Decision Review System June 23, 2011

Countries should outvote BCCI on DRS - Boycott

  shares 99

The Decision Review System (DRS) should be made mandatory and India's resistance to the system must be overcome by a majority vote in the ICC, Geoff Boycott, the former England batsman, has said. The BCCI has consistently opposed the DRS, claiming it is not willing to implement a system that isn't 100% foolproof. Even though this may be a minority view, Boycott said India's clout in international cricket meant many countries would fear offending the BCCI before anything came up for a vote in the ICC.

"If a majority of the ICC countries believe that the DRS is a good improvement for international cricket, they should vote for it and say, 'Sorry India, you are in a minority.' It's supposed to be a democracy around the world, where the majority takes precedence," Boycott said on ESPNcricinfo's fortnightly audio show Bowl at Boycs. "But there is fear to offend, and some countries are totally afraid to offend India. The sooner they get around to it and say, 'No. Since a majority of us believe it is good, we're going to do it,' the better. Simple as that. India won't like it, but you can't be run by one country."

The ICC cricket committee, in May, made a series of recommendations that will be discussed and voted on during the ICC's annual conference in Hong Kong later this month. Among them is the proposal to implement the system in all Tests, and in ODIs as well but with a limit of one failed review instead of two. Even if the DRS had widespread approval, Boycott said the decision to vote in favour of it was not going to be easy for many member boards. "Many countries that play cricket are frightened to death of India's financial power. You've got to understand that before you get to voting on anything at the ICC."

India are a major draw whenever they play and wherever they tour. The last decade has transformed this phenomenon into the BCCI's financial leverage in cricket. The potential television revenue to be gained by hosting India was something cash-strapped boards would hesitate to risk losing by taking an opposing stance against the BCCI, Boycott said. "When you play international cricket, every country has its own television rights with its home broadcaster. When India come, you've got a number of TV stations queuing up in India to get the rights to beam the coverage in India and they pay a lot of money for that. Other countries don't have the same financial buying power.

"So nobody wants to offend India. Nobody wants to create a situation where they say, 'We're not going to tour.' I'm not saying India say that, and I'm not saying India are putting the pressure on and blackmailing; they don't. But, underneath, these countries are frightened to speak up."

Boycott conceded that the game's traditional decision-makers, England and Australia - two strong supporters of the DRS - had an unfair say in the governance of cricket for a long time, but that didn't mean India should follow suit just because the balance of power has tilted. "If you believe it was wrong earlier... and there are some people like my friend Sunil Gavaskar. He says that England and Australia ran the Imperial Cricket Conference, when it was called that, and he's right. They used to have two votes each, the other countries had one. That wasn't fair and it wasn't right. Now everybody has one vote.

"If it wasn't right back then, two wrongs don't make a right. It's about time the other countries stood up and said, 'We're going to have the DRS because it's made more accurate decisions for cricket and it's all players ever want.'"

Siddhartha Talya is a sub editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY on | June 26, 2011, 2:24 GMT

    @TheOnlyEmperor, "The DRS is a bilateral arrangement and any country is welcome to say that they don't want it" - well thats what Boycott has pointed out that countries fear losing the financial revenue in terms of tv rights, ads and ticket sales. If the MCC was giving a raw deal to others when it was in power, does not mean that BCCI should do the same. In simple terms, its like saying, if one political party in power was corrupt, then its ok for the next political party also to be corrupt. Two wrongs cant make a right.

  • POSTED BY on | June 24, 2011, 20:04 GMT

    Boycott should realize that the time of western hegemony over cricket is gone. He is now trying to encourage other coutnries to vote and raise their voice over India.

    If we want right decisiions then why restrict referrals to two per innings why not every doubtful decision be allowed to be referred? Also there needs to be standardization of technology to be used for DRS. Every board may not be able to afford the technology in that case let ICC bear the cost of it.

  • POSTED BY sunny1307 on | June 24, 2011, 15:27 GMT

    ok BCCI will have to wait till January to reverse their stand on UDRS when India will be beaten 0-3 in Australia,when Ponting will claim those 2-bounce catches,and Johnson will get sachin lbw when the ball hits his stomach and laxman will be hit wicket after being hit by a mike hussey beamer.

  • POSTED BY on | June 24, 2011, 10:53 GMT

    Western countries are getting taste pf India's power. It is only cricket now.What will happen when India will become a super power. India already out caste Pakistan from World Cricket and now trying same to Sri Lanka.This is eye opener for the world.

  • POSTED BY on | June 24, 2011, 10:05 GMT

    Mr.Rajeev, you are absolutely wrong here, BCCI is not opposing it because they feel its not 100% fair but because they want to be different. With on field umpires, the game won't even be 80% fair let alone 100% because human error is something that will remain in the game no matter what. Sachin was right the other day, he said I do not oppose the DRS, I just want Sniko and Hotspot to be inlcuded while a decision is being reviewed and that is fair enough.

  • POSTED BY Aussie_Mike on | June 24, 2011, 8:07 GMT

    As if all other boards are 100% behind DRS. Lot of the other boards are playing the waitin ggame as BCCI is facing all the flak for not accepting DRS. Only AU, ENG and to some extent SA have shown real intent to use DRS.

  • POSTED BY RajeevAlukkal on | June 24, 2011, 7:29 GMT

    I think if every body is that keen on using technology, remove the onfield umpires. Let the TV umpire make all decisions which means 100% of the match is fair. Under UDRS system, its about fortune. If u r lucky, u get to use review for all 50 overs of ODI. If u aren't lucky, u have finished using reviews in first 10 overs which gives opp. team advantage for next 40 overs. Same case in Tests. That's not fair. And that's why BCCI is opposing it. They want 100% of the match to be fair to both the sides. How can you say UDRS is fair. Its just 100% LOTTERY.

