of UDRS if i am not mistaken, we saw the reaction of Ponting arguing with Aleem Darr when third umpire gave the batsman not out on the basis of UDRS.Very recently we saw English players appealing and then checking Laxman's bat for Vaseline since they didnt have faith on hot spot .You blame India for not using UDRS when your own players are doubtful about it. Broad who checked the bat of Laxman for Vaseline layer ,if he has doubts over UDRS its ok,Ponting has doubts over UDRS that also ok but if Isaac has similar views he is agent of BCCI , is there any logic in this?

  • CandidIndian on August 16, 2011, 22:09 GMT

    Its a fashion to blame BCCI for everything.Aussies and Poms are biggest supporters of UDRS if i am not mistaken, we saw the reaction of Ponting arguing with Aleem Darr when third umpire gave the batsman not out on the basis of UDRS.Very recently we saw English players appealing and then checking Laxman's bat for Vaseline since they didnt have faith on hot spot .You blame India for not using UDRS when your own players are doubtful about it. Broad who checked the bat of Laxman for Vaseline layer ,if he has doubts over UDRS its ok,Ponting has doubts over UDRS that also ok but if Isaac has similar views he is agent of BCCI , is there any logic in this?

  • GrassBanks on August 16, 2011, 12:10 GMT

    Why not have DRS for all decisions and get rid of the umpires? It is so obviously better than the umpires and there will be nothing to complain about for both teams. This surely get even more decisions correct than the current referral system?

  • bobbington7 on August 16, 2011, 9:25 GMT

    We are notorious of always rejecting new ideas,fashion, technonlogy etc.Finding fault with technology is foolish.Introduction of new technology is a mark of development and it has very good advantage over old ones.Nobody would like to travel in bullock carts nowadays.A society which ignores new developments in technology is doomed.

  • SanjivAwesome on August 16, 2011, 8:12 GMT

    I am confused. If DRS is technologically questionable, then that tech should be ditched until a better tech is invented. We want better cricket, not emotions or unsubstantiated views from media, commentators and sundry.

  • on August 16, 2011, 5:57 GMT

    offcourse india take after examing all possibilities

  • CandidIndian on August 17, 2011, 19:25 GMT

    Sri1967 -Its not about India being no 1 or no 8,its about taking a stand.BCCI has problems with UDRS so they have every right to oppose.While Eng and Aus boards who are biggest supporters of UDRS should first convince their own players about it ,then try and convince BCCI.If Broad checks the bat of Laxman for Vaseline layer,or Ponting argues with umpire over decision given on the basis of UDRS obviously they dont have full faith on UDRS.So if they show dissatisfaction towards UDRS its ok and if Indian players or BCCI does ,then they are villains.We cannot have different rules for Eng and Aus ,and different rules for India or any other Asian country whatsoever.About umpires only twice India appealed to change the umpires,once in case of Bucknor and other Harper due to bad decisions given by them, but thats not dictatorship, even SA did the same in case of Steve Davis after he gave wrong decision in Durban test.

  • Sakthiivel on August 17, 2011, 18:53 GMT

    Many support DRS without knowing the nature of it. But many Technologies used in cricket has been a failure. As aus support these only because of income generate to its companies. Unfortunately many countries support DRS dont have money to get this in their series still they support blind saying tech tech tech.

  • Sri1967 on August 17, 2011, 7:48 GMT

    @CandidIndia and Rabin Thaman - Mate...isn't it better to have more accurate decesions than inaccurate? Tomorrow BCCI wil say since India is no 1, we cannot allow an umpire from Australia to stand in our match if Australia is no 2. Guys, let's go with the more than the less to keep this game's beauty and spirit.

  • on August 16, 2011, 23:55 GMT

    Majority of Eng-Aus-NZ fans along with some Lankans, Saffers plus Michael Holding act as if the only problem in world cricket is BCCI. For Pakistanis anything Indian is by default, poisoned. BD anyway is Pakistan as far as India goes. I suggest they all band together and throw BCCI out of ICC and proceed to resurrect the glory of world cricket. All these principled nations should treat with contempt the revenue from India and just stand for principles and ideals.

  • CandidIndian on August 16, 2011, 22:10 GMT

    Its a fashion to blame BCCI for everything.Aussies and Poms are biggest supporters of UDRS if i am not mistaken, we saw the reaction of Ponting arguing with Aleem Darr when third umpire gave the batsman not out on the basis of UDRS.Very recently we saw English players appealing and then checking Laxman's bat for Vaseline since they didnt have faith on hot spot .You blame India for not using UDRS when your own players are doubtful about it. Broad who checked the bat of Laxman for Vaseline layer ,if he has doubts over UDRS its ok,Ponting has doubts over UDRS that also ok but if Isaac has similar views he is agent of BCCI , is there any logic in this?

