ICC news June 26, 2012

Universal DRS falls at board table

  shares 105

The universal application of the Decision Review System (DRS), which was recommended by the ICC's cricket committee and by its Chief Executives Committee, has met an expected and swift end at the ICC's Executive Board meeting in Kuala Lumpur. It is believed the issue was discussed at the meeting but was not put to a vote. The development came a day after India publicly and unambiguously repeated its opposition to DRS, when most other countries are believed to support it.

Those present at the meeting, which was chaired by ICC president Sharad Pawar, say the DRS question came and went without a murmur, with the BCCI being the sole objector to its universal acceptance. The issue was not put to an open vote despite support for the DRS from most Full Member nations as well as the majority of the playing community. The development effectively retained the DRS in its current form - a mutually agreed arrangement in bilateral series.

The motion for the universal application of the DRS was put to the Executive Board by the CEC on Monday, also through a "unanimous" non-vote, with the BCCI's opposing stance being noted and the matter not being put to vote. The CEC said it was satisfied with the improvements in technology in the fourth year of the DRS, which included new Hot Spot cameras and independent ball-tracking research.

It is understood that an appeal by a majority of the Full Member nations to the ICC for the sale of centralised rights to the DRS to a single sponsor was also not likely to gain traction due to the BCCI's opposition to the technology itself.

With the matter not being put to vote by the Executive Board, the DRS returned to the position it has held since October, when the Board overturned the decision it took at the 2011 ICC annual conference in Hong Kong. The cost of the system will still be borne primarily by the host broadcasters and technology providers, rather than the ICC, even though the DRS forms part of the umpiring operations.

Most of the other CEC recommendations, particularly the amendments to ODI regulations, were approved by the Executive Board. The only issue that raised some debate was cricket's inclusion in the Olympic Games via the Twenty20 format. The ECB was reportedly opposed to the idea.

The Executive Board will meet again on Wednesday to settle issues regarding a constitutional amendment, the fourth in 16 years, to the process of appointing the ICC president - making the presidency an annual ceremonial term and creating a parallel and more powerful post of chairman. Today's meetings were attended by the board presidents of the 10 Full Member nations and three representatives of Associate and Affiliate nations. It was chaired by Pawar, the outgoing president, along with the ICC vice-president Alan Isaac, the chief Executive Haroon Lorgat and the ICC's principal advisor IS Bindra.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • gdalvi on June 28, 2012, 13:46 GMT

    @ Freddy and other DRS lovers: Freddy's comment's is classic example what is is wrong: "When Gayle reviewed, the DRS was inconclusive and therefore the onfield umpire's decision of OUT stood. The DRS has done its job." - What kind of kindergarten logic is this? After paying large amounts for technology - "DRS was inconclusive" and yet "DRS has done its job". DRS's job was to REACH CORRECT CONCLUSION - not reaching conclusion is not a success, but rather a FAILURE of DRS. If Expensive DRS keeps "not reaching conclusion" on key decisions like Gayle and Dravid - what is point of having DRS? When it does reach conclusion - more than 90-95% of time same conclusion could have been reached simply looking at slow motion camera - and for free !!!

  • bobmartin on June 28, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    Posted by hems4cric on (June 28 2012, 09:19 AM GMT)

    "Ok.. let me get this straight.. BCCI does not want DRS... check! ICC and other 9 boards want DRS..check! ICC says upto the boards to decide to use or not to use DRS..check! where is BCCI telling other boards not to use it" Simples !!! By not agreeing to it's use, because of the ICC regulation requiring both teams to agree, no other team can use it when they play India. India therefore has a veto on it's use...and the match has to played in that respect on India's terms..

  • Sakthiivel on June 28, 2012, 11:13 GMT

    @Mahesht : We are amazed with your Knowledge.. Hats off !!

  • Praxis on June 28, 2012, 10:57 GMT

    ICC needs to make the technology behind DRS & how it works open to public, as we are seeing hundreds of misleading comments stemmed from ignorance. BCCI also needs to come with a better excuse other than "its not 100% full-proof", it sounds too silly. There are some issues that even a normal cricket fan would be able to point out, like, the frame-rates of the cameras, reducing costs of hot-spots, same standard of DRS everywhere etc. Sponsor for DRS is also needed as countries like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka can't afford this technology in every or any series. Unfortunately ICC won't be able to reduce the cost or get sponsors unless BCCI changes its stand.

  • hems4cric on June 28, 2012, 9:19 GMT

    Ok.. let me get this straight.. BCCI does not want DRS... check! ICC and other 9 boards want DRS..check! ICC says upto the boards to decide to use or not to use DRS..check! where is BCCI telling other boards not to use it? Its just saying we dont want it. Why is everybody hell bent on pushing it on BCCI? You want it use it.. who is stopping you? So if a salesman comes and shows you something, you dont like it but others do, would you go ahead and pay for it even if you dont like it?? I guess all the people here would, for the GOOD of the world and spirit of humanity etc etc...

  • Mahesht on June 28, 2012, 9:18 GMT

    If BCCI logic were to applied to common life ..

    All ATMs must be close down, as it is not 100% fool proof .. some misuses happens .. all people should go back and stand in queues for hours in the banks ..

    Rail accidents happen, so Railways must be closed and people use bullock carts again to commute ..

    and so on .. doesn't even this silliest logic sound foolish to guys defending BCCI here ????

  • Sakthiivel on June 28, 2012, 7:15 GMT

    Srilankans here first check whether their cricket board is ready to take DRS. Why they not using in the current series. Then only they can talk about BCCI.

  • ashokvasant on June 28, 2012, 5:27 GMT

    BCCI's objection to the UDRS is unreasonable. The argument that it is not 100% proof is specious. Nothing in life is 100% correct. DRS idea is to eliminate howlers. All decisions may not be perfect through the DRS but it causes the least of heart-burns and prevents umpires being treated as idiots. In fact, the umpires must ask for the DRS to protect themselves from ridicule.

    ashokvasant

  • yomeshk on June 28, 2012, 2:40 GMT

    Can someone please answer me where was BCCI involved in the current SL vs Pak test series? It was one of the 2 teams who refused to use DRS and still people blame BCCI? Everyone wants to use DRS but no one wants to pay for it. They want BCCI to bear the expenses? Why should BCCI do that? Mr. Greig said that India should support DRS. How can India support DRS in a Pak vs SL Test series? The problem is people have to criticze BCCI and it has become a notion that 'no DRS = BCCI's fault'.