  • POSTED BY TheOnlyEmperor on | June 24, 2011, 5:48 GMT

    Where was Boycott and the others when the MCC was very controlling world cricket for many decades? All this tirade against BCCI is hypocritical and smacks of whining baby's behaviour when deprived of its toy!

    The DRS is a bilateral arrangement and any country is welcome to say that they don't want it. If England doesn't want to play India because India doesn't want to use the DRS it can saw so, instead of defaming the BCCI through ex-cricketers in the media ! :P

  • POSTED BY on | June 24, 2011, 3:40 GMT

    @ Rahul your comments about " india keeping the cricket alive" is nothing but nonsense . and it always better to use the techonolgy than not to use it .

  • POSTED BY on | June 24, 2011, 3:28 GMT

    Hey Fazald, You remember there was only two test in that series between india and australia. If you think Pragyan Oja was out , then look at Ishant Sharma in the same match. he was actually notout but the same umpire was givinfg out .

  • POSTED BY on | June 26, 2011, 2:24 GMT

    @TheOnlyEmperor, "The DRS is a bilateral arrangement and any country is welcome to say that they don't want it" - well thats what Boycott has pointed out that countries fear losing the financial revenue in terms of tv rights, ads and ticket sales. If the MCC was giving a raw deal to others when it was in power, does not mean that BCCI should do the same. In simple terms, its like saying, if one political party in power was corrupt, then its ok for the next political party also to be corrupt. Two wrongs cant make a right.

  • POSTED BY on | June 24, 2011, 20:04 GMT

    Boycott should realize that the time of western hegemony over cricket is gone. He is now trying to encourage other coutnries to vote and raise their voice over India.

    If we want right decisiions then why restrict referrals to two per innings why not every doubtful decision be allowed to be referred? Also there needs to be standardization of technology to be used for DRS. Every board may not be able to afford the technology in that case let ICC bear the cost of it.

  • POSTED BY sunny1307 on | June 24, 2011, 15:27 GMT

    ok BCCI will have to wait till January to reverse their stand on UDRS when India will be beaten 0-3 in Australia,when Ponting will claim those 2-bounce catches,and Johnson will get sachin lbw when the ball hits his stomach and laxman will be hit wicket after being hit by a mike hussey beamer.

  • POSTED BY on | June 24, 2011, 10:53 GMT

    Western countries are getting taste pf India's power. It is only cricket now.What will happen when India will become a super power. India already out caste Pakistan from World Cricket and now trying same to Sri Lanka.This is eye opener for the world.

  • POSTED BY on | June 24, 2011, 10:05 GMT

    Mr.Rajeev, you are absolutely wrong here, BCCI is not opposing it because they feel its not 100% fair but because they want to be different. With on field umpires, the game won't even be 80% fair let alone 100% because human error is something that will remain in the game no matter what. Sachin was right the other day, he said I do not oppose the DRS, I just want Sniko and Hotspot to be inlcuded while a decision is being reviewed and that is fair enough.

  • POSTED BY Aussie_Mike on | June 24, 2011, 8:07 GMT

    As if all other boards are 100% behind DRS. Lot of the other boards are playing the waitin ggame as BCCI is facing all the flak for not accepting DRS. Only AU, ENG and to some extent SA have shown real intent to use DRS.

  • POSTED BY RajeevAlukkal on | June 24, 2011, 7:29 GMT

    I think if every body is that keen on using technology, remove the onfield umpires. Let the TV umpire make all decisions which means 100% of the match is fair. Under UDRS system, its about fortune. If u r lucky, u get to use review for all 50 overs of ODI. If u aren't lucky, u have finished using reviews in first 10 overs which gives opp. team advantage for next 40 overs. Same case in Tests. That's not fair. And that's why BCCI is opposing it. They want 100% of the match to be fair to both the sides. How can you say UDRS is fair. Its just 100% LOTTERY.

  • POSTED BY TheOnlyEmperor on | June 24, 2011, 5:48 GMT

    Where was Boycott and the others when the MCC was very controlling world cricket for many decades? All this tirade against BCCI is hypocritical and smacks of whining baby's behaviour when deprived of its toy!

    The DRS is a bilateral arrangement and any country is welcome to say that they don't want it. If England doesn't want to play India because India doesn't want to use the DRS it can saw so, instead of defaming the BCCI through ex-cricketers in the media ! :P

  • POSTED BY on | June 24, 2011, 3:40 GMT

    @ Rahul your comments about " india keeping the cricket alive" is nothing but nonsense . and it always better to use the techonolgy than not to use it .

  • POSTED BY on | June 24, 2011, 3:28 GMT

    Hey Fazald, You remember there was only two test in that series between india and australia. If you think Pragyan Oja was out , then look at Ishant Sharma in the same match. he was actually notout but the same umpire was givinfg out .

  • POSTED BY amit4cricket on | June 24, 2011, 2:59 GMT

    @fazald - There are many more incident that opponent team also get the undue advantages of not having UDRS system.. recent IND VS WI test match has many such incident where using of UDRS would have come in favor of team India.. I believe first ICC has to standardized the technologies which will come under UDRS... hotspot, snickometer should be integral part of this..

  • POSTED BY Alexk400 on | June 24, 2011, 2:47 GMT

    One more thing. DRS should be independent of technology. Technology is a tool. Rules can be separate for each tecnology. You still can have basic UDRS with television replay. Some country may lot like some technology or even cost assoiated with it. It does not mean you scrap UDRS basic level.

    ICC and BCCI needs to implement basic UDRS in every game. Technology and tools can be agreed upon between boards.

    I still think we need to remove Bad calls. To do that you need a appeal system from coaches end.

