ICC news

ICC pushes again for DRS, BCCI says no

Sharda Ugra

June 25, 2012

Comments: 241 | Text size: A | A

Ross Taylor calls for a review after being given out against Peter Siddle, Australia v New Zealand, 2nd Test, Hobart, 1st day, December 9, 2011
The ICC's CEC said it was "satisfied" with the improvements in DRS technology © AFP

The ICC's Chief Executives Committee (CEC) has reiterated its commitment to the Decision Review System becoming mandatory in international cricket, recommending it to the Executive Board following fresh and successful testing of DRS technology. However, the BCCI - which has long opposed DRS - immediately responded by saying its stand remained unchanged, putting the proposal into serious doubt.

For the record, the ICC also decided to include Hot Spot cameras as part of the mandatory requirements for the DRS; they had been made mandatory following the 2011 ICC conference in June, but were taken off the list in October.

The recommendation to the ICC Board came with one rider: the application will be "subject to the Members' ability to finance and obtain the required technology."

The CEC stated it was "satisfied" with the improvements made over the two key components of DRS technology. These include the new Hot Spot cameras as well as the independent ball-tracking research conducted by Dr Ed Rosten, a Cambridge University department of engineering expert in computer-vision technology. Rosten, the ICC said, had "tested the accuracy and reliability of ball-tracking in a recent Test series and concluded that the results were 100% in agreement with the outcomes produced from his assessments."

All of this was undermined by the BCCI's statement, which came within a couple of hours of the ICC's decision. "The BCCI continues to believe that the system is not foolproof," it said. "It also sticks to its view that the decision on whether or not to use the DRS for a particular series should be left to the boards involved in that series."

The reaction contradicted the wording of the ICC's release, which said recommendations by the CEC were said to be "unanimous". Yet it is understood that the CEC had been explained India's "unreadiness" to use the technology as a whole, and the matter would rest with the ICC Board when it meets on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The BCCI have been the strongest opponents of the DRS, its president N Srinivasan saying that the system would only be supported when it was "100 percent error free." Srinivasan, who arrived in Kuala Lumpur by chartered flight, was not required to be present at the CEC meetings - the BCCI was represented by secretary Sanjay Jagdale - but will be sitting in on the ICC Board when the CEC's recommendations are discussed.

The member nations supporting the DRS are also believed to have told the ICC that they would like it to sort out the grey areas - over the nature, quantity and costs of the DRS - through the selling of centralised global DRS rights to a single sponsor. Most full member nations have indicated that they would like the ICC to take ownership of the DRS, as it has of neutral umpiring.

It is a suggestion that will give the technology providers of DRS technology some solace, as the technology upgrade required to become part of the game's rule book is far more expensive and sophisticated than the original aim with which the technology was provided to cricket broadcasters: to merely be part of the television-watching experience.

The ICC cricket committee's suggestion pertaining to the lbw regulation under DRS has also been approved. Under the LBW rule, the 'margin of uncertainty' regarding the point of impact with the batsman will be the same as that provided for the point of impact with the stumps.

The CEC has also endorsed recommendations regarding the Powerplays and passed them on to the executive board for its approval. These involve bowling Powerplays to be restricted to the first 10 overs and a batting Powerplay of five overs chosen and completed before the start of the 41st over. Similarly, a maximum of four fielders are to be allowed outside the 30-yard circle in the non-Powerplay overs and the number of permitted short-pitched balls should increase from one per over to two.

The CEC supported the promotion of day-night Test cricket, "with the approval of both participating teams" and with the usage of a "suitable ball" as recommended by the cricket committee. The CEC stated that both Test and ODI cricket should push for "extra context" through the promotion of the ICC's World Test Championship, which is currently struggling to find support in the broadcast industry, and a full qualification process for the 2015 ICC Cricket World Cup, which must tackle opposition to lower-ranked Full Member nations looking for automatic entry into a 10-team World Cup.

The ICC CEC is made up of chief executives of the 10 Full Member nations, and three associate member representatives. The CEC meetings are chaired by the ICC Chief Executive and can include the ICC president and the chairman of the ICC cricket committee, in this case Clive Lloyd.

The ICC's Executive Board, which will study these recommendations, comprises the chairman or president of each of the 10 Full Member nations, plus three elected Associate Member representatives, the ICC President who chairs proceedings, the ICC Vice-President, the chief executive and then by invitation, the ICC principal advisor.


Time to sort it out

Over the next few days, the ICC's executive board - made up of the heads of every Full Member board - will once again jockey over the DRS issue as if it were as complex as finding the God particle in the Hadron Collider. It is not. The DRS is actually an arm-wrestling contest with three contestants: the Full Members who want it, the Indians who don't and the ICC's bean-counters, who would love it used but at someone else's expense. It is an annual, repetitive - and unedifying - skirmish.

The BCCI will hold its ground because it is the game's cash machine. It will now seek the favour of its Asian brethren; in exchange there will be a one-day series, a tour to India, support on other ICC issues. The Full Members who want the DRS have until now neither stood up to the BCCI's bullying nor played the political card smartly themselves. The ICC has not taken ownership or control of an idea that came to them originally from Duncan Fletcher, who now ironically coaches the Indians. The moment the DRS enters any set of playing conditions, it becomes the ruling body's responsibility. To turn away, mumbling about costs and bilateral relations, or to quibble about its finer points, is downright disingenuous.

Were the DRS easily available to all nations, it would make the case for universal application stronger. Were it made universally mandatory, what would the BCCI do? Stop playing international cricket? Secede from the ICC? Cut off ties with England, South Africa and Australia? It's time to sort it out, once and for all.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Sharda Ugra

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Ranjan2012 on (June 28, 2012, 9:41 GMT)

To The ICC

Sir, As an ardent cricket lover/ follower , I have following queries before you about this " CONTROVERSIAL DRS" system.

Query no 1: When a " LBW" decision goes to " DRS" , who plots the last leg of the final parabola of the delivery?What is the nationality , cricket credential of that plotter ? Who keep a tab on his integrity?

Query no 2 : In many cases " HOT EYE " has failed to give a proper decision ? What is the reason behind those failures? Is it true that by using " Gel" , "Waxes" ," Cream" one can camouflage / escape the "hot spot" ?

Query no 3 : Which FIRM is doing the business of "DRS" with you ?Why that firm is not coming clear on various issues raised by BCCI on " DRS" ?Why the english / aussie , & some personnel in ICC are used as their mouth piece?

Query no 3 : Why DRS is so costly ?Is it a monopoly bid ?

Query no 4 : Why are you sticking to a worthless, useless " Duck Worth - Lewis " rule for "rain interrupted" matches ?

Posted by   on (June 28, 2012, 8:50 GMT)

Whether you like it or not ,you cannot put BCCI out of ICC. Because you need our money to run cricket.

Posted by TissaPerera on (June 27, 2012, 23:41 GMT)

BCCI says DRS system is not 100% accurate so don't implement. I would advice them to suggest to take out Umpires too because they are not 100% accurate either. :)

Posted by yoohoo on (June 27, 2012, 18:23 GMT)

Saw a couple of comments here that india should be kicked out of icc for not accepting DRS. Irony is, the rest of the countries probably cant afford the DRS for one full series without the bcci's money.

DRS is just an expensive trinket. Bcci has realized that, wonder how long the rest of them will take to realize that. Bcci would have supported it if it was either inexpensive or useful. Unfortunately it isnt.

Posted by aptie on (June 27, 2012, 17:53 GMT)

We should just forget India. The ICC does not mean Indian Cricket Council. DRS must be used at all times just like all the other major sports.

Posted by cric_fan_ on (June 27, 2012, 15:47 GMT)

cont. but the boards didn't come up with such a no cost system, reason? because it requires common sense.

Posted by cric_fan_ on (June 27, 2012, 15:46 GMT)

In the current series between SL and Pakistan, there is no UDRS because Sri Lankan board can't afford it but they could have used 3rd umpire in place of UDRS by giving each team 3 reviews per innings and 3rd umpire the authority to judge catches if a team decides to refer. Agreed system can't be applied to LBWs and it might not have been as effective as hot spot but it would have been a ZERO dollar solution for howlers related to catching.

Posted by Naveed4u on (June 27, 2012, 15:41 GMT)

Difference between ICC and FIFA

FIFA is the association where No Country or personality Is bigger than the game Countries have been banned for either trying to involve politics in the game or trying to intervene in its country games or trying to impose own interests in FIFA policies. That is why you do not see any league privately run by the country associations where they implement their own rules and regulation, n Italy and Greece are the current examples On the other hand ICC has completely overrun by one Board. Sometimes I think that Why should Cricket need ICC to run the cricket BCCI already doing the same thing BCCI decides when and where the tournaments even -WORLD CUP- to be scheduled not colliding his private leagues and when and where Indian players have to take part in the tournaments when they have a mood to play Because of busy schedules of their private league games. even venues decided by ICC with permission of BCCI

FIFA RULES AND ICC Should be Closed

Posted by amitgarg78 on (June 27, 2012, 12:46 GMT)

Cricket boards are struggling to put bums on seats for test matches. Yes, there are countries where tests see big crowds, but how fair is it to expect boards like SL to incur additional expenses when they couldn't even pay their cricketers for months last year? Unaffordable tech will never be successful! ICC wants to take a stand and make it mandatory, then these issues need to be sorted. Oh and, the "strategic" use needs to stop coz that's not why this was devised. Howlers were the focus and not marginal calls.

Posted by   on (June 27, 2012, 12:04 GMT)

If BCCI says no to DRS, put India out of ICC

Posted by Thyagu5432 on (June 27, 2012, 10:16 GMT)

It is ICCs decision that there should be 2 field umpires, a TV umpire etc. Can BCCI say they do not accept this and that they will go only for 1 field umpire and 2 TV umpires? Nopes! It is ICCs decision that UDRS should be implemented and how does it matter that BCCI doesn't accept it? It is a simple question of who bears the cost. If ICC bears the cost of the 2 field umpires and the TV umpire, they should also bear the cost of UDRS. I am sure they can figure out where this money will come from, more fees from the member nations, some kind of a sponsorship etc. etc. Just be done with it. Should we have UDRS? The options given to the member nations are Yes and a big Yes.

Posted by dean009 on (June 27, 2012, 9:11 GMT)

It is nonsense machine telling that you are out.how come a machine tell how much a ball deviated accurately.does machine have human brain i dont know?

Posted by   on (June 27, 2012, 8:12 GMT)

People reckon it is slightly more complex than rocket science. I say it is mere common sense. It is true - and there have been instances which evidence that - that there are elements in the existing DRS which are not 100%. So is it not common sense to root those out & go with the rest? Use Snicko or Hot Spot, but not Hawk-Eye - that is predictive. Period. And let the game go on.

Whilst on that can someone take concrete steps to improve the umpiring standards pls?

Posted by gothetaniwha on (June 27, 2012, 7:29 GMT)

Let India play by themselves , the 9 other test teams should call off all tours involving India , then they will fall into line quick smart .

Posted by S.Jagernath on (June 27, 2012, 6:24 GMT)

Though I am for universal DRS,the power of the third umpire must be managed.The situation in the 4th test between India & England,during India's 2nd innings Rahul Dravid was called not out by the umpire but on review was given out but there was no evidence.Marais Erasmus felt its out on a gut feeling rather than on the evidence on the replays.That is a situation that should never be repeated.

Posted by   on (June 27, 2012, 6:01 GMT)

i think that in CRICKET we want 100% accuracy in judgement made by UMPIRES but it is not possible for them and also for technology. we must give chance this UDRS but last judgment should be left on field umpires. every one should understand that some amount of uncertainty in game which we always love .it also helps crickets .

Posted by S.Jagernath on (June 27, 2012, 5:59 GMT)

India are just preventing the game from moving forward.It makes no-sense why they would not want the DRS in all cricket.

