ICC news

ICC suggests DRS policy change, BCCI resists

Nagraj Gollapudi

January 10, 2013

Comments: 153 | Text size: A | A

Yuvraj Singh implores MS Dhoni to call for a review after his appeal for Thilan Samaraweera's wicket was turned down, India v Sri Lanka, final, World Cup 2011, Mumbai, April 2, 2011
India was the only member opposing a change in implementation policy for the DRS © Getty Images
Enlarge

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

RSS Feeds: Nagraj Gollapudi

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Harmony111 on (January 13, 2013, 13:02 GMT)

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 by   on (January 13, 2013, 7:43 GMT)

Simple 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 by   on (January 13, 2013, 6:57 GMT)

Message 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   on (January 13, 2013, 0:24 GMT)

"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   on (January 12, 2013, 14:23 GMT)

@ 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 by   on (January 12, 2013, 14:12 GMT)

Nothing 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

Posted by aps301 on (January 12, 2013, 12:20 GMT)

I am myself an Indian and feel this decision of BCCI is idiotic. Improvement in any form should be appreciated. It is we Indians who would make a lot of hoopla if anyone of our batsmen is given out incorrectly, but still keep DRS away from games. Grow up guys, don't just support BCCI view because its our country's board. Good things should be appreciated and idioticness despised, irrespective of nationalities. Use your heads and not let others drive your decisions

Posted by correctcall on (January 12, 2013, 11:43 GMT)

This is a half baked proposal by the ICC CEOs in that DRS would still not be used for international matches in India. Surely the integrity of cricket requires all matches to be played under the same rules. However if the strategy is to get to that objective by having India play under DRS overseas as a stepping stone to full implementation then such a compromise for a short period is OK. It will be very interesting to see whether Mr Srinivasan's contention that all ICC member Boards vote autonomously holds up on this DRS recommendation at the Dubai meeting of the ICC on 29 Jan - don't hold your breath!

Posted by   on (January 12, 2013, 9:36 GMT)

how can the BCCI complain that the DRS is 100% accurate when umpire decisions aren't 100% accurate either, the DRS has improved the accuracy of decisions, so if the BCCI wants to improve decision making, why do they oppose this system in the absence of a better one?

Posted by   on (January 12, 2013, 9:20 GMT)

@Stuart_Watson

In answer to your question, the first series ever to have the DRS was the Ind-SL in SL in 2008 which was pretty well fought with India losing 2-1. However, about 80% of the close decisions went in the favor of SL (rightfully so). I guess this rattled a lot of the senior Indian cricketers who developed a bias against it and influenced the BCCI on the issue. Its a bit sad and BCCI has started justifying a rather idiotic logic to defend its stance. Hopefully they learn their folly

Posted by   on (January 12, 2013, 3:43 GMT)

Contd...part 2

I hope BCCI resists the system until it is implemented correctly. Besides, DRS is going to be implemented. Its only a matter of when. With BCCIs resistence may be in 2 years or 5 or 10 years.

But there can only be good out of all this. Imagine if BCCI never opposed, the hotspot company might not strive to make it better. And we would have been stuck with the wrong implementation of the system.

Posted by   on (January 12, 2013, 3:39 GMT)

People who despise BCCI can stop reading here. Others who want to know the logic of BCCI, here we go. When BCCI says that the technology is not 100%, what they mean is it can be made close to 100% by eliminating LBW decisions from DRS except when a bat is involved. When India frist toured SL, what we saw is that DRS is primarily used to convert marginal LBW calls to out. The rules were such that the umpires have to ask few simple questions and come to a conclusion mechanically. This whole implementation of the DRS is wrong. Besides we have seen players abusing the system by using them all on main batsman, negating the sole purpose of drs to eliminate obvious mistakes. The best way to implement drs is 1) Eliminate LBWs except when a batsman hit the ball. We can live with rest all fowlers. 2) Review every out automatically. Without LBWs, there will hardly be 2 or 3 reviews. 3)Bowling team gets 3 reviews. Again without LBWs, players cannot really abuse the reviews. contd......

Posted by   on (January 12, 2013, 3:34 GMT)

These are some of the most stupid remarks I have ever heard from an official. Why in the world they aren't happy with the 94-95% improvement in results? So we should all stop driving the cars we drive because no technology has been invented yet which can prevent the accidents by itself? UNLESS you give opportunity and time, nothing is going to improve. Moreover, DRS is there to prevent blunders. And that is surely not the 'beauty of the game'.

Posted by hailianpak on (January 12, 2013, 1:31 GMT)

Hahahaha. I just want to say one thing. Indian fans r finding it extremely difficult to defend the BCCI's opposition of DRS. They know its wrong to oppose it but they're doing it just because their cricket board BCCI has rejected it. So keep on the hard work Indian fans.

Posted by TamilIndian on (January 12, 2013, 0:00 GMT)

Technology aids should be directly given to the ON-FIELD umpires. Please take out the thrid/ fourth umpire business. Give the tools to the umpires on the field (should definitely be possible) and let them make the decision right there. Reviewing also should be allowed on the field itself.

Posted by RaadQ on (January 11, 2013, 23:46 GMT)

Firstly, no matter what, technology can not be 100%, so arguing for it to be 100% is basically saying "we're never going to embrace it". Secondly, I am in agreement that the protocols governing the DRS are too complicated and sometimes stupid, and can make the technology look bad when its the rules governing the technology. I also believe that the reviews should be cut from 2 per innings per team (i.e. upto 8 in a match) to 4 in total, so teams stop using "tactical" reviews and start using them to eradicate howlers out of the game, the purpose of DRS. I just find it assuming that the BCCI is the sole opposition of DRS, yet they cry the most about being on the receiving end of unfair decisions.

Posted by MadCricter on (January 11, 2013, 21:52 GMT)

Totally don't understand BCCI's stand. Being an indian, I am baffled at this. With so many cameras, and advances in technology, it is dumb to not use them. It will only help improve the game & fairness.

Posted by GoCho on (January 11, 2013, 21:02 GMT)

We may discuss all the pros and cons of DRS but it will not matter as the important reason why the BCCI is fighting tooth and nails against its implementation is purely economic. The Indian broadcasters already pay insane amounts for the rights and a feature which 'improves' the fairness of the game but does not bring in more eyeballs is definitely not worth the loss in profit margins for either of these parties.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (January 11, 2013, 20:55 GMT)

The BCCI are back to not playing by the rules everyone else plays by: The only answer to the question 'Why don't India want DRS' is that their batsmen will get away with the odd one (which brings about a sense of irony when it works against them when they bowl at opposition batsmen), otherwise we'd see India get regularly bowled out for 100 every innings. Play on the same field as everyone else, I'm sick of this issue remaining stagnant.

Posted by chandajaan on (January 11, 2013, 20:50 GMT)

To BCCI, If you think leave the games as it is without technology, then why not go use Horses instead of cars and write letters instead of emails because of the beauty of going from one place to another. Come on you are so pathetic. @aravindDL If you think this way that its controlled by the machine. Then why don't u guys get rid of all machines i.e Cars, Computers, Cell phones etc etc etc. And just rely on humans. Come on we are here to remove errors even its 1%. But your mind set is always negative, be a good nation for the betterment of the games.

Posted by GoCho on (January 11, 2013, 20:44 GMT)

You know what the ICC's masterstroke was - the new ODI rules. If the DRS had not kept the BCCI occupied, they would not have allowed these new rules which hurt a team with below average pacers and spinners , a few bits and pieces players and no allrounder who could even get into the A team of an international side.

Posted by Desihungama on (January 11, 2013, 20:29 GMT)

@Stuart_Watson - That is because BCCI wants to implement a parallel technology developed by an Indian Entrepreneur and not the DRS developed by Western firm. It has nothing to do with fool proof results. Now, on your second comment on India embracing modernity of Cricket. I totally beg to differ. It is Pakistan that embraced the modernity and gave cricketing world, Neutral Empires, Reverse Swing, Use of Pink Ball, Night 4-Day Matches, and the infamous Doosra. India only embraced the commercial aspect of cricket and hardly did anything in innovation.