  • Voice.O.Reason on June 28, 2012, 1:31 GMT

    So India is not in favour of DRS because (a) they can only bat, and DRS doesn't favour batsmen, (b) they had a bad experience using the DRS in the past, and (c) it costs a lot of money, and if made mandatory, India will be paying for most of the cost of implementing DRS for other teams' matches. Excellent case, and made my India's opponents no less. So, then, how do the constructive critics here propose to address these concerns (in a way that would be easier than just not advocating universal DRS)?

  • gdalvi on June 28, 2012, 13:46 GMT

    @ Freddy and other DRS lovers: Freddy's comment's is classic example what is is wrong: "When Gayle reviewed, the DRS was inconclusive and therefore the onfield umpire's decision of OUT stood. The DRS has done its job." - What kind of kindergarten logic is this? After paying large amounts for technology - "DRS was inconclusive" and yet "DRS has done its job". DRS's job was to REACH CORRECT CONCLUSION - not reaching conclusion is not a success, but rather a FAILURE of DRS. If Expensive DRS keeps "not reaching conclusion" on key decisions like Gayle and Dravid - what is point of having DRS? When it does reach conclusion - more than 90-95% of time same conclusion could have been reached simply looking at slow motion camera - and for free !!!

  • bobmartin on June 28, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    Posted by hems4cric on (June 28 2012, 09:19 AM GMT)

    "Ok.. let me get this straight.. BCCI does not want DRS... check! ICC and other 9 boards want DRS..check! ICC says upto the boards to decide to use or not to use DRS..check! where is BCCI telling other boards not to use it" Simples !!! By not agreeing to it's use, because of the ICC regulation requiring both teams to agree, no other team can use it when they play India. India therefore has a veto on it's use...and the match has to played in that respect on India's terms..

  • Sakthiivel on June 28, 2012, 11:13 GMT

    @Mahesht : We are amazed with your Knowledge.. Hats off !!

  • Praxis on June 28, 2012, 10:57 GMT

    ICC needs to make the technology behind DRS & how it works open to public, as we are seeing hundreds of misleading comments stemmed from ignorance. BCCI also needs to come with a better excuse other than "its not 100% full-proof", it sounds too silly. There are some issues that even a normal cricket fan would be able to point out, like, the frame-rates of the cameras, reducing costs of hot-spots, same standard of DRS everywhere etc. Sponsor for DRS is also needed as countries like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka can't afford this technology in every or any series. Unfortunately ICC won't be able to reduce the cost or get sponsors unless BCCI changes its stand.

  • hems4cric on June 28, 2012, 9:19 GMT

    Ok.. let me get this straight.. BCCI does not want DRS... check! ICC and other 9 boards want DRS..check! ICC says upto the boards to decide to use or not to use DRS..check! where is BCCI telling other boards not to use it? Its just saying we dont want it. Why is everybody hell bent on pushing it on BCCI? You want it use it.. who is stopping you? So if a salesman comes and shows you something, you dont like it but others do, would you go ahead and pay for it even if you dont like it?? I guess all the people here would, for the GOOD of the world and spirit of humanity etc etc...

  • Mahesht on June 28, 2012, 9:18 GMT

    If BCCI logic were to applied to common life ..

    All ATMs must be close down, as it is not 100% fool proof .. some misuses happens .. all people should go back and stand in queues for hours in the banks ..

    Rail accidents happen, so Railways must be closed and people use bullock carts again to commute ..

    and so on .. doesn't even this silliest logic sound foolish to guys defending BCCI here ????

  • Sakthiivel on June 28, 2012, 7:15 GMT

    Srilankans here first check whether their cricket board is ready to take DRS. Why they not using in the current series. Then only they can talk about BCCI.

  • ashokvasant on June 28, 2012, 5:27 GMT

    BCCI's objection to the UDRS is unreasonable. The argument that it is not 100% proof is specious. Nothing in life is 100% correct. DRS idea is to eliminate howlers. All decisions may not be perfect through the DRS but it causes the least of heart-burns and prevents umpires being treated as idiots. In fact, the umpires must ask for the DRS to protect themselves from ridicule.

    ashokvasant

  • yomeshk on June 28, 2012, 2:40 GMT

    Can someone please answer me where was BCCI involved in the current SL vs Pak test series? It was one of the 2 teams who refused to use DRS and still people blame BCCI? Everyone wants to use DRS but no one wants to pay for it. They want BCCI to bear the expenses? Why should BCCI do that? Mr. Greig said that India should support DRS. How can India support DRS in a Pak vs SL Test series? The problem is people have to criticze BCCI and it has become a notion that 'no DRS = BCCI's fault'.

  • Voice.O.Reason on June 28, 2012, 1:31 GMT

    So India is not in favour of DRS because (a) they can only bat, and DRS doesn't favour batsmen, (b) they had a bad experience using the DRS in the past, and (c) it costs a lot of money, and if made mandatory, India will be paying for most of the cost of implementing DRS for other teams' matches. Excellent case, and made my India's opponents no less. So, then, how do the constructive critics here propose to address these concerns (in a way that would be easier than just not advocating universal DRS)?

  • FreddyForPrimeMinister on June 28, 2012, 1:30 GMT

    @TissaPerera on (June 27 2012, 23:43 PM GMT) - hahaha... very good point!! :D

  • TissaPerera on June 27, 2012, 23:43 GMT

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

  • on June 27, 2012, 23:05 GMT

    I do not understand why everyone is blaming BCCI for this. ICC does not want to pay for the technology. Except for a few, most cricket boards cannot afford the cost of this technology. How is that BCCI's fault? Why should BCCI be forced to pay for something that it does not want? And we are not talking about something cheap as well. It is ICC's fault for not taking a stand and for not making the technology mandatory and bearing the cost.

