ICC news

BCCI a 'long way' from accepting DRS - Richardson

ESPNcricinfo staff

March 22, 2013

Comments: 67 | Text size: A | A

Acting ICC chief executive Dave Richardson smiles during the launch ceremony of the Champions Trophy, Lahore, June 18, 2008
Dave Richardson said persuading the BCCI to accept DRS will take time and that a former player, such as Anil Kumble, could play a role © AFP
Enlarge
Related Links
Players/Officials: Anil Kumble | David Richardson
Teams: India

Dave Richardson, the ICC chief executive, has said the BCCI is still a "long way" from accepting the Decision Review System (DRS). In Auckland for the third Test between New Zealand and England, Richardson said persuading India's administrators will take time and that a former player, such as Anil Kumble, could play a role if he could be convinced about the system's benefit.

"They are a long way from saying 'it's a good idea,'" Richardson told Test Match Special. "I don't think it's necessarily only the administrators, say people like Anil Kumble for example. He's going to take some persuading."

India, along with Sri Lanka, were the first users of the DRS in 2008, when Kumble was India's captain. Since technology was not as enhanced as it is now, Richardson said it could take longer to convince the BCCI, the only board not to have accepted DRS. "He [Kumble] was captain of the India team when they first trialled it and the technology wasn't very good. The players weren't used to it so every time the Indians asked for a review it went against them.

"I think it was Sehwag or one of their star batsmen who was given out by mistake by ball-tracking. It's going to take a lot of influencing. So Kumble is a very influential guy in Indian cricket at the moment, he is on their technical committee, their working group. He's also now the chairman of our [ICC] cricket committee. Once these people start to see the benefits of DRS, that influence will probably filter back to the Tendulkars and the Dhonis. And once they are convinced, then the administrators will follow."

Richardson also spoke about the ICC's preparation for the World Test Championship, the first such event, which is expected to be played in the summer of 2017.

"Once the Champions Trophy is finished, we'll then make an effort to really promote the road to the World Test Championship finals," Richardson said. "Every series that gets played [between 2013 and 2017] will essentially be counting to the qualification for the Test championship.

"It's a four-year period. We'll start playing all the Test series in 2013 and around about January 2016 or 2017 will be the cut-off time. The top four at that time will go through to the semi-finals to be played in England in June or July in 2017."

The tournament was initially scheduled for 2013, but was delayed due to the ICC's commitments to its broadcaster and sponsors.

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (March 25, 2013, 6:56 GMT)

i don't understand the point of reviews being under player control. Give the 3rd umpire more control.. Let him decide if a howler has occured and let the on field umpire know. That's the point of a review system isn't it? To get rid of howlers? Let the on-field umpire consult the 3rd umpire in really iffy cases when they can't determine what's happening due to noise or others.. They already do that for runouts, why not let them do that for close inside edges or bat pad catches? It's not gonna take more than 2 mins per consultation, and the umpires aren't so bad that they consult every decision...

Posted by sportofpain on (March 25, 2013, 1:17 GMT)

@Donna_Mackenzie: If DRS can be manipulated then that is the worst advertisement for it's adoption.

Posted by VickGower on (March 24, 2013, 17:20 GMT)

I think @ram4crictheory is spot on. Just go with a combination of slow motion replays and snicko. It will end up acheiving much if not all of what DRS aspires to, without the additional expense. I would only add: if the replays are inconclusive, ruling on the field should stand. Remember, the point here was originally to fix obvious umpiring mistakes.

Posted by   on (March 24, 2013, 13:07 GMT)

What baffles me, and I'm sure a lot of others as well, is the lack of logic of some of the anti-DRS brigade. On the one hand they disagree with the use of DRS because it's not 100%, yet at the same time accepting incorrect decisions that are made without its use. Where is the common sense in that stance. DRS technology does not make mistakes. If there is a mistake made, it is in the interpretation of what DRS displays. Human error... which for some inexplicable reason seems to be acceptable on the field, yet not in the third umpires box. As for the number of reviews... then I'm in agreement with giving the players none..It should be entirely down to the on-field umpires to decide whether or not to use the technology, as they do for other decisions where the players have no right to request a review.

Posted by InsideHedge on (March 24, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

@Donna McKenzie: I've read it all now, thank you. Ppl like you make these forums a haven for bitter fans. Still not over India's defeat of Pak in the WC Semi Final, eh?

@AK47_pk: With a moniker like yours, nothing needs to be said. The world would certainly be better without ppl like you! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

@Chris_P: Don'tburst a blood vessel pal. Insteda enjoy India's 4-0 victory, and cherish MSD's stumpings in the Tests :)

Posted by   on (March 24, 2013, 11:30 GMT)

I want ICC to put pressure on BCCI to accept the UDRS system

Posted by InnocentGuy on (March 24, 2013, 4:25 GMT)

Here's my gripe about DRS theory though. Like how @ram4crictheory points out, if the idea is to get decisions right a 100% of the time, review all decisions using slow-mo and hawkeye and snicko. Why let the teams and their captains decide when to use technology from the middle of the field and why put a random 2-time use limit? I do believe that the technology is actually very good, but the use of it is flawed: i.e., some arbitrary restrictions are put on the use of it and everyone is happy blaming the BCCI for not wanting to follow suit. Does the ICC really not have enough money to use the technology to review any and all decisions made by the umpires on the field? If that's the case, just ignore the review system altogether and let cricket be pure and classical, where umpiring mistakes are a part of the game.

Posted by sportofpain on (March 24, 2013, 3:40 GMT)

People are screaming from the rooftops without giving this enough thought - one has to be cautious about accepting technology of this kind. Once you do so there is usually no turning back - case in point is Duckworth - Lewis - does enyone ever understand how it works? Yet it has come to stay - SA were the worst victims in the 1992 WC . If you take the decision away from human hands and use technology, we could be left shrugging our shoulders and saying - not in my control. Do we want cricket to go this way? There are enough inconsistencies in the rules as is regarding LBW - for example why is it not out if the ball pitches outside leg but is hitting the stumps? Shouldn't that be out? Why does it matter if a person deliberately pads the ball or not? Shouldn't it just be a question of whether it will hit the stumps or not? Now we bring in predictive path and it could get worse. Besides the technology is provided by a pvt co - what are their incentives? OK if an Indian company does it?

Posted by Smithie on (March 24, 2013, 0:28 GMT)

@swapnil gharat - keep up with the times football has agreed to use goal technology from now on- if football can be improved by using technology so can cricket. Please explain why India and the BCCI are so reluctant get with it. Could it be that they believe they gain an advantage over the opposition by leaving it to the glorious uncertainties of the game as Srinivasan put it ie they can bully their way to winning!

Comments have now been closed for this article

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