Posted by SLMaster on (January 11, 2013, 19:39 GMT)

What BCCI not understanding is whether the current system doing fairness to batsman/bowler or not. It is not mainly to correct the umpires' decision. It is to a bring fairness to those players put effort. One simple error could impact career of one player and the other could be benefiting from it.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 19:34 GMT)

Before introducing any major changes at the international level, the ICC usually does trials in domestic cricket. How many boards use the DRS in their domestic matches? Rather than blaming the BCCI, let the other boards first use it in their domestic matches, and prove that they are really committed to using it. I am eagerly hoping that one fine day, BCCI asks to make DRS mandatory and most other cricket boards will go bankrupt.

Posted by StaalBurgher on (January 11, 2013, 18:51 GMT)

The umpires aren't 100% foolproof so should we kick them off the field? Ridiculous logic from the BCCI. Umpire + DRS = better and more accurate decisions. This has become a purely ego thing by the Indians. Pathetic.

Posted by Thomas_Ratnam on (January 11, 2013, 18:04 GMT)

I give up! The BCCI will never get it.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 16:42 GMT)

simple way around this, have the DRS used in series that India plays when not at home(i.e. if India go to England,Australia,South Africa,New Zealand,West Indies,Sri Lanka,Zimbabwe,Sharjah,Bangladesh,Pakistan or even Holland the host nation and other teams involved in multi-lateral series get to over-rule the truculent BCCI representatives and some PROPER rulings on stumpings,gloved leg-side catches, and run-outs from batsmen not grounding the bat before the line can be made). No DRS usage when other sides go to India is fair enough. India aren't doing too well at home without DRS so they're not likely to benefit from being compelled by ICC to be using DRS on home grounds.

Posted by Zahidsaltin on (January 11, 2013, 16:30 GMT)

@venbas, your point makes it necessary to may be increase the number of chances a team can ask a DRS decision for. As so say, some teams are poor in its execution then is question is, why should the players have to get trained for a job which we have umpires for. With DRS as it is now, the benifits are those who have an umpires eye and can judge it to perfection, and I don't think a player should be burdened with that because its not his job to judge margins of 5 mm. I'll say 4 chances for each team in an innings.

Posted by SinSpider on (January 11, 2013, 16:30 GMT)

IMO, DRS has been introduced without proper priming to it.

Without basic steps to correct horrendous errors, DRS has been introduced to improve accuracy of some decisions. For e.g.,

1) I feel that all balls should be checked for a front foot no-ball whether the umpires refer it or not. Free hits are game changers especially in T20 and ODI formats.

2) Some times umpires miscalculate the number of balls in an over. There are rare instances where there have been 5-ball or 7-ball overs. This should be corrected on the spot before the next over starts. Currently, I think they dont correct it. Do they?

Posted by _NEUTRAL_Fan_ on (January 11, 2013, 15:39 GMT)

I think players and spectators though are not grasping an important point. The DRS' main function is to limit "howlers". A decision really should not be reviewed unless a batsman for example is sure he hit it or, based on experience, sure that a ball is doing too much to hit the stumps for an lbw. From a fielder's point of view, when the batsman clearly hit the ball in the case of a bat-pad where the close in fielders are actually in a better position than that of the umps. The whole margin of error and 100% full proof argument really IMO does not apply much for such howlers. However, DRS on a whole, whether used as intended or not adds a fascinating and tactical dimension to the game which is great for the television viewer. And let's be honest, t.v. is where the game now makes money.

Posted by PanGlupek on (January 11, 2013, 15:38 GMT)

I'm sorry if this has been written 100 times already (really didn't feel like reading all of them, too many), but if the BCCI insist on not using DRS, I wish somebody would tell thier players to stop whingeing at umpires.

Dhoni, in particular, whinged something chronic last series vs England about umpiring mistakes and India probably had less errors against them than England did. He whinged something chronic to the press vs WI too, and Australia, if I remember rightly.

Still, obviously India know better than the rest of the world put together does. Can't possibly be that thier players don't know how to use DRS properly, or that without DRS, they have less excuses to hide behind when they lose....

Posted by bumsonseats on (January 11, 2013, 15:20 GMT)

have not read all the postings as its tiresome reading all the negative letters mostly by indian follows. but i for one like all the procedures that go with the DRS when an umpire makes a decision and we look for hot spots etc. i think it was richie b who once complained about the time it took to reach a decision. me for one, it will take as much time as it takes if at the end we get the right decision.

Posted by SinSpider on (January 11, 2013, 15:01 GMT)

@jmcilhinney on (January 11 2013, 03:22 AM GMT) I think your statement that "the original intent of DRS was to correct "clearly" incorrect decisions..." was never followed. I would define a "clear" error in umpire's judgement for eg., 1) when a batsman is judged LBW and there was an inside edge. or 2) when batsman is given out caught but ball hit his elbow.

It is not a "clear" incorrect decision, when batsman is given out LBW and on DRS review it shows that the ball hit his pads marginally outside offstump and the umpire's decision is overturned. DRS has been used mostly for the marginal type decisions. You call it "abuse of the system" and I agree. Then why allow the abuse in the present format?

Hawk eye and ball tracking are predictive technologies, I agree that they do increase the accuracy of decisions. However, I cannot fathom this half baked application.I see more benefit that captains should have the right to use DRS for every wicket, if necessary. Also by default, all wicket

Posted by Harmony111 on (January 11, 2013, 14:29 GMT)

@Drew Foster: Since you evidently have issues in comprehending, let me express my stand in even clearer terms. I want ICC to either give full weightage to DRS projections or scrap it altogether. It is funny that for 2 identical events the final outcome can be OUT OR NOT OUT as per the Umpire's decision even if DRS shows identical projections. That's counter-intuitive and also shows the umpire+DRS in poor light by obfuscating the real culprit there.

I am not against DRS. But we've seen enough cases where it comes short. So, on one hand we've an evolving system proven to fail in a few cases + we've ICC that does not trust it in some case + we've a board that says precisely so + we've others who just want to rush in adopting it if only to spite BCCI + we've huge expenses of DRS with not many able to afford it + we've simpler options like freq comm between field and 3rd umpire to give similar results as DRS.

And you (& the RoW) want DRS anyhow? I chuckle now.

Posted by Harmony111 on (January 11, 2013, 13:54 GMT)

@Drew Foster: Coming back to your comment, even a layman knows all models are simplifications of reality, you felt it needed a college education to know it lol. What I found funnier was that you linked the speed of reality with the rest of your argument. If speed of reality is the problem then super slo mo should serve us fine, agree? And bout T1 and T2 Errors, you are too stuck in basics kiddo. In DRS, the errors are likely to accumulate yet diff to ascertain the source of. So it would be far too simplistic to label them as T1 or T2. If the ball is erroneously hitting the pads is it due to wrong camera alignment, multi-camera timing issue, wrong height of camera, failure to catch the precise point of contact, wrong extrapolation, lack of data to extrapolate or is it a combo of these? It's not a simple IF P THEN Q here. It's IF (P1&P2&P3&P4…Pn) THEN Q here. How do you fixate your fav T1/T2 errors for each of the Antecedents here?

So why DRS is ok 4 full hit but not ok for partial hit?

Posted by venbas on (January 11, 2013, 13:30 GMT)

Based on India's pathetic DRS history, the BCCI is only fully aware that Indian team does not have the brains to use the DRS sensibly. Whilst a wily Jayawardene was using the DRS sucessfully to overturn 11 wrong decisions in a test match, Kumble and Co. used up all their DRS reviews with ZERO effect. Obviously the lankans swept the series. The case is no different later like during WC when MSD and co. wasted most of their DRS choices whilst the opposition nailed them more often than not. So instead of blindly opposing the DRS, the BCCI should rather concentrate on giving Team India the right coaching on strategic usage of DRS.

