ICC news March 22, 2013

BCCI a 'long way' from accepting DRS - Richardson

ESPNcricinfo staff
  shares 67

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.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY ram4crictheory on | March 23, 2013, 12:53 GMT

    If ICC are really inclined on avoiding blunders while umpiring a slow motion replay and snicko will do the job. I really don't understand why ICC is not thinking in this way instead of spending huge amounts on unnecessary technology. I don't know whose idea it is to limit team to have just two challenges to appeal against the decision. Is it okay, if the team loses their appears and umpiring blunders continue. In that case let the blunders continue y give an exception of those two challenges. My suggestion would be to remove the limitation of appeals and give the umpires the right to have a look at slow motion replays and snicko wherever they have even a slightest of doubt as they are doing it for runouts and stumping. This will certainly save huge amounts spending by ICC unnecessarily and can be used to help the teams struggling financially and stabilize them for betterment of cricket. I don't think umpires are so poor that they make bad decisions after looking at replays

  • 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!

  • POSTED BY ram4crictheory on | March 23, 2013, 12:53 GMT

    If ICC are really inclined on avoiding blunders while umpiring a slow motion replay and snicko will do the job. I really don't understand why ICC is not thinking in this way instead of spending huge amounts on unnecessary technology. I don't know whose idea it is to limit team to have just two challenges to appeal against the decision. Is it okay, if the team loses their appears and umpiring blunders continue. In that case let the blunders continue y give an exception of those two challenges. My suggestion would be to remove the limitation of appeals and give the umpires the right to have a look at slow motion replays and snicko wherever they have even a slightest of doubt as they are doing it for runouts and stumping. This will certainly save huge amounts spending by ICC unnecessarily and can be used to help the teams struggling financially and stabilize them for betterment of cricket. I don't think umpires are so poor that they make bad decisions after looking at replays

  • 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!

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 23:48 GMT

    The Indians need to understand that whatever status is attained by team or individual will be tainted by the fact that they do NOT use the DRS system...Point to note that Tendulkar coiuld have been more or less out about 4 times in the recent innings against Australia, had the DRS been in place. . His place in history is now so tainted, all because of the BCCI or is it Tendukar himself?

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | March 23, 2013, 21:41 GMT

    MS suggests it isn't 100% yet had no hesitation in asking (more like screaming that will be definitely reviewed by the match umpire) the umpire to review a stumping appeal via DRS. Double standards you think? Not by half, and then only if it suits you. A case of having your cake AND eating it as well. I would add that if he felt so strongly about anything being less than 100% certain, he dispenses with umpires, after all, they only get it right 93% (vs. 96% with DRS). As if that is going to happen! What a joke.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 20:59 GMT

    The ICC are being sissies by giving an inch to the BCCI. This has gone for too long. It's time the BCCI accept the DRS system and move on. It's better than nothing. We don't have to go too far. The current India vs Australia series has show WHY the DRS is DOUBLY important in Test cricket, especially in the sub-continent. Too many howlers given by the umpires that could have been avoided through common sense and responsible actions from the BCCI. So many Indian batsmen being given out incorrectly on the second day at the Delhi test. We can avoid all of this by implementing the DRS. Having said that, I DO NOT want the captains to have authority over the system itself. It's also useless to just provide captains 3 opportunities to use the system. What the ICC needs to do is provide the funds for the technology as well as give the umpires COMPLETE authority over the use of the system. Which means, the decision review could ONLY be used at their discretion and INFINITE number of times.

  • POSTED BY philvic on | March 23, 2013, 20:52 GMT

    the advantage of Hawkeye is that it takes the guesswork out. It may not be 100% accurate but it doesnt need to be -it just needs to be better than what we have got at the moment. Above all it is consistent so that its the same at the beginning and end of day, one side and the other, opening batsman and number 11.