Posted by   on (June 27, 2012, 4:56 GMT)

The Indians dont want DSR cos they might loose all the games if DRS is implemented BCCI want to control the cricket world with their poltics and money look at them now so called world champions loosing 8-0 in test matches being so called number 1 test side in 2010

Posted by lankanlioncric on (June 27, 2012, 4:45 GMT)

ICC have to make it mandatory. Its ok if BCCI does not like it. if they have to play in ICC, they have to follow ICC rules. just make it a law n whoever doesnt accept, can play their own game. cricket doesnt depend on any board. cricket have survived so long without any board n sure it will survive in future too.

Posted by moncho on (June 27, 2012, 4:17 GMT)

@pruffhill. man no technology is 100 percent accurate, i think you havent watched enough cricket these days,the number of bad calls by the on field umpires are increasing at an alarming rate, so its about time to embrace DRS and the stupid BCCI should stop protecting the batting records

Posted by pruffhill on (June 27, 2012, 3:38 GMT)

did anyone see the dismissal against Chris Gayle last week VS England? Full use of the technology and the DRS system and still the wrong decision was made. Hot spot couldn't tell if the ball had hit the pad or bat first, from the evidence given it showed that the ball had hit both bat and pad at the same time. The evidence couldn't suggest anything but giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt and GAYLE was still given out LBW. HOW?

And with this technology how can a batsman be saved by the 2.5 meter rule in LBW decisions. If the technology is accurate and suggests the ball will hit the wickets then how can someone be saved from an LBW decision for being 2.5meters forward. Without the technology we could say that the batsman is forward and we arent able to tell if the ball will hit, but with the technology the batsman should be out.

You can have all the technology in the world but if the third umpire is a muppet then this technology counts for nothing. IM WITH THE BCCI!!!!!!

Posted by blairfitz on (June 27, 2012, 3:14 GMT)

The ICC has chosen to implement it... No argument!! Too bad BCCI. The International Board has decided to implement a system that on the whole works well. I think it's amazing people still blame the BCCI fo0r controlling cricket. They don't! The ICC does and they have decided to use the DRS. So commonsense dictates we are now using it.

Posted by 4CricketAndMe on (June 26, 2012, 23:03 GMT)

Looking at earlier comments, its good that people understand the reason behind India's denial for UDRS system is not just a way of showing the world that BCCI run the cricket and ICC rules doesn't make any sense. Even ask a small kid would not repeat the same mistake which badly hurt last time. It is very obvious because India's past experience playing with UDRS is not good that's why they are opposing it. It can be taken and interpreted with the word DOMINATING but its totally a wrong picture behind the India's denial for UDRS. Apart from that whoever is talking about the Spirit of the Game, lets not go further with this topic else in this world of easy access to Information, every countrymen can list 100 instances where all the playing country has shown their sportsmen spirit(good and bad both). Somebody suggest Tony to try to enjoy the game of cricket in all the forms it is being played because ultimately cricketers who are currently playing have to face pros and cons, he isn't.

Posted by indian1980 on (June 26, 2012, 21:34 GMT)

it is funny some these people complain about bcci control over icc. Not too long ago it was the Australians and English use to control the icc, now they lost that control so they just wine about everything and blame India for everything. If icc want DRS they should pay for it and make it mandatory.

Posted by the_blue_android on (June 26, 2012, 20:44 GMT)

Guys, we all know why. Mr Tendulkar said so!

Posted by cricfan65 on (June 26, 2012, 18:57 GMT)

I have a great idea, BCCI. Let us ban DRS and all TV replays as well - so no one gets to see the howlers committed by the umpires and no one gets to whine about them as well ( except the players, who have done so since time immemorial ) . And while we're about it, lets ban the helmet, covered pitches, oversized bats, electronic scoreboard and every other piece of technology invented in the 20th century as well. Lets get the game back to the days of WG Grace. What say you , BCCI ??

Posted by kristee on (June 26, 2012, 17:57 GMT)

satish619chandar, Has field umpiring ever been consistent enough? Tennis too is played on different kinds of surfaces. Watching sports becomes horrible when replays confirm howlers. Something definitely has to be done. Technology, if helps, is welcome, and that's that.

Posted by MartinC on (June 26, 2012, 16:56 GMT)

@satish619chandar Dear BCCI - Concern duly noted. Now stop dragging your feet and get on with it.

Posted by indoorminer on (June 26, 2012, 16:28 GMT)

Time for the ICC to either put the money up themselves or ensure that it is a requirement on the part of the broadcaster. Once this is done they can tell India they have to accept. I really don't understand India's stance here - Ravi Shastri, a cricketer I used torespect, says that unless its 100% accurate there's no piont using it which surely misses the point that, yes, it reduce glaring errors. If we took Shastri's stance to all walks of light nothign would get done. He certainly shouldn't have bothered bowling if everything had to be 100%accurate.

Posted by Sinhaya on (June 26, 2012, 16:26 GMT)

If BCCI says UDRS is not fool proof then is on field umpiring fool proof? There is something wrong with the BCCI for them only to oppose UDRS when the rest of the world has no issue with it except cost concerns for the struggling boards. Technology decided the Pakistan England series in UAE. DRS must be used always and ICC must take ownership of the costs just like appointing officials for a bilateral series. BCCI refused UDRS because they know that umpires are scared to give Tendulkar like players out LBW in the absence of DRS.

Posted by yorkslanka on (June 26, 2012, 15:03 GMT)

@whyowhy - good point but i thought the money to build the stadiums came from the icc in terms of funds to support co hosting the WC? I agree that we SHOULD have DRS for every series, I was just stating facts that we dont have the money at present...and i know what gudu is too :-)

Posted by Gizza on (June 26, 2012, 14:27 GMT)

The main reason for India's reluctance to use the DRS is Dhoni's weak grasp of knowing when to use it. The current stance taken by the BCCI is all due to that initial series against Sri Lanka where India only managed only successful review but Sri Lanka managed 13. This aside, the main issue I have with the DRS is the time wasting. Cricket is already seen as a slow game and over rates are getting slower as time passes on. The DRS just makes things worse in this regard. It gets more embarrassingly slow when the fielding captain waits for a bit, decides to refer but the umpire says you're too late. Then there's a 5 minutes argument between the captain and umpire. This has happened quite a few times. I imagine a similar thing happening with the batsman too. Ridiculous.

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 14:04 GMT)

Shame that ICC hasn't been able to dominate BCCI. BCCI are ruining cricket. It's unfair if it's used in one series and not used in the other. It's a must and should for the future

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 13:45 GMT)

"The BCCI continues to believe that the system is not foolproof"

Yours truly continues to believe the ICC are controlled by the BCCI and I find this absolutely disgusting and a blight on cricket as an international sport. The sooner the world body pulls its finger out, the better. It has been used successfully in Australia for about 4 seasons so provided that can be emulated in other countries, get it sorted. No-one's perfect, therefore nor will a computer be. Deal with it and get with the times.

DRS gave Tendulkar a life during the 2011 WC so what have they got to complain about?

Posted by MartinC on (June 26, 2012, 13:13 GMT)

The argument from BCCI can not seriously still be about the accuracy of the system. I can understand issues about who pays the cost for Boards who already have strained finances but thats a different issue to the richest Board in World Cricket having issues.

At this point the only reason BCCI can have for objecting is 'not invented here' syndrome along with a big dose of wanting to be bloody awkward.

Posted by satish619chandar on (June 26, 2012, 13:02 GMT)

@Dhushan : ICC : Dear BCCI - We need money .. BCCI : Yes sir.. Have 80% of what you need to run cricket.. But when it comes to DRS, ICC tries to fool BCCI.. I think as a guy who runs(BCCI's money is a MUST for this) the ICC, they deserve to have a major say.. Atleast, to raise their concerns on the things they don't think is good enough..

Posted by roshanpshajan on (June 26, 2012, 13:00 GMT)

If BCCI opposes the DRS in the name that it is not 100% error free, may be they should know that it would atleast be an improvement to the present situation...I believe ICC should make it compulsory for all the matches and the rights also should be with them

Posted by satish619chandar on (June 26, 2012, 12:52 GMT)

@sportsmanspirit : Certainly dude.. DRS is really good for cricket but certainly not with the current technology and inconsistent usage by the umpires.. Surely the replays alone can be as effective as any others in removing pure howlers.. Let the guys in ICC discuss and frame a rule for decision making which WILL remain consistent for all the teams and by all the umpires.. Unless they are going to use, there will always be whining by one of the two teams.. It is ICCs responsibility to give a solution for the issues raised by the nations with concerns and not try to convince them that the available one is enough.. How can they expect BCCI to support when there was nothing done on their concerns?

Posted by venkatesh018 on (June 26, 2012, 12:26 GMT)

I agree with getsetgopk. Why will the BCCI ever agree to try a system that will hugely benefit Test cricket and keep it successful for a long time? It is against the real interest of the BCCI whose worst kept secret is their dislike of Test matches.

Posted by AndyZaltzmannsHair on (June 26, 2012, 12:15 GMT)

For Indians to call for the sanctity of the on field umpire is ironically hilarious. Over the past decade India has been one of the most vocal nations against bad decisions on the cricket field, and has on many occasions called out umpires for it. Ask Steve Bucknor or Daryl Harper how they were treated.

Posted by AndyZaltzmannsHair on (June 26, 2012, 12:01 GMT)

@Just_love_it: Pakistan has been able to afford DRS. As has been witness with every home series they've played over the past few years. The current SL v Pak series is a home series for SL, and therefore Pak has no jurisdiction over the DRS implementation.

Posted by popcorn on (June 26, 2012, 12:00 GMT)

For all the vulgar display of money that BCCI flaunts through its IPL,they can definitely spend money on developing a DRS System rather than continuously stonewall and find fault with the genuinely good work done by Snickometer, Hotspot,Hawkeye,Virtual Eye and their FAR BETTER ACCURACY than the human eyes and ears of the Onfield Umpires.India boasts of good Software Engineers and exports them to several countries,but cannot develop Cricket Technology. BCCI and Indian Cricketers want the Umpires to perform better - yet, India has not produced a SINGLE Indian Umpire that is worthy of elevation to the Elite Panel. Their Arch Rival Pakistan has two Umpires on the Elite Panel - Aleem Dar and Asad Rauf. With India calling the shots - by its money ONLY and no other qualification, World Cricket will contiue to remain backward. World Tennis is way ahead. Even though Roger Federer does not agree with Hawkeye entirely, he has accepted its use.No player or Cricket Board is bigger than the game.

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 11:51 GMT)

No the DRS isn't "perfect" or "infallible" but it is most certainly better to have it implemented than to not. The whole point of it is to catch glaringly obvious bad decisions and it gets a lot more right than it does wrong. Until you start to implement and test it in a match scenario, how are you meant to improve it? Genuinely do not understand the BCCI stance on this to be honest. The game of cricket will be all the better for it.

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 11:46 GMT)

DRS should be used as umpires are humans and errors expected, so better utilize the technology for the betterment of cricket.

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 11:44 GMT)

Simple solution , if they dont like it kick them out of the ICC. The paying viewing public are the important people not the money hungry money grabbing corrupt BCCI.

Posted by southwood on (June 26, 2012, 11:37 GMT)

I cannot, now, understand the BCCI stance. They say they will not accept DRS until it is "100% error free" according to BCCI President , N Srinivasan . That means the BCCI will never accept it because technology has been showm to be never 100% error free. If that stance is continued logically umpires should be discontinued as they are not error free either .That is the reason why this call for DRS has been made, increasingly. DRS as a whole package ( hawkeye or an equivalent system,hotspot and snicko)is a must for top class tests and ODI. The ICC should make it mandatory but of course it is BCCI controlled so it will bend away from raising the standard of decision making,maybe until India suffers badly from some 'howlers'. The standard of umpiring is improved by the presence of DRS. Most umpires are proud people and do not like getting it wrong.They are only human and more fallible than a machine.