  • FreddyForPrimeMinister on June 27, 2012, 22:51 GMT

    @yavaid on (June 26 2012, 20:33 PM GMT) - you're clearly missing the point as others have stated. Gayle was given OUT by the onfield umpire, who presumably had no "doubt" about his decision as he gave the batsman out. When Gayle reviewed, the DRS was inconclusive and therefore the onfield umpire's decision of OUT stood. The DRS has done its job. If it had incontrovertible evidence that the ball hit Gayle's pad first, (as Gayle presumably believed) then the umpire's decision would have been reversed. It didn't so Gayle had to walk. If you can get your head around this fairly simple process, I'm sure you - and the BCCI - would welcome the DRS for the "improved" (NOT perfect) umpiring decisions it brings.

  • hhillbumper on June 27, 2012, 21:04 GMT

    India win another one then.Here's hoping some howlers go against them when they play tests next and we can listen to all the anguish on here.

  • S.Alis on June 27, 2012, 19:27 GMT

    ICC you never fail to disappoint me.

  • MVRMurty on June 27, 2012, 16:25 GMT

    Cricket is a gentleman's game. We have used a lot of technology and this has to stop somewhere. No player should question the umpires decision or ask for a third umpires decision. ICC has to monitor the umpires and then deal with the decisions made by the umpires and grade them periodically.

    More and more technology would paralyze the umpires and hence the game. We play cricket for fun and I agree there is a lot of competition. But cricket does need technology to deal with making decisions. I dont enjoy the game when there is technology involved.

    I am not sure if ICC or anyone else ever questioned umpires like David Sheperd or Dickie Bird about the decisions they made. ICC should strictly monitor every umpire and their decisions instead of imposing technology on this game. We can have to enjoy this game with the gentlemen playing this game and umpires giving correct decisions. Please NO TECHNOLOGY.

  • Riderstorm on June 27, 2012, 16:18 GMT

    The existing slow motion cameras present near conclusive evidence to arrive at a decision without any complications, definitely eliminating the howlers. I never understood the necessity to extrapolate the ball trajectory to arrive at a decision for LBWs. I mean, there isn't any experimental evidence to prove its accuracy anyway in a cricketing environment. furthermore, there have been inaccurate decisions over this same issue in the last year or so. I'm not objecting to the use of technology but what I cannot comprehend is the lack of conviction over the details in the application.

  • cric_fan_ on June 27, 2012, 15:40 GMT

    ICC has failed cricket and I am not expecting cricinfo to publish this comment.

  • Sinhaya on June 27, 2012, 15:35 GMT

    @satish619chandar, it seems from your comments that you prefer no DRS. My issue is that considering the cost of DRS being with hot spot amounting to $5000 per day, should not stand by on field decision much. If hawk eye says just clipping the wicket then must be out. No point spending too much daily if on field umpiring decisions are standing most of the time. If umpire says not out and if the fielding side refers it and hawk eye shows the ball clipping the leg stump, decision must be reversed as it is meaningless if the umpire gave it out for the same scenario and the batsman challenging only for it to remain out.

  • Mfalme on June 27, 2012, 15:25 GMT

    Can't we have an amicable solution for the DRS issue? make DRS compulsory in the current form for all matches. The team that believes in it can refer decisions the one that does not believe accepts on field umpires decision ;-) It's that simple. OR alternatively BCCI can stipulate that DRS should not be used against particular players from their team. (analogy from Mahabarata, hope many of you have read). At least the opposition will have the consolation of using DRS against other players. LOL.

  • Sinhaya on June 27, 2012, 15:17 GMT

    @Muhammad Aslam Mirza, I fully agree with you. All hot spot camera cost and ball tracking hawk eye cost must be borne by ICC just like tennis hawk eye is borne by the WTA. Ball tracking technology must be ICC certified because right now, various broadcasters like star, ten cricket, channel 9 can have differing ball tracking where hawk eye or virtual eye is used triggering differences. If it is uniform across the board and ICC certified, then would be ideal.

  • Parthi_nava on June 27, 2012, 14:49 GMT

    To all who are blamming BCCI, the DRS is still available for all the series and if the playing 2 boards accept it they can go head and use it and Bcci will not stop them at all. so please do not blame BCCI.

  • dhchdh on June 27, 2012, 14:33 GMT

    $50,000 a day for DRS is highway robbery for a technology which is not even reliable. Let them quote a sensible number then we will see

  • jimmydddd on June 27, 2012, 14:14 GMT

    Surely the way forward now is for an ICC committee of say four people (of whom two Indians) to run a trial for a year involving all matches in which DRS is used. The committee would study the tapes of the matches and collect "official" data on how frequently the onfield umpires were correct with their original decisions, and how frequently DRS gets it right and wrong. If modern DRS shows enough of a benefit, as I believe would happen, it would allow the BCCI to back it without losing face ("in the light of new evidence" etc).

  • Udendra on June 27, 2012, 12:57 GMT

    there seems to be no democracy within the ICC too.

  • venkatesh018 on June 27, 2012, 12:30 GMT

    Totally expected, but still disgusting attitude from Indian board...

  • shuvo1470 on June 27, 2012, 12:28 GMT

    seems BCCI is dictacting all over other nations regarding DRS. other 9 nations do not have any power in them. they can do one thing just surrender to BCCI and follow what they do

  • CricFin on June 27, 2012, 12:20 GMT

    Correct all errors with DRS & trail it domestic matches.we will see then

  • Thyagu5432 on June 27, 2012, 12:20 GMT

    Why would all other boards not explicitly go against BCCI? Money, money, money. All of them make tons of money only when they play against India. If they decide to boycott India, they will all go bankrupt. As far as India is concerned, they will be happy playing 2 or 3 IPLs every year and cricket buffs like myself will anyway keep enjoying them. They may even encourage Kapil to continue his ICL and may have a Champions league with 4 IPL teams and 3 ICL teams, we will all still watch them. Thats the power of BCCI and India.