  • POSTED BY Juiceoftheapple on | March 23, 2013, 20:14 GMT

    This is a nothing issue of mammoth proportions. The BCCI probably have 5 reasons in their heads that relate to profit, TV deals, protecting the India team from defeats, political (refusing to change face), players supposed weakness to LBW to not accept DRS - none of which have anything to do with the technology. They know it, we know it. So we the grown up nations will use DRS, and the BCCI the immature / political / vainglorious wont use it. Fine by us, tests against India just lack a bit less credibility. But their money continues to flow to the other nations. end of.

  • POSTED BY KenyaDigIt on | March 23, 2013, 20:12 GMT

    Big up my man Rage.. in the struggle for not being able to speak his mind. Big up the BCCI!

  • POSTED BY grizzle on | March 23, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    Shameful though I think the state of affairs re: cicket is nowadays, with BCCI singlehandedly able to defy the opinions of all the other cricketing nations offering not a single word of reasonable explanation, the effect in the case of DRS is not altogether bad. I agree with ram4: the ICC should look to bring in just enough technology that is enough to eradicate the howler and hope the BCCI is okay with it. If the slow-mo replay and the pitch map are enough, then that's what the ICC should push for.

  • POSTED BY Smithie on | March 23, 2013, 17:35 GMT

    @vumpire-republic - spot on - it is an affront to all cricket lovers that incorrect umpiring decisions impact on the game. My point is that SRT does not want DRS because he believes his reputation causes neutral umpires to require a higher burden of proof to give him out - as evidenced today in him finally departing after being out three times LBW. It is simply a blot on the integrity of cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 17:19 GMT

    The BCCI are just trying to act tough ! The world has accepted the DRS, so why is the BCCI so reluctant. Agreed, it is not 100% - but it is atleast better to use this facility, than submit to some atrocious decisions made by the umpires.

  • POSTED BY darsh127 on | March 23, 2013, 16:12 GMT

    Umpires should carry a mini iPad or something along with them and watch the match live. Then they should have the option to replay the same ball and then decisions will be made for good.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 15:48 GMT

    In worlds most loved football there is not even Goal line Technology. Then why make so much fuss about DRS..Forget it and take it is as a part of Game.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 13:44 GMT

    Dhoni opposes DRS saying that if he is given a life-jacket, it should come with 100% guarantee. OK, you don't have a life-jacket with 100% guarantee; what is the alternative? Throw the life jacket away and drown? When Dhoni finds anything 100% perfect in this world, leave alone DRS, hope he will announce it to the rest of the world.

  • POSTED BY willmot on | March 23, 2013, 13:40 GMT

    'Tests' involving India should not count as official matches under ICC until India plays under the same laws and rules as everyone else. FULL STOP.

  • POSTED BY ram4crictheory on | March 23, 2013, 13:25 GMT

    @all, if u read the article carefully, u will understand that even Dave Richardson is suggesting that India is rightly opposing DRS because of it not being up to mark when we first used it. People here are forgetting that India was first to use and test this technology, it backed off as technology was not up to the mark. I think everyone will accept it has improved a lot from the first time it had been used. Now India is waiting to see if it improves more in the coming days and reach nearby 100%, when they can easily accept it. I don't think there is much wrong in that thinking. Think again before bashing BCCI. Debates and discussions will be good and fruitful only if they are done in a non-emotional manner. Good day

  • POSTED BY shanmugham_ump_tpt. on | March 23, 2013, 13:11 GMT

    regarding udrs.. i always like to use hot spot for bat nicks and the path of the ball in pitching between line of wickets to verify for lbw decisons. i regret with udrs only in the patch it show the bounce of pitch , technology cant be good in judjing the nature of pitch how it bounce...

    dont blame bcci..