  • CandidIndian on August 16, 2011, 22:09 GMT

    Its a fashion to blame BCCI for everything.Aussies and Poms are biggest supporters of UDRS if i am not mistaken, we saw the reaction of Ponting arguing with Aleem Darr when third umpire gave the batsman not out on the basis of UDRS.Very recently we saw English players appealing and then checking Laxman's bat for Vaseline since they didnt have faith on hot spot .You blame India for not using UDRS when your own players are doubtful about it. Broad who checked the bat of Laxman for Vaseline layer ,if he has doubts over UDRS its ok,Ponting has doubts over UDRS that also ok but if Isaac has similar views he is agent of BCCI , is there any logic in this?

  • GrassBanks on August 16, 2011, 12:10 GMT

    Why not have DRS for all decisions and get rid of the umpires? It is so obviously better than the umpires and there will be nothing to complain about for both teams. This surely get even more decisions correct than the current referral system?

  • bobbington7 on August 16, 2011, 9:25 GMT

    We are notorious of always rejecting new ideas,fashion, technonlogy etc.Finding fault with technology is foolish.Introduction of new technology is a mark of development and it has very good advantage over old ones.Nobody would like to travel in bullock carts nowadays.A society which ignores new developments in technology is doomed.

  • SanjivAwesome on August 16, 2011, 8:12 GMT

    I am confused. If DRS is technologically questionable, then that tech should be ditched until a better tech is invented. We want better cricket, not emotions or unsubstantiated views from media, commentators and sundry.

  • on August 16, 2011, 5:57 GMT

    offcourse india take after examing all possibilities

  • razzaqboom on August 15, 2011, 21:30 GMT

    well i think they should use technology und DRS bcoz i can unserstand that even with DRS u can get 1 or 2 wrong decisions at ur way, and that also not in every match! but without DRS and all that tehnology i wonder how many wrong decisions will umpires gonna made?? cam u guys the last time india tour to australia?? 6 to 7 wrong decisions in every test match or something like that?? so thats why i think they should use DRS! is not 100 prozent but surely there will be lot less wrong decisions then before:) cheers!

  • concerned_cricketer on August 15, 2011, 14:29 GMT

    Completely agree with the comment by ashesm. They should make available to the public the results of testing. All the folk that are currently involved with this can't be assumed to have the capability to take the best decision, especially where it involves science. And there is no shame in it, they might have spent most of their time on a cricket ground when their science classes were on. So just give it to the public to review and also to real scientists.

  • on August 15, 2011, 13:03 GMT

    Essentially Isaac making sure he remains in BCCI's good book...lets get ready for another period of successful collaboration between power obsessed BCCI and spineless ICC under Isaac...

  • Kestogo on August 15, 2011, 6:17 GMT

    I would like to see facts and figures that the DRS as it currently is (not the watered down version) is bad for cricket. If Alan Isaacs or the BCCI has facts other than what is available to the public then they should publish it or make it available to those for the technology to make a better choice. I wondered how much he was encouraged to come up with this drivel. Facts and figures rules pal. Leave the feelings to your family and friends. One rank bad decision can cost the professional players big money. What is the cost of a bad (umpire) decision for the administrators?

  • getsetgopk on August 15, 2011, 5:38 GMT

    this one is for saving india some nose after the recent thrashing by England.

  • cricket_wins on August 15, 2011, 4:41 GMT

    I think this article would also be viewed in a cynical light as if the ICC has to toe India's line. I definitely feel the BCCI's head-strong approach did come through in many of their statements, but on the DRS, they had reasons to believe it was not working out and went ahead to support those technologies they were convinced would work. This is a very reasonable stand to take, considering this is a middle ground. Obviously not embracing any technology is bad, as is fully embracing error-prone and inaccurate technologies. I seriously hope the BCCI-bashers make their presence in the comments on this article and come out with their cynicism or their pleasant surprise, as the case may be.