Posted by kristee on (June 26, 2012, 11:35 GMT)

Some people, on the behalf of their favorite board, express anxiety for the 'countries who can't afford to use DRS'. How strange! Almost all countries except India are already keen to use it. A powerful administrative body at the top is very essential for any sports. Cricket seems to be lacking it. Seems like miracles can only save this game!

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 11:08 GMT)

this man Monocho, has raised a good issue of india , that they have never performed on the field , but dictate terms for icc on outfield ,it is regretful ,but what can one do ,untill the whole cricket nations act opposite to indian cricket board

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 11:03 GMT)

The main grouse of BCCI ostensibly is that the DRS is not 100% fool proof. What is? BCCI should accept the DRS as it is still the best bet. What is the BCCI afraid of?

Posted by jmcilhinney on (June 26, 2012, 11:02 GMT)

The BCCI don't get to dictate terms to the ICC on international cricket. The ICC conducted their own initial testing and were satisfied with DRS so they implemented it. BCCI had an issue so it was removed. Lots of people were saying that independent testing needed to be conducted. The ICC has now had independent testing conducted and are satisfied with the results. As such, DRS should be implemented regardless of objections from the BCCI. If the BCCI still has an issue then let them provide some evidence for their concerns, not just their concerns. Let the BCCI have its own independent tests conducted and if they reveal evidence that DRS is not what it claims to be then something can be done about it and we'll all say sorry. The fact that the BCCI has doubts about DRS is not a reason not to implement it. Didn't they have doubts about T20 at one stage? Not exactly the same thing, I realise, but certainly an indication that the BCCI is not infallible.

Posted by whyowhy on (June 26, 2012, 10:49 GMT)

yorkslanka if we cannot afford to put in DRS how could we afford to spend billions to build stadiums which are used only about 6 times per year,,,,,,if the game cannot be played under the best playing conditions we should stop playing cricket and play gudu (a local game played in the village with sticks).

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 10:48 GMT)

BCCI is just trying to save money thats it, i know team india had bad experiences in the past but with hot spot its surely better than umpires

Posted by moncho on (June 26, 2012, 10:48 GMT)

DRS is much needed thing now,look at the pak vs srl test, 16 bad calls in 4 days,unacceptable are such bad calls,yet the icc( indian cricket council) cannot make it mandatory to implement DRS, and as far as BCCI goes i have nothing to say about them they have decided that they are the fathers of international cricket, they can do whatever they want, their team never performs in the field, except for the world cup 2011, even in this world cup although they were the winners they still were not the best team and where almost knocked out in the group stages. i cannot understand how long will such things going to be tolerated

Posted by Ozcricketwriter on (June 26, 2012, 10:19 GMT)

Just so long as they give the benefit of the doubt to the BATSMEN not to the UMPIRES, I am fine with it.

Posted by maddy20 on (June 26, 2012, 10:07 GMT)

@Pau Rone Clarke Balls that turn are like the swing and seam of fast bowlers. Comparing that to bouncers is both ignorant and stupid. I am not asking for restriction of how may balls fast bowlers are allowed to swing. Also I am surprised that you are referring to our wickets as dustbowls. Last time I checked our pitches were referred by you poms and and your OZ cousins as flat tracks and our batsmen as flat track bullies. You do not need dustbowls or great spinners to bowl out England in the subcontinent. Just say the word Doosra and that is more than enough for them to wet their---(you know what). Besides if you can develop grazing fields in 22 yards then Asian countries have the right to produce pitches according to their will and wish. Prepare for another sound thrashing in India where you have not won a test series since my Grandpa was a teenager!

Posted by Beertjie on (June 26, 2012, 10:01 GMT)

I can see the cost problem with respect to "international" cricket, but surelt test cricket deserves better. If ICC are as serious about this form of the game as is claimed in the article, then they should make it compulsory AND subsidize its implementation to ensure that all are able to comply in the form of the game that really counts! It's got nothing at all to do with viewers' perceptions and everything to do with getting it right in the interests of fairness to both teams and individual players' careers in this specialized form of the game.

Posted by Just_love_it on (June 26, 2012, 9:21 GMT)

Some poor boards like pakistan,Sri Lanka ,Bangladesh,Zimbabwe r not even able to pay their player their salary on time then how come they will take the cost for DRS ?? ICC must pay it like it pays umpire, referee etc salary. otherwise keep it as if both board agrees then use it.

Posted by MrPontingToYou on (June 26, 2012, 9:18 GMT)

@ john price... good question, maybe the bcci should call for cricket to be abandoned altogether, since there are imperfections in the game.

Posted by Just_love_it on (June 26, 2012, 9:17 GMT)

I think BCCI is right if two teams agrees to use it they can use it.....some Pakistani r crying that in last test they were victim..ok fair enough.. BUT who stopped you from using it ?? India was not playing ...but it's the cost...so it all come to money after all..doesn't it? ICC pays for umpires, referee etc then y not for DRS ?? Poor boards like Sri lanka, pakistan , bangladesh,west indies , Zimbabwe Simply can not afford to pay it. We have seen that in just current series between Sri lanka and Pakistan.

Posted by Kohli--The_Messi_of_Cricket on (June 26, 2012, 8:54 GMT)

@RandyOZ : "Listless performances in the last 5 years" What are you talking about? Since 2007 India has lost just four Test series. India have won series in England, NZ, SL, WI. Drawn one in SA. To go with all these, we have not lost a home Test series in 8 years. How many Test series have the 'great' Aussies lost since 2007? Five. You've lost two Ashes on the trot including a humiliating home series thrashing. Got a nice whipping in SA where you achieved that embarrassing 47 all out. (21/9 should I say).. Have lost two series in succession to 'listless' India in India, including a whitewash in 2010.. Who should be stripped of Test status again? LOL.

Posted by John-Price on (June 26, 2012, 8:43 GMT)

Is the BCCI also proposing to phase out umpires on the basis that they have not been proved to be 100% accurate?

Posted by SouthPaw on (June 26, 2012, 8:33 GMT)

The DRS is like the Duckworth-Lewis system. It seems to be better than the "humans only" system but not by far. So, BCCI is right in not wanting to join the DRS bandwagon for now. Let us test the DRS offline (as a shadow system) in at least 25 international games and then compare the actual vs DRS vs Human. Then things would become clearer.

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 8:32 GMT)

ICC must conduct DRS because it is very good for future cricket as well as current players.I can't understand why India regret about DRS.how ever DRS is good for cricket.It is very difficult to conduct DRS for every International Matches because it's very well cost.but DRS is very useful in Test Cricket....So i think ICC must stand for this problems & get best solution..it must be useful to Cricket & not be hoodwink one!....... .

Posted by javed.agrawala on (June 26, 2012, 7:28 GMT)

How does BCCI respond to the assertion that DRS, even if far better though not perfect, than the human alternative is not supported by it as it somewhat evens out the benefit of doubt being given to the batsman.

Keep in mind that India has a far superior batting line-up than a bowling one and drawing test matches in foreign territories, however difficult and lately unattainable irrespective, remains a better possibility without DRS.

For limited over games the conclusions are even more stark with more victories (rather than more drawn games in tests) the likelier outcome!

Posted by Rahul_78 on (June 26, 2012, 6:26 GMT)

You can not expect to fight a heavy weight boxer with an under weight contender. ICC needs to add financial muscle to DRS by acquiring a universal sponsor to the technology and need to take the ownership of providing it to all the ICC owned international fixtures. It is lame on ICC's part to expect someone as stubborn and powerful as BCCI to agree with something that they have apposed so vigorously. ICC have its own sponsorship for the umpires and DRS is suppose to aide its umpires then why the incumbent boards should bare its cost in today's difficult financial times?It is all good on ICC's part to have good intentions to improve the game but they need to aid their intentions with finances and that can only be obtained through decent sponsorship. XYZ' DRS wont sound good to viewers but it will serve the purpose.

Posted by yorkslanka on (June 26, 2012, 6:16 GMT)

@loveonly cricket- the answer to your question is simple, because we cant afford it and the icc havent made it mandatory... @paul rone clarke..teams werent that keen on two bouncers per over when you were getting battered by the west indies quicks of the 80's and 90s? having tow new balls and two bouncers per over favours teams that rely on fast bowling as their main source of attack..

Posted by Hafeez_Malik on (June 26, 2012, 5:40 GMT)

We should follow the policy which is implemented successfully for run outs i.e. every close decision be made by 3rd empire.

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 5:40 GMT)

So the ICC wants to make the DRS mandatory, but wants the member boards to bear the cost? I don't get it. They make the decision and you make the payment?

Posted by himanshu.team on (June 26, 2012, 4:45 GMT)

I am an Indian, and so am naturally against anything that the authorities, be it the government, AITA or BCCI, say. However, one thing that BCCI is not saying, but it should, against the DRS is how to make the decision making better, without getting to incur huge costs. Do not forget, BCCI is the richest board. It can easily get a sponsor for DRS and make more money with DRS. But what about SL, Pak, Zimbabwe, WI etc.? The best solution is that for close LBW, Catch Behind decisions, the matter must go to 3rd umpire, or players can request 3rd Umpire to intervene. 3rd Umpire must only look at replays, snickometer etc. and rule out howlers. Howlers include edges in case of lbw or caught behind appeals, drop/bump catches and run-outs. If a 3rd umpire feels on-field umpire has made a wrong decision he should have the authority to over-rule that decision. The 3rd umpire must also be a neutral umpire from the ICC elite panel. This would resolve all issues.

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 4:44 GMT)

I do not know hwy BCCI is objecting the used of DRS. They reckoned that it is still not 100% fool proof. What a carbage statement. Is the umpires 100% fool proof. We have just seen the SL/PAk 1st test the decisions of both umpires were very poor. What do BCCI say on this. Let's use thecknologies if available, not this childish mentality. ICC should go ahead with their decision.

Posted by kristee on (June 26, 2012, 4:35 GMT)

satish619chandar, My experience is that a lot of correction has been made and many howlers have been negated with DRS. If BCCI was raising doubts over the current practice of field umpire getting benefit of doubt, I'd have been with them. DRS can improve umpiring, if done properly. Nothing can perfect anything, let alone umpiring.

Posted by BCCI_Man on (June 26, 2012, 4:24 GMT)

" Take away Test status of India".... If that really happens then ICC will not have money even to think of implementing the DRS technology. The money which ICC is having of that India's share is of 75%. So I don't think that ICC will even think to take away test status of India. If ICC is firm on their stance for the D/L method then why can't BCCI? The VJD is rejected just because it is a technology which has an India brain ! BCCI has shown how superpower is by starting IPL... Not even the English ever dared to start such a premier league in cricket....

Posted by truthhh on (June 26, 2012, 4:24 GMT)

india is just one country of cricket playing so icc conduct election for DRS then we can find out who are in favour of DRS..i bet most countries will use thier votes infavour of DRS!!!!!!!

Posted by Gamaraala on (June 26, 2012, 3:51 GMT)

Why is BCCI opposing something for the betterment of the sport? It's not like that the Indian team will have less chances to challenge a decision made by an umpire than their opponents. It's mere politics and BCCI wants to handle international cricket the way they want. Apparently, ICC does not have a back bone to do what is necessary to do. If BCCI does not like DRS, let them play their cricket at home and crown each other with IPL. Rest of the nations can move on with DRS and paly among themselves. Once BCCI decides to accept DRS, they can join back international cricket.

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 3:44 GMT)

Umpires decisions are not 100% perfect. Then India must first oppose umpires. DRS decisions are more perfect than umpire's decisions.Is't it?

Posted by Stumpbreaker on (June 26, 2012, 3:31 GMT)

BCCI is protecting its television rights by nt accepting it as ICC wants to float a common tender for DRS and much of the money wud be generated from the advertisement during the series including India. No board other than the elite 4 can afford the costs associated. For the same reason top 4 would nt agree on test championship as that would mean sharing the tv generated money with other nations.. i see nothing wrong with that.. they have the right to protect their economic well being... who came to indias support for the last several decades.