  • POSTED BY ram4crictheory on | March 23, 2013, 13:03 GMT

    @mautan, for getting most decisions right u need not have DRS, umpires can make it out by just having a look at slow motion. Technology has to be used only when human cannot do it. If u think what hawk-eye shows is right, then no one can save u, it is just an assumption that it might have happened this way. For example, you might have seen many unplayable deliveries while watching cricket, can you give one example where the haw-eye has given a particular assumption of such deliveries ever since it is being used. I will give you two examples from yesterday's and today's Ind Aus test match. A length ball from Ishant sharma hitting Hughes helmet almost rising vertically and another ball from Pattinson today pitching outside the offstump hitting the crack and swinging in and again swinging out just like a snake. Please understand all imaginary things cannot be true, they may be true only to some extent

  • POSTED BY vumpire-republic on | March 23, 2013, 12:56 GMT

    The onus is also on the other strong boards like CA and ECB to push for a vote on the DRS issue. So far, they haven't shown the spine to do it. And @Smithie... Australia and England's batters have been equally disadvantaged / advantaged by the lack of DRS against India. Eg. Clarke was out bat-pad, but not given in Chennai; he was then twice plumb LBW to Jadeja in 1 over in the 2nd innings of Chennai but escaped. Cook, Prior, and a few of the other English batters too had a few go in their favour when they visited India. Pujara was unlucky in the prior Test. So it's not just Indian batters who've benefited or suffered.

  • POSTED BY Chris_Howard on | March 23, 2013, 12:46 GMT

    I've actually enjoyed not having the DRS in the India-Australia series. Altho previously a fan of DRS, I've gone off it because it is used to decide decisions by too fine a margin. A decision should only be overturned by DRS if it is blatant. If the reviewing umpire has to look at it several times, lets leave it with the on field umpire's decision. The finer the margin of error sought, the more it slows the game and detracts from the spirit of game.

    So only the "howlers" should be overturned. I think then even India would be supportive of it.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 12:38 GMT

    Haters gonna hate.. The strong will survive.. If you guys get back the power, make the bcci bow down to your might.. Otherwise you can shout all you want.. It is going to be dogs barking at the sun..

  • POSTED BY mautan on | March 23, 2013, 12:38 GMT

    Kumble got all his reviews wrong and with all that same limitations, Sri Lanka got most of theirs correct. Guy like Kumble was a freakish great bowler, but do not really have a heart of sportsperson..he is more of an engineer than a test player. Now he is behaving like an administrator and a politician. Some one who actually understands and loves cricket will always say that it is worth for the simple fact that you get most of the decisions correct with DRS. Thats what matters, not 100% accuracy which is almost impossible to achieve. Good...even players in India are getting ready to be the next set of poticians who run cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    If anyone thinks the Indians are detracting from using DRS for any other reason than purely selfish ones, then they are rather naive.

    Umpiring has improved no end since drs has been used. Of course there are mistakes still made, they are human, same as batsmen, bowlers and fielders make mistakes. The only thing I would say is that maybe the ridiculous Umpires call should be abolished. Either use the system when it says it hitting the stumps of dont.

    A simple compromise could be not to use hawkeye for lbws in terms of height and whether or not the ball was hitting the stumps. other than that, use the technology to stop the howlers, for batsmen and bowlers.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    IF all other countries are okay with DRS then why care about BCCI? If they dont want to play cricket with it let them be and let the other countries play with each other. ICC needs to man up and put BCCI in their place!

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 12:17 GMT

    No system is perfect. To insist on perfection is the same as saying "Never" Nothing is perfect. Nothing ever will be. Given the number of mistakes (Jadeja out LBW to a ball clearly missing the stumps off Maxwell just minute before I write this) how could this go on? Cooke was "cut down" five times in Englands recent tour of India. All of them clerarly not out on review. 3 in tests 2 in ODI's. How much of an impact is getting the best batsman the opposition out incorrectly 5x in one tour? Last night we had Mcullum given LBW second ball. Even the NZ commentators and home crowd thought he was out. 2 hard noises and a catch. Turned out it was ball hitting front pad and front pad flicking back pad. Looked out, even the batter at the other end shrugged. DRS sorted it. NOT OUT. correct decision. The Aus tour of india has had an average of between 2 and 3 poor decisions a day. DRS might have 2 or 3 poor decisions for the whole series. That's a huge difference.