  • POSTED BY fazald on | June 24, 2011, 1:15 GMT

    India might have an undue advantage not using the DRS. An incident that comes to mind is the third & final test match between India & Australia in Mohali where the last batsman Ohja was given not out as usual by umpire Billy Bowden off his pads which was a close LBW decision. If the DRS was in operation it may have been a 2-1 series victory for Australia. As such India's refusal to use the DRS means that they cannot be considered as the number one team in world test cricket rankings.

  • POSTED BY Isaac_7 on | June 24, 2011, 0:03 GMT

    Simple solution, if cricket was invented yesterday, the tech would be used as it the most assured way of officiating, however when the game was invented, there were no such luxuries, and to settle disputes amongst players on the field, athird unbiased party was introduced called the umpire. well the tech surely isn't biased to any player, and doesn't make mistakes. Current umpires should use all the available and leave nothing to the human element ie standardize the officiating. If a batter is given not out, and the ball is just clipping, he will still be given not out. If however, for the same decision, he was given out and referred, he would still be given after reviewing, it just came down to how the ump was feeling. SAME situation, different result, RUBBISH!!what sense is there in training so hard, the entire game is pivotting on thsi guy's knock and is wrongfully adjudged out, then all the team done would have been for nothing, though we can correct it, but we are 2 ignorant.

  • POSTED BY Alexk400 on | June 23, 2011, 22:38 GMT

    Two arguments. 1. Sachin argument of 100% accuracy is bogus. Nothing in life is certain. It is an excuse of keeping advntage of using BCCI clout against umpires who wants make money in IPL. Sachin do not want to be given LBW, his greatest weaknes as his eye sight is going bad.

    2. Dhoni argument of introducing human element in DRS.

    I agree to a point that not players should appeal because they do not aware of the angle and some misuse and it is not cricket it more about players/captain brain. Some captain are smart enough to use and others do not. It is a new human element. i propose appeal should come from coaches who are watching through TV has better angle of view. Idea is get best judgement. To do that the person who appeals who has got best view of the incident.

  • POSTED BY knan on | June 23, 2011, 21:20 GMT

    UDRS without snicko and hot-spot may become more acceptable if lbws are always reviewed . Alternately increase the number of unsuccessful reviews to 5. The primary intention should be to ensure that wrong decisions are not made. So the 3rd umpire / match referee should have the power to overturn any glaring mistake by the on-field umpire. It doesn't make sense if a batsman is given out lbw when he has cleearly edged the ball, but is not able to review it as the number of unsuccessful reviews has been exhausted.

  • POSTED BY bvnathan on | June 23, 2011, 21:06 GMT

    One of the sticky points related to current use of DRS is the hypothetical evaluation of ball tracking system. If the unit in use can't predict if the point of impact is more 2.5 meters ... it appears ridiculous .... Agreed there are principle of dynamics involved but such an exception allows the famous words uttered by Dhoni during WC 'Adulteration of the technology by human being'. As a fan I'm also in favor of the DRS being implemented uniformily across all formats of the game, but at what cost and perception. Unlike the game of tennis where the current technology is used to determine the point of impact, in cricket the deviation after impact is more dominant. I do agree with Boycs and others in this message board - DRS acceptance and implementation has to be uniform across all formats and controlling boards. More than the players, this is a MUST DEMAND even by the audience and spectatros of the game.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 21:05 GMT

    Why does no one note the fact that hot spot is not in the minimum requirements of UDRS? Therefore, there can be a series which used UDRS but with out hot spot. And, without hotspot, UDRS no better than anything else. So, instead of squaring all blame on BCCI for not accepting a non-standardized system, we should first ask ICC to standardize UDRS to include all the best available technologies. If even after that BCCI still refuses to listen then one can blame BCCI, not before that.

  • POSTED BY DONinSA on | June 23, 2011, 21:01 GMT

    I think there is not much problem with the technology. The rules need to be clarified.Now a days hawk eye (DRS) give it out (on field call) even if the ball is just kissing the stumps or hitting the outer part. And moreover this new 2.5 meter rule is quiet confusing. The best use of DRS regarding lbw's i saw in Pakistan v Newzealand series which was Pakistan's home series in Newzealand. There, on review of lbw they used a red marked square which was inside the stumps. So the ball had to hit inside that square. So it gave batsmen benefit of doubt for the ball kissing the stumps.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 19:49 GMT

    Look, i'm in favor of the UDRS as an Indian. But there are some unreasonable comments here. India funds 70% of the international game. The only reason international cricket is commercially viable is because of India. So before people coming up with theories about how India and the BCCI ruin the game, understand what India does to keep cricket alive.

  • POSTED BY henmenia on | June 23, 2011, 19:44 GMT

    Ww are comparing two systems. Neither are 100%. So go for the one with the highest accuracy...UDRS. Does not seem so complicated to me.

  • POSTED BY johnathonjosephs on | June 23, 2011, 18:58 GMT

    India is going to feel really dumb in future times when it will be universal that the UDRS is good for correct decisions. India is taking the stance of an old stubborn cricket fan who used to listen to the radio commentary. Now we have tvs, that have both the commentary and the actual cricket played in view, but the old man still sticks to his radio

  • POSTED BY johnathonjosephs on | June 23, 2011, 18:55 GMT

    Saw the West Indies test against India. Seems that the Indians have a strategy of appealing for almost anything in the hopes the Umpire succumbs to the pressure of everybody shouting and gives it out. That way, with no UDRS, the batsman won't be able to refer howlers. Well the plan backfired.... umpires are more experienced because of UDRS and give better decisions. Also the level of umpiring has significantly improved in recent years. Was watching the England vs Sri Lanka test series and sometime in the third match, an English commentator came up with the idea that if India doesn't want the UDRS, don't give it to them, but at least give England the option of reviewing. That way, India will be forced to use the UDRS at some point in time.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 18:55 GMT

    It doesn't make sense when anyone says they want 100% foolproof technology, it is literally impossible for an IT guy to write a code to exactly predict the path of the delivery..there will always be marrign of error.