Posted by gdalvi on (June 26, 2012, 3:28 GMT)

Based on some of the voices of reason in comments below - here is an idea: Simplfied Objective Better Umpiring System or $0BUS. No reviews but improve umpiring decisions. 3rd/Match umpire is watchs every ball in slow motion. Umpire is required to check with 3rd umpire BEFORE giving anyone out. 3rd umpire checks for howlers: bat-pad/height/length for LBW and pad/no-contact for nicks using TV slow motion replays and audio - already available freely. Similarly, he can intervene can provide feedback to field umpire if he notices any howlers - missed nicks or if umpire wrongly thinks there is bat. Result: ALL DECISIONS get reviewed for All batsmen. No need for the 'review drama'. And it remains a gentleman's game - umpire's decision is final. Coot of the $0BUS system - $0 !!! Its simple, its objective (only YES/NO from 3rd Ump) and leads to better umpiring. Don't know why ICC is burying their head in DRS sand and insisting on expensive technology that only few can afford. Pls Pub.

Posted by satish619chandar on (June 26, 2012, 3:28 GMT)

@sportsmanspirit : there is absolutely no prediction in Tennis.. They just see slowmo and decide where the ball lands.. Apart from that, nothing.. But cricket decisions were made on a incorrect hotspot, bad ball tracking technologies etc.. More errors and more confusion surrounding the decision making..

Posted by Mr_Anonymous on (June 26, 2012, 3:13 GMT)

It seems clear to me that even if it is not explicitly stated, the main bone of contention is the cost. (which is a pity since the BCCI is amongst the richest boards in the world).

In fact, this is the exact argument made almost exactly 1 year ago: http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/520736.html I personally have no issue with the DRS. However the technologies that make up the DRS (Hot Spot and ball tracking) must be uniformly applied across all Test Matches from now on and the ICC must bear the cost of making sure that the technologies are available to all Test series' from now on. Just like the ICC is responsible for the Elite Panel of Umpires it must be responsible for ensuring that a standard set of technologies that aid the Elite Panel go along with it for all Test Matches. I am sure that the ICC could find a way of funding the cost of the technology (through some kind of sponsorship) and it needs to show that leadership to make it happen.

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 3:04 GMT)

I don't think there is nothing wrong in BCCI's stand against UDRS.The point that dhoni quoted was spot on. "Believe the Umpires or the Technology.Don't confuse having both". The following two points will support my cause: 1)Hawk-eye and Hotspot are good technologies but not brilliant or perfect.That means their usage should not be allowed unless they are 100% precise. 2)I don't understand the term "On-field call" when technology is in use.This simply means confusing the players,umpires,coaches and even the spectators.

Posted by g.narsimha on (June 26, 2012, 2:31 GMT)

IMRAANKHAAN-It surprises me that all pak fans memory line struck on just one thing drop catches , drs reversel in WC semi , if SACHIN got out we would have won blahh,,,,, if SACHIN got out in that situation others would have scored , it is not that score card is abslutly same as it was at the end of the match, the bottomline is u r team could not score 260 runs against in u r opinion worlds worse bowling , but i seen scores of coments quationing the correctness of SACHINS reversal ,every body blamed bcci , nowc u r batting for DRS , as rightly poinet out by DOMNIC POCOCK ON THIS TREAD we were subjected to very bad umpiring in ENG , BUT WE NEVER COMPLAIN we accepted our defeats , i too of the opinion that DRS MUST BE made manditory , there must be a way out , it isalways seen that at slitest opportunity u people strart abusing bcci , team india, we are not holding u back, u can very well have it in u r matches

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 2:07 GMT)

DRS is not a perfect technology , i feel human on field umpires can judge a ball better than a computer , because a pitch can behave really differently in diff conditions , i would like to give an example, a match has started with no wind flow , within the match wind flow starts through the ground , now this wind flow will change the path of the ball bowled by a bowler , but Dear DRS will behave it the same way, only a human umpire can see & analyze that change of conditions ,,,, so Rest of the countries , kindly wait for indian software giants to make a really world class software for this system.

Posted by kristee on (June 26, 2012, 2:04 GMT)

Why the umpires at all, in the first place? They, after all, go wrong quite often. Until they're trained so as to get correct for 100 %, let them wait. BCCI zindabad!

Posted by NP_cric on (June 26, 2012, 1:23 GMT)

I believe its all about who pays for the technology. Its a huge cost, so ICC should figure out a way to pay for the technology if they want everyone to adopt it consistently and make it mandatory.

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 1:16 GMT)

BCCI is kidding for other cricketing nations. There are no 3 reasons to avoid DRS. I think their players don't have a sense decision making.

Posted by praveen4honestremark on (June 26, 2012, 0:52 GMT)

Pushing for DRS ignoring major flaws in the rules and system placed is waste of money. The flaws in the rules are ' not punishing the umpires" even after so many flaws. Yes, agreed umpires makes mistake, its part and parcel of game..but 17 mistakes in a game SL vs PAK is that a minor mistake. There should be punishment of sacking match fee if there are more than 2 costly mistakes by umpire in a match. Change rules and system in this matter. ICC has never looked into this even after Sydney test( Aus vs Ind).l What BCCI says also is worth listening. DRS is of many types in different countries. Which DRS you will follow? The DRS that never detected a nick of Rahul Dravid, or the DRS that Kallis and even English cricket team coach refsued.Use DRS, but first DRS cost should be affordable for even smallest revenue nations like SL. Why we should forget a big point here. There are 3 umpires on field and replays and reconsidering decsion by 3rd umpire can make decision to 97% correct, why DRS?

Posted by IndiaRulesEverybody on (June 26, 2012, 0:49 GMT)

Who is ICC? BCCI makes the rules. Live with it.

Posted by kristee on (June 26, 2012, 0:40 GMT)

If in tennis similar methods can be applied without much fuss, why not in cricket? A big player in tennis is said to be unhappy about it; he still can't dictate terms. Here the bigness of the concerned party is about money. That's the problem. The game's very credibility is being questioned. And what a pity!

Posted by whyowhy on (June 26, 2012, 0:29 GMT)

ICC forget India and move on, they can follow the laws or play with themselves in their own backgardens, I am sure Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh will not support them in this instance. India is the only nation, Asian or otherwise not willing to implement DRS.....I hope Srinivasan's/Tendulkars households are 100 percent.........???

Posted by   on (June 26, 2012, 0:29 GMT)

The use of technology in sport isn't exactly new, but it has helped dramatically reduce the blatant human error we love to call the 'howler'. When hawkeye came into Tennis first, the issues weren't around whether the technology got the verdict correct or not, it was the quantity of challenges you were entitled to. The technology happened to be accurate and they refined the rules around its use. Now, the players accept the decision because they have faith in the system. Add to that the crowd love it. In cricket it really is no different. Hot spot is fantastic at showing it clipped the pads instead of the bat or vice versa and clearly shows when human error was at play. The technology doesn't need to be 100% accurate, as it will always be more accurate than any human. Make it compulsory at International level. Human errors unfortunately can swing the results. You never hear to technology swaying the results do you??? Time to step up ICC.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 23:39 GMT)

Ban BCCI and it's cricket team because they know their batsmen cannot get chances if DRS is used like Tendulkar making 100s. Its proven and better than human umpires. Idiot BCCI, Indian says it should be 100% error free, no technology or human can be error free. Ban India by a dejected Indian.

Posted by wattersd on (June 25, 2012, 23:39 GMT)

With all due respect to everyone's opinions - it is, or SHOULD be irrelevant what the BCCI think - they are out voted? Politics is the only thing preventing it's universal adoption - by imposition by the ICC.

Posted by kaindath on (June 25, 2012, 23:15 GMT)

I'm a west Indian, this DRS system has it's good and bad about it, but the ICC should implement it in such a way that home series country has the option to use it on not. for instance if India goes to Australia, then Australia should have the say whether to use the DRS and not India and vice versa. the bottom line here is that the ICC has too much power and interfairing and want to tell other countries what to do. If a country don,t want to use the DRS please respect it whether the country is the money basket in the sport or not.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 22:25 GMT)

@Maddy 20 - What's wrong with 2 bouncers per over? Bowlers should be allowed 6 per over. What next "Only 2 balls that spin per over" because surely having 6 balls that spin an over is grossly in favour of those countries who produce spinners and play on dustbowl tracks?

Posted by shakki on (June 25, 2012, 22:12 GMT)

Wow this is silly! The ICC is the main cricketing body, yet all the power seems to lie with BCCI. Like in football when FIFA or UEFA make a decision the FA or any other domestic board have to comply.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 21:19 GMT)

BCCI opposition to DRS is pretty straightforward. Technology perfection is not an ISSUE, its just that DRS is more likely to give batsman out which won't be beneficial for a team which relies on batting only.

Posted by SanjivAwesome on (June 25, 2012, 20:41 GMT)

The tech needs to be made more robust. I support BCCI's stance to hold the line until a more reliable, less cumbersome and inexpensive tech is available. DRS was always inteneded to be for TV viewers - not for on-field decision making.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 20:28 GMT)

If majority o f the test playing countries/boards favors DRS,ICC Should make DRS mandatory for the test matches. India, which is the largest democracy in the world, should accept it.DRS may not be 100% perfect, but it is better than most of the Umpires. Cost for the DRs is nothing compared to the money they received for TV rights.

Posted by Buggsy on (June 25, 2012, 20:07 GMT)

Pathetic by India. It's never going to be 100% correct. Here's an idea - let's stop cricket all together until the umpires can get THEIR decisions 100% correct.

Posted by gandabhai on (June 25, 2012, 19:45 GMT)

@kitten , EXACTLY FLIPPIN RIGHT . When a howler occurs , the 3rd umpire (who has got the benefit of a QUICK replay ) should phone the on field umpires of the howler . This can be sorted out in a minute . EVERY ONES HAPPY . Come on ICC , use your brains & stop making a meal out of this .

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 19:45 GMT)

Latest in the first test Pakistan heavily suffered due to some bad decision by the empires, and Pakistan lost the match, DRS should be implemented in all types of cricket matches. in T-20 or ODIs or test matches, we should have complete excess to the technoloogy as we are using latest technology in computers or apts., I wonder why Indian are afraid to use it. in fair game it is only possible for use it. Now it is the ICC moral responsibility use use it in all matches, ICC should not bog-down by the BCCI and not to use it if all other members are in favor than it should be immediately implemented as for as the money is involve its should be bear by the ICC if some members are unable to pay for it.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 19:44 GMT)

As a fan, I don't care if if DRS should be used or not as long as its parity between both the sides. But I just wonder why the 2 best players in their respective sport do not trust the ball tracking technology- Sachin and Federer. There HAS to be some flaw in it, coz I think these two guys would knowthings which we readers or the writers at cricinfo don't! May be have the DRS, but no ball tracking. But will it be acceptable again? Too many questions, debate will go on...

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 19:37 GMT)

If you want DRS, why not just take out on field umpires and let tv umpires do all the work along with DRS system? The umpires are there on the field for reason, They are not biased and 99.99% neutral! I am not against DRS system, but if it is brought to light, then players will take unfair advantage of that! sometimes, its so clear that the batsman is out and he still uses DRS and waste time. If you want the decisions to be 100% precise then just take out umps from field and have DRS. Even cost wont be problem then because you are saving a salary of two umps. Its so ridiculous how they invent this new things and apply that to cricket!

Posted by Stark62 on (June 25, 2012, 19:26 GMT)

I hope the drs is available for the T20 WC!!

I know it's a short game but a wrong decision can still impact the outcome of a match.

Imagine, Gayle being given out wrongly........

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 19:23 GMT)

As far as my opinion goes, India is differing with ICC's opinions regarding DRS only to show it's authority on the Sport on the International level. Well, denying DRS is like denying to new Motor cycle because it seemed very confident and going back to the bicycle because it's simple and easy to use. But where's advancement?