Posted by Harmony111 on (January 11, 2013, 13:24 GMT)

@Drew Foster: You know nothing about what I know and not know so don't talk of my background. Was a layman any wiser after reading your comment? I guess no, then what's the point of your comment? You were perhaps a tad too busy brushing up your basics while typing this comment that you failed to understand the simple English I had used to say that If DRS is there then Umpire's Call should not be there. I doubt your comprehension skills if you thought I was saying Umpires>DRS. Heck, what do you think I meant when I asked for abolishing Umpire's Call? I guess you don't quite know what Umpire's Call is. You better read it first before you advise me anything.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 13:15 GMT)

Its about time India left the ICC. We will always be resented no matter what.Besides they need us more than we need them. Just like the UK does not want to be dictated by Brussels, we do not like to be dictated by Lord's. Make the IPL a year long event , increase the number of franchises,this might actually reduce the cost of ownership which is a good thing. Even if some foreign boards do not allow their players we can make do with the ones who want to play(there will be a lot of them) or just Indian players. There will be no room for passengers in the team and talent would be rewarded. The Indian national team would be a casualty, but really who is going to care, its already dead anayway.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 12:39 GMT)

Some very funny comments, just in the group of 10 I read! @Syed Ahmad Abbas Rizvi yes, and with it lets abolish all technological assistance. Emails get lost occasionally just like snail mail so why use email? @Harmony111 if you had any tertiary background you would know that all models are simplifications of reality. They exist because real processes are too complex to fully comprehend, especially when they are witnessed with the speed of which a potential dismissal can occur. With this piece of obvious common sense in mind, do you really want to argue the point you seem to be making: that umpires>DRS because of calibration/modeling? That is, obviously umpires make mistakes which is why the rest of the world uses DRS. The main problem with the system is that Type I and II errors (look them up) are considered equally significant in LBW decisions. However, the point is that it is a safeguard, not a replacement. Live with it!

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 11:47 GMT)

DRS is not perfect.... simple!

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 11:22 GMT)

Why go to third umpire and towards the technologies for the run-outs even. trust the on-field umpire, what's the problem with that ?

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 11:02 GMT)

people also seem to be forgetting that the third match official is actually making the decision. DRS is there to provide different perspectives on the wicket. The actual decision lies with the umpire, so don't try to make out that it removes a human element because it doesn't

Posted by tarrystone on (January 11, 2013, 10:34 GMT)

I would have thought that any reasonable person would accept that 2 reviews per side in an innings is NOT removing an umpire from the equation, but rather helping to prevent the occasional awful umpiring decisions. Most people accept that the umpires generally do a good job but if you look at the 2 decisions in the final test at Nagpur giving Cook out, can anyone honestly say that HDPK Dharmasena's decisions should not have been able to be overturned? In a more cynical world questions may well have been asked about how Alastair Cook, the man most likely to score big runs was the victim of the two worst umpiring decisions in the match; both by the same umpire? DRS would have allowed him to bat on in both cases and although England won anyway it is still a mockery when we have the ability to put these things right.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 10:18 GMT)

@Ashish, In the 2008 series against SL in SL, Anil Kumble was the captain. While the SL captain Jayawardane was very aggressive, our captain was quite laid back. This gave us lot of heart burns. During all this, Sachin Tendulkar seemed very offended with all this. When captaincy changed from Kumble to Dhoni, Sachin has been able to convince Dhoni and BCCI that DRS is no good. This has caused an angst and hence India's and BCCI resistance to the whole thing.

Posted by Harmony111 on (January 11, 2013, 10:13 GMT)

And even in its current form the biggest problem DRS has in my opinion is the lousy umpire's call. What does that mean? It means that even though the DRS shows the ball hitting the stumps partially it still is not sure about how accurate it is and so the original decision should stay. Well, if the DRS is not sure about the projection in the case of a partial hit then obviously it can't be sure of the projection it makes in a proper ball hitting the stumps case. Now, where does this doubt come from? Obviously from calibration issues and/or the mathematical model used for the projections. Thus, fundamentally, DRS is not sure of its calibration and its mathematical model. How are then we to trust its accuracy even if it makes a seemingly ok decision? How are we to be sure the ball certainly pitched where DRS shows and not 2 mm to the right, what about the bounce and speed it observed? What about the love kiss, maybe the ball wasn't there at all.

Abolish umpire's cal 1st then come to BCCI

Posted by VJ_Cricket on (January 11, 2013, 10:06 GMT)

BCCI needs sponsors for every aspect of DRS, brittania hotspot, airtel slomo, kracjack snicko etc... it is not about milking money all the time. it is about better of players & the game

Posted by pratn on (January 11, 2013, 9:54 GMT)

@Stuart_Watson

India didn't have a great time with DRS in the 2011 World Cup apart from the Sri Lanka series that someone else pointed out.

There was the whole 2.5 meter rule fiasco.

India had the worst luck with DRS in that tournament: http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/504744.html

Posted by Harmony111 on (January 11, 2013, 9:48 GMT)

Some ppl here just don't seem to understand that not having DRS is not an excuse for shoddy umpiring. A bad decision still would remain a bad decision. Having DRS will merely correct a few of them if the referral is used wisely. That's all. Moreover, the various components of DRS have issues associated with them and till date no independent analysis has been done of those aspects of DRS to convince the people about its accuracy. I do support technology but not just for the sake of it.

If someone says that DRS is there to get rid of shockers and not to make the game error-free then nearly the same degree of umpiring can be achieved by simply letting the field umpires to comm to the 3rd umpire on certain times during the play for eg no ball, grounded bat, grassed catches, suspect bat and pads, gloved catches etc. Why waste so much money on DRS then?

Sadly, some are pro-DRS only cos they are anti-BCCI. Well then take it from BCCI too. BCCI will keep on spiting you all.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 9:13 GMT)

The real issue with ppl from England is that they are too used to reading trite published in the tabloids there that they are on a diet of jingoism, , etc. No wonder we see them posting rather xenophobic comments here! ! Try to see things from a neutral prospective as well. Might be a good exercise for these ppl.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 8:54 GMT)

@Stuart: The DRS phobia started in the India - SriLanka series in 2008. At that stage the DRS was fairly new and had many loopholes. There was no such thing as umpire's call. Even if its hitting marginally, the decision was reversed. India unfortunately had a really horror experience there. They had just 1 decision overturned in the series while SriLanka had about 12. India lost the series and they blame the DRS for that. Honestly, SriLanka used the DRS much better than India did. Anyways, that is the seed of this anti-DRS sentiment in most of senior Indian players and BCCI. From there on, it has kind of become a stand of BCCI that they want it to be foolproof before they risk another series to DRS. Personally, I don't agree with the BCCI stand. The DRS in its current shape is much better than it was then and can be a real asset to the game.

Posted by csmart on (January 11, 2013, 8:45 GMT)

There is genuine concern for BCCI. When innovator of technology says that it cannot be 100% sure then why use it. If technology cannot decide whether umpire correct or not, then why use it. Also where DRS cannot provide clear picture, will umpires will be consistent in their decisions ie same decision will be made in all similar circumstances. NO. It is not possible. then why. Why bash BCCI? come up with concrete solution where there are still grey areas. Nobody wants to do that or discuss them. @HotSpotInventor just FYI, BCCI is not promoting alternate to D/L method, developed by an Indian. So your justification does not stand. It is rather you who hate South Asians

Posted by crafty-Rabbi on (January 11, 2013, 8:44 GMT)

BCCI is a corrupt organisation and currently does not have any benefit from the implementation of DRS. They do not manufacture any of the technology and their senior batsmen have not fared as well with decisions since the introduction of DRS.

DRS has evened the game of cricket and tilted it towards the bowler. It is still a batsmen's game, but bowlers are now getting more decisions. BCCI like flat batting tracks with high scores.

When England controlled international cricket they were just as corrupt but in more of a closed club way. So India are not unique.

Another point with DRS it is harder to manufacture a dismissal so the betting/gambling mobs are probably against it and they seem to have considerable influence with the BBCI.