  • Percy_Fender on June 27, 2012, 11:39 GMT

    I wish people would try and see what it is that India has against the DRS as it is.I say this because they won the World Cup with the DRS where every other team played at the same grounds as well.So rather than assuming that India can only play without DRS it is worth seeing what their point is.In the World Cup there were were a few decisions by the DRS that went against them. Even the media had pointed out the obvious shortcomings of the system,I find many of the commet makers in cricinfo resent everything Indian just because of their percieved money power,and the belief that India wants cricket to be played as per its whims and fancies.In a pure debate,everyone should see what it is all about that someone is yelling about.It is too much to read comments that suggest that India has been playing a game other than cricket all these years.It got to No 1 because of the ICC's ranking method and by consistently above average performances.If they have fallen, so be it. It is a game after all

  • keptalittlelow on June 27, 2012, 11:32 GMT

    I am not going to blame BCCI for this debacle, its downright hypocracy on part of all the other nations who dont have the will or the guts to persue vigorously a matter of this importance, Why are they all quiet about it?

  • on June 27, 2012, 11:22 GMT

    DRS must be made compulsory to save TEST cricket. The cost of DRS should be born by ICC (may be through common sponsor).

  • PACERONE on June 27, 2012, 11:12 GMT

    The DRS might be useful,but it seems to work for a few tams more often than others.I am not sure of how it is administered.It seems that some decisions are made even though the DRS shows that the ball would of hit middle stump.Decisions are made considering the umpire initial decision.I think that does not help to make it fair.If the ball is going to hit the stumps...give the batsman out.

  • satish619chandar on June 27, 2012, 11:01 GMT

    @YorkshirePudding : Mate.. In case the replays are not conclusive to give a answer, leave it to the on field decision - Like what the DRS does today.. Atleast they can save loads of money right? What the current DRS does is eliminate pure howlers and either sticks with umpire decision or create controversy on the close decisions.. Atleast we can just eliminate howlers using the replays and leave out the controversy part..

  • satish619chandar on June 27, 2012, 10:56 GMT

    Guys dont understand anything apart from bashing BCCI.. BCCI never opposed DRS but DRS in current form.. A flawed technology which can't say any decisions and leave it to on field decision on tight decisions.. Why embrace that one? Why not ICC in the interest of the game come up with a option to review the decisions with slowmo replays and the pitch map? BCCI WILL oppose the usage of a technology which is working the same way like the replay - eliminate the howlers anad leave it to umpire decision for close ones.. Because, it is them who are going to pay that money.. It is ICC who are blocking the DRS by saying - Only with flawed technology..

  • on June 27, 2012, 10:51 GMT

    Why are other boards shying away from getting DRS implemented, & despite being in majority, are allowing BCCI to bully it. They should realize that as much as they need BCCI, BCCI also needs them becuase India cannot play in isolation, it needs other teams to play gainst it. If all the major boards agree that they will against India only if it agrees to DRS, then ultimately BCCI has to agree.

  • on June 27, 2012, 10:45 GMT

    DRS does not suit India hence it is being unnecessarily delayed.India remembers what DRS did to them during their 2008 visit to SriLanka where they not only lost the series but Tendulkar scored 95 Runs in 6 test innings. India spends so much money,thus has right to be no 1 team. With DRS they will not even make No 1 in Asia. Every one just enjoy IPL money as long as sun is shining. DRS is nothing but table talk even though 9 of the 10 permanent members of ICC really want it.

  • mngc1 on June 27, 2012, 10:43 GMT

    @dude,cricket. Whilst there may have been a FEW wrong decisions caused be technology IN THE PAST, the present situation with the inclusion of Hot Spot and Snicko is far superior. However there were times when wrong decisions were given by the 3rd umpire that had nothing to do with the technology but the way that umpire interpreted the result. The umpires got 33-40 % of the reviews clearly wrong in the recent WI England series and 12 - 16 wrong in the one Sri Lanka Pakistan test. Can you show where the technology is worse than that? NO WAY. An earlier comment by a physicist claimed that there is no way that the projected track of the ball could be accurate due to changing conditions. I am surprised he could argue that, knowing that human fatigue and distraction standing as an umpire for several hours would be a lot worse. Additionally he should know that the eye only sees at 10-12 frames per second which cannot be compared to slow mo cameras that can record at hundreds of frames per sec

  • on June 27, 2012, 10:43 GMT

    So it means not ICC, but the BCCI has the power of say!

  • Crickyboy on June 27, 2012, 10:08 GMT

    Its understandable that DRS has its faults. But then, every technology has its faults, though people continue to use them for every second-every minute of their lives, not bcoz their perfect but bcoz they do it BETTER. I believe we shud hv DRS, not bcoz its perfect but bcoz it can do the same work BETTER than most umpires can. If we are waiting for it to be PERFECT, then that day may never come in our lifetime. It'll be a great tragedy if we overlook this now, since DRS can MINIMIZE the existing errors, while still securing the traditions of cricket.

  • on June 27, 2012, 9:51 GMT

    Even if the system isn't perfect, its better than some of the decisions we've seen without it recently. What disturbs me is the inordinate influence India has over the ICC... financial muscle? What if it was NZ objecting to the DRS? Does anybody out there really think this is a level playing field?

  • Darrylwarren on June 27, 2012, 9:48 GMT

    everybody seems to be missing the point.The reason DRS is not being implemented for all games is because BCCI is against it which means in effect that BCCI is dictating to the rest of the cricketing world and that should NOT BE ALLOWED

  • LloydCharlesPatel on June 27, 2012, 9:47 GMT

    Dear All, it is true that DRS offers help for changing the on field umpire decision, should it been incorrect. But why there is a limitation to the number of reviews. Moreover, it cannot be used once your quota for reviews is over. So if the batsman is not given out or given out by the on field umpire it cannot be reviewed even if there is an element of doubt. If the technology has to be used and agreed upon, the third umpire should be allowed to step in and overturn any incorrect decision by on field umpire by the use of UDRS, only then BCCI should agree to use it. Simple enough.

  • on June 27, 2012, 9:33 GMT

    India won the world cup with DRS, even they don't like DRS, Why ?

  • StoneRose on June 27, 2012, 8:56 GMT

    Ridiculous yet again from BCCI, and ICC as well. If most members support DRS, you would expect repurcussions to happen seeing as DRS has now been swept under the carpet.

  • PHANTOM-X on June 27, 2012, 8:49 GMT

    It's up to The ICC and the respective Cricket boards to find a solution for the cost problem. DRS is a must...I can show u hundreds of bad decisions made by umpires...Soooooo sad....