  • POSTED BY hraghava on | March 23, 2013, 11:40 GMT

    @Donna Mackenzie, what evidence can you provide for the first accusation (that the Indians had the ball tracker manipulated)? Stop such hyperbolic non-sense. I do concede India's refusal seems a bit emotional. However, recent bizarre over-rules and clear cases of wrong decisions NOT overturned have only proven the technology is not 100% reliable. Secondly, if we want India to take on a DRS, why limit the number of reviews per innings? To ensure it works and is applied, the DRS should be controlled by the 3rd Umpire, a member of the elite panel, who needs to have an instant replay to warn the 3rd umpire within a prescribed time frame (30 secs) if the original decision is wrong. The tech needs to be all emcompassing, all boards need to pay their fair share to the tech provider, and we need to have all of it (hawkeye, snicko, spider-cam, tracker, whatever else)....

  • POSTED BY bumble23 on | March 23, 2013, 11:38 GMT

    @ Smithie: you have hit the nail right on the head. BCCI is against DRS so that their batsman can profit from umpire howlers like today. These indian batsman show their bat whenever an lbw appeal is made as if they own the umpires. Steyn and co are licking their lips to welcome the flat track bullies this decemeber.

  • POSTED BY AK47_pk on | March 23, 2013, 11:37 GMT

    @Np-ny. Cricket survival is dependent on india????? Oh really? Come off ur cloud 9 dude. This world is very cruel. There were old egyptions considering themselves God but today every tom dick harry is playing with their bones. Cricket is there from long long time. Time when indian didnt even know wat the heck is a ball or bat. Cricket wud be better without india nd definatly without ppl like you.

  • POSTED BY philvic on | March 23, 2013, 10:26 GMT

    I am a fan of technology but the current system has flaws, especially around the umpire call issue, and the limitation of appeals. I think DRS should be operated and controlled by umpires, not the players much like current runout decisions. Basically any decision where there is any doubt would get referred and decision made in consultation with third umpire using all technology available. That way we will get the best decisions without any embarrassment to umpires.

  • POSTED BY Smithie on | March 23, 2013, 9:55 GMT

    No DRS means SRT out THREE times LBW in one innings today. No wonder BCCI won't use it.

  • POSTED BY sachin_vvsfan on | March 23, 2013, 9:37 GMT

    The very first step to convince BCCI is to introduce limited DRS by allowing batsman or bowler to appeal against a decision (eg inside edge lbws, grounded catches) Then slowly get them to use hotspot (but i am not a fan of hawk eye)

    @Cric_god_Sachin i am indian and i find your comments very chauvinistic. @Donna Mckenzie "I truly believe that Indians know that the technology can be manipulated and they have done it in the past" Nice conspiracy. I thought it was ICC officials who were looking after DRS and there was one full page explanation from Hawk eye about that decision(available in cricinfo)

    And Any theories left when dhoni was given out for that 'honest' noball mistake?

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 8:31 GMT

    @ Cric_god_Sachin: An individual who thinks like you do, are the biggest culprit here. BCCI may have all the money in the world but it doesn't give them any right to tarnish or destroy a sport. I would advice people like you and your countrymen to refrain from this narcissistic charade and think logically and with a bit of commonsense which it seems is clearly lacking judging by your comment. I agree with Cameron Allen here that nobody would want a scenario where BCCI is isolated completely and banished by all the other cricket playing nations and are left to fend for themselves.If they don't have anyone left to play with, who will the companies sponsor or what will their people watch. Believe me, i would love this to happen and be an example for others to follow. Sadly none of the others seem to have any backbone and its SHAMEFUL!!!

  • POSTED BY indiaworldchamps2011 on | March 23, 2013, 8:09 GMT

    all those supporting the expensive DRS .... the whole purpose of using the technology was to remove howlers.. most of the howlers can be removed with the help of simple replays and we dont need to pay $5000 per day for that. this is just a propoganda by the developers of the technology like hawk eye and all the other kind of "eyse" that we need this technology to keep the cricket alive. technology shud be used but wisely not just for the heck of it..