Posted by csmart on (January 11, 2013, 8:44 GMT)

There is genuine concern for BCCI. When innovator of technology says that it cannot be 100% sure then why use it. If technology cannot decide whether umpire correct or not, then why use it. Also where DRS cannot provide clear picture, will umpires will be consistent in their decisions ie same decision will be made in all similar circumstances. NO. It is not possible. then why. Why bash BCCI? come up with concrete solution where there are still grey areas. Nobody wants to do that or discuss them. @HotSpotInventor just FYI, BCCI is not promoting

Posted by HotSpotInventor on (January 11, 2013, 7:51 GMT)

Having been involved in the DRS process since the beginning with my involvement via Hot Spot, I have some comments that may not be obvious to many readers. As I have said all along, Hot Spot is not perfect and never will be but strangely the BCCI expect it to be. My gut feeling is that this insistence by the BCCI that the DRS be 100% accurate is a total smoke-screen. I believe that the real issue is more based around the companies that supply the DRS technology. Hawkeye is a British company, Virtual Eye (aka Eagle Eye) is New Zealand based and my company is Australian. If there were Indian companies that also supplied DRS technology I think the BCCI's attitude could be completely different.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 7:28 GMT)

Very surprising to see the BCCI not accepting the DRS which has more pros than cons. The advantages of DRS have repeatedly been observed in games where the umpire's blunders have not impacted the overall result. I strongly believe BCCI needs to embrace DRS as soon as possible to ensure an overall parity in the game and also for the viewers!

Posted by Punters_Mate on (January 11, 2013, 7:25 GMT)

Interesting to see how Indian team will travel in the future if technology has to be 100% infallible. No aircraft as they breakdown; also no cars or busses same reason and air traffic control or traffic lights are prone to error. Must mean they will only walk to matches. What was that argument the Luddites used against technology?

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 7:14 GMT)

First of all ICC needs use the DRS in a sensible way rather than overaggressive way. For LBW decisions lets use it for pitching point (outside leg) or bat nick through slow motion camera only. Similar thing about catches also. If you remove other parts from DRS, I believe this will be 100%. Adding to this, player should not Challenge the decision rather umpire should use it for clarifications.

That will be fair enough for everybody.

Posted by venkatesh018 on (January 11, 2013, 6:31 GMT)

Pity the lives of Bowlers playing for India. What more to say?

Posted by SachinIsTheGreatest on (January 11, 2013, 6:24 GMT)

@Stuart_Watson , I think it is quite difficult to explain but I will try. The modernity you mentioned is something that has helped the BCCIs coffers grow and to a large extent this has trickled down to better pay for domestic cricketers and helping our retired ones. However, the DRS is not about revenue. Also it's implementation was flawed when it was first tried in the SL-Ind series. Even if the stats show India were clueless vs SL in using the video technology the fact remains some extremely poor decisions were taken in that series. Since then DRS has continued to cause problems in all series. However, the current scenario the way I see it is that the BCCI is opposed to it but not the players. Tendulkar, Sehwag and Zaheer have all said they are no longer opposed to DRS. MSD making that DRS signal in the first ODI against Pakistan was a clear indication that they would like to have it.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 5:50 GMT)

If the ICC is really so committed about using DRS, why not commit to bear the costs of using it? Why did they not use DRS in the T20 World Cup in Sri Lanka? It was surely not due to BCCI since BCCI did not oppose use of DRS in the 2011 World Cup. ICC knows that it cannot bear the costs of DRS without BCCI's money, and is cleverly using BCCI as an excuse to hide this fact.

Posted by Edassery on (January 11, 2013, 5:37 GMT)

Feeling unfortunate to be an Indian fan. No technology can be foolproof but one should wholeheartedly accept every move to improve the technology - DRS being one of the first steps. If BCCI and their big ego is waiting for the perfect technology to happen, they will wait forever. And trying to be different in thinking is good but it shouldn't be to show one's veto power.

By the way, if there were 10 Simon Taufels with ICC umpiring panel, I would think DRS may be redundant. Since umpiring standards are declining, the technology route is definitely the way to go.

Posted by KK_Cricket on (January 11, 2013, 5:20 GMT)

I am an Indian and a huge cricket fan.. And I definitely believe that DRS would bring in more benefit to the Indian players/team then not having it.. Bowlers can bowl with little more confidence knowing they can go for a review and batsman too can be more assured.. remember Pujara's decision against Swann in the Test series.. that would have been crucial...

Posted by Cricket_theBestGame on (January 11, 2013, 5:15 GMT)

@aravindDL - " What if we technologically prove that technology is wrong? Which technology woud we believe - i wonder" - best comment of the lot..and very true too ;)

Posted by Sir.Ivor on (January 11, 2013, 4:47 GMT)

I am simply amazed at the pig headed attitude of Srinivasan and his cohorts in the BCCI.Their reluctance to accept DRS is like their sticking on with Dhoni as the captain even if they lose everything and the reputation they had earned till the World Cup of 2011. I have watched the DRS in operation and am satisfied that most of the decisions are correct.Let us say 90 % of decisions are correct.It could be even higher.Having watched even the legendry men in white coats like Dickie Bird and David Shepperd umpire without any assistance, I can say that they too used to make mistakes.So if one accepts that the percentage of correct decisions by using DRS is higher than just the human eye unaided, it is worth being accepted by everyone. Srinivasan gave some very laboured reasons on why the BCCI does not favour this system.That was just to show that he is right in the background of the philosophy of umpiring. I will be looking for the day this man steps down.Indian cricket will be the gainer.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 4:34 GMT)

IF DRS technology is not delivering 100% accuracy, it is better to rely on fiield umpires and enjoy the uncertainties of the game( relying on field umpires). And yes we Indians have the power of money in cricket, so you rest of the world-cricket fraternities have to accept whatever BCCI decision BCCI makes :D

Posted by satish619chandar on (January 11, 2013, 3:57 GMT)

Let other boards skip BCCI as they can take decision ONLY in their home series and let them pay for the DRS in their home tours. BCCI WILL understand when they are consistently floored by the umpiring errors against them and one day they will accept the change. DRS WILL have its own controversies. But it is upto the ICC and the organisers to set a clear lines to which ALL the umpires adhere. Either all go with commonsense or all go blindly with technology. And the most important thing, the same technology used globally. If one uses the hawkeye and other doesn't, then no real use in having such a DRS!

Posted by jmcilhinney on (January 11, 2013, 3:26 GMT)

@VickGower on (January 10 2013, 21:56 PM GMT), the BCCI stance against DRS predates that series in England so you can't use that as an excuse. Besides that, the BCCI keeps arguing against the technology, not the implementation. You try to justify the BCCI's stance but your reasons are not their reasons. Furthermore, your claim that previous exposure to DRS is the reason for poor umpiring in the recent India/England series is completely spurious. You have no evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (January 11, 2013, 2:58 GMT)

@IndiaNumeroUno on (January 10 2013, 18:54 PM GMT), that is easily the dumbest comment anyone has ever made on cricinfo. We watch cricket specifically to see players perform and to see which of them can overcome their human frailties best and win the game. We don't watch cricket to see which umpire can get the most decisions correct. A player should be allowed to bat on when he is entitled too and not when he's not. That's a fairly simple principle and DRS helps to make that closer to reality than without it.

Posted by stark-truth on (January 11, 2013, 2:57 GMT)

@Ozwally...you've nailed it. It's ironic that the sole nation opposing DRS is the one which cries the most about "glorious uncertainties" of the game - the umpiring errors. DRS history implemented in matches involving India show the disproportionate errors found of umpires erring on India's side. For eg. the first time it was used in Tests in SL, I believe DRS corrected more than 8 or 9 crucial errors that had been committed by umpires favoring India, leading to a thumping Indian defeat.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (January 11, 2013, 2:50 GMT)

@VickGower on (January 10 2013, 18:09 PM GMT), firstly, the fact that Dravid was given out when he hit his shoelace is actually evidence FOR the use of DRS, not AGAINST it. On that occasion, the umpire gave Dravid out because there was a clear noise and no apparent source for it other than an edge. Dravid could have referred that decision but didn't, because he himself didn't even realise that the noise was from his hitting his shoelace. It was obvious from the replays what had happened and, if Dravid had referred that decision, he would have been given not out as soon as the TV umpire saw those replays. As for the rest we do need to differentiate between DRS technology and implementation. If the BCCI has an issue with the implementation of DRS then they should accept the technology and work with the ICC to come up with a better implementation. That said, it's important to remember that the TV umpire has access to sound from the stump mic that we don't hear on TV.