  • Dude.Cricket on June 27, 2012, 8:49 GMT

    Why do we for a new system? There should be some consistent benefit. But DRS makers themselves agrees that its not reliable and so many variables could affect the correct decision, why not go with the umpire's decision? Haven't we seen many wrong DRS decision? so why should we spend on system that is no better than the human umpire? To make the people who create the DRS richer? How much money is being paid by the DRS makers to the DRS supporters? Sure there is a commercial reason. If DRS is for the love of game, please give it for free.

  • nair_ottappalam on June 27, 2012, 8:43 GMT

    Money minded BCCI again jeopardises a genuine move to make cricket more fair.DRS should be accepted all round. All flaws in the system may be addressed to and remedial action need to be taken. But at first this should be made mandatory. How could India stick on to D/L method in ODi which is a big flop show. D/L is full of negatives.

  • Green_and_Gold on June 27, 2012, 8:38 GMT

    @Jack_Tka - Its great that you can provide examples of when DRS has got it wrong however how about 1) all the times the DRS was correct and 2) all the times the umpires have got it wrong. There are some elements of DRS that work well and some that need to be improved. If a video replay shows a clear inside edge onto the pad which an umpire has given LBW then it should be reversed. If we put it in place we can then focus on making it better rather than debating if we should have it.

  • SouthPaw on June 27, 2012, 8:35 GMT

    Guys, no point in implementing a "half-baked" DRS as it is now. It will only go the way of the Duckworth-Lewis system full of holes and unreliable targets. And all that for a hefty amount of money which most boards cannot afford. Best is to wait for a better technological answer to this.

  • on June 27, 2012, 8:32 GMT

    DRS using THIRD UMPIRE

    I dont know why DRS is essentially linked with all the latest technology e.g the hot spot or hawk eye. DRS means decision review system and it can be executed without these high end gadgets. Infact it is already in use in modern cricket with third umpire deciding the run outs or close catches etc. Along with these two why the LBW and Caught Behind decisions be referred to the third umpire in case the batsman or fielding is not satisfied by the on-field umpire. It would cost ICC not even a single penny and the teams in favor of DRS can at least implement in their bilateral series. Secondly BCCI opposition to DRS is also beyond comprehension unless it is really the cost factor (BCCI and money ????). With one of the most talented players in the cricketing world, they should be shy of making positive changes in international cricket. Cricket badly needs DRS as it is a complex game and it cannot be compared with soccer which is still executed by on field umpire.

  • ejsiddiqui on June 27, 2012, 8:30 GMT

    I would say to DRS haters, don't travel in cars, planes, trains etc because they are not 100% safe. You should travel 100km by foot because it is safer.

    Even if the DRS is 80% accurate, don't you like 80% batter decision. Even it is 20% accurate, it the players call to ask for Review and still umpires call gets more weight than technology.

  • on June 27, 2012, 8:01 GMT

    Why the ICC is not considering Jayadevan's method.....Itz strange..

  • YorkshirePudding on June 27, 2012, 7:53 GMT

    @satish619chandar, Actually no you cant, as there is a perspective issue caused by the height of the cameras and the distance they are from the wicket, a replay can probably tell you whether or not its out side leg or struck in line and if there is an inside edge, but height is the main problem, as well as forshortening which doesnt show the true position of the batsman down the wicket. If the umpires wore hi-def head cams then we might actually get a true interpreation of what the umpire saw, even then theres a caveat about height.

  • veerakannadiga on June 27, 2012, 7:25 GMT

    No matter how much this issue is debated, the bottom line is, DRS is not going to be made mandatory. I for one feel that this gentleman's game is no more a gentleman's game. LBW's & close catches, I can understand, but when a batsman snicks the ball why can't he just walk? There was something very old fashioned called Moral,Ethics,Honesty etc.. where has it disappeared? Players who do not walk after edging the ball should be penalised heavily by the match refree, like a 2 match ban or something on these lines. The 3rd umpire should call the faulting batsman's bluff and overrule the on field umpire's decision.

  • Ramesh_Joseph on June 27, 2012, 7:23 GMT

    If BCCI doesn't want to use DRS for India games fine...Why is here everyone blaming BCCI? No one is stopping other countries from using DRS and let them use it. Why is everyone insistent that India use it?

    Lol at the hypocrisy of the people..Pakistan and Srilanka are two staunch supporters of DRS, and yet they are not using it in the Pak-SL series now. What has BCCI got to do with it?

  • truthhh on June 27, 2012, 7:21 GMT

    at SIRSOBERS you right,that india does not have good blowing side so what the use of DRS,please ECB&icc take some action to slove this&save cricket from BCCI!

  • NumberXI on June 27, 2012, 7:05 GMT

    For all the criticism of the BCCI over DRS, it is a fact that DRS fares awfully when it comes to the clean bowled dismissals. Unless DRS can actually, and exactly, predict that the ball would have hit the stumps where it did, ball path prediction has no real credibility. Other aspects of DRS - Hotspot, snickometer - are somewhat less unreliable, but don't forget that as recently as the 4th India-England test, HotSpot did not show contact over Dravid's dismissal in the second innings. India has a genuine concern - and yes, poor application in 2008 did not help. Rather than seek to pillory India it would help if the systems can be improved to the stage where they can be taken seriously.

  • on June 27, 2012, 6:51 GMT

    It is a very useful technology and India needs to do some homework on it.This technology eliminates umpiring blunders such as giving somebody caught behind when there was daylight between bat and ball.The captains and batsmen should use their two reviews when there are obvious blunder on part of umpire.Indian team has usually wasted their reviews and later blamed the technology.DRS certainly increases the lbw ratio for dismissals and India makes the noise when their big names in batting are given lbw through DRS. Overall i think that India is unduly criticizing the DRS. This is a technology which will help the game and certainly should be adopted.