  • hyclass on August 15, 2011, 2:00 GMT

    Im very disappointed with Alan Isaacs position.I wonder if people recall the time before neutral umpires.It was hell.Even when india played the WI recently,they were prepared to denigrate the umpire as being responsible for their own inadequacies.The technology showed him to be right in 8 out of 9 decisions.If the technology is called into question,then where to for those trying to control individual test matches?Neutral umpires were the answer to home town umpiring.India recently called that into question when matters didnt go their way.Worse still,the umpire wasnt given the support that was required,by the match referees.There seems to be an international reticence to oppose the BCCI.In recent years,Indian players have had the capacity to have their poor conduct charges diminished or revoked.Once authority becomes negotiable,then the entire structure of cricket will crumble.This technology has the capacity to mitigate that.Where is the evidence of its inadequacy-not just rhetoric.

  • on August 14, 2011, 21:17 GMT

    Must ta kit out west of time

  • lefty84 on August 14, 2011, 19:35 GMT

    Can't agree completely with his statements. You don't take decision based on what one feels but based on facts. If BCCI does not feel it to be accurate they should be doing some tests in class A or sub division matches and prove the same with results. The same thing applies to ICC as well.

    Until then using the tool makes sure the decisions are uniform if not accurate between both teams and i guess both teams should be able to live with that.

  • ARad on August 14, 2011, 19:12 GMT

    We should technology when it can ASSIST the umpires. If the system isn't 100% accurate, that does not mean we should stop using it. Umpires are not 100% effective and they also obviously guess how the ball would travel (WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE of the replay while toiling away for hours under the Sun, while dealing with players, their intimidatory appeal, paying attention to the bowling crease, etc.) Does this mean we should remove the umpires from the game too? Here is a better idea. When umpires think they need to review or when players request a review, the UMPIRES THEMSELVES should be allowed to review and make the judgment. This should be done in American Football style. Install a TV monitor near the boundary so the umpire can jog to it and review the delivery himself. He can combine what he saw in real time with what the replays reveal. This is better than following a PRE-SCRIPTED questionnaire (like someone in TECH SUPPORT!) on the walkie-talkie which is hardly fool proof.

  • Optic on August 14, 2011, 17:07 GMT

    Whatever he says, it works better than the umpires, who have made some horrible decisions this series and if we'd have had the full technology, we'd have had more correct calls. I do not understand this rubbish spouted because at the end of the day, it's the same for both sides, there's no bias in the technology. The umpires are comfortable with the technology as well, which adds to the argument. This dudes just the bcci's scivvy anyway.

  • on August 14, 2011, 16:50 GMT

    welll.. no one s perfect but atleast drs s better than on field empire.....and can imporve decision making............

  • sajni on August 14, 2011, 16:34 GMT

    You said it ashesm. Your's is perhaps the best comment I have heard on the issue and I feel ICC needs to consider the suggestion.

  • Ravi_Siddani on August 14, 2011, 15:59 GMT

    As far as using ball-tracking software goes, it should not be used to "predict what will happen". Just stop at using it for checking whether the ball pitched in line (that camera is immobile and it is checking what has happened) and also for inside edges onto pad (again, that is checking what has happened). Let the decision as to whether the ball hits the stumps or misses them, or how far forward the batsman is to be given the benefit of the double, be left to the on-field umpires - the direction to the umpire at the wicket, and the height to the square leg umpire. The square leg umpire can also tell if the batsman is forward enough. He is the best person to make that judgement, rather than the umpire at the wicket. Also, if a wicket is off a no-ball, the third umpire should be given the power to radio the on-field umpires and reverse the decision.

  • ananthak1412 on August 14, 2011, 15:54 GMT

    @ashesm Although I would like that, I don't think they would do it. It is the company's trade secret. It's like asking nestle for the cookie formula. I do wish though that the ICC convince the company to do so, so that experts can work on perfecting it for the betterment of the game.

  • on August 14, 2011, 15:38 GMT

    Sold for a million bucks.....another addition to the BCCI team - Alan Isaac

  • Lahori_Munde on August 14, 2011, 15:34 GMT

    I tend to agree with Alan and BCCI. The technology is creating lot more confusions rather then making it simple and accurate. @Gihan Peries - very poor, a typical conspiracy mind set from a fan of certain team..

  • on August 14, 2011, 15:33 GMT

    Another BCCI Muppet coming in ICC!

  • ultimatewarrior on August 14, 2011, 14:58 GMT

    Alan Isaac is very much correct in saying that DRS isn't a fool proof system. You can't start giving LBW for a leg enough outside the crease to a player who has learnt all his life to play a spinner outside the crease, whether ball is hitting middle stump or not. Its his style of playing cricket. No player can't change his method to play a spinner overnight or even can say in rest of career. So it will be in the betterment of cricket to be popular that DRS system should be implemented after modification with every board and every player approval. Technology should not be allowed to distract soul of cricket by forcing OUT that player that was supposed to be NOT OUT just few years back.