Posted by   on (January 11, 2013, 1:55 GMT)

Let us see some resolve - let the other boards go ahead with or without the BCCI. And let the BCCI not go on harping on perfection which is a Utopian dream - maybe they can start with a perfect team that can win!

Posted by billy_bilal on (January 11, 2013, 1:30 GMT)

On one hand they oppose DRS and on the other if Umpire gets it wrong, they bully him to no end. What a joke

Posted by jmcilhinney on (January 11, 2013, 1:21 GMT)

Glorious uncertainties? What a stupid statement! The uncertainties should whether the bowler can put the ball in the right place and whether the batsman can react to spin and movement, not whether the umpire will give a batsman out when he isn't and vice versa. The beauty of the game is the outswinger and the cover drive, not the howler. Use DRS and increase the number of correct decisions and we'll get to see more of the true beauty of the game.

Posted by SpiderB1964 on (January 11, 2013, 1:17 GMT)

Of course DRS should be used... there is no shame in an umpire being corrected on a decision, that's the glorious uncertainty Mr Srinivasan.. It corrects mistakes. Pity there isn't a DRS in some of your BCCI meetings... surely some of your decisions would be reversed?

And why wasn't MS Dhoni reprimanded for holding up the "T" signal in a recent game? Your team doesn't want DRS Dhoni? Untouchable.

Posted by Jojygeorge on (January 11, 2013, 0:52 GMT)

OzWally, mate I am an Aussie as well.....India controlling ICC due to TV revenue...your comment is very childish.... you conveniently forget that Aus and Eng used to control the ICC not so long ago. As for the Adelaide 2008 test matches, please look at the clippings on youtube and judge for yourself.....it was purely a case of 11 Aus players plus the 2 umpires against 11 Ind players As for India opposing the DRS, VickGower has clearly highlighted the faults with DRS in the Eng vs Ind test series that happened in 2011. The Indian board wants to make DRS more foolproof before it can be implemented....there is absolutely nothing wrong in this.....

Posted by Chris_P on (January 11, 2013, 0:26 GMT)

@VickGower. I said you were one eyed, not Federer, who by the way is the ONLY player in the top 100 who thinks that, but hey, they still have it , unlike cricket, in all major tennis slams! But for countries to decide for it individually is fine. That means when India tour they will have to use it whether they like it nor not. It is just a matter of time, you do know, soon enough all countries will use it so to be practical, any discussion is moot. The BCCI stance in stating it needs to be 100% is as illogical as expecting umpires to be likewise. Technology has improved markedly, not to embrace it, yes I admit, is archaic, ergo my point.

Posted by whyowhy on (January 11, 2013, 0:21 GMT)

Instead of wasting time asking the officials to vote the ICC must just ask all the current captains to vote.......ask the officials to take a well earned rest, after all, it is the captains who make the decision to refer to DRS (at least when fielding) Let's see what happens then........remember the officials from most countries are a bunch of ageing, glory seeking idiots, only stumbling blocks to change and betterment.

Posted by FRRR on (January 10, 2013, 23:52 GMT)

I think india made the right decision. The bowling attack is pathetic to say the least and now every batsman suffer from bad technique.

DRS will increase the downfall of indian cricket.

Posted by crikbuff on (January 10, 2013, 23:39 GMT)

Ridiculous! BCCI is causing serious damage to world cricket - on all fronts. They just want to bully other boards and get their way thru. It's a helpless situation..

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 22:56 GMT)

The game beccomes much fairer with technology, of course - even if the technology is only 90% accurate. If India doesn't want to use it, they don't have to! However, as every other country wants it, the obvious thing to do is to allow Indian players simply not to ask for referrals. Why on earth should one country dictate to the world? (Unless it's England, of course!). :o)

Posted by VickGower on (January 10, 2013, 22:52 GMT)

Would just like to make a final comment. First, thanks moderator for letting all the comments through. Not sure if that always happens. Second, it is pretty silly to take one bad DRS outing (such as Ind-Eng 2011) and build a philosophy around it, as my comments suggest I am doing. That is not my intention though. We have two instances of tech at play. One in Tennis where it is pretty much Yea or Nay; and the other, let's say in NFL, where it is often a review of the play in slow-mo. Given its nature, Cricket will probably fall in-between. If the DRS components are now sufficiently accurate, plus, as IndiaNumeroUno earlier said, if we can implement DRS such that the 3rd umpire cannot rejig it with his own haphazard interpretations, e.g. if relying on HotSpot, rely on it completely, AND the whole thing is standardized, then it might work. The irony here is (assuming the Ind-Eng 2011 anomaly is ironed out) India probably has more to gain than lose by the introduction of technology.

Posted by Yousufahmedl on (January 10, 2013, 22:48 GMT)

If DRS is not 100% fool proof, then is onfield umpiring 100% perfect?? This BCCI ruling cricket must end with immediate effect.

Posted by Yousufahmedl on (January 10, 2013, 22:41 GMT)

Oh god bless cricket. This is typical. BCCI knows very very well that without DRS, umpires are pressured to make decisions in their favor and boost the stats of their overrated batsmen. Tendulkar scored this many runs all due to umpiring aid. I have lost count of the number of LBWs umpires did not give against Tendulkar when he was plumb plumb out and should have had more single digit scores than what he ended up having.

Posted by Anwar-Lara on (January 10, 2013, 22:27 GMT)

Dear BCCI why are you so ignorant?? we all have seen that because of DRS at least the howlers can be avoided, and its better than having no technology at all. Ok let me explain this in your language: Sachin Tendulkar became a great batsman after getting a chance to play..

Posted by Headbandenator on (January 10, 2013, 22:27 GMT)

If someone on the BCCI board had invented the componenets of DRS would we even be having this discussion?

Posted by Headbandenator on (January 10, 2013, 22:22 GMT)

Well, if India doesn't want DRS, it doesn't have to use it. Scenario 1. Billy gives Tendulkar not out. Cook challenges as he can; Billy corrects decision as it would have taken out leg stump. It happens, no umpire is perfect. Scenario 2. Billy gives Cook out caught behind. Cook uses DRS, because he can. Turns out the ball hit the thigh. Not out, Cook scores another 175. Scenario 3. Tendulkar is on 99, and is given out caught behind. Billy gives Tendulkar out. Tendulkar looks up to the skies ruefully, sees the replay and knows he was robbed. In the knowledge that he (perhaps) and the wise old sages in the BCCI have robbed him of one final hundred before he retires, he cries. Scenario 4. Sreethanth, bowling fast and true, raps Cook right in front, having pitched on leg stump. TV replays show that it did hit it line, but Billy has given it not out and there is nothing he can do about it. He cries. BCCI, you made him cry! Shame on you. I say ban India until it accepts DRS. Simples.

Posted by T-800 on (January 10, 2013, 22:18 GMT)

Let me tell you why India opposes DRS. It is because DRS could heavily complicate the job of the Indian captain whoever that might be. The decision of when to use and when not to use a DRS appeal has the potential to become a source of huge rift within the team. If Player X gets benefit of an appeal and Player Y doesn't, then player Y can make life hell for the captain especially if Player Y is associated with a powerful cricket board say Mumbai, Delhi, Karnataka, Chennai etc. BCCI is scared of unleashing this Pandora's box

Posted by Chris_P on (January 10, 2013, 22:11 GMT)

@VickGower. Unlike you, i have vivid recollections of numerous travesties made by umpires. Again, I will repeat., even the umpires, the very men you want to have sole authority for decisions prefer DRS. Help me understand why your view is above those best qualified to state this? Whatever reason you toss, did you not watch the recent series against England?