  • Jack_Tka on June 27, 2012, 6:17 GMT

    Regarding DRS: (1) Its quite an expensive system and out of 10-12 cricket playing nations, only 3-4 cricket boards are capable to implement it. (2) DRS cannot be trusted at times: example: Dravid OUT in Eng vs Ind(England), Sachin NOT OUT in Pak vs Ind WC, Gayle OUT in WI vs Eng (current series). All the three players are GAME CHANGERS and can WIN the match Single-handedly. (3) It seems that there is vested interest for ICC and the corporation supplying the DRS system. Unfortunately, the power currently lies with PAWAR(BCCI). Had BCCI been involved with the DRS system suppliers, then I believe this would have been passed pretty easily.

  • satish619chandar on June 27, 2012, 6:05 GMT

    @SuperStar_XI: Yes buddy.. DRS is 90% accurate.. but 5000$ per day is the cost you make for DRS to say that "Umpire decision stays" in case of inconclusive evidence.. Can't a simple slowmo replay do it? At no cost? BCCI not accepting DRS is one thing.. But why ICC keeps on insisting the DRS with technology alone? Can't the decisions overturned by the DRS without any doubt cleared with the replays and pitch map?

  • satish619chandar on June 27, 2012, 6:00 GMT

    Yes... Why is ICC pleading India so much? They can afford it from their pocket.. It is the money that BCCI generates which makes them speak like this.. Let ICC come out in public and say "Enough is enough.. Let India contribute the same money that the other participating nations contribute and they will have equal say in the decision making".. that would be wonderful.. People simply ask for DRS with hotspot and ball tracking.. But none is ready to bear the huge amount of money involved in implementation of them.. BCCI is giving money to ICC for improving the sport in many unknown nations but certainly for a unknown company which comes out with some camera's and will have excuses like "Out of range, Not in frame, More than 2.5m and funnest of them all-we are only 90% accurate".. What is that going to do for the game? Let ICC cut off all the expensive tech and come up with a cost effective solution and make it global.. Surely BCCI wont oppose it..

  • YorkshirePudding on June 27, 2012, 5:06 GMT

    @Just_love_it, it was probably the fact that the SLCB is to all intents and purposes bankrupt, and as the home board and TV company has to stump up the money thats why it wasnt used.

  • Hareendra on June 27, 2012, 5:01 GMT

    I think the word here is "consistency". You cannot have a game where the laws change from series to series or that they are left at the hands of individual Cricket Boards. We are talking about international cricket here not club level, local Cricket. So, a law should be consistent throughout for all countries and all series. I don't think the arrogance and brutishness of one country should sway the opinion of the whole ICC. Its the ICC's fault for not being able to take a firm stand.

  • iameer on June 27, 2012, 4:55 GMT

    The only reason the Indians are aginst DRS is their bitter first hand experience. Senior players of Indian cricket got on the wrong side of some decesions. To my knowledge the only aspect that needs development in DRS is the ball tracking technology.Its pathetic when the players all over the globe, the umpires and all other stake holders in interest of the game are endorsing the technology only India is against it. For the record 'THEIR HAS BEEN MORE MISTAKES MADE BY ONFIELD UMPIRES THAN DRS'. There is no technology in the world that is perfect, but it is always a measure of wether benefits outweigh the glitches. In the assessment of the majority, the actuals benefits of DRS outweigh the negatives.A parable can be drawn to the use of protective gear such as helmets. Batsman still started using helmets when helmets were bulky, heavy and unreliable to protect themselves in the earliy era of modern cricket. So its time that India invests money in the development of DRS rather than ignorin

  • anver777 on June 27, 2012, 4:49 GMT

    Yet another U-TURN by ICC !!!!!!!

  • truthhh on June 27, 2012, 4:30 GMT

    i;am srilankan fan..i noticed one thing in the article,'the DRS in its current form - a mutually agreed arrangement in bilateral series is going to remain'..the problem is countries srilanka can not afford to DRS cost,if icc plays that DRS cost like umpire fees then that can be implement,without universal accepting that icc can not pay,so srilanka,pak,zim countries can not implement DRS forever,very sad!!i remembered one saying.this is done by BCCI&goes to icc-'Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely'

  • on June 27, 2012, 4:24 GMT

    Day that India requesting DRS is cumming sooner, no dough. Wait till August...

  • BRUTALANALYST on June 27, 2012, 4:14 GMT

    India don't and have never had a bowling attack so obviously they don't want to use DRS as it largely helps the bowlers on tight LBW decisions that in the past batsman would have been given the benefit of the doubt. Is it really hard to understand ? India are 100% batting side so obviously they won't want to use this ! Some will say yes but the batsman can use it to to overturn shockers but the fact is that happens rarely where as tight LBW calls are used allot more to overturn batsman's benefit (I'm sure cricinfo can do some stats to prove this) but as someone who watches allot of cricket it is clearly evident.

  • on June 27, 2012, 3:43 GMT

    If the ICC and all other full members are willing to use the DRS, why not just make it mandatory, PAY for it and use it? How is it BCCI's fault that ICC does not have the guts or money to oppose them?

  • on June 27, 2012, 3:32 GMT

    Being a batting side, India seems to keep the benefit of doubt part of umpiring open, which benefits the batsmen. With DRS in, most umpires prefer to give outs rather than not outs, as was evident from the decisions taken by umpires during England V Pakistan series in UAE recently. Isn't it strange to find everybody supporting the technology and India opposing it. It is like the whole world doesn't understand the point while India does. Pretty lame. Money makes the mare go, but then, this move has only isolated India.

    Don't forget. India won the world cup 2011 only because of DRS. Had Sachin not been given NOT out LBW through DRS, India would have lost the semi final to Pakistan.

    I have another important question. If DRS is so erratic, and as India has refused to use it till it is improved further, then why is India willing to use DRS in ICC organized tournaments? If they are so much against it, just accept the decision of the umpire and do not ask for a review.

  • wolf777 on June 27, 2012, 2:40 GMT

    With so many bungled LBW decisions with Hawkeye technology, I don't blame Indians for not trusting DRS.

  • wellAlbidarned on June 27, 2012, 2:36 GMT

    @yavaid

    Gayle would've still been out without the DRS, and you can't overturn decisions based on the fact that they're marginal. The whole point is to eliminate obvious mistakes while retaining some respect for the umpire's judgement.

  • Just_love_it on June 27, 2012, 2:33 GMT

    Anybody knows who exactly stopped DRS use in curent sri lanka pakistan series ?? Since by statements from both captain and board seems they r in favor of it ! So who exactly stopped 'em ? ICC,BCCI,UN,USA or who ??