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 7:57 GMT

    DRS is fair. Fairness is important to our sport. Cricket doesn't need the BCCI and the fans don't need the politics. If they don't like it they can grab their bats and go home. If the BCCI are so wonderful and powerful, think about where their revenue would come from if their national team had no one to play?

  • POSTED BY yohandf1984 on | March 23, 2013, 7:45 GMT

    IF DRS is such an issue with BCCI , ICC should get them agreed to Howler Erasing System . which is done with the help of Third umpire . In this umpire has the right call back a batsmen when 1) Given out LBW on a ball pitched outside leg 2) Given out LBW after a clear inside edge 3) Given out caught behind with a clear no edge . Any technolgy we are using now is perfect so waiting to be perfect is just idiotic ,Instead we should get positives of available technology to avoid howlers .

  • POSTED BY Cric_god_Sachin on | March 23, 2013, 7:31 GMT

    To all BCCI bashers, Why even bother .. BCCI rules the cricket world and its about time you all accept it. 75% of money made in cricket is through India. Countries like WI, NZ, SL, PAK, BD, Kenya and Zim depend on BCCI (directly or indirectly). So it time to cut the crap and get on or get off because this RULE will never end.

  • POSTED BY NP_NY on | March 23, 2013, 6:19 GMT

    @riverlime:In an ideal world where everyone is equal, yes. But you forget that we don't live in an ideal world. India has the largest fan base by a fair margin and 75% of all cricketing revenue comes from India. Cricket's very survival is dependent on India (and hence BCCI) whether one likes it or not.

  • POSTED BY kingcobra85 on | March 23, 2013, 6:11 GMT

    Why force the DRS on to BCCI. All the others are using it so other countries should not complain much. Unless ofcouse Richardson has other motives like making money from the owners of Ball tracking technology. No that may not be possible only BCCI is capable of using once position to once advantage

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 6:08 GMT

    Why wasn't the DRS used at the T20 World Cup in Sri Lanka, which was an ICC event?

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 5:16 GMT

    I truly believe that Indians know that the technology can be manipulated and they have done it in the past.Sachin was put during world cup 2011 semi-final and the ball tracker suggested otherwise, it was baffling for the umpire as well as it was a plumb case of LBW. Somehow the ball was made to miss the trajectory of the stumps and it was indeed manual intervention. Now Indians are scared it might be used against them. Would also like to add that how on earth these guys oppose any technological advancement where they haven't spend a single penny on R&D of the game and made any positive changes to it. I would appreciate if they accepted these implementations quietly and went their way, on top of that they have the audacity to oppose any development that the Aussies or any other countries playing the game are suggesting. Another classic case of money and power in the hands of the unworthy and sadly we have to live with it while this beautiful sport suffers by these men of straw.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 5:16 GMT

    Why BCCI playing a big role on this? ICC's committee defining the rules for ODI/T20/TEST matches why can't they instruct all member countries follow DRS if the other members okay with that?!

    power play?

  • POSTED BY vish2020 on | March 23, 2013, 3:55 GMT

    To answer few question:

    1. why ICC depends so much on India? Because India pays for cricket. It's like you ask why your dad lives in the house even though no one likes him? Because he pays bills 2. Why India wouldn't trust DRS? Because its not a proven technology. As seen during SAvsPak series it has its own issues. Why change to something new when it is not the best option?

  • POSTED BY Halfspinner on | March 23, 2013, 2:21 GMT

    Why not think about a better method? Here is one idea. Consider an EUS (Enhanced Umpiring System), in control of the umpires, and thereby keeping the traditions of the game alive. Now, what would this involve? I think two things: First, the use of cameras: Clearly, no balls. Next, nicks, whether to affirm / rule out LBWs and caught behinds (or caught in the slips). How about catches close to the ground? Given that we already use cameras and third umpires for line calls, why should it be difficult to mandate these three? Simple optics and mikes. No need for expensive infra-red cameras, although if the price point for those can be brought down, that will be great too. Also, no need for predictive technologies, which I don't buy either simply because of the variability between different pitch surfaces. Unless the baselines about bounce, turn and carry are established rapidly for each pitch on match day and in each session, I don't believe the assumptions behind the predictive algorithms.