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 22:08 GMT)

well done bcci, long may u rule over world cricket

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 22:03 GMT)

Present state of Indian Cricket does not need DRS... it is only useful when you have wicket taking bowlers and batsmen who are willing to spend time on the crease even with say current India's top 6 barring pujara (in tests) are saved by DRS twice at least, they would not go on to make more than 30. BCCI is convinced with DRS it is not convinced with its players... if DRS is on they use it and are saved twice whom they will go on to blame for the loss

Posted by Kingzzzz on (January 10, 2013, 22:01 GMT)

Can't blame BCCI and they do make a good stance on it.

Posted by VickGower on (January 10, 2013, 21:56 GMT)

@Chris_P, If YOUR team had undergone the TRAVESTY of DRS usage/hotspot inaccuracies in England '11, you wouldn't be so charitable. It is easy to be an enlightened thing when all imprecisions of DRS seem to curiously fall in your favor. And of course, the quality of umpiring is bound to suffer when you start to depend on technology. It's no coincidence that some of the best umpires had an unprecedented, poor outing in India this time around. In other words, we are gutting our current umpiring system by prematurely introducing technology that doesn't yet have a proven high level of accuracy (not asking for perfection here), nor does it have a standardized implementation methodology. Blindly following technology is not 21st century, it's utterly nonsensical. BTW, it would be a revelation to Roger Federer that he is so archaic AND one-eyed just because he doesn't support hawkeye technology in tennis.

Posted by atheros1672 on (January 10, 2013, 21:49 GMT)

This is what will happen when a board and an imprtant board like BCCI is full of a BUNCH OF ARROGANT, POMPOUS, SELFISH,NARROW MINDED, STUPID IDIOTS.

Well done BCCI. you make zimbabwean cricket board look good. Only you can pull off something like that. KUDOS

Posted by GermanPlayer on (January 10, 2013, 21:40 GMT)

@Lee Grey, DRS has nothing to do with the top spot in test ranking changing hands so quickly. Please...

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 21:37 GMT)

YAWN - BCCI Yawn. Kick them out of international cricket until they are willing to tow the line like the rest of us.

Posted by OzWally on (January 10, 2013, 21:37 GMT)

Funny how the country that cries the loudest about umpiring decisions is the only one NOT to want DRS. Of course by blocking the use of DRS they can continue to pressure umpires to their will. How do they do this? Indirectly, by controlling the ICC due to TV revenue and directly by threatening to pull out of series and go home (Adelaide 2008) if certain umpires are selected (Bucknor).

If I was an umpire and knew of the power that Indian cricket had over my continued employment, who do you think would get the benefit of doubt on the field.

Remember, India is also the reason why we have neutral umpires in Test matches.

Posted by nursery_ender on (January 10, 2013, 21:32 GMT)

Fine. Let India oppose DRS. But next time they get the wrong end of the umpiring they must accept it and not hound the umpire concerned into early retirement.

Posted by aravindDL on (January 10, 2013, 21:31 GMT)

@VickGower and @IndiaNumeroUno, thanks a lot for bring up healthy arguments.

seems like all DRS lovers are not BCCI haters but somehow all BCCI haters are DRS lovers :-) I would like to bring in technology to post comments...technology is unbiased, fair and close to perfection.

What if we technologically prove that technology is wrong? Which technology woud we believe - i wonder

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 21:27 GMT)

Well, I was hoping after 10dlkr and Dravid's retirement BCCI will accept DRS.

Posted by IndiaNumeroUno on (January 10, 2013, 21:17 GMT)

@LeeGray: What an amazing description of village/ town cricket.. I felt I was in the park playing :) Absolutely agree with "Cricket in its purest form on the village greens or town pitches is what cricket is about".. can't wait for the season to start.. OUR club cricket season!!

Posted by Chris_P on (January 10, 2013, 21:01 GMT)

@VickGower. For every example you can toss up against DRS, there would be dozens more to counter. Try to view it with BOTH eyes open. Your recent test series against England showed far more errors due to umpire error than the 2011 series. Why do even the elite umpire board agree that DRS should be there, & they are the top officials who you believe you know more than themselves! Try catching up to the 21st century.

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 20:59 GMT)

Cricket at the end of the day in either decision will be the winner. I agree that DRS as a technilogical advancement in the game has aided many teams with winning series, that's why I think the number one spot in Tests is changing so frequently. Cricket in its purest form on the village greens or town pitches is what cricket is about, its about making that wrong decision every once and a while regardless if you're a batsman who has spooned a catch to mid off, a bowler who has accidentally bowled a full toss that has been dispatched for six, a keeper who has dropped a vital catch, and so to an umpire who has a mad moment and given out a batsman LBW when he has clearly hit the ball with his bat, at the end of it we all make mistakes and we are entitled to them and must live with them, regardless of outcome. Technology is great for the arm chair cricketers who sit on their sofa thinking their test match umpires, but for the game to continue with its pure delightful manner, it is a NO NO!

Posted by kc69 on (January 10, 2013, 20:57 GMT)

I really dont like this stand by BCCI because even umpires are humans and bond to make mistakes.DRS will be in the interest for fairness .I understand DRS has some loopholes such as Hawkeye but if something helps the game everyone should support it.I hope BCCI remembers 1 ODI between Ind and Pak where DRS would have saved the match for India.Can't quite understand why BCCI is so stubborn on this.

Posted by trav29 on (January 10, 2013, 20:55 GMT)

@vick gower

it has been tested, within acceptable limits

it has been confirmed by the relevant people within the ICC and recommended by the committees set up to make these decisions

it has been accepted by all the other ICC members

no-one has ever said it can be perfect, if we are waiting for perfection then we will wait a very long time. the key question to be answered is whether it improves on the status quo and without doubt it does

Posted by Chris_P on (January 10, 2013, 20:52 GMT)

While they are at & in keeping with their archaic stance, the BCCI can order more buggy whips for their carts to transport the teams to the grounds.

Posted by VickGower on (January 10, 2013, 20:38 GMT)

"marshalllaw22 to @vickgower: it didn't pan out at all, DRS wasn't used in that series because india didn't want it. Not sure what your argument is, DRS would have prevented the majority of bad decisions."

LOL! @marshallaw22, It is so much easier to devise a winning, incontestible opinion when you can mould the facts to your liking, isn't it? DRS was VERY MUCH a part of the 2011 India visit to England. In fact that is where it gained its more accurate title: a Dravid Removal System. I don't think Dravid ever got as many wrong calls in his long career with an ordinary human being umpiring.

Posted by IndiaNumeroUno on (January 10, 2013, 20:31 GMT)

@SCC08 - Are you saying that no other team appeals? Trott appealed for a catch even after the ball bounced :)) look in the mirror before pointing fingers "mate"!

Posted by _NEUTRAL_Fan_ on (January 10, 2013, 20:24 GMT)

My MAIN reason for liking the DRS, in all due honesty, is the fascination, intrigue and tactical know how associated with it. DRS adds to the suspense and it tests the intellect, strategy and temperament of the captain and the team. I do think many viewers feel the same way as I do.

Posted by VickGower on (January 10, 2013, 20:23 GMT)

@IndiaNumeroUno You make EXCELLENT points.

@trav29: In one of the instances, the Hotspot showed nothing, but Dravid conceded he had nicked it. Now, Dravid shouldn't have been given out because technology was in his favor -- to your point. To my point - Hotspot apparently failed to function because even Dravid conceded that he had nicked the ball. There have been other instances where Hotspot has turned out to be suspect. Haven't the makers conceded that? - though they have argued, sometimes that is because there are not enough cameras placed at the right position? So, listen, who are you kidding? Let's first confirm the technology, create the precise parameters as to how it should be used and interpreted, standardize the whole darn thing, test it at the lesser levels, and THEN volunteer it for widespread adoption. How about that?