  • Just_love_it on June 27, 2012, 2:13 GMT

    @SINHAYA and who exactly stopped ur sri lankan board from using DRS in ur current series vs pakistan ? Y dont u go ahead and use it ?

  • mngc1 on June 27, 2012, 2:01 GMT

    In ther recent series between England and WI there were 10 wrong decisions in 16 innings representing about 33 - 40 % of decisions reviewed. It was worse in the Sri Lanka vs Pakistan test match. Are you serious that Hawkeye is worse than that? No way. This is conclusive evidence and the marginal decision where the ball clips the stump should be not out. There were 10 in the England WI series and English batsmen got the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT and their bowlers the BENEFIT OF THE OUT. Remove the "on field decision".

  • maddy20 on June 27, 2012, 1:53 GMT

    If BCCI does not agree then it would not obviously want to fund the technology and hence ICC knows revenue from the other boards will not be enough to fund it. Plain and simple. That is why it was not put to vote. I am surprised some of the posters here do not understand that simple logic!

  • SuperStar_XI on June 27, 2012, 1:26 GMT

    Being an Indian supporter for years ...the 1 thing I really dont support is BCCI not accepting the DRS ..it total non sense ..just dont get which era they are leaving in ..the technology is there ..why on the earth not using it just bcoz its not cent percent ..bt records suggests tat it is 90 percent rgt so y nt get atleast 90 percnt of the desicins rgt ..ICC shud go ahead of making compulsory usage of DRS for all Tests and ODIs

  • me54321 on June 27, 2012, 0:16 GMT

    The article suggests getting sponsorship to cover the costs of the system isn't going to happen while bcci is opposed to it. If that's true, I'm even more peeved. So just because India doesn't want to use it, the poorer nations will have to continue using watered down versions, or nothing at all as in the case of the current Sri Lanka-Pakistan series.

  • Sinhaya on June 27, 2012, 0:10 GMT

    Utter nonsense! Why is ICC pandering to India so much? ICC should just ignore the BCCI and go ahead. Beauty of cricket is all wrecked by the BCCI.

  • on June 26, 2012, 23:53 GMT

    Great article, I really enjoyed that

  • on June 26, 2012, 23:39 GMT

    people keep talking about DRS .....

    Hawkeye, is horrible ....

    DRS is fine.....keep DRS but let people predict the path of the ball ....

    Hawkeye is not accurate ...

  • igorolman on June 26, 2012, 23:24 GMT

    @Yavaid: There is no 'benefit of the doubt' in the Laws. If there is uncertainty, the umpire's decision stays. Gayle was given out, reviewed, and there was no conclusive evidence that he was not out (or out indeed), so he stayed out. If he had been given not out and England reviewed, it would have stayed not out.

  • borhans on June 26, 2012, 22:59 GMT

    so why not take the decision for other country .if india don't want it thats fine.its like cz indian don't want it now other members have to suffer for that why ICC can't think ,work anything beyond india .They are not saying not to use it for other member state

  • Sehwag_Is_Ordinary on June 26, 2012, 22:28 GMT

    Don't understand at all.....

  • bludayvil on June 26, 2012, 21:22 GMT

    India is allowed to maintain a stand on the issue, contrary though it may be to other countries, based on the technology not being foolproof. In any event, as the system stands, DRS can be used if both countries playing each other agree to use it. So why must India be forced to use a system it doesn't believe in when every other country playing each other have the option to use the system if they like?

    The solution is to make the technology 100% foolproof (and economical, which is another argument altogether) so that no country will oppose it.

  • sifter132 on June 26, 2012, 20:53 GMT

    Don't completely blame India, the ICC is unwilling to fund DRS and if the committee HAD voted for universal DRS, then countries like Sri Lanka and West Indies would have been at the ICCs door needing handouts to fund the technology use. If the ICC would pony up the bucks - or get a sponsorship for it as the article says - at least half the problem would be solved.

  • couchpundit on June 26, 2012, 20:33 GMT

    @FreddyForPrimeMinister - For the same Reason why Chris Gayle was given out in current ODI series against England, even when it was not clear with ultra slow mo and and gimmick's you guys are tlaking about. He should have been given Benefit of the doubt, oh but you know what they did!! They sent the game changer packing to pavillion.

    LOL!! so much for DRS.

    BTW i am no fan of BCCI's Stand on DRS. Also i would like to know why ICC should pay for DRS? Let all the countries implement DRS in domestic circuit. If and when all are happy then we can table it for International games. I am sure no one will be willing to do it. So much for the hoax of DRS.

  • abdeen on June 26, 2012, 20:04 GMT

    DRS REVIEW SYSTEM IS GOOD.I DON'T KNOW WHY BCCI NOT ACCEPTED DRS. RIGHT NOW LOT OF SPORTS HAVE A REVIEW SYSTEM EVERTHING IS GOOD. I DON'T UNDERSTND WHO IS THE CRICKET COUNCIL ICC OR BCCI.

  • ProdigyA on June 26, 2012, 20:03 GMT

    Why ECB is opposed to including cricket in olympics? Any logic there?

  • on June 26, 2012, 19:56 GMT

    Seems Tong Greig got it spot on about the power and negative influence of BCCI - read his speech here: http://www.espncricinfo.com/mcc/content/story/570147.html

  • jackthelad on June 26, 2012, 19:45 GMT

    It is a shame that, in practical terms (I mean money) India cannot be excluded from the ICC. But they should be. No country is bigger than the international game.

  • Road_Romeos on June 26, 2012, 19:17 GMT

    OOPs see who is talking... They cant even implement the goal line technology in football ... yipppee India doesn't intrude there....

  • on June 26, 2012, 18:38 GMT

    Opposing DRS is like abandoning the first motor cycle that is invented just because it's complicated, and returning to our old bicycle because it's a lot less complicated.