  • ashesm on August 14, 2011, 11:39 GMT

    It escapes my intelligence as to why we do not see published, the evidence of the technology behind the ball-tracking software. In various aspects of science, we the public, and experts are able to analyse the evidence and question it, rather than blindly going by someones word. I do not believe most of our commentators have the requisite intelligence to critically appraise and scientifically question the evidence, and it shows quite often in their commentary. Again, I do not believe the folk at ICC have the required intelligence either. I would like the ICC/BCCI/.., whoever, to demand that a paper is published in any scientific/sports journal, allowing others to see for themselves whether this technology has enough going for it to be adopted. If this has been done, I would like the ICC to publish the names and qualifications of the EXPERTS who have analysed/questioned the technology, and submit for public knowledge their report on the technology.

  • on August 14, 2011, 10:31 GMT

    It's not a big surprise to hear this, because ICC stands for Indian Cricket Council.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on August 14, 2011, 10:31 GMT

    It's not a big surprise to hear this, because ICC stands for Indian Cricket Council.

  • ashesm on August 14, 2011, 11:39 GMT

    It escapes my intelligence as to why we do not see published, the evidence of the technology behind the ball-tracking software. In various aspects of science, we the public, and experts are able to analyse the evidence and question it, rather than blindly going by someones word. I do not believe most of our commentators have the requisite intelligence to critically appraise and scientifically question the evidence, and it shows quite often in their commentary. Again, I do not believe the folk at ICC have the required intelligence either. I would like the ICC/BCCI/.., whoever, to demand that a paper is published in any scientific/sports journal, allowing others to see for themselves whether this technology has enough going for it to be adopted. If this has been done, I would like the ICC to publish the names and qualifications of the EXPERTS who have analysed/questioned the technology, and submit for public knowledge their report on the technology.

  • ultimatewarrior on August 14, 2011, 14:58 GMT

    Alan Isaac is very much correct in saying that DRS isn't a fool proof system. You can't start giving LBW for a leg enough outside the crease to a player who has learnt all his life to play a spinner outside the crease, whether ball is hitting middle stump or not. Its his style of playing cricket. No player can't change his method to play a spinner overnight or even can say in rest of career. So it will be in the betterment of cricket to be popular that DRS system should be implemented after modification with every board and every player approval. Technology should not be allowed to distract soul of cricket by forcing OUT that player that was supposed to be NOT OUT just few years back.

  • on August 14, 2011, 15:33 GMT

    Another BCCI Muppet coming in ICC!

  • Lahori_Munde on August 14, 2011, 15:34 GMT

    I tend to agree with Alan and BCCI. The technology is creating lot more confusions rather then making it simple and accurate. @Gihan Peries - very poor, a typical conspiracy mind set from a fan of certain team..

  • on August 14, 2011, 15:38 GMT

    Sold for a million bucks.....another addition to the BCCI team - Alan Isaac

  • ananthak1412 on August 14, 2011, 15:54 GMT

    @ashesm Although I would like that, I don't think they would do it. It is the company's trade secret. It's like asking nestle for the cookie formula. I do wish though that the ICC convince the company to do so, so that experts can work on perfecting it for the betterment of the game.

  • Ravi_Siddani on August 14, 2011, 15:59 GMT

    As far as using ball-tracking software goes, it should not be used to "predict what will happen". Just stop at using it for checking whether the ball pitched in line (that camera is immobile and it is checking what has happened) and also for inside edges onto pad (again, that is checking what has happened). Let the decision as to whether the ball hits the stumps or misses them, or how far forward the batsman is to be given the benefit of the double, be left to the on-field umpires - the direction to the umpire at the wicket, and the height to the square leg umpire. The square leg umpire can also tell if the batsman is forward enough. He is the best person to make that judgement, rather than the umpire at the wicket. Also, if a wicket is off a no-ball, the third umpire should be given the power to radio the on-field umpires and reverse the decision.

  • sajni on August 14, 2011, 16:34 GMT

    You said it ashesm. Your's is perhaps the best comment I have heard on the issue and I feel ICC needs to consider the suggestion.

  • on August 14, 2011, 16:50 GMT

    welll.. no one s perfect but atleast drs s better than on field empire.....and can imporve decision making............