Posted by concerned_cricketer on (January 10, 2013, 20:12 GMT)

The use of DRS can sometimes turn farcical like what happened recently in an Aus vs SriLanka match. Also I don't think it should be used for LBW decisions especially trying to trace the path of the ball after it hits the pads is often just plain guess work by a program. On a pitch where the ball stays generally low after pitching like in Ahmedabad or even Nagpur, the path of the ball can't be accurately traced once it has hit the pad. One could argue that it shouldn't be the case as after pitching the ball rises up to hit the pad and this gives the first part of the trajectory of the ball and so it is ok to continue drawing that trajectory beyond the pad. But this is not true as the ball which pitches on an unresponsive track will have so much momentum taken out of it that the trajectory will be different than on a bouncier pitch. But then this problem is probably only relevant to Indian/subcontinental pitches and not the English/Ausssie/SA/NZ pitches.

Posted by SarfBD on (January 10, 2013, 20:10 GMT)

Normal slo-mo replay often misses one or two crucial frames. So, that is not 100% perfect. Should we remove normal slo-mo replay from cricket?

Posted by SinSpider on (January 10, 2013, 20:07 GMT)

It seems silly that only host teams can decide on DRS implementation. This is erroneous.

DRS is a tricky thing. The intention of DRS is to eliminate error. Objectively, one should aim to eliminate "all" error from the game.

How can one achieve total freedom from error when each team has only 2 appeals in an innings? It looks more like a gambling bet to go for a review if you only have two reviews.

If bad umpiring decisions are made when a team has lost its quota of DRS reviews, how is that fair and OK? I feel that teams should be able to review all decisions in DRS.

Posted by SCC08 on (January 10, 2013, 20:02 GMT)

All you Indians with your negative veiws.. Firstly, no-one in world cricket appeals more irritating and consistantly than an Indian cricket team. Pressurising umpires and relying on dodgy decisions is a feature of the Indian game. Indian cricket does not have the history or player quality like Aus, SA and Eng yet they seem to want to run World Cricket. Remember, the ICC is the rule maker, not the BCCI.

Posted by Kapil_Choudhary on (January 10, 2013, 19:54 GMT)

@trav29 Unfortunately, the problem is that DRS ultimately ALLOWS for inconsistent umpire interpretation as you are saying. The thing is that it is much easier to accept a wrong decision when it is made by a field umpire as it can attributed to the decision being made in a split second - but when an umpire looks at several replays - the same replays that we can all see - and still comes out with the wrong decision - a much bigger problem arises. It is also in such cases when the neutrality of the umpire starts getting questioned.

Personally, I would still have the DRS in use but I am just presenting the other side of the argument here. However, the "umpire's call" in DRS needs to be removed. The original decision of the umpire should have ZERO impact on the review - thats how it is in tennis where it has been very successful. Also, hot spot should either be followed unconditionally (which means no decision being given against hot spot) or eliminated altogether from DRS.

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 19:44 GMT)

As and when the BCCI develops its own technology it will agree to the DRS. This is pure business and has nothing to do with the game of cricket. Now the technology is developed and supplied by non Indian companies, which does not benefit BCCI. When an Indian company is ready with the technology the BCCI will buy the rights and will reap the benefits of using it world wide. Do not be surprised if this happens in the near future. In my personal opinion use technology wisely, unfortunately some players take advantage of the system. Leave it to the umpires, if they have any doubts let them check it. Or let the 3rd umpire take a look at the replay as soon as possible and ask for the DRS.

Posted by trav29 on (January 10, 2013, 19:40 GMT)

one other thing about the % figures being quoted , turning a 92% correct rate into a 98% success rate is actually a massive improvement not just the 6% it appears as it actually means in real terms that 75% of all dodgy decisions made by onfield umpires are corrected.

Posted by trav29 on (January 10, 2013, 19:36 GMT)

@ vickgower

the issues you are highlighting there are nothing to do with technology however but of an inconsistent interpretation of how DRS, and an incorrect interpretation by erasmus in particular imo, of how DRS is intended to work

dont blame the technology because an umpire didn't follow the guidelines surrounding how that tecnology is meant to be used

Posted by IndiaNumeroUno on (January 10, 2013, 19:33 GMT)

DRS stands for"Decision Review System". Unfortunately it seems to be named incorrectly and is (maybe unintentionally) deceptive to what it actually does. If you are reviewing a decision you cannot use predictive elements since then you are mixing one predictive judgement to the umpires predictive judgement. What it can be used for is pure "review" i.e if foot has landed outside or inside the line, if the bat was outside or inside the crease, did the catch ground or not, whether the ball touched the rope or not, was there a sound, did it nick etc.. i.e no "prediction".. straightforward review. That's how hawk eye is used in Tennis... no prediction, simple review on where the ball landed. That's how technology will be used in Football.. did the ball cross the goal line or not. Keep the predictive element with the Umpire. I'm sure no one will have an issue with DRS then! Oh and please sort out who pays since cost is and will always be an important point.

Posted by 200ondebut on (January 10, 2013, 19:27 GMT)

A sensible outcome. You do after all get ten times more poor decisions without DRS than you do with it.

Posted by Sameer-hbk on (January 10, 2013, 19:20 GMT)

DRS is not really such a big issue honestly. I mean, if you want it in, just shove it down BCCIs throat by making it mandatory for all international cricket matches. What I don't get is this whole 'choice' clause. I mean, why should hosts choose to use or not use it? How can a law in the playing conditions be subject to choice? It is in itself, just a stupid proposal. If that is the case maybe next, host nations should be allowed to choose whether they want to use two new balls in ODIs from each end or just one. I do not really know any other world sport government body that is so spineless. IF ICC wants DRS, they should pay for it across the board. If Aus or Eng use hot-spot camera, so should a match having Bang and WI have DRS with same features. Same DRS, same technology, same rules for all matches across the globe with ICC paying for it. If you can't pay for it, just drop the whole thing plz. You are making a joke out of yourself

Posted by bumsonseats on (January 10, 2013, 19:13 GMT)

i can understand their reticence re the part of crickets appeal is that umpires can get it wrong and its been that way since the game began, but all games of skill need a good arbitrator or a way to get to the better team winning. in football the swiss gnome blatter has finally come round to goal mouth technology to see if a ball has crossed the goal line. players like cook SK5983 would not be given out as he was in the last test. DRS to me has shown just how often umpires do get it wrong its not a problem of been poor umpires. they must feel very depressed when they know there is a way for their decisions to be correct more often than not and they are been denied the tools to do the job.

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 19:12 GMT)

Agree with VickGower. Ahh I am happy someone remembers what happened in England. And people talking about removing BCCI's hold from ICC should look at their beggar boards. Recently pakistan board suggested to BCCI that they should share revenues from all mathes thay play against each other, even in India. Ridiculous. Evident who is in need of some $$.

Posted by zaf100 on (January 10, 2013, 18:57 GMT)

BCCI needs to move with time because it's not fair for cricketers from other countries to play with two set of rules. One for Indian players without DRS one for others with DRS. Toothless ICC should take a stand and make the use of technology compulsory. We are talking about players careers because one bad decision can ruin somebody's careers. Professional sportsmen need the help of technology because that way everybody is happy knowing they have help available if they think the decision is wrong. India simply using their financial power to veto all other countries on DRS.

Posted by IndiaNumeroUno on (January 10, 2013, 18:54 GMT)

Lets also replace the bowlers with bowling machines.. why waste that latest technology?! hang on.. did someone come up with batting machines? lets use them as well!! how about robots for fielders? Maybe we don't need to go anywhere at all as it can all be controlled online?! :)) After all we should be using latest tech and anyone not using available technology is spoil sport tut! tut!...

Posted by shot274 on (January 10, 2013, 18:53 GMT)

Why refer runnouts and stumpings then. they are not foolproof either. Simple solution. DRS should be available in every match-the team that wants it uses it and the team that doesnt-doesnt!To stall the whole game due to one demented cricket board makes no sense.

Posted by itsthewayuplay on (January 10, 2013, 18:40 GMT)

The players learnt nothing from 8-0 defeats and and similarly the selectors that chose them learnt from the recent England series where there were players some on both sides got decsions they would surely have been disappointed with and could have easily been corrected with DRS. Is it any wonder the current team can't perform? Crap floats down from the top.

Posted by marshalllaw22 on (January 10, 2013, 18:34 GMT)

@vickgower: it didn't pan out at all, DRS wasn't used in that series because india didn't want it. Not sure what your argument is, DRS would have prevented the majority of bad decisions.