    Why BCCI is not allowing it ? It's an open secret, there senior players don't like it for some reason. Frankly, their ego's clashing with their ineffectiveness of how to use the technology. They are delaying which is inevitable and in the process getting all the wrong attention.

    What Tendulkar said make sense, it is more effective when they use hotspot and Snickometer...that's true.But, BCCI should get a vote from it's players and take a decision on how majority of it's players feel not, just Tendulkar or Dhoni. If it opposes, it should come with a convincing story in front of media not just saying, we want fool proof technology.

    And in the same way, If the other boards don't have guts to go for a vote put the blame on yourselves not, on BCCI.

  • POSTED BY ahweak on | June 23, 2011, 18:55 GMT

    Once again, the target becomes BCCI and India. When India was promoting Twenty20, all the talk from a certain country was about how it would affect test cricket. But once they won the T20 world cup, T20 is not a threat to test cricket anymore. Will the MCC members allow the umpires to be replaced completely by an off-field umpire ruling everything using technology? Looks like yet another implementation that is only being promoted because the home of cricket wants it. Some men just don't learn.

  • POSTED BY champ210884 on | June 23, 2011, 18:46 GMT

    I think the matter is not about UDRS. Its about human adulteration of the system. If DRS system is fine then there should be no option for umpires to make a call in case of LBW. If it hits wicket it is out, no matter where the ball pitches.

  • POSTED BY maddy20 on | June 23, 2011, 18:44 GMT

    Mr.Boycott are you aware that hotspot is available only when matches are played in Eng and Aus? You wan't all boards to force India to accept it? Then stop the Aus firm that manufactures the hot spot cameras from bullying other boards by not giving them the same and India will embrace UDRS. If technology available for one series is not available for the next, people may not like it that much!

  • POSTED BY stormy16 on | June 23, 2011, 18:28 GMT

    I dont understand Indias point of view and totally agree with Geoffrey but arent we forgetting that just a few years ago Eng & Aus called the shots and made similar insane decisions like - the 1 bouncer per over law when the Windies blew them away. Sure two wrongs dont make a right but the BCCI is flexing its musscle now that its got a chance. Its easy for Boyc's to say forgive and forget and two wrongs dont make a right but we dont live in such a world Geoffrey. Has anyone thought about the rest like say Pakistan, SL, SA or NZ? these guys never get a chance and had to tow the line of the big fish - its just the way of the world.

  • POSTED BY Philip_Gnana on | June 23, 2011, 18:20 GMT

    The stupidity of the argument that the BCCI puts out is logically wrong. No one in their right mind can expect 100% accuracy. The run out is not 100%accurate? Yet it is a better system and for more accurate than the umpires decisions. There are still frams that are not in view. Cameras used are far better now than when first used. For goodness sake, at least the tram lines, and the caught behind (clean catching) should be introduce. At least accept it in part? Start somewhere. India know for certain that they have a huge home advantage that works for them. DRS will only make them lose that advantage. Another factor, and a serious factor: is that the Dhoni was not astute enough to utilise the DRS system. The decisions that he got wrong opposed to what Sangakkara got right, in their series agains SL in SL proved this. Let's face it. You are only going to accept something if that is going to go your way. The largest democracy is now the autocrat of cricket. Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • POSTED BY samincolumbia on | June 23, 2011, 18:18 GMT

    ICC should also introduce a law preventing a country from poaching on other country's players...What say, Boycott?!

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 18:17 GMT

    So much for the brilliant Indian umpiring standards that they donot favour UDRS. By the way how many Indian umpires are in Elite panel!!!!!!!

  • POSTED BY AdnanSiddiqui on | June 23, 2011, 17:56 GMT

    I do not understand BCCI's logic. According to them UDRS is not fool proof but how come Human Umpiring is fool proof? .. Using the same logic BCCI may demand 'umpire less' matches in future involving India ... They may say that Tendulker and Dhoni are the only fool proof people so lets ask them about every Lbw and Caught Behind during the match ...

    Thanks God Tennis and other sports are not yet under BCCI-like people :)

  • POSTED BY Blazedragon on | June 23, 2011, 17:47 GMT

    Didn't they get humiliated because of DRS against Sri Lanka? So I can understand why they oppose it.

  • POSTED BY praghunathan on | June 23, 2011, 17:36 GMT

    There are pros and cons to using the DRS and pros and cons for not using it as well. Whether its adoption has to do with offending the BCCI or not, is another point altogether. In their eagerness to dub the BCCI the dark side of the force, the supporters of the DRS forget that India has won whether the UDRS has been used or not. So India's opposition to the UDRS ought to be respected.

    That said, why do we need umpires if the UDRS can handle everything? We should just get rid of the umpires, and have the players appeal to a TV camera instead.

  • POSTED BY vishwanath.sreeraman on | June 23, 2011, 17:22 GMT

    beware boycs...don't provoke BCCI...u will soon be quarantined from the universe

  • POSTED BY FAB_ALI on | June 23, 2011, 17:17 GMT

    RECENT EXAMPLE: IND VS WI, FIRST TEST, THREE INDIAN BATSMEN COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IN SECOND INNINGS (RAINA, DHONI AND BHAJJI), IF THERE WAS UDRS IN PLACE. WEST INDIES DID NOT GET A SINGLE WRONG DECISION. WHO SUFFERED? DIDN'T MATTER IN THE END AS IND WIN BUT THEY ARE SURELY DOING BAD TO THEMSELVES BY NOT ACCEPTING IT.

  • POSTED BY FAB_ALI on | June 23, 2011, 17:12 GMT

    I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY INDIA DON'T ACCEPT UDRS DESPITE BEING ON THE RECEIVING END ON MOST OCCASIONS. THIS WAY THEY ARE ONLY DOING LOSE TO THEIR OWN PLAYERS. WONDER WHY THE PLAYERS ARE SUPPORTING THE BOARD.