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 18:59 GMT)

I think whatever technology we use in a game should be transparent. Ball tracking and hotsppot are not transparent at all. First of all, we don't know which prediction method is used in ball tracking. Remember that there are two prominent versions of ball tracking hawk-eye and virtual-eye and both give different predictions. So, to say that hawk-eye is reliable is wrong. Consider the case of D/L, it is a formula based method used to predict the match result. It works all right mainly because any board can get is analyzed, in that sense it is opensource. While both the above techniques are more like back-box not only to common viewer but to the boards as well. We can see the end result, but never know how the result was arrived at. This is unacceptable, because how do you know that the operator of the technology is unbiased??

Posted by Farrukh.91. on (June 25, 2012, 18:47 GMT)

DRS should be a compulsory, 1 wrong decision can change the outcome of a match! Pak SL 1st test, see the errors and make DRS compulsory.

Posted by kristee on (June 25, 2012, 18:19 GMT)

ICC can't be expected to estrange BCCI. This situation is somewhat unique to cricket. Maybe the pattern in which it's spread across the globe is becoming a liability to it. Lesser sports enjoy more credibility. Pity!

Posted by Muhtasim13 on (June 25, 2012, 18:18 GMT)

Well I guess it should be left on the playing countries to decide whether they want to use the DRS or not. I mean, given the financial condition of the cricketing boards of Zimbabwe, Srilanka & Pakistan, it would be a huge financial burden on them if the DRS is made mandatory. But having said that, its tough to grasp why the BCCI is still not accepting it

Posted by Sarthak1305 on (June 25, 2012, 18:14 GMT)

i am an Indian and I feel ICC should take a firm stand if you want DRS tell India DRS will be there in the games, if India is against it, it has all the right to not question the umpires verdict and to all those who say take away India's test status well India is transitioning and this will get worse before they get any better and remember you can hate the fact or accept the fact we have made ICC very rich literally so that is why ICC cant directly say its my way or the high way

Posted by maddy20 on (June 25, 2012, 18:11 GMT)

For all the proponents of BCCI please note that the likes of Simon Taufel, Aleem Dar, Asad Rauf etc., have had 1 or max 2 decisions overturned in UDRS during Cricket World Cup 2011 out of hundreds of decisions. Why not ICC improve its training program to create more number of elite umpires like Mr,Taufel instead of batting for DRS? If you want DRS soon people will be asking for more than 2 reviews which will ultimately lead to 5 or 6 referrals per innings or even worse, no onfield umpires and every decision will be referred, test cricket will drag on for 6 days!

Posted by Nair_saab on (June 25, 2012, 18:02 GMT)

Do we really need DRS..? For the first question my answer is yes, DRS will help to avoid howlers. Up to this point it is fine for me. But do we really need some scientist's imagination affecting a decision whether a batsman is out or not in my opinion a big NO.....! so no need of a ball tracking technology. And i don't agree when a decision is reversed with a faintest of touches tracked by the hotspot, which in no way change the direction or trajectory of the ball. in my opinion DRS should only use slow motion replays for LBW decisions & 'Snicko & Hotspot' for catches. Keep things simple ... why complicate it ?

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 17:58 GMT)

BCCI's intransigense is akin to somebody not wanting to use headlights as it does not illuminate the street as good as in bright daylight. The fact is that DRS improves the decision making process and the ultimate decision is in the hands of the reviewing umpire. We must adopt DRS as on the average elimination of bad decisions outweighs a few howlers that has happened in recent times. More uniform usage can only improve the technogy.

Posted by Nawsad on (June 25, 2012, 17:58 GMT)

Itz not 100% perfect is a lame excused by india.umpires r not 100% perfect and still we r accepting their mistakes...if drs helps to rectify those mistakes(most of them)...whats the problem?remember the ind vs bd match..shakib stumping...tv umpire mistook..so itz not 100%perfect...why not india against the tv umpire then.cricinfo plz publish

Posted by Lord_Dravid on (June 25, 2012, 17:45 GMT)

I agree with BCCI..the DRS proved disastrous during indias tour of england, there was soo many descisons made against india despite DRS...it became known as dravid removal system and played a part in englands rise to no.1.. cricket has been played for years without DRS and it can certainly continue without it.

Posted by Rally_Windies on (June 25, 2012, 17:43 GMT)

here is my opinion ...

DSR is fine ..

Hawkeye is rubbish ....

DSR without hawkeye is the way to go ....

and these DSR rules are ridiculous ... DSR should apply the same rules at the runout rule ....

let the upmires refer the decision to DSR if the want, or make the on call decision when they are 100% sure ...

allow the teams 2 challenges each, but one the challenge is ordered, let the 3rd umpire make a COMPLETE rewiew with no influence of the on-field decision ...

the rule should read, If the 3rd umpire is unable to make a decision, (1) because the decision is close, benefit should go to the batsman (2) when the 3rd umpire cannot make a decision because of failure of the technology or lack of a proper angle or view, the on-field umpire should make the decision and it should not count as a wasted review, the appealing team should be allowed to keep the review in such a case.

at the end of the day, a batsman can only get out once, while a bowler has many tries to get him out ..

Posted by Udendra on (June 25, 2012, 17:40 GMT)

I think Hot spot technology should be made mandatory.

Posted by brittop on (June 25, 2012, 17:33 GMT)

@maddy20: You do see conspiracies everywhere! A fast bowler might well argue that there should be no restrictions on the number of bouncers he can bowl. After all a spinner is not limited to one doosra or one googly per over.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 17:30 GMT)

@g.narsimha , BCCI can afford the DRS, they are just making excuses. I do agree that SL couldn't afford it so they didn't introduce DRS in PAK-SL series but everyone knows how important it is. Example: 1st Test match between Pak / SL , 14 Umpire errors. Most of them went against Pakistan and they ended up on the losing side. DRS is also used in many other sports, like javlin, tennis, football etc but nobody there complaints. ICC should respond to BCCI as they are dictating ICC.

Posted by AllanofSouza on (June 25, 2012, 17:22 GMT)

The BCCI should not have umpires either because they are not " not foolproof" and not 100% error free. I agree "if the bcci dont want the drs system, they dont have to play cricket in any icc event."

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 17:14 GMT)

BCCI wants to use it when it is 100% error free? since when umpires has been 100% eoor free? rubbish!

Posted by yorkslanka on (June 25, 2012, 16:51 GMT)

@maddy20- well said I absolutely agree with you, the ICC's new recommendations are there to favour Aus,Eng and SA...no chance for spinners and also teams that reverse swing the ball... as for those who say DRS is not 100% foolproof..what is?It is a lot better than relying on the on field umpires and it should be used to support them rather than as a stick to bash them with..

Posted by LOVEONLYCRICKET on (June 25, 2012, 16:46 GMT)

@SLGir - if SL undestand UDRS better than why they are not using it in current series against PAK? why dont u go and blame SL cricket board first? l

Posted by Sri1967 on (June 25, 2012, 16:37 GMT)

No of umpiring errors happened during PAK vs SL TEST concluded today shows importance of DRS as that will minimize errors. It's true there won't 100% perfect technology to tackle situations at least it will minimize as one human error could change the whole match as happened in this TEST. With India being super power due to cash flow they have, there's no point talikng about it with them. Let others use the system with the help of sponsors as and when possible to have fair game of cricket. We rather call ICC as IICC (Indian International Cricket Council) and move forward as money has taken over the game thanks to them. Though we make noice no use, result would be the same.

Posted by Sakthiivel on (June 25, 2012, 16:37 GMT)

This series is between SL and Pak. Why BCCI comes here first ? Why these board are such poor not to afford DRS. Then BCCI can help and give some money to these boards.

Posted by MasudRUETeee091040 on (June 25, 2012, 16:29 GMT)

BCCI Should think deeply about their decision for DRS.India has suffer much in Australia due to wrong decision, they should keep in mind that.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 16:23 GMT)

It would be interesting to know if DRS Technology greased some ICC members palms. DRS is likely to make tons of money.

Posted by zebdog on (June 25, 2012, 16:20 GMT)

if the bcci dont want the drs system, they dont have to play cricket in any icc event.

Posted by g.narsimha on (June 25, 2012, 16:15 GMT)

WHAT A WICKET -No one from BCCI stopped SL-PAK boards to have DRS in on going series , that is on affordability , if u cant afford it than why should BCCI blamed , u have suggested that if BCCI doesnt agrees than ICC should not allow it in ICC matches ,as being 80% revenue contributor can any one egnore india i doubt, for example IND is visiting SL in JULY for a short series of 5 onedayers, 2 t20s but the broacasting tv has already advertising it but for other teamas itenerary u will have to go to ftp in cricinfo , thats india , some one was saying indians benefitted without DRS we have seen in ENG how RAHUL was given out , DRS w ere in operation in that match also , we have our reservations , u r free, no body holding back if u have the capacity go for it but if want that should be sponsored by ICC, than BCCI being the major contributos will have it say, cricket is being played for more than a century, drs is new concept , it is not that with out it no cricket .

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 16:14 GMT)

With or without DRS india is more often on the loosing side.Therefore ICC should ban indian playing test cricket along with bangladesh.

Posted by SLMaster on (June 25, 2012, 16:08 GMT)

BCCI never understand this UDRS. They are fine with decision at a level seen in PAK vs SL. If India was there when cricket started and when on-filed umpires are brought in, then there will be no cricket or umpires.

Posted by Penny on (June 25, 2012, 16:06 GMT)

As an American living in India and a fan of Indian cricket team, it is disappointing to see Indian cricket board not taking a lead in technology adoption. Why is BCCI refusing to grow up?

Posted by richardror on (June 25, 2012, 16:05 GMT)

BCCI's stand is ridiculous. Teams should refuse to play with India until they stop being stubborn, adopt DRS and see sense. Despite many sceptics originally it has proved to be a tremendous asset to the game and India's concerns are silly.

Posted by gmoturu on (June 25, 2012, 16:03 GMT)

very stupid from India......

Posted by serious-am-i on (June 25, 2012, 15:57 GMT)

well I have a solution for BCCI to agree to this method. Call in a tender get a sponsor for UDRS through ICC, so that no other board need to pay a dime. ICC can get a sponsor for UDRS and rename it to some thing like "Sky UDRS or Sahara UDRS" or what ever. The other method I is share the costs of UDRS let ICC share half cost of the system since they are so adamant about it. I sense a feel ICC is having some indirect funding its the reason they are trying to push the boards for accepting UDRS. This should clear away 50% of BCCI issues, then lets try to work one point at a time, I am pretty sure BCCI will agree to the system finally if not immediately.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 15:56 GMT)

When an umpire gives a decision, that may change the course of the game, and if its a wrong or bad decision, the team against who the decision is given, suffers a lot. So instead of showing our vigorous "patriotism" for our respective nations, we should think technology and we should think a better future for cricket. yes may be still DRS isnt a flawless tool yet it can generate better decision than the umpires, umpires are human and they can make mistakes, but no one has the right to make a team suffer for their wrong or biased decisions. So we must go for DRS for the betterment of cricket.

Posted by simpleguy2008 on (June 25, 2012, 15:52 GMT)

ICC should penalise the BCCI for saying no for UDRS

Posted by BMayuresh on (June 25, 2012, 15:46 GMT)

Don't know why such a fuss about DRS. ICC should first confirm the rulings and limitations of DRS so that incidents like "Bell incident" will not be repeated. The DRS should have fixed rules and the same need to be conveyed in advance and not during the match when the limitation is cited. Also paying such a huge price for a flawed system is worthless. Instead you get the umpires do a decent job at comparably low price. BCCI has a good point when they oppose the DRS in the "current format".