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 18:28 GMT)

The Indian black mailing of ICC and the way it has succumbed to it has turned ICC into Indian Cricket Conference. Moreover, Srinavasan is wrong that all umpires are neutral. In the recent Indo-Pak ODI series, one umpire was neutral and the 2nd and TV umpires were not neutral, but they were Indians. So come on BCCI, don't hide the facts under the carpet and let the game of cricket be played with a straight bat.

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 18:21 GMT)

Dhoni's signal for Decision-review in chennai one day against pakistan was biggest slap on BCCI Face!! Hope they'll wake to DRS reality!! wish Dhoni hv made that signal to Mr. srinivasan who was present there too!!

Posted by VickGower on (January 10, 2013, 18:09 GMT)

I was all for DRS until I saw how it panned out during India's visit to England in 2011. It was farcical, folks. Or perhaps you have forgotten. At Edgbaston Dravid was given out caught off his shoe-lace; at Oval he was given out caught bat-pad off Swann when there was NO hotspot indication; and the real travesty in the following ODI, when Dravid (AGAIN!) was giving caught behind off Broad by the THIRD UMPIRE, when the umpire on field had said no, there were NO hotspot indications - NO deviation detected. It was a freakin joke. At least with just umpires, as during the series in India, you could say, as many decisions went against India too, e.g. Pujara caught off his arm guard; Trott escaping the plumb LBW decision, etc.

Posted by imranmalik_br on (January 10, 2013, 17:53 GMT)

financial reasons hahaha.. come on year, BCCI have sold their broadcast rights for $750m for six years and that does not include IPL coverage.. Do you guys really think if BCCI were to accept the DRS, they would be paying for it from their pocket. Some company would pay for it for their 10 sec commercial during the match. I am sure their stand on this issue is 1) to show their hegemony in ICC and 2) to keep all options open during the match (if u know what i mean).. it's time to man up not for BCCI but for all other boards..

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 17:52 GMT)

remove BCCI's hold from ICC... DRS should be made mandatory

Posted by Selassie-I on (January 10, 2013, 17:38 GMT)

BCCI will continue to oppose the DRS, especially as they managed to avoid another alastair cook 100 in the last test due to two shocking umpire decisions!

Posted by Nutcutlet on (January 10, 2013, 17:27 GMT)

For the umpteeth time, here are the arguments in favour of DRS. 1st: It's statistically shown to be the case that, whereas umpires unaided get 92% of decisons correct, those same umpires, assisted by DRS, get 97% correct. 2nd: the use of DRS removes a great deal of on-field controversy & that otherwise often leads to poor, unseemly behaviour that does the image of cricket no good whatsoever. 3rd: the spectators love it! It adds suspense to the moment & tests the captain's wisdom in whether or not to call for a review. Futhermore, they appreciate that technology cannot be accused of bias. There is, therefore, a sense that DRS delivers justice, or as close to justice as is possible in an imperfect world. I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of cricketers, umpires & followers round the world are fully in favour of the universal application of DRS. But in the dark recesses of that unenlightened body of faceless men lurks suspicion & denial of the facts. Why? There's no $$$ in it 4 us!

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 17:23 GMT)

Need DRS for All Teams.

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 17:23 GMT)

I just do not understand the BCCI stance on DRS. Fool Proof technology ? excuse me but which technology in this world is actually fool proof ? none ! even the top field of science which is space related is not fool proof, billions of dollars are spent on rockets and yet we have incidents like challenger, even the DNA test which is a revolutionary step in genetic science is 99.999% accurate. BCCI stance is more on the arrogance side than logic, even alot of indians now do not agree with BCCI.

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 17:21 GMT)

BCCI knows they are wrong but their ego is not letting them accept the DRS

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 17:17 GMT)

Well, let me tell you why BCCI is opposing DRS. I think that the only reason why BCCI are opposing it is because it costs money. Had ICC been paying for it I am sure BCCI would have been the first to implement it without any delay whatsoever. They just don't want to pay for it.

Posted by Mr_Anonymous on (January 10, 2013, 17:15 GMT)

I think this is a good move by the ICC. In my mind, the BCCI's primary concern for not accepting DRS is cost (financial) and then obviously there are limitations of the DRS in terms of accuracy and the usability proposal (1 decision or 2 decisions per innings per side seems to provide a lower return although if a higher number were allowed to be referred, sides could start misusing the system, so some balance is needed). I think, however, the DRS needs to be accepted as a work in progress and something that a majority of people (> 50%) feel is better than what is currently in place. As such it deserves a chance and the opportunity for use and then make progressive marginal improvements to address its shortcomings. I think that as long as the home board is arranging for the financial resources for its use, it seems to be a good way forward that addresses concerns of most parties (including the BCCI). Hopefully the BCCI will acknowledge and accept the real benefit at some point of time

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 17:12 GMT)

it's time ICC take necessary actions, this is going on for too long and the more we wait the more it will hurt cricket. ICC time to show some balls.

Posted by   on (January 10, 2013, 17:05 GMT)

I think that when Sachin calls it a day in all forms we might see somewhat of a U-Turn from our Indian friends on this! The man carries a countires expectation on his back!

Posted by Smithie on (January 10, 2013, 17:02 GMT)

Srinivasan's position defies logic so there must be another agenda. Most Cricinfo readers would be interested in possible theories on that alternative agenda particularly those from our Indian friends who can see the damage this stance is doing to the reputation of cricket in general and Indian cricket in particular. What would happen if SRT and Dhoni came out and publicly supported DRS along with Gavasakar, Shastri, Dravid and Ganguly?

Posted by KingMSC on (January 10, 2013, 17:00 GMT)

Of course BCCI is being stubborn, they know they have the power over ICC. There is no way ICC with make standard DRS across the board. BCCI need to suck it admit they are wrong in not applying DRS. They want 100%? How about the umpires how many mistakes do they make? Are they 100% correct and error free? In a match where DRS is applied the errors are significantly less as appose to matches with out DRS. It's a basic as it gets. Grow up BCCI and accept your stance on this is wrong.

Posted by Djawid on (January 10, 2013, 16:59 GMT)

Well,isnt it time to expel bcci from the MIGHTY ICC on disciplinary grounds ??? what if it was some other country resisting DRS than India and can some one please tell bbci to come with a rational explaination or is it something else they are trying to hide.....

Posted by zeeshan.ahmed on (January 10, 2013, 16:42 GMT)

If not being 100% foolproof is the only reason BCCI is opposing DRS, then they need to also see that 3rd umpire run-out/stumping decisions are also not 100% fool proof, as the cameras of today as still a frame or half a frame slow. Many close decisions can go either way even with the 3rd umpire sysmtems. The only thing is, it will eliminate those howlers, which is great for the game. BCCI needs to man up and accept DRS. PERIOD!!

Posted by WheresTheEmpire on (January 10, 2013, 16:36 GMT)

So, Srinivasan will not accept DRS until it is 100% foolproof but also wants to keep the "glorious uncertainties" of cricket.

"Any man is able to err, only a fool persists in error" (Cicero).

Posted by Alphabaig on (January 10, 2013, 16:28 GMT)

Insted of opposing DRS BCCI should oppose the new fielding restrictions rule, which puts spinners particularly those from India at a disadvantage. In the recent ODI series there were occassions when Dhoni wished he had DRS. He even made the (tee) sign atleast once. I don't know why BCCI is something that can potentially be useful for their team. Also there is a tendency amongst teams to blame DRS for their losses. England did that after their whitewash but after there series win (where more decisions went against them) nothing was said.

Posted by SyedAreYouDumb on (January 10, 2013, 16:26 GMT)

BCCI DEAL WITH IT!! India always seem to disagree!! DRS, in my opinion, is great. Considering you have spinners and some good batsmen, why you against it??

Posted by QingdaoXI on (January 10, 2013, 16:19 GMT)

Please BCCI bring in DRS, we have already suffer in test series where umpire favoured most of times to Cook, and he hit hundreds to change the match as well as series.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Nagraj GollapudiClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days