  • POSTED BY Vivek7 on | June 23, 2011, 16:52 GMT

    BCCI is not against using UDRS. It is only against using it in their matches. I too don't like the decisions based on the lbw given when ball hits top of stumps or brushes leg and off stump.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    DRS should be implemented but as for Indian domination for the world body...no one complained when england and uk did it for a long long time....

    It is a professional body the guy who owns the check book cannot be expected to pay for the meal and let others decide what and where to eat....just saying...

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    Where was Boycott in the 1970s and 80s when England and Australia ruled cricket? I don't think he was talking about other countries outvoting them. The fact is India is going to rule world cricket and there is nothing England can do about it.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 15:47 GMT

    BCCI forgot because of DRS they got the World cup. In Semi Tendulkar's LBW (DRS gave not out)saved the match for INDIA. India would have been gone with that decision.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 15:35 GMT

    u r damn right mate.........luv ur comments.... but the problem is that BCCI is running ICC......dats why it ain't gonna happen :)

  • POSTED BY awesomemantra on | June 23, 2011, 15:31 GMT

    drs is an oppurtunity to eliminate so ........... many wrong desicions . what the reason BCCI is resisting to the DRS system

  • POSTED BY tomhedley on | June 23, 2011, 15:27 GMT

    @ tosl, God I hope you're not right! Proper cricket will be fine in England, Australia and South Africa. That's because these nations have an understanding for history and don't need a quick fix of smashing it to the fence on a road! Unfortunately the IPL is just what today's youth wants because they have no attention span!

  • POSTED BY Kovai-Super-Kings on | June 23, 2011, 15:09 GMT

    what if india is not touring any country? what wil be their financial situation? will they get sponsor for the match?

  • POSTED BY correctcall on | June 23, 2011, 14:45 GMT

    There seems to be strong support for UDRS in many quarters including Cricinfo readers who have overwhelmingly polled in it's favour. Many contributors seem unaware that Snicko has a 7 min delay and therefore cannot be included in UDRS. The ICC should vote to make it mandatory and give the Elite Umpiring panel control of implementation ie techies travel with the equipment (including the Hot Spot cameras) and set up under the eyes of the match umpires and referee. The ICC has enough funds to support this but should seek sponsorship (Emirates?) to defray costs. The current India / West Indies Test match should give the BCCI cause to change its position and accept UDRS under the above conditions. There have been at least five questionable decisions in this match which with the assistance of UDRS and would have been to India's advantage.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 14:22 GMT

    Hilarious as always, people have very little or no idea about how Hawk-eye works or how accurate it actually is. People need to make the distinction between fact and opinion before commenting.

    Ignorance of how Hawk-eye actually works doesn't help, whether you agree or disagree with it, I suggest you inform yourself about how it works.

    http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/

    Explanations of the Tendulkar decision in the World Cup as well as other explanations of contentions decisions and a CLEAR explanation of how it WORKS and more importantly its ACCURACY are on there.

    Knowledge is power people, make up your own minds, and don't let it be made for you by others.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 14:22 GMT

    Any system which eliminates obvious human errors of the umpires is good for the game of cricket. It has been proved without doubt that UDRS is doing that. Of course UDRS accuracy will increase up to near 100 percent when using all forms of avilable technology ball tracking, snicko, hot spot etc. Still then there could be occasional doubtful decision. But near 100 percent is much much better than allowing umpiring errors. On the other hand UDRS even without all forms of available technolgical means will still be a substantial improvement over pure umpiring decisions. So the choice is obvioius to anyone with basic knowledge on probability. Indians are already badly affected by absence of UDRS in the current test match with West Indies. It was very clear from TV replays. It is what Sachin says or Boycott says that does matter, what is the reality is what matters. Even though UDRS cannot be applied uniformly in all test matches now once it is made mandatory with time we will reach that.

  • POSTED BY mensan on | June 23, 2011, 14:19 GMT

    @deep123 and other similar posters! What you need consistancy? What if hotspot and snicko are not used in all matches? What difference does that make if they are not used in all matches? The remaining components of DRS are still useful and help eliminate many wrong decisions.

  • POSTED BY NoPitchIsDead on | June 23, 2011, 14:17 GMT

    Cricket shd be played as it is played by kids at country side. Lot of technology,gagjets will not bring kids into the game. Remember what AstroTurf did to the field hockey?

  • POSTED BY akgar5001 on | June 23, 2011, 14:06 GMT

    As for the DRS system most of the decision reviewed turned out be on field call what is the of having technology if it can't give a final decision and that is ridicules

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 13:59 GMT

    strongly agreed to boycott. Drs has reversed a lot of wrong decisions which make the game lead to a fair result. Thats what the cricket is about right? Fair sport.

  • POSTED BY reality_check on | June 23, 2011, 13:58 GMT

    What is ICC? There is only one entity called BCCICC so how can one vote against oneself??

  • POSTED BY mensan on | June 23, 2011, 13:47 GMT

    Anything which can improve decision making and eliminate wrong decisions should be welcomed. What if hot spot is not there? Ball tracking, slow motion cameras are there which can eliminate most wrong decisions.

    Just take the example of Third Umpire which was introduced to eliminate wrong decisions. Is third umpire perfect? A big NO! Third umpires have made many wrong decisions in all these years but at the same time they have eliminated many many wrong decisions.

    Same is with DRS. All of us must welcome DRS.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 13:37 GMT

    Dont disgrace Boycott, he is an honorable man. I believe, that it is not fair for any private organisation to control a sport of country. Secondly DRS is not error free, but margin of error is less! Its lik saying I wont use helmet becoz it will not compleatly protect be from a blow on head! but it minimise the risk anyway! We should follow tradition but also be matured enough to adapt modern technology! An organisation is controling world cricket, its a shame definetly! We can only watch the show! The world itself is a strong menz show!

