| Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Features
|
Photos | Video & Audio | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Games | Mobile | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICC news
ICC suggests DRS policy change, BCCI resists
Nagraj Gollapudi
January 10, 2013
|
|||
|
Related Links
|
|||
In a renewed effort to push for the DRS to be universally implemented in bilateral series, every member on the ICC chief executives committee (CEC) barring India backed a change in policy that would see the home board having the right to choose the use of the DRS in a meeting held in Dubai on December 4. This marks a major change from the current situation in which the approval of both teams is required for DRS to be put into place in a bilateral series.
The CEC suggested the matter must now be resolved via a vote by the thirteen-strong executive board (ten full members plus three affiliates), which will meet on January 29 and 30 in Dubai.
"The CEC is requesting the board to reconsider their existing policy. The majority of the CEC members were in favour of the change. But no one else except the BCCI opposed the move at the meeting," a member, who attended the meeting, told ESPNCricinfo. Sanjay Jagdale, the BCCI secretary, who attended the meeting and disagreed with the fellow CEC members, declined to comment, saying he cannot speak to the media.
India has been the sole opponent of the DRS, stating that the technology implemented currently is not 100% foolproof. In a recent interview with ESPNCricinfo, the BCCI president N Srinivasan made his position further clear as to why he would not like to change his mind on the DRS. "I'm not against technology but one should be cautious and we should be clear what it is that we are trying to achieve. If you say my correct decision percentage has gone up from 94 to 95.6, is that all you are looking to achieve? It is relative. But we must understand what has been the beauty of the game.
"So the sum total of this is: we say, let us leave it as it is. You have taken bias out of the system, as the umpire by definition is neutral. Cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties, so why not keep it that way?," Srinivasan said.
Though Srinivasan denied that the BCCI was bullying some of the fellow members on the ICC board, an ICC member official said it was unlikely that India would be deterred by the CEC's new policy initiative. "I do not necessarily think the chairman of the boards would have the same view as their chief executives. I think it might come to nothing, quite frankly," the official said.
This is not the first time the BCCI has opposed the rest of the members on the DRS. At the ICC's last annual conference in Kuala Lumpur, the CEC had passed the resolution to make the DRS mandatory for all events. The move was then passed to the executive board which had to ratify the decision. But despite the push from the CECs, the head of the full member boards refrained from putting the issue to vote.
Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo
Feeds: Nagraj Gollapudi
© ESPN EMEA Ltd.
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
TopE-mail
Feedback
Print
Nagraj Gollapudi
Sponsored Links
ICICI Bank M2I. Register Now and Get A Gift Offer.
Safe & simple online money transfer. Apply Now!
Buy Wisden 2013 & get a FREE Playfair
Available now at Cricshop
@SinSpider on (January 10 2013, 20:07 PM GMT), DRS can't remove all error and was never designed to. Allowing tems to review every decision is impractical because they'd be reviewing all the time just in case and the game would grind to a halt. The allocation of 2 reviews per team is in recognition of the original intent of DRS: to correct clearly incorrect decisions. Teams should only be reviewing when they are sure that the decision is incorrect so they should rarely be losing reviews, so there should always be a review available when an error is made. If that's not the case then it's down to the team's abuse of the system in taking unwarranted reviews. There is also a recognition from both the providers of the technology and cricket administrators that there is a margin of error in the information provided by DRS technology, hence the "umpire's call" rule. If the technology cannot say conclusively that an error was made, the umpire's original impression stands. Simple stuff.
I would be fascinated if anyone - particularly anyone from India - has an insight into what's going on here. For better or for worse India is the country that has embraced cricketing modernity - Twenty20, wall-to-wall advertising, cheerleaders, blanket TV coverage, superstar players - more than any other. It seems extraordinary that this particular aspect of the modern game is so anathema to the Indian board and yet acceptable to every other governing body, including those with a far more traditional mindset in virtually every other respect. Where did the Indian DRS-phobia originate? Has the BCCI simply reached the point on this issue where argument is irrelevant and where saving face is all that matters?