Posted by applethief on (June 25, 2012, 15:42 GMT)

@dhchdh Well said, they are shooting themselves in the foot by pricing themselves out of the market. Even if there was a short-term reduction in the rate, then enough countries could start using DRS consistently and it would became normalised. Naturally, India would be the only country still not to use DRS, so matches playd against India simply should not count in the rankings, and India should be thrown out of the list (rank with Zimbabwe as "insufficient number of valid matches played during the period")

Posted by maddy20 on (June 25, 2012, 15:32 GMT)

Why are they not making the results of DRS testing by cambridge public? DRS has resulted in several howlers as well and a lot of players expressed their doubt. Make the results public and ICC may have a better case to publish. The two bouncers per over is atrocious. MCC so called guardian of cricket seems to be tilting the rules heavily in favor of countries that produce fast bouncy wickets and conspiring against those who don't. In short I think the ICC committee's recommendation is to ensure that England and Aus do not lose embarrassingly in Asian conditions like it happened in their 3-0 drubbing against Pak and Aus who have been swept aside twice(2-0 no less) in a row in India!

Posted by BCCI_Man on (June 25, 2012, 15:30 GMT)

Kudos to BCCI. BCCI should stick to its stance. Unless the technology is fool-proof it should not accept it. If ICC is not ready to accept the VJD method for rain shorten match without experimenting then why should BCCI agree for the DRS inspite of proving the technology to be wrong? In case of VJD ICC is not convinced; in DRS BCCI is not convinced.....

Posted by fourmi on (June 25, 2012, 15:21 GMT)

I agree with PureTom about the margin of uncertainty change. Why is it necessary to have the same margin of uncertainty for a point of fact as for a prediction? Seems to have been overlooked by the media...

Also, to take the BCCI position to its logical conclusion, the LBW rule should be completely scrapped as there can never be 100% certainty.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 15:14 GMT)

bcci have to much input into this whole situation and pretty much directly undermined icc hours after the announcement. in my opinion bcci should look at improving their own cricket instead of moaning about d.r.s and if they continue to undermine icc they should be punished.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 15:04 GMT)

Since the DRS has been introduced, human umpiring has gone down the drain. So i thnk DRS should be made obligatory.

Posted by ZachAd on (June 25, 2012, 15:01 GMT)

Forget the rest of the world, I wish the BCCI would realize that it is turning a lot of Indian cricket lovers against it with its dogged refusal to accept the DRS. DRS may not be perfect but it has certainly improved the standard of the game as well as the viewing experience of fans.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 14:59 GMT)

I think the BBCI should go further and ask that umpires be banned from the game. Cricket is played by gentlemen and so we should trust their judgement and honesty. DRS is better than umpires, but neither are 100% - so if DRS is not good enough by all logic umpires (who make more mistakes than DRS) cannot possible be good enough. Get rid of them both.

Posted by Dhushan on (June 25, 2012, 14:47 GMT)

ICC: Dear BCCI can we have DRS? BCCI: No! We will tell you when we want to. Until then no. ICC: Yes sir. As you wish sir. You're the boss sir. Can I shine your shoes for you sir?

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 14:40 GMT)

well I dont see how the so called BCCI can prevent ICC from doing it. Last time I checked ICC represented the whole cricketing countries while BCCI represented India, AND I mistakenly thought ICC was the head of decision making .... it seems like it's the BCCI ...

Posted by supremevelocity on (June 25, 2012, 14:40 GMT)

For DRS to succeed, it should not be limited to couple of reviews in a game, but all out-not decisions, without referral by on-field umpires, should be reviewed. This would help nations which are not-so-conversant with the technology usage...(on an LBW, the Captains may hesitate to go for a referral if they are not sure if the ball is going to hit the stumps for the fear of losing 'one' review). If all appeals are reviewed, the decisions would be more consistent. It may slow down the game a little, but would take out the fallacy of the existing review system to a greater extent.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 14:31 GMT)

it should be mandatory for all formats.......without drs india can't reach the finals of the icc world cup....it helped the master two times during his innings.....if not india might have lose that match....the history would be changed!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by StatisticsRocks on (June 25, 2012, 14:30 GMT)

If BCCI is doing this just to show the world who is in charge, then I being an Indian would be extremely disappointed. I don't understand their statement "We will accept it when it is 100% error free"...BCCI let me tell u the umpires are not 100% error free either. Stop using this as a reason and accept the technology which, even though, not 100% accurate, is still way better than on field umpires. My only concern is with the number of reviews, why limit to 3 or whatever the case may be, instead there should be one review per batsmen, whether one uses it or not.

Posted by UN_Jonty on (June 25, 2012, 14:30 GMT)

you can see highlights of Sri Lanka and Pakistan first Test.there were at least 10 wrong decisions. i thought Umpire decisions were very poor in that match..

Posted by gdalvi on (June 25, 2012, 14:28 GMT)

Which country (citizens/Shareholders) benefit most financially from the implementation of the technology? If it is UK, then how can we sure of impartiality from the so called 'tests' conducted by Cambridge? Does ECB stand to gain pay-backs from each use of technology - as an attempt to compensate for revenue loss from their failed T20 league? If ECB and ICC really have interest of game at heart, then they would have a simple version of DRS in place already - one that relies only on slow-motion replay, without use of any of the expensive technology. This by itself would have eliminated 90% of howlers and issues and would have cost - lets hear the drum roll.... - exactly 0 dollars/pounds/rupees. Lets face it - if you really need extra-sensory technology like Hot-Stop or Snicko to make a decision - it really cannot be a howler. Howler, to most non-UK/Aus people, is something that is obviously wrong just by looking at TV replay. Hotspot really has no value in removing howlers. Pls Pub.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 14:18 GMT)

It's plain and simple! cricket is governed by the ICC not the BCCI so it is time the ICC put BCCI in its place. let the BCCI do what they please at home. and when india have to travel abroad they comply with the ICC

Posted by Tom_Bowler on (June 25, 2012, 14:15 GMT)

If India had any decent bowlers I suspect the BCCI's opposition to DRS would disappear overnight.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 14:11 GMT)

Its not fair. why ICC's decisions are passed by BCCI.

Posted by wolf777 on (June 25, 2012, 14:08 GMT)

It is not often that I agree with BCCI; but, here Indians are right. Even after the use of DRS if there is going to be subjectivity with the LBW decision, then the decision should be best left for human judgment. No problem with the use of DRS to determine if there was a nick or to check if the ball pitched in the line. Predicting the path of the ball, however, seems like woo doo science.

Posted by Zafar_Abbas on (June 25, 2012, 14:06 GMT)

utterly preposterous from not only India but also from ICC... I mean can't we use DRS with simple TV replays... they take care of 95% decisions

Posted by NP_cric on (June 25, 2012, 14:01 GMT)

It seems BCCI's problem is not the DRS but 'who will pay' is their main concern. They probably are right as it is a huge additional cost for the member boards (not necessarily the BCCI). If ICC wants to implement DRS consistently then they should figure out a way to pay for the use of the technology and not burden the boards with that.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 13:56 GMT)

In Cricket the decision will make by the ICC.so any country they have to accepted such things.any way one country, refused it mean's they can't play cricket following laws.my point will be if india not want to used it don't use it.plz give others to used it.In IT field lot of software engineers were their, so make a better one.

Fool Indian Cricketers & Officials You can't control the game of cricket laws.accepted correct decisions. Eg: When software develop by Engineers they can't make it 100% correct.(Common Sence) Eg: Ms Windows

Posted by SnowSnake on (June 25, 2012, 13:56 GMT)

It is probably best if India leaves ICC and sticks to its own version of cricket. That is what America would do if it ever played cricket. Total control.

Posted by getsetgopk on (June 25, 2012, 13:52 GMT)

The reason why BCCI is opposing is that they are really not interested in Test Cricket. The money they would spend on DRS would rather go into their pocket than on spending it on something that benefits test cricket. If they bring scraping test cricket all together onto the agenda I bet BCCI would be the first to champion the cause they might even pay some boards to fall in line. BCCI headed by over sized businessmen see the money that IPL is generating not necessarily for the betterment of the game itself. IPL is a hoopla and hoopla need no technology because its already a hoopla lol.

Posted by cricketeria on (June 25, 2012, 13:51 GMT)

It's Tendulkar. Dear BCCI, please call up Tendulkar and ask him. He may even have forgotten that he didn't like DRS, so just call him and say that we're going for DRS. He's a nice man, he'll say yes. Then the whole world can start using it. :)

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 13:49 GMT)

DRS should be used for each every match. If India does not want to use it ICC should ask India to stop playing international cricket. All the other teams also should not play against India without UDRS.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 13:40 GMT)

Who runs the game, the ICC or BCCI?

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 13:33 GMT)

The only reason the BCCI does not want the DRS to be mandatory in all international cricket is its failure to produce good umpires and the embarrassment Indian Umpires can face in the future when their decisions would be overturned by the DRS

Posted by khurramsch on (June 25, 2012, 13:31 GMT)

recent example & advertisement for drs poor umpiring 16 wrong (11 vs pak - 5 vs SL) in 4 days. DRS should b used or if not high technology due to cost simply allow reviews & 3rd umpire can judge from simple replays.or 3rd umpire to allow overturn simple ones on his own, scrutiny of umpires also required.a ranking system perhaps. & when umpire fall below a limit rermove from elite pannel. as these 2 were experienced ellite pannel umpires & missed pretty simple ones.

Posted by Parshayan on (June 25, 2012, 13:21 GMT)

Instead of making it a big issue, just coz something didn't go India's way in past. BCCI should make an effort to enhance the existing DRS by either providing R&D or money OR much better both!

Posted by dhchdh on (June 25, 2012, 13:20 GMT)

Well the company thats holds "DRS" patent is based in UK. $ 50,000 per day for the privilege of using DRS is economically flawed. Let the company come up with some sensible tariffs & then perhaps all the boards will agree.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 13:19 GMT)

Why don't we do away with umpires also till they are 100% correct?? till then lets play like we play on the street with no umpires just the batsman's word against the fielders and bowler. Until the human factor is taken out completely and robots umpire we will not have 100% decisions ever.

Posted by Engfasttrackwimp on (June 25, 2012, 13:17 GMT)

DRS has had some high profile complainants lately, Kallis, Andy Flower included. The owner of the technology himself confessed critical errors in the system... but ECB doesn't have it in them to be a leader and do the right thing. The only motivation for ECB seems to oppose BCCI. The true leader here is BCCI who is doing the right thing by asking for the technology to be implemented correctly, fairly and in a standard form.. not just for those who can pay!

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 13:12 GMT)

To me its CRICKET and not business...EVERY SINGLE BOARD can afford DRS, its not worth a fortune. Cricket veiwers are increasing by the day and technology is the right way to go forward or test matches like PAK vs SL of recent will not hav fair results, worse when there was a possibility to undo those errors..DRS is the way to go forward. I don't understand why BCCI has to oppose it in one sentece that its not foolproof... I hope they see this logically and not in terms of cash

Posted by whatawicket on (June 25, 2012, 13:12 GMT)

the DRS has if anything shown the fallibility of umpires. im not knocking umpires but i believe umps do make more mistakes the the referal system, its a fact of life. human error can be seen in every game. there has been some howlers in the last week. but DRS favorers no one and should in future follow other major sports in using any medium that gets more decisions right than wrong.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 13:04 GMT)

no better example for the requirement of UDRS than the test match finished today between Sri Lanka and Pakistan which featured at least 10 blunders of decisions. ICC should find a sponsor for UDRS

Posted by whatawicket on (June 25, 2012, 13:00 GMT)

spickandspan and the acronym ICC stands for international cricket council which mean rulers of the world game. i hope they have the bottle to say ok until the BCCI bring in the DRS they will not be allowed to play in any ICC competition.but i doubt it will.

Posted by Thomas_Ratnam on (June 25, 2012, 12:59 GMT)

Thousands of people have written and talked aout it and the BCCI don't get it! It is too fine a point in statistics for these politically oriented adminstrators to understand. So I give up! But I know they will comprehend in the end. The longer the delay, the more stupid they'll look.

