ICC news

ICC to vote on amending presidency

Sharda Ugra

June 27, 2012

Comments: 32 | Text size: A | A

The ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat has a word with Alan Isaac, the current ICC vice-president, Kuala Lumpur, June 24, 2012
Alan Isaac (right) will take over from Sharad Pawar as ICC president on Thursday © AFP
Enlarge

Why DRS fell through

  • There is now some clarity on why the proposal for universal application of the Decision Review System (DRS) was not put to vote by the Executive Board - it's because no one sought a vote. The board comprises the heads of 10 Full Member nations, three Associate representatives, the ICC president, vice president and chief executive. Any member of the board or member of the management can move a motion to have a vote on any issue. In the meeting held on Tuesday, no one - neither in the ICC's management group nor any of the Full Members - was willing to put the issue to vote.

The ICC will on Thursday vote to amend its constitution, with the aim of making its presidency a ceremonial post with a one-year term. If the motion is passed, as is expected, it will come into effect from 2014 when Alan Isaac's term as ICC president, which begins tomorrow, is completed. This will also lead to the other proposed administrative change - the creation a paid post of chairman - and a decision on the future of the vice-presidency being taken up at the next meeting in October.

The Executive Board, which is chaired by the outgoing ICC president Sharad Pawar, finished its official meeting in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday with another short discussion on pending and inconclusive matters. On Thursday, the ICC's full council will take up the constitutional amendment regarding the presidency. This will be the fourth constitutional amendment in 16 years to the post of president, which has gone from rotational to candidature to ceremonial, inevitably suiting the requirements of the ICC's Board.

The resolution to amend the constitution will require the support of eight out of ten Full Members as well as 38 out of the 50 votes in the full council. According to the ICC's current voting system, the ten Full Members and the 35 Associates have one vote each, while the 60 Affiliates are split into groups of twelve, each of which has a single collective vote, adding up to a total of five. It is expected that Thursday's meeting should not last more than an hour and the resolution should be passed without demur.

The full council is also expected to discuss the recommendations of the Woolf report, which suggested a change in membership criteria. The Associate and Affiliate members were briefed by ICC match referee David Boon and Rahul Dravid during a session held on Wednesday afternoon. While replying to questions, Dravid said it was his personal opinion that he supported cricket for the Associates in order to spread the game, but confessed to being "stumped" when asked by Affiliate representatives why it was that 56% of ICC members, which included Afghanistan, were not given enough attention.

On Thursday, Isaac will succeed Pawar as ICC president and Dave Richardson will take over from Haroon Lorgat as its chief executive. There is also a strong possibility that a successor will be named to Clive Lloyd as chairman of the ICC cricket committee. IS Bindra's four-year term as the presidential advisor will also come to an end.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Sharda Ugra

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by bobmartin on (June 28, 2012, 19:36 GMT)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the regulations regarding the use of DRS.. As I understand it, there is no mandatory requirement for its use in any match. The requirement is quite simply that both teams have to agree to its use. Any team can refuse it's use and if it does, then regardless of what the other team wants, it will not be used.

Posted by   on (June 28, 2012, 15:01 GMT)

@TissaPerera Umpires are not paid $60000 per day. Ironically, if the BCCI supports the DRS, SL, Pak, NZ, WI boards will go bankrupt. Also, did BCCI stop the SL board from using DRS in the current series against Pak?

Posted by Dilmah82 on (June 28, 2012, 5:44 GMT)

This is becoming rediculous. It has been the hot topic for more than year, how can they just skip over it in the meeting. Players, officials, fans from 90% of the Test boards want it in place. There should be three questions put to vote. The first should DRS be mandatory, and utilised equally across the globe, and the second should the ICC provide the fundin g for this, and finally should the reviews be left to the players like it is at present, or umpires/match referee who can see obvious blunders and overturn them immediately without wasting time.

Posted by agam99 on (June 28, 2012, 1:53 GMT)

Funny...ain't it ? No nation even moved the notion for voting on DRS but still people loves to blame BCCI for it. Carry on people...it shows ur frustration and makes BCCI more important and relevant even though it does not deserve that much credit...lol

Posted by kristee on (June 28, 2012, 1:44 GMT)

If BCCI's problems with DRS limit to the way it's implemented, they could have raised it. The thing is that they, or someone in their camp, fear even a normal replay to on-field umpires' decisions. (Perhaps some lbw candidates feel that they'd only get exposed further, in the process). Shame!

Posted by Venki_indian on (June 28, 2012, 0:41 GMT)

Only Eng & Aus wants DRS, other Boards cannot invest huge amount on DRS and they dont want it... Great going BCCI...

Posted by Chris_P on (June 28, 2012, 0:10 GMT)

Why bring in DRS? Just because the majority of test players want it shouldn't ever be an issue. Who cares what the players want. After all they just play the game. The guys making the decision NOT to put it in after all have the correct qualities needed for that decision. Former players and a minority in this thought process. (Written with tongue firmly planted to the side of my mouth).

Posted by TissaPerera on (June 27, 2012, 23:42 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. :)

Posted by bharath0709 on (June 27, 2012, 23:29 GMT)

when BCCI introduced IPL ,there are people who blamed that ,game of cricket is being changed and there is no classic look ,then why do you need DRS ,what about the classic human umpiring ?

Posted by   on (June 27, 2012, 23:13 GMT)

DRS should be on onwareds....its a use of technology....wht if there were no third umpire? can u imagine its better than nuthing if out of 10 one decisin goes wrong because of DRs no issues but what about 9 out of 10 gone right becayuse of tht....dont forget sachinscored scores in worldcup semi final but only after the use of DRS.....so plz guys am cricket fan and i like this technology welcomed...accept things what comes to bring change, and have more positive comments....i think only indian some fans oposing it but be neutral and think about it

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Sharda UgraClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days