  • POSTED BY tosl on | June 23, 2011, 13:25 GMT

    India and the BCCI continue to ruin cricket. It has been in a steady decline the last 5-10 years with waning interest. So long as the BCCI remain so powerful, cricket will continue to decline.

    I give it another 5 years before international cricket collapses completely, with just the IPL remaining.

  • POSTED BY chrisgus on | June 23, 2011, 13:07 GMT

    India would have lost the WC had it not been for udrs.....

  • POSTED BY deep123 on | June 23, 2011, 13:06 GMT

    Who cares you Mr. Boycott. You need to understand tat the problem with the UDRS is consistency. And ICC is not using hotspot and snicko. Why can't the ICC use these two technologies in giving decisions? If ICC uses this technology it will be good for game. Why don't you ask that question first and then think about India opposing.

  • POSTED BY Triple_A on | June 23, 2011, 13:05 GMT

    Its not like BCCI is stoppping everyone else from using DRS in their series, they just don't want it for Indian matches. So LET THEM BE!! If its such a problem, then don't play India...ah, but there everyone will shut up becoz of the money and revenue. During Boycott's time, England and Aus bossed over everyone and no one said anything...now they can't digest the fact that the power house has changed! Be a sport Boycott, and stop meddling in India's ways of running things!

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 12:52 GMT

    BCCI must come up with logical reasoning for not accepting DRS. Every system has shortcommings and ICC must work on those shortcommings.

  • POSTED BY MKLNarayan on | June 23, 2011, 12:47 GMT

    In my opinion, the ICC should conduct a 'closed' voting session with all it's member countries. In that way, the actual desire or opinion of individual boards will be voted (which I assume will be in complete favour of DRS except ONE member board) and accordingly DRS will be implemented.

    Cheers

  • POSTED BY kamalaravi on | June 23, 2011, 12:22 GMT

    india seem to oppose DRS just for the heck of it.all this talk about that it should be 100 percent error free is part of the tomfoolery.We call the shots here is essentially what they are saying

  • POSTED BY UniversalFriend on | June 23, 2011, 12:01 GMT

    @Saumanka, it seems that you are not getting point correct. Everyone agrees Boycott is a great player and has great knowledge about game. But the question is about TECHNOLOGY USAGE in the game. Does he know in and out about DRS technology? He believes the technology and others might have some reservations about the same. That doesn't make him great in technology like in game. I think he is no good than all of us about knowing how technology works in the game. That should be made fool proof by ICC technology team. @teju666, I like your comment about independent analyst but we don't know the other way either if BCCI did that. So its ICC who has to clear all the doubts of member boards than we all bombarding somebody. Finally, game is all we are concerned. Why do we bother about boards, their money and their politics!!! If we have good games involving all teams, that's what as spectators we need. Politics are everywhere man, we can't get rid of them. Just enjoy the game.

  • POSTED BY I.RAGHURAM on | June 23, 2011, 11:40 GMT

    I agree that India should have accepted UDRS during the England tour since Sniko / Hot Spot were available. Even Sachin has agreed that UDRS without these two tools was useless.... But to say that implement UDRS across all the countries would be a far-reaching decision, since Hot Spot is supposed to be a defence equipment and as far as my understanding is not available to to imported to few countries including India. So how is ICC going to ensure that UDRS has both the above tools across all the cricket playing countries ??? It is going to be without Hotspot in few countries, then there would be lots of negative reactions like the one that happened during the world cup.......

  • POSTED BY CriticallyCricket on | June 23, 2011, 11:36 GMT

    Agree!

    Otherwise the ICC is merely a subsidury of it's holding company BCCI!

  • POSTED BY tomhedley on | June 23, 2011, 11:34 GMT

    Good work Geoffrey, something sensible has finally come out of your mouth!

  • POSTED BY Sarangarajan on | June 23, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    There is no point in blaming BCCI for their decision onUDRS.Hawkeye prediction is not 100% accurate. It depends on many variables which should be put in to the system for prediction of flight profile of each delivery.If one watches these predctions, one can easily be convinced that it is not always accurate. A degree or so predicted wrongly can make matters worse in deciding LBWs and decsions on ball trajectories. Yes -HOT SPOT could be relied upon. If snickometer is used, then the possibility of accuracy is much more. When people like Sachin has something to say on these issues, we should analyse it as he is a player who had seen it all in Cricket for the past two decades. Ensure HOTSPOT and snickometer for UDRS for universal acceptance. Then the review restricted to two unsuceessful again is a folly in the system. If the decison is doubted, it should be reviewed-bu on filed umpires and third umpires .

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 11:30 GMT

    BCCI is against half baked Decision review systems.

    All available technologies including hot spot must be used. Other boards with less money want to cut costs and so BCCI is putting up the price rightly.

    Also I dont see why the number of reviews of "out" decisions are limited. All instances when batsman is given out should be reviewed. Review can be completed before batsman leaves the ground.

    It is the bowlers appeal that must be restricted. Each bowler can be given two reviews. Each time an umpire makes a mistake, an extra bonus review can be added to the bowler.

    Current system of restricting the number of reviews affects the batsman unfairly while the game rules say that the benefit of doubt should go to the batsman

  • POSTED BY teju666 on | June 23, 2011, 11:07 GMT

    As with anything in BCCI, I will not be surprised if money is at the root of BCCI's denial for DRS. What technical capacity do BCCI officials have to reject DRS on technical grounds? Has an independent consultant submitted data based findings which prove the inaccuracy of the ball tracking technology? Is an umpire error acceptable over DRS error which, statistically speaking, is lower than human error? So I am sure this is about money. I dont know what it costs to implement DRS at venues. Who owns these costs? Is it the broadcaster? Then are they pressurizing BCCI to skip DRS to improve RoI? Nobody seems to be talking about these aspects at all. Also someone said, if Sachin opposes it then there must be a valid reason. I have never heard more rubbish than that. Sachin will toe the BCCI line for political reasons.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 10:48 GMT

    If the BBCI's objection is that the DRS is not 100% accurate, are the Umpires 100% accurate. The use of DRS must be to avoid howlers, like Sangakara's dismissal against Australia - borderline decisions should rest with the umpires.