Posted by kitten on (June 25, 2012, 12:39 GMT)

The best solution I feel as far as DRS is concerned, is for the umpires to take full control. The third umpire(TV) has the full benefit of the cameras, and should therefore intervene if he sees a howler, marginal decisions are acceptable. Even if he sees a no-ball, he should immediately step in and correct the issue. What is so difficult in that, instead of leaving it to the players to request a review. And even if the ball is hitting the stumps, not fully, and the original decision was 'not out', unfortunately the decision is allowed to stand (Umpires decision). OK, even that can be accepted to a point, but surely, the fielding side should not lose their appeal. That is totally unfair. The ball is hitting the stumps, and they lose their appeal!! Something has to be done, and soon, or else like in this SL/Pakistan series, people will be frustrated and annoyed, because let's face it, it would have been a much closer contest, had it not been for these unfortunate decisions.

Posted by bigwonder on (June 25, 2012, 12:39 GMT)

Let the BCCI bashing begin... How many times have we discussed this? DRS is not full or fool proof. People just want to use this as an excuse to do mindless bashing of BCCI, nothing else. There is no logic to it.

Posted by dilpickle.abey on (June 25, 2012, 12:37 GMT)

To be honest, even though I prefer the DRS, I can deal without it. I do think, however, that the players should be allowed reviews, even if it is only with the third umpire.

Posted by venkatesh018 on (June 25, 2012, 12:35 GMT)

Just watch the current Test between Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Without the DRS, this Test has taken back us to the stone age of umpiring. Still, India is manufacturing reasons to avoid DRS. This is nothing but degrading Test cricket and letting it die, when we have all the resources in this world to not only save it, but see it flourish and prosper.

Posted by ssenthil on (June 25, 2012, 12:34 GMT)

I like DRS but I also agree on the points raised by BCCI, they are valid. After the England vs India test series, they proved very much correct except the blind and biased people around the world. DRS was even nick named Dravid Removal System as they are given out to him where hot-spot didn't pick the edges. The system is in place to remove absolute howlers not to make 50-50 and inconclusive decisions as Howlers. Shame on ICC and the umpires, they are too egoistic to use the technology. When the Ball clipping the stumps it should be either OUT or NOT OUT regardless of what is on-field call. Hypocrite ICC and their umpires can't accept the technology in full first and asking BCCI to accept?

Posted by ssenthil on (June 25, 2012, 12:29 GMT)

@Phil Wakely, ROFL, Haven't you seen how bad the Hot-spot in the England vs India series in which many a time in DRS they went against Hot-spot?

Posted by Gautham0075 on (June 25, 2012, 12:27 GMT)

DRS System is the best. Fools!! they should really opt for it.

Posted by jrben on (June 25, 2012, 12:27 GMT)

Most of the umpring errors (13 and counting) in the ongoing PAK-SL test could have been avoided with the DRS. Given that all ICC member countries except India are in favour of DRS I do not understand why ICC cannot put this to vote and go with the majority decision. IND's stance on DRS is bewildering. It is always the first to complain about bad umpiring (Harper, Bucknor...) yet it does not want to help the umpires/players with DRS. DRS will not be 100% correct but 9 times out of 10 it will arrive at the correct decision and that should be good enough.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 12:20 GMT)

Never , I repeat , never go against the BCCI .

Posted by Selassie-I on (June 25, 2012, 12:14 GMT)

Looking at the PAK/SL test, even in the last 4 overs there is 2 wrong decisions, let alone the whole match, there is a load of them! DRS is a must, somethign can be sorted i'm sure for the boards who can't afford it, mabe the ICC buy standardised equipment and send it out to all the matches. Whenever India have played ith DRS, they have some half version of it, then complain it doesn't work! maybe if they used all the equipment then they might not get inacuracies.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 12:09 GMT)

Indians won the world cup because of DRS tendulkar was given not out in semi final by using DRS.after that he scored 86 runs and was man of the match

Posted by Altamash.Baig on (June 25, 2012, 12:06 GMT)

If today BCCI stand is accepted that DRS is not foolproof, tomorrow they will say the same thing about umpires, they are not foolprrof also, what then?

Posted by rahulcricket007 on (June 25, 2012, 11:57 GMT)


Posted by gandabhai on (June 25, 2012, 11:57 GMT)

I didnt watch the last Sl / Pk match where apparently at least 10 howlers have gone against Pakistan .I do feel for Pakistan as i could take a 'FAIR & SQUARE ' beating but not a biased one or one that was decided with poor umpireing decisions .The first time India used DRS was also against SL and 99% of the countless howlers were against India which is why India dont want drs . One quistion , do the ICC do anything about these howlers in regards to punishing the umpires ?

Posted by Digimont on (June 25, 2012, 11:57 GMT)

This is really as easy or as hard as the ICC want to make it.

Method 1: Make DRS compulsory, noting for the record, but ignoring the BCCI's comments

Method 2: Make DRS the recommended "best practice". BCCI won't use it, others will. To offset this, make it acceptable for any touring side to boycott any tour that does not included DRS without penalty on the test or ODI rankings. No such boycott option is allowed for tours where DRS is used

I prefer the second method, because BCCI will either have to play under it away or have their rankings suffer. They will have to use it at home, or risk locing revenue.

It is about time the ICC started to run cricket, that is after all their job.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 11:56 GMT)

More idiocy from the ICC and BCCI, we can continue with the ridiculous situation that a batsman is out in Australia but not in India because the BCCI wants to keep it's head in the sand and the ICC has no spine. I fail to see the BCCI's issue, fair enough the system is not fooproof but it is better than umpires on their own, despite how good the elite panel umpires are now they are only human and make mistakes. I would have thought that the test series in England last summer would have convinced the Indians. Anyone remember Stuart Broad's hat trick at Trent Bridge that turned the match (and series) in Englands favour? I was there, sat 70 m from the bat and both heard and saw the massive inside edge Harbajan got, the umpire didn't and gave him out. Harbajan had to walk off and two minutes later everyone in the ground knew he wasn't out. DRS would have taken 10 seconds to sort that one out. Come join us in the 21st century India, with the help of the BCCI the system can be made better.

Posted by Timmuh on (June 25, 2012, 11:52 GMT)

"The BCCI continues to believe that the system is not foolproof" Well, no. No system is. That should not be the question though. The question is whether DRS makes the final decision less error prone than not having a DRS.

Posted by Samar_Singh on (June 25, 2012, 11:48 GMT)

With this arrogant attitude BCCI will one day kill the game of cricket ... What i don't understand is DRS with hawk eye, hot spot, snickometer etc gives decisions which are correct more than 97% where as even the best among the Best Umpires are not even capable of giving 90% correct decisions ... more technologies could be added to make DRS system more precise and correct .. Pls accept technology and trust in it as there is always room for more improvement in those technologies ..

Posted by ListenToMe on (June 25, 2012, 11:46 GMT)

@the_wallster, what is the BIG difference between 93% and 97%? When such a huge amount is spend for such a failure rate? If you had read the exact reason why BCCI opposes this technology, you would have supported them. It is just about the huge amount of money for such a non reliable technology which made BCCI take such a decision. Ateast it should have more than 99% success rate to invest for this technology. Otherwise we should be happy with the umpiring errors.

Posted by 200ondebut on (June 25, 2012, 11:46 GMT)

Nothing is ever 100% correct - but DRS has a better level of accuracy than humans. The only problem to date is the way in which it has been implemented. The margin for error and umpires call are two such issues - both should be removed. Why after all should two identical sets of circumstances result in two different outcomes dependent on what the Umpire though was correct to start with? If there is no universal agreement then it should be used unless both sides agree not to use it.

Posted by msvknight on (June 25, 2012, 11:46 GMT)

Surely the point is that DRS improves the umpiring. Nothing will make it infallible, but if that is the only standard that BCCI will accept they should take up spelling bees as every sport has judgement calls. It seems that it is just posturing by the BCCI in order to show that even when they are the only dissenter; they will always get their way. They need to stop all this power projection and look to the good of cricket for once.

Posted by PrasPunter on (June 25, 2012, 11:44 GMT)

the rotten bcci will never change its so-called stand. Why cant the ICC ignore them and go ahead with DRS ? We cant change those who prefer to remain in stone-age.

Posted by MMahmood1 on (June 25, 2012, 11:43 GMT)

In my view, cricket should be left to the on-field umpires, they will make mistakes and will learn from there mistakes. The best example is current match against Pakistan V Srilanka. Both the umpires made mistakes (only question is majority of wrong questions were against Pakistan). Still we can live with these errors. DRS technology is not fool proof and does not track the bowl all the tme and I have seen on number of occassion ball tracking technology misses Ajmal's dosra's (there might be other bowlers as well). Then there are also question who will operate the DRS system. Umpires or Technologist :(

Posted by RandyOZ on (June 25, 2012, 11:26 GMT)

Well as long as India continues to put pressure on umpires at home this will never happen. There is one way to stop them though - remove their test status. With the listless performances they have put up in the last 5 years they don't deserve it anyway.

Posted by indianpunter on (June 25, 2012, 11:22 GMT)

time to crawl out of that cave, BCCI ! wake up and smell the coffee. The world has moved on. Although, the DRS is not fool proof ( i have a major issue with the LBW predictive pathway), using 'hot spot' and pitch map are "no brainers".

Posted by ravi_hari on (June 25, 2012, 11:11 GMT)

DRS is a facility aided by technology. The idea as we all know is to remove any scope of bias by field umpires. Secondly, as we have started believing more on machines than humans it is making use of the available technology to ensure that the game is played in a fair manner. Finally DRS is to have a check on the umpires' performances as repeated reversals of decisions made on the field might cost the job of the umpire in the long run. So umpires are expected to sharpen their skills and make less mistakes. However, two areas of concern - the cost and the interpretation. On the cost front ICC has to work a way out so that it either becomes affordable to all boards or should create a central fund with contributions from all boards and other cricket loving organisations. The second aspect has to be done with extensive training and practical sessions to all Test, ODI and T20 level umpires and match refrees. That would ensure uniform decisions and everyone should be satisfied. Take it BCCI!

Posted by kushaman on (June 25, 2012, 11:09 GMT)

perfect to have drs system i dont know why bcci fears that.... DRS means Correct decesion....

Posted by A.Ak on (June 25, 2012, 11:08 GMT)

People in India or may be all the cricket viewers who viewed Ind vs Eng test series might know why its called ' Dravid Removal System'. Clearly DRS is flawed. DRS played the major part in England raise to no.1 test ranking. Many teams wants DRS because its benefits them. India dont want it because they are not satisfied with technology. Thats it.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 11:03 GMT)

madras_boy said ".....DRS has proved wrong in a number of occasions against india and hence BCCI is waiting for the technology to mature enough... "

Not entirely correct. What you should have said was "DRS without Hotspot has failed to provide conclusive evidence to overturn the onfield umpire's apparently incorrect decision" Had Hotspot been used, there may well have been sufficient evidence to do so!

As for who pays for the technology, the TV companies pay huge sums of money for the privilege of showing the matches, so why not use some of that cash to provide the technology?

Posted by i_witnessed_2011 on (June 25, 2012, 11:00 GMT)

As expected BCCI replied with a blind NO... I had wished atleast BCCI review the "Improved" technologies or they will let know the whole world what are short comings (technical) of the technology suggested. The "NO" without any justification is not helping cricket. I feel, Even ICC commties take different boards into confidence, call for their reviews, understanding their point of views before recomending something to ICC. This DRS issue going no where...