All the technologies brought into cricket so far, helps the 3 umpires together make the right judgement on what could have happened. For the first time, Hawk eye, Hot spot and Snickometer(not sure if this is still included in UDRS package) come in with a decision making power over those 3 umpires. Do you all want the game to be controlled by a man or machine? If you say machine is more reliable and consistent than man, to wat extend you woud let it control the game? To be precise, do you want Hawk-eye innovations Ltd. product to influence the game? Me..i m happy with those 3 umpires and thier judgement of a situation...yes they are humans if some of thier decisions are wrong, I ll yell at them, get over it. Any given day, i ll understand, accept and respect a qualified man and his decision than a certified machine..Umpires can get all the help they want from the technology..but it has to be a human who makes the judgement and players shud obey it - not the other way around
My question to those who want DRS cos it is better: If alternate systems offer the same level or near the same level of quality decision making but at a fraction of the cost or with ZERO new costs then which one would you accept?
If Umpire's Decision is supreme and DRS is only there to overturn it if there is incontrovertible evidence to say he was wrong then why not simply use the referral to ask the 3rd umpire about the particular ball's attributes and let him tell the field umpire if the impact was just outside the line or was there a probable inside edge or the bat hit the ground blah blah? Embracing technology just for the sake of being modern is too much - esp when the cost of DRS paraphernalia is beyond the reach of many boards.
And btw, all those who say Hail DRS all the time, how many of you can afford it? A modern car offers max safety, automatic brakes, auto navigation, high pickup, etc but costs $250 million, surely you would want it but could you buy it?
Posted bySimple really isn't it.. One would hope we would all want the team which wins, to be the one that collectively makes the fewest mistakes....not the one which benefits most from umpiring errors. If the number of umpiring errors that DRS has corrected is greater than the number it has upheld... then that is surely a good enough reason for it.
Posted byMessage to the BCCI who "don't trust" technology, I offer this piece of information: One of the most successful strike aircraft in the world, the F16, simply cannot fly without it's computers...When you fly to all these meetings, what is controlling the aircraft for most of the journey, the auto-pilot ie computer technology. If heaven forbid, you suffer a heart attack and you're put on a life support system, what controls it.. computer technology. Your life is in the hands of computer technology more often than you perhaps realise. If you don't object to situstions such as those, it seems rather stupid not to embrace it in something far less important in the overall scheme of things. It's called living in the modern world.
Posted by"You have taken bias out of the system, as the umpire by definition is neutral."
I cannot disagree more with this statement. We have learned by experience that human beings are not neutral.
On the other hand, regardless of whether a machine is inaccurate or not, you will always know that it cannot favour one team over another. Simply because it is a machine with no preferences!
That is why the rest of the world will always favour DRS, regardless of any inaccuracies. I would rather have wrong decisions be made as long as it is made by a machine that cannot be influenced by money or be subject to any bias.
Having been a South African cricket fan during the period of 1999/2000, I am highly suspicious of these "glorious uncertainties" that these officials are so excited about.
Posted by dorking18 on (January 12, 2013, 16:41 GMT)Surely this article should be on Page 2...
Posted by@ Chanda Kota. I pretty much disagree with everything you've written. LBW errors are the main error we need to correct. The batsman gets the benefit - over 50% of the ball needs to hit the stumps. It real life if 1% of the ball hits the stumps the batter is out, so the margin of error is already accounted for and is made in the batsmans favour. The SL series was plagued with umpiring errors NOT DRS errors. The England West Indies series in WI a few years back had the same issues. The third umpire was overturning marginal "not out" decisions and giving batters out against the benefit of doubt (and in some cases against all common logic) which is not how it works now. The sytem requires that the technology and it's implementation and user training be consistent and thorough. Most DRS errors I have seen (2 exceptions) have been human error. Better communication between umpires would hae resolved every issue I've seen with the technology - that's what should be focussed on now.
Posted byNothing on earth is "perfect". To put the constraint that any system in any sphere of life must bne "perfect" before it can be implemented is effectively the same as saying "We are never going to have it". DRS is measurably better than umpires - the way it is now implemented is not ideal. I'd prefer the fielding captain tro have 2 appeals and the batting side to have none - but every LBW and none obvious snick that the standing umpires believes out to be automatically referred to the third umpire which may require that the technology compiles its reports a little more quickly. The third umpire also with the right to step in quckly if a howler is made "That was a no-ball mate" or "It looked like bat but it hit halfway up his armguard". I 've noticed that no-balls are already assesed and more than once a batter has been recalled halfway to the pavilion. Better that than a repeat of the 1992 Eng/Pak series where Shep gave 6 wickets in one innings to no balls from Wasim and Aqib Javid