    The other countries will NEVER go against BCCI - because of the financial clout of the BCCI.

  • POSTED BY sreejakk on | June 23, 2011, 10:41 GMT

    Leave boycott or what his father said....just think about one person called "Sachin" about his comments regarding the DRS. Sachin rarely speaks about anything...if he speaks then there is some truth in it and makes everyone to think..He is most experienced and capable person to comment on DRS. Just follow what Sachin said..."yes to DRS if hotspot & snicko is included along with hawk eye"...just follow that......who cares what boycott thinks...

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 10:33 GMT

    @mihir_nam...I don't agree with Maninder and agree that perhaps the BCCI should be outvoted on the UDRS. I'm a fan of the UDRS, but it's getting tiring to see people blaming the BCCI for problems that cricket faces in their countries. Actually, while I'm not too sure about the Australian CB series, I'm pretty sure that most teams want to play India. It's not about Pawar being in power (no pun intended), but the fact that Indian cricket has tremendous television rights and viewership and that keeps the BCCI powerful. Since cricket in India will always be the most popular sport and have the largest following in the world, I see the BCCI being hugely influential in administration of the game for a long time.

  • POSTED BY RamAddy on | June 23, 2011, 10:26 GMT

    All this talk of UDRS is fine only if the actual production and distribution of pictures is done by ICC (as neutral umpires now) and not by the host country. If ICC take this responsibility, then automatically, every test playing country will have to accept it. But even before doing all this, ICC should en power the third umpire on certain decision, like no ball, close to the ground catches etc. Over and above this, ICC should, for the time being, not use Hawkeye for prediction.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 10:23 GMT

    I agree 100% with Mr.Boycott who was a renowned cricketer and has deep knowledge about the game unlike the Bcci which is run by jokers and by greedy politicians who have a zero concept about cricket. DRS should be made mandatory in all matches to get fair decisions and some people argue like fools that as BCCI has money they should dictate terms to the ICC,those who does not know the finer aspects of cricket will say so. I fully support what Mr.Boycott says.

  • POSTED BY shery2floyd on | June 23, 2011, 10:01 GMT

    Some one please define DRS to me, is it single tool containing Hawk Eye/Hotspot/Snickometer. If so why in worldcup, icc conducted event, Hot spot wasnt present. hmm, was it because hotspot technology cant be used in Subcontinent. if so then, whoever shouting for DRS to be forced is stupid as it can be implemented uniformly across all nations. Supporters of DRS should sort out that.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 10:00 GMT

    complain, complain, complain...if you don't like international cricket these days, don't watch it.

  • POSTED BY UniversalFriend on | June 23, 2011, 9:50 GMT

    Also,remember 3rd umpire rule, noball free hit, etc., ICC got unanimous aceptnce frm all bords. Theyr trying2 do same b4 making DRS mandatry, I guess. I also don't accept about killing game. I see in India there r lot of cricketers cmng2 play tests & one days. Year or two years ago there were no one but there r lot now2 replace big4 in Indian team.Isn't that devlopng game? what is devlopng game?without crickters therez no game& viceversa.You need to balance. IPL helps many cricketers who can't get to natinl team but luv criket, 2earn money. Isn't it good 4every1? BCCIz not killing but promoting cricket. Honestly I hate IPL and I didn't see even 1 match dis time but in broad sense it's good for cricket and cricketers. I also think boards r tryng to work with eachother than against because cricket is played in very few countries & we need more like futbal. Don't you think? I am not saying BCCI is doing that though but atleast it's doing in India. Globally ICC shud take care. Thanks.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 9:37 GMT

    Boycott is absolutely right. India's stance on the DRS is bordering on the ridiculous. As an Indian, i feel ashamed at the high handedness of the BCCI. They are giving all of us a bad name not just on their stance on the DRS but on many issues concerning cricket. We are being viewed as a bully in international cricket. We are gettng a lot of negative feedback from fans of other countries. We are on top of the world in cricket but we are not universally admired or loved. This is not because of what we do or achieve on the cricket field but off it.

  • POSTED BY ashlatchem on | June 23, 2011, 9:32 GMT

    denwarlo70 has just pointed out the problem BCCI have with DRS. He says they don't know how to use it.. Why should they? It was introduced to get rid of shockers not to be used as a tactic by teams. (I'm pretty sure cricket is tactical enough as is without DRS). What Geoffrey says is well and good but can anyone really see that happening? I don't think so. + I still have a problem with the fact that you can't have more than 2 appeals, again going by ICC's reasoning it is there to get rid of shockers.... if I were captain of a cricket team I would feel safer having no DRS with Dar & Gould umpiring than I would with 2 appeals with Harper & De Silva as umps... How many mistakes has Harper made so far in the WI vs India test? Maybe Raina & Harbhajan would've been saved with DRS but who's to say they would've had challenges left? (which has to be the biggest issue). Anyways there is no way the DRS situation is going to be resolved without compromise (preferably on both sides).