Posted by robheinen on (June 25, 2012, 10:59 GMT)

I quit my Sky Sports subscription. The reason? Cricket isn't cricket anymore. All the spontaneity has been taken out by failing technology. Technology that, I've stated it more than once here, can be argued on philosophical grounds, will always fail. Cricket is dying, not because the game would be dull. Yesterday having watched the first half of England v. Italy it became apparent to me how much more exciting cricket is compared to football. Good cricket that is. Cricket is dying because business has taken over. Consequently cricket has become second to making money. I say again: Investors take your loss and give cricket back to the cricketers before the whole game is killed!

Posted by CricIndia208 on (June 25, 2012, 10:59 GMT)

BCCI has taken a principled stand.

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 10:57 GMT)

madras_boy said ".....DRS has proved wrong in a number of occasions against india...."

Not quite correct! What you should have said is "DRS without Hotspot has failed to provide conclusive evidence to overturn the onfield umpire's apparently incorrect decision" Had Hotspot been used in those instances, there may well have been enough evidence.

As to who pays for the technology, the TV companies all pay huge sums of money to televise the games, so the cost should be taken from those fees.

Posted by spickandspan on (June 25, 2012, 10:56 GMT)

The BCCI is an acronym for The Board Of Control For Cricket In India and quite rightly they should be allowed complete control of whether or not DRS is used in India for what ever reasons they see fit. What they should not be allowed to do i dictate when DRS is used outside India regardless of if they are playing in the series. If the home board feels the system has merits for the cricket in their country they should be allowed to use it with out consulting the home side. Making DRS mandatory is not the right way to go, but just as toruing parties do not get a say in the type of pitches they will play on niether should they ahve any say in whether or not DRS is used.

Posted by satish619chandar on (June 25, 2012, 10:49 GMT)

@CricFin : I think two is fine.. If you give many, people will chance their luck.. May be, they can introduce more reviews at some cost.. 10 runs slashed for every wrong review after two got over? It will remove the pure howlers as well as make sure that the player challenge the decision only when they are sure it will go in their favor..

Posted by satish619chandar on (June 25, 2012, 10:48 GMT)

@the_wallster : DRS need not be 100% correct but atleast it need to be used consistently.. BCCI did agree for DRS a couple of times but how it was used was a enigma.. Sometimes(As in Dravid case), the umpire goes by what they see and hear and give out even if no mark in hotspot.. Or sometimes they don't see mark and give it not out even when there is clear sound and deflection as in case of KP.. So if it is going to be used inconsistently, no team should accept it.. Where are the rules and guidelines to be followed?

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 10:45 GMT)

Why should the ICC bear the cost? Boards don't pay them tax and if they're required to finance DRS for every series that nobody watches or sponsors then they will definitely go bankrupt. It should be up to the boards to find ways to finance DRS because its in their best interests to maximize satisfaction for their viewing public.

Posted by satish619chandar on (June 25, 2012, 10:43 GMT)

Why can't ICC address the concerns of the guys opposing the DRS? BCCI did do a presentation on their concerns about the available technology.. We haven't seen any sort of improvement shown or any response from the tech guys as well as ICC for that.. But you expect BCCI to change their stance without any action on their concerns.. And, finally everyone blame BCCI as arrogant and a non-listener and not ICC!

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 10:21 GMT)

For DRS to be effective ICC should bear the cost or find innovative ways of having the technology implemented that it is not a burden on the countries that simply cant afford it. there is also a need to look at what is referred to as "the one field call" if a decision is marginal it should be overturned as dependent on the umpire's call it can either be out or no out.This allows for inconsistencies as any umpire in his right mind will not reverse a call once he has the option to let his decision stay.

Posted by the_wallster on (June 25, 2012, 10:11 GMT)

What the Indians fail to be getting, time and time again, is that DRS is there for batsmen and bowlers to appeal against decisions they believe they are howlers. DRS is not there to be 100% correct. If your argument against DRS is that it isn't 100%, then surely you are against the principle of umpires umpiring the game, as their decisions have been statistically proven to be 93%. When DRS is implemented, the umpiring decisions or 97%. UNDERSTAND?!?!!?

Posted by AndyZaltzmannsHair on (June 25, 2012, 10:07 GMT)

Anyone against DRS go and count the bad decisions, some atrocious, in the.current SL v PAK game. The DRS has been proven as a matter of fact to get better decisions and eradicate the awful ones.

Posted by wnwn on (June 25, 2012, 9:57 GMT)

It's all a bit pointless when you have a cash stapped cricket board like the Sri Lankan one who cannot afford any form of DRS. What happens in this situation.

Posted by whatawicket on (June 25, 2012, 9:52 GMT)

now maybe we will find out if the ICC have a set of b****. and tell the BCCI that they have to fall into line. If say NZ rugby union said to the IRC sorry the system that decides if a try has been scored, or at tennis player says similar at a grandslam event. as far as i know there are the two of the indian top players who say they are not in favour of it. the reason they dont like it is that captain does not know how to use it, as shown in the few ICC events were its been in use. will the BCCI accept it i very much doubt it. so what can the ICC do about it. very little a fine would have to be in the millions before that would change.

Posted by BRUTALANALYST on (June 25, 2012, 9:50 GMT)

As India ARE 100% Batting side it's obvious why they don't want DRS as without it batsman get the benefit of the doubt which helps them play to their strength. I think DRS is great as long as all aspects can be used HOT-SPOT / SNICKO / HAWKEYE

Posted by doctornikki on (June 25, 2012, 9:45 GMT)

BCCI cant do anything when ICC holds its grounds firm..DRS will be a rule soon to wipe out the biased and crooked decisions....

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 9:43 GMT)

Whats new about it! its actually about bearing the costs of using DRS, which should be beared by ICC rather than cricket boards. And boards like SLCB are already economically weak so they cannot bear the costs.

Posted by i_witnessed_2011 on (June 25, 2012, 9:31 GMT)

I hope BCCI will look at the "Improved" technoligies first,analyse,review and then come to a decission (most probably NO again!!). BCCI just can not say no without verifying the improved technologies. If their answer is "NO", I hope they will let the world know about their observation and findings.

Posted by madras_boy on (June 25, 2012, 9:20 GMT)

Read the words " The Application will be subject to the Members' ability to finance and obtain the required technology"... I think DRS is being used in a number of matches not involving India currently... No one stops PAK-SL from using it... If other countries wanna use, they are free to use except the series against India... as simple as that... itz just that ICC wants BCCI to use DRS !!! DRS has proved wrong in a number of occasions against india and hence BCCI is waiting for the technology to mature enough...

Why goal line technology still not used in football ??? I have seen a couple of goals which are invalid due to offside in the current Euro cup but i did not see much questioning like this !!!

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 9:16 GMT)

if according to ICC drs is to be made mandatory den dey sud sponsor and suuply drs equipments to dose countries which cannot afford it and also if faulty technology has to be de order of de day den remove one onfield umpire or in case both umpires

Posted by PureTom on (June 25, 2012, 9:12 GMT)

Teams should not lose a review if it goes against them on an "Umpires Call". This simply means they have lost the benefit of the doubt, not that they have made an incorrect call and they should accordingly not be "punished". There should also be a time limit applied to the 3rd umpire when reviewing decisions (assuming all evidence is available in a timeous fashion). Reviews that last longer than 1 or 2 replays of the same footage automatically suggest doubt and indicate that the 3rd umpire is unable to make a clear cut call. At this point their opinion should become irrelevant. I do not understand why there should be any 'margin for uncertainty' about where the ball hits the batsman on an LBW review. You have a picture of where the ball hits the batsman, it is not part of the ball path prediction. Perhaps this paragraph is not well explained?

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 9:10 GMT)

@rkannancrown: Can you really say that DRS would not reduce the amount of blatantly incorrect decisions made in the game? Have you seen any of the current test match between Sri Lanka and Pakistan? Truly awful decisions that wouldn't even need any extra technology. The normal cameras show the mistakes! There have been more than 10 'howlers' in this match alone. How many DRS 'howlers' have you seen this year? Or even since it was brought in initially?

Posted by manisacumen on (June 25, 2012, 9:05 GMT)

Just What I had been adovcating - Make DRS mandatory for all boards, finance or no finance. Cost to be met by ICC only. Restrict powerplay overs to 15. Have 2 short pitch ball per over (at least for 2 different batsman) in the same over; relax leg side wide declarations -

Posted by mngc on (June 25, 2012, 9:03 GMT)

rkannancrown and cricfin. In the recent series between England and WI the umpires got only 5 - 10 definitely right in the reviews. 10 were definitely wrong and another 10 were "clipping the stumps" and remained "on field decisions". The 10 definitely wrong represented between 33 - 40 % of reviews and that cannot be acceptable. The human eye can only see 10 - 12 frames per second and a blink or distraction can make a huge difference. Slow mo cameras can take up to 3,000 frames per sec depending on the quality used. It does not tire. DRS / Hot Spot / Snicko is the way to go even if it is only 99 % accurate. "On field decision" should be removed. As a fringe benefit it reduces the risk of match fixing by officials.

Posted by Hammond on (June 25, 2012, 9:02 GMT)

Good luck with that. It will affect Indian spinners too much.

Posted by PrasPunter on (June 25, 2012, 9:00 GMT)

For a change, if ICC doesnt allow bcci to dictate terms on this, it will good for the game of cricket.

Posted by S.Alis on (June 25, 2012, 8:54 GMT)

I hope this time ICC will take proper stand on this push and won't back down just because of one cricket board. What happened in last three days between Pakistan and Srilanka test had proved, how much DRS is needed.

Posted by DaveMorton on (June 25, 2012, 8:48 GMT)

The DRS has been an outstanding success. It is not perfect, nothing ever is in the field of scientific measurement, but it has improved umpiring standards in Tests, and has helped to educate umpires who stand in matches where it is not in use. One unexpected bonus is that spin bowling - once in decline - is now a force in the game. The only change I would ask for.....when the umpire's decision is upheld under the 'umpire's call' rule, the unsuccessful team should not lose a life on what is a borderline call.

Posted by Min2_cric on (June 25, 2012, 8:47 GMT)

when DRS is used, the level of umpiring gets down a lot...bt ppl realise dat only when DRS is nt used...so either use it in all international matches or just dont use it...take d example pak vs sl..

Posted by   on (June 25, 2012, 8:45 GMT)

The subject of DRS has now become a BCCI vs ROW issue. Because of this I do not see how any agreement will come about as acceptance of it will be seen by the Indian Cricket Fraternity as a loss of face. It is a pity because had India continued to use it over the past year or so I feel they would have accepted it's benefits. Their early experiences have clouded their judgment on this beneficial innovation.

Posted by leftisbest on (June 25, 2012, 8:43 GMT)

As long as the add some bit to the guidelines that allows the reviewing umpire to be able to use common sense. The technology are aids to the umpires, most of the time they are correct, but for the instances (Phil Hughes, Ajmal etc moments) where there is a clear error they can actually indicate this to the on field umpires.

Posted by satish619chandar on (June 25, 2012, 8:36 GMT)

I don't understand still, how the technology has proved to be good enough atleast to warrant respect from all the boards.. There are flaws - Serious flaws on technology considering the amount they charge for that.. I am not sure what ICC is going to achieve by saying that technology is good.. At the max, it can put BCCI is bad light but the fact will remain that ICC believes on expensive flawed technology for no good reason..

Posted by anuradha_d on (June 25, 2012, 8:24 GMT)

The important questions is...."Has BCCI approved "

Posted by CricFin on (June 25, 2012, 8:22 GMT)

Why only 2 reviews , What happens if howlers were made after 2 reviews ?

Posted by rkannancrown on (June 25, 2012, 8:22 GMT)

ICC seems to have an absolutely blinkered view on this subject. 2012 conclusively proved that DRS is faulty and contributes nothing. ICC hires a so called expert with a vested intrest in the technology and uses his opinion to butress a faulty technology. BCCI is the last hope in this situation.

Posted by CricFin on (June 25, 2012, 8:16 GMT)

See these Laboratory Conditions are totally different from match conditions.Ignore DRS it is not worth the effect.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Sharda UgraClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days