  • FreddyForPrimeMinister on June 26, 2012, 18:13 GMT

    Can someone PLEASE tell me why the BCCI refuse to sanction the full DRS system when wanted by all other member countries. The system is not 100% foolproof but categorically improves overall umpiring decisions - I don't think anyone refutes that. The fact that "line calls" are left with the on-field umpire's original decision means that DRS is used only to overturn decisions that are fairly clearly wrong. The best recent example of that was Chris Gayle's dismissal in the second ODI match against England, when given out lbw: the on-field umpire gave it out and the TV referral showed that it was impossible to say whether the ball hit the bat first or the pad - as a result, the benefit of any TV doubt didn't go with the batsman, it rightly went with the on-field umpire's decision, (i.e. out) as without DRS, Gayle would have been out anyway! The only amendment required is that the team making a referral that is lost on "umpire's call" should be allowed to keep that referral for later use.

  • Balumekka on June 26, 2012, 18:07 GMT

    I can't understand why we have two governing bodies for cricket, ICC & BCCI?????

  • on June 26, 2012, 18:07 GMT

    So if India doesnt want, it doesnt even get put to a vote, nonetheless implemented. So how is this NOT a monopoly? If EVERY single country (except India) wants it, why not put it in place?

  • Penny on June 26, 2012, 17:57 GMT

    What's ECB's beef against inclusion in Olympics?

  • HumungousFungus on June 26, 2012, 17:36 GMT

    Sadly, the position of the BCCI as regards DRS now seems more like petulant intransigence than any realistic criticism of the capability of the software and hardware. As a result, they will continue to "suffer" at the hands of the umpires, and we will continue to see ludicrous situations like last Summer where Indian players, feeling they've been given out incorrectly, ask for DRS replays that their own board have not permitted to be used in the series in question. I suspect that the fact that SRT, MS, and a couple of the other Indian big boys got some dodgy decisions in the early days of DRS is still the driving factor behind this, rather than any realistic assessment of the system itself. Everybody else is happy to use DRS, so why not India?

  • on June 26, 2012, 17:25 GMT

    When Mr. Pawar leaves hopefully he will be replaced by a man with common sense and a backbone rather than a man who bends to the whims of India

  • Desihungama on June 26, 2012, 17:19 GMT

    Unbelievable! Just because India had ONE bad series with use of DRS back in 2008 against Sri Lanka when the system was in it's infancy you cannot oppose it forever on the grounds. What do you want India? For Sri Lanka to bend their backs over and request ICC to change the results of that match? No Justice System is without blemishes. So should we abolish Justice System and give free reign to people to do what ever they want? Is Democracy perfect?

  • PlaySafeus on June 26, 2012, 17:15 GMT

    Black day for cricket, what else can one say.

  • bishkekrawalpindi on June 26, 2012, 17:14 GMT

    What changes have been made is odi regulations?

  • on June 26, 2012, 17:09 GMT

    Despite being a die hard Indian cricket fan, I have to say that this issue, thanks to the BCCI's bizarrely stubborn attitude, has gone beyond absurd. I think the logic that they generally put forth is that it's not 100% accurate. At any rate, it helps eliminate quite a few howlers from the game. The point is that it's better than status quo, no matter how questionable BCCI finds its accuracy to be.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on June 26, 2012, 17:09 GMT

    Despite being a die hard Indian cricket fan, I have to say that this issue, thanks to the BCCI's bizarrely stubborn attitude, has gone beyond absurd. I think the logic that they generally put forth is that it's not 100% accurate. At any rate, it helps eliminate quite a few howlers from the game. The point is that it's better than status quo, no matter how questionable BCCI finds its accuracy to be.

  • bishkekrawalpindi on June 26, 2012, 17:14 GMT

    What changes have been made is odi regulations?

  • PlaySafeus on June 26, 2012, 17:15 GMT

    Black day for cricket, what else can one say.

  • Desihungama on June 26, 2012, 17:19 GMT

    Unbelievable! Just because India had ONE bad series with use of DRS back in 2008 against Sri Lanka when the system was in it's infancy you cannot oppose it forever on the grounds. What do you want India? For Sri Lanka to bend their backs over and request ICC to change the results of that match? No Justice System is without blemishes. So should we abolish Justice System and give free reign to people to do what ever they want? Is Democracy perfect?

  • on June 26, 2012, 17:25 GMT

    When Mr. Pawar leaves hopefully he will be replaced by a man with common sense and a backbone rather than a man who bends to the whims of India

  • HumungousFungus on June 26, 2012, 17:36 GMT

    Sadly, the position of the BCCI as regards DRS now seems more like petulant intransigence than any realistic criticism of the capability of the software and hardware. As a result, they will continue to "suffer" at the hands of the umpires, and we will continue to see ludicrous situations like last Summer where Indian players, feeling they've been given out incorrectly, ask for DRS replays that their own board have not permitted to be used in the series in question. I suspect that the fact that SRT, MS, and a couple of the other Indian big boys got some dodgy decisions in the early days of DRS is still the driving factor behind this, rather than any realistic assessment of the system itself. Everybody else is happy to use DRS, so why not India?

  • Penny on June 26, 2012, 17:57 GMT

    What's ECB's beef against inclusion in Olympics?

  • on June 26, 2012, 18:07 GMT

    So if India doesnt want, it doesnt even get put to a vote, nonetheless implemented. So how is this NOT a monopoly? If EVERY single country (except India) wants it, why not put it in place?

  • Balumekka on June 26, 2012, 18:07 GMT

    I can't understand why we have two governing bodies for cricket, ICC & BCCI?????

  • FreddyForPrimeMinister on June 26, 2012, 18:13 GMT

    Can someone PLEASE tell me why the BCCI refuse to sanction the full DRS system when wanted by all other member countries. The system is not 100% foolproof but categorically improves overall umpiring decisions - I don't think anyone refutes that. The fact that "line calls" are left with the on-field umpire's original decision means that DRS is used only to overturn decisions that are fairly clearly wrong. The best recent example of that was Chris Gayle's dismissal in the second ODI match against England, when given out lbw: the on-field umpire gave it out and the TV referral showed that it was impossible to say whether the ball hit the bat first or the pad - as a result, the benefit of any TV doubt didn't go with the batsman, it rightly went with the on-field umpire's decision, (i.e. out) as without DRS, Gayle would have been out anyway! The only amendment required is that the team making a referral that is lost on "umpire's call" should be allowed to keep that referral for later use.