  • POSTED BY Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on | March 23, 2013, 2:21 GMT

    Okay , everybody who says ICC must enforce regulation must understand that ICC doesn't have balls to enforce things on BCCI. BCCI has money and influence and they are not impractical as others might think. If DRS is such a good idean then why Sri Lanka and Bangladesh not playing with DRS ?

    ICC should say , okay everybody must follow DRS and we will pay for it. Then it would make sense. ICC can't say that you follow DRS and you (or your broadcaster) pay for it. We are here to make rules that favors british companies and you pay for it.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2013, 2:05 GMT

    it doesnt matter if india use it or not. as long as everyone else uses DRS. then 90% of the games feature it. its ok

  • POSTED BY amitgarg78 on | March 23, 2013, 1:58 GMT

    Sometimes I wonder about why do people insist on DRS. Sure it makes tv entertaining at times, but its a nuisance most of the time, especially with "strategic use". Hoping to nail an important player as against the stated objective of removing howler is where it goes wrong. And of course ball tracking. Even the guys behind technology don't claim it to be as accurate as the ICC. And then BCCI is an easy target coz they never explain themselves properly. Might hv bn a grt idea but lousy implementation at best.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | March 23, 2013, 0:22 GMT

    LOL@Chetan007. Where do you get 23%? It has been proven that DRS gets more decisions correct than on field umpires! Why do you think the umpires panel wants it? Don't you love these people who pluck numbers out of thin air to justify their one dimensional thinking?

  • POSTED BY InsideHedge on | March 23, 2013, 0:17 GMT

    @Sach_Vir: India has almost a non-existant PR system in place, it's not enough to say "we don't want DRS" but a full explanation should be provided incl as you say what is acceptable to them. That will at least calm down all the cynics and those who like to point all ills at India. Certainly, the BCCI doesn't help themselves by being aloof. Agree with your views.

    @Sarathi Ratnayake: Both SL and Bangla have no issues with DRS so why was it not used in the recently concluded Test series? As a matter of fact, outside of SL's series against Eng last year, just how often have SL used it in their home Tests (outside of series against India)? Was it used in the recent WI-Zim series? I really don't know.

  • POSTED BY InsideHedge on | March 23, 2013, 0:10 GMT

    @nursery_ender: It's time to call the bluff of folks like you who keep implying that cricket - as we know it - will be the same without India. If all involved with cricket can accept going back to pittance in money then fine go ahead, and reveal your magic hand. I listened to the full interview with Richardson live, what's not printed here is Richardon explaining how a country such as NZ will make a clear profit of around $40m when India tour NZ as opposed to barely breaking even with everyone else. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    @MWaqqar: Absolutely spot on, I'm glad someone noticed. It should also be pointed out several bilateral series that do NOT involve India go WITHOUT DRS because the host board can't afford it. Did the recent SL-Bangla series use DRS? No India there, whilst the administrators try to convince India, they also need to explain why countries outside of Eng-Oz-SA are not always using DRS.

  • POSTED BY jeep on | March 22, 2013, 23:19 GMT

    The fact is ball tracking does a very poor job of tracking a spinning ball. It will make spinners extinct and India and other countries (today England has the best spinners) should be concerned about it.

  • POSTED BY Anubhav-the-Experience on | March 22, 2013, 21:51 GMT

    Nicely put by Dave Richardson...Some people are saying that why does ICC depend so much on BCCI. Actually it does not. The problem arises only in case where bilateral or triangular series happen..BCCI have no problems if cost of DRS is borne by the second country or ICC itself. E.g. In World Cup, DRS was implemented even when BCCI did not support it. There are things behind this issue believe me and its more about money. BCCI does not want to waste its resources on foolish endeavors which does not add value to the game. I still feel that hotspot and slo-mo were great but I actually feel that people/even commentators of opposition teams are convinced that decision should go in their favor. As a viewer I just loved slo-mo, it really showed what happened but LBW decisions for an average viewer are still ambiguous and I at times feel that decisions are not consistent from matches to matches. E.g. In the line of impact or not...batsman offered a shot or not

  • POSTED BY Nampally on | March 22, 2013, 21:40 GMT

    Mr.Richardson, if the DRS is reliable & cheap, it will be accepted by ALL Boards including BCCI. If the technology is flawless why will anyone be not convinced in using it. So it is best to spend some ICC funding in making the technology fool proof. In light of even the "best" rated umpires making a wrong decision on a daily basis in Test matches, it is all the more important to perfect the technology to a level that it is acceptyable to all Boards. I strongly disagree with Mr. Richardson when he says in 2008 it was unreliable but it is relaible Now. In 2011 Dravid was given out thrice in the same series vs. England, when DRS was unable to confirm it. Was it relaible then? Snickometer & thermal technology needs lot of work even now. How reliable is the ball tracking mechanism on a pitch with variable bounce for judging LBW's? On a good wicket, I would recommend the use of DRS routinely for all LBW's,stumpings,No ball monitoring & Runouts. For thin bat pad & CBW, it needs a lot of work.

  • POSTED BY riverlime on | March 22, 2013, 21:12 GMT

    Champions Trophy is an ICC event, and therefore outside the aegis of the BCCI. Therefore a majority vote is all that should be needed to implement a tournament-sanctioned rule. Imagine if, in the 80's, West Indies said that they disagreed with the "one Bouncer" rule? Many more heads would have been broken! ALL boards MUST comply with ICC regulations, whether they like it or not.

  • POSTED BY nursery_ender on | March 22, 2013, 20:36 GMT

    I trust predictive ball-tracking by computer based on the input of six, eight or however many cameras the different systems use, far more than I do predictive ball-tracking by a human being based on the input of two eyes. I just fail to underdstand how anyone with an ounce of scientific knowledge could think differently.

    India don't help themselves by never giving the same reason twice for refusing to accept the technology. It's time for the rest of the ICC board to call India's bluff and have a binding vote.

  • POSTED BY Chetan007 on | March 22, 2013, 19:57 GMT

    Not only ball tracking technology, Hot spot is also now questionable...Presently, DRS is providing only 23% decision correct if we remove Sniko....

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    why ICC so much depends on india?? bring the rule as if one team wants to go with DRS, the other team must go with it even though they don't like DRS..or if all the other test nations are accepted the DRS, make it compulsory.

  • POSTED BY Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on | March 22, 2013, 18:59 GMT

    Take ball tracking out of DRS and Kumble will say yes. Have snicko,hot spot and also determine where the ball has pitched . All these things are okay. Just take ball tracking out of the equation. With snicko and hot spot and hawk eye for ball pitching you can remove howlers .

    I think that's the goal of DRS .

    No one in India is convinced that ball tracking is accurate. Let's not use that. That would be a good compromise.

  • POSTED BY AK47_pk on | March 22, 2013, 18:28 GMT

    I think every test playing nation shud play a seperate home nd away test series with each other nd then top 4 shud go to smeifinals. These home nd away series shud be seperate from biletral series. This will make a fair case for every test playing nation. Series shud be no more then 2 tests as test series consume some time. This way there can be test championship every two years.

  • POSTED BY MWaqqar on | March 22, 2013, 18:15 GMT

    Even if BCCI does not agree, all other matches are using DRS when available. So it does not matter so much.

  • POSTED BY MWaqqar on | March 22, 2013, 18:15 GMT

    Even if BCCI does not agree, all other matches are using DRS when available. So it does not matter so much.

  • POSTED BY AK47_pk on | March 22, 2013, 18:28 GMT

    I think every test playing nation shud play a seperate home nd away test series with each other nd then top 4 shud go to smeifinals. These home nd away series shud be seperate from biletral series. This will make a fair case for every test playing nation. Series shud be no more then 2 tests as test series consume some time. This way there can be test championship every two years.

  • POSTED BY Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on | March 22, 2013, 18:59 GMT

    Take ball tracking out of DRS and Kumble will say yes. Have snicko,hot spot and also determine where the ball has pitched . All these things are okay. Just take ball tracking out of the equation. With snicko and hot spot and hawk eye for ball pitching you can remove howlers .

    I think that's the goal of DRS .

    No one in India is convinced that ball tracking is accurate. Let's not use that. That would be a good compromise.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    why ICC so much depends on india?? bring the rule as if one team wants to go with DRS, the other team must go with it even though they don't like DRS..or if all the other test nations are accepted the DRS, make it compulsory.

  • POSTED BY Chetan007 on | March 22, 2013, 19:57 GMT

    Not only ball tracking technology, Hot spot is also now questionable...Presently, DRS is providing only 23% decision correct if we remove Sniko....

  • POSTED BY nursery_ender on | March 22, 2013, 20:36 GMT

    I trust predictive ball-tracking by computer based on the input of six, eight or however many cameras the different systems use, far more than I do predictive ball-tracking by a human being based on the input of two eyes. I just fail to underdstand how anyone with an ounce of scientific knowledge could think differently.

    India don't help themselves by never giving the same reason twice for refusing to accept the technology. It's time for the rest of the ICC board to call India's bluff and have a binding vote.

  • POSTED BY riverlime on | March 22, 2013, 21:12 GMT

    Champions Trophy is an ICC event, and therefore outside the aegis of the BCCI. Therefore a majority vote is all that should be needed to implement a tournament-sanctioned rule. Imagine if, in the 80's, West Indies said that they disagreed with the "one Bouncer" rule? Many more heads would have been broken! ALL boards MUST comply with ICC regulations, whether they like it or not.

  • POSTED BY Nampally on | March 22, 2013, 21:40 GMT

    Mr.Richardson, if the DRS is reliable & cheap, it will be accepted by ALL Boards including BCCI. If the technology is flawless why will anyone be not convinced in using it. So it is best to spend some ICC funding in making the technology fool proof. In light of even the "best" rated umpires making a wrong decision on a daily basis in Test matches, it is all the more important to perfect the technology to a level that it is acceptyable to all Boards. I strongly disagree with Mr. Richardson when he says in 2008 it was unreliable but it is relaible Now. In 2011 Dravid was given out thrice in the same series vs. England, when DRS was unable to confirm it. Was it relaible then? Snickometer & thermal technology needs lot of work even now. How reliable is the ball tracking mechanism on a pitch with variable bounce for judging LBW's? On a good wicket, I would recommend the use of DRS routinely for all LBW's,stumpings,No ball monitoring & Runouts. For thin bat pad & CBW, it needs a lot of work.

  • POSTED BY Anubhav-the-Experience on | March 22, 2013, 21:51 GMT

    Nicely put by Dave Richardson...Some people are saying that why does ICC depend so much on BCCI. Actually it does not. The problem arises only in case where bilateral or triangular series happen..BCCI have no problems if cost of DRS is borne by the second country or ICC itself. E.g. In World Cup, DRS was implemented even when BCCI did not support it. There are things behind this issue believe me and its more about money. BCCI does not want to waste its resources on foolish endeavors which does not add value to the game. I still feel that hotspot and slo-mo were great but I actually feel that people/even commentators of opposition teams are convinced that decision should go in their favor. As a viewer I just loved slo-mo, it really showed what happened but LBW decisions for an average viewer are still ambiguous and I at times feel that decisions are not consistent from matches to matches. E.g. In the line of impact or not...batsman offered a shot or not

  • POSTED BY jeep on | March 22, 2013, 23:19 GMT

    The fact is ball tracking does a very poor job of tracking a spinning ball. It will make spinners extinct and India and other countries (today England has the best spinners) should be concerned about it.