  • POSTED BY UniversalFriend on | June 23, 2011, 9:32 GMT

    @kasun & others..ow.ow.ow.wait. 2 much of firing on BCCI. Evry1 is blaming BCCI and on the face of it it seems there is not much logic. But did any1 think why BCCI is against it? Even if we accept all the money & other things, don't they know what they r doing? Shudn't be any logic behind that? They r opposing hawkye & not other tools. It's the duty & responsibility of ICC to clear all doubts of all the member boards. Isn't it? I accept even with hawkeye there are some good decisions but your decision again is based on some other's imagination but not the best person's (umpire) imagination. It might be good short term but if you want 2 make it fool proof & long term the tool should be more researched into. If boards have the authority to decide which tools to use then y can't they use only hotspot & snicko & not hawk eye? When in testing phase these things need to be done isn't it? ICC should allow the boards to decide on tools in testing phase. That way every1 will have clarity-CONTD

  • POSTED BY the_ultra_funkula on | June 23, 2011, 9:27 GMT

    DRS should be accepted the way it is , but Snickometer and Hotspot should also be incorporated in it so that technology (whatever available) is used to the maximum. I think BCCI has agreed that they will accept DRS with these modifications.

  • POSTED BY indiasupbangalore on | June 23, 2011, 9:16 GMT

    I am a indian supporter and big fan for DRS and I am really disappointed with bcci for not allowing it. I hope bcci and sachine change their mind, if you in current tests in west indies the decision of not using drs has gone against the favor of india, there was nice discussion between ian bishop and dujon during the lunch break.

  • POSTED BY hawkeye30 on | June 23, 2011, 9:06 GMT

    Correct attitude towards this issue. Well said Mr. Boycott

  • POSTED BY mihir_nam on | June 23, 2011, 9:03 GMT

    @Maninder Singh...Let Mr Pawar go off ICC .Lets see what BCCI is in next 5years once he is gone..Hope it doesn't turn like Indian Hockey. Well BCCI itself went to Downunder to schedule 7ODI with Australia every 2years..Kindly check the details. Aussies didn't come to India to schedule them for 7Odi's . if BCCI has lot of money they should help associates grow cricket and bring more nations in cricket.Money will automatically flow .

  • POSTED BY CB17 on | June 23, 2011, 9:02 GMT

    Woohhh!! its a intese topic but if india is outvoted by other countries then how will cricket survive..because ICC and other boards actually request BCCI for sponsors.... Just to let world know when they say india is developing country actually their cricket board is the one who does ask for sponsors and money to BCCI... So guys let Mr. Boycott say what ever he thinks but that is not going to change... I am sure BCCI will accept UDRS but on request not by outvoting...And when it comes to players....... overseas players dont wanna play for their country but first they prefer IPL.... I am sure Mr. Boycott would have prefered playing IPL if he had something like that in his ERA... Cheers guys but if some1 is polite then surely an Indian or India will accept it ...but if enforced then surely it will be given back..And that too in their own taste..But all due respect to cricket... I am cricket buff...

  • POSTED BY arvija on | June 23, 2011, 8:43 GMT

    Umpires are in the best position to make India accept this... "a few" decisions against India, will make them accept this without fear... [of course decision to accept DRS will reduce the number of matches they win in future and will eventually result in them losing their tittle as the No.1 test team] :):):)

  • POSTED BY mm71 on | June 23, 2011, 8:40 GMT

    All discussions about the accuracy of the system is lost. All have to support DRS because BCCI opposes it. India has never opposed changes. We were the first to play with 3rd umpire. Result, when Jonty Rhodes was out, Bucknor refused to call the 3rd umpire & when Sachin was he promptly called. Similarly, 2008, the Indian team didn't have a good experience with DRS because the 3rd umpire was a Sri Lankan. On top of it Hawkeye is not accurate. Comparisons with Wimbledon are not right, where the after pitching map of the ball is not drawn. There should be a thorough testing of Hawkeye for a ball to check it's actual trajectory & compare it with the one predicted by Hawkeye. There are pitches from which the ball keeps low or jumps high, windy conditions, etc, Hawkeye doesn't take these into account.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    England and Australia used their strength to impose thier will on the game and looked down on everyone else. Today all other countries are in financial strife and are bending backwards to not antagonize BCCI, to keep India touring their shores. England and Australia shoved thier might down everyone's throat, India only subtly or not uses the threat of not touring often enough to hurt the financial bottom line of other nations. Do not blame India, Develop the game to generate more resourses within each said country or else quit whinging and learn to live with the lesser Devil - BCCI. OR do you prefer the old system. INDIA keeps the game running globally - which is more than England or Australia could say when it was their turn decades back.

  • POSTED BY Faizal23 on | June 23, 2011, 8:05 GMT

    As a Indian am supporting the DRS system. And majority of Indians also support the same. I don't know y BCCI is opposing it.There is no proper reason given for that.If look at the game against WI many decision gone against India. so it is better to use high tech..........

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 7:59 GMT

    Well there is nothing wrong in flexing financial muscle if you generate 70% of income. If it can be recalled Australia didn't hosted India from 1992 till Dec 1999, because there were not seeing financial benefits. Secondly BCCI is not against DRS, there only suggestion is if it is to be introduced then, it should be with Hot-Spot, ultra-slow-motion replays, and Snicko along with Hawk-eye, as Hawk-eye alone is inconclusive (remember bell given not out in World cup not so long ago). Also if ICC feels it assist umpires to make correct decisions, then it should be left to umpires to call on UDRS, then players or captain. And for the information of Rest of the world, FIFA is against using technology despite what happened to England in 2010 World Cup, BCCI is not calling the shots there, European countries which has the stronger say in decision making!!! Remember Europe holds every alternate World - Cup…..

  • POSTED BY denwarlo70 on | June 23, 2011, 7:59 GMT

    For once, I agree with Mr. Boycott. The problem is not with the UDRS or DRS. The problem is the Indians don't know how to make use of it as in, when, where how and why. Ever since they got hammered in Sri Lanka in 2007 or 2008, this system is taboo to the whole of India. BCCI plays a vital role in ICC's monetary affairs and obviously the toothless tiger in ICC gives in to the whims and fancies of the BCCI.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 7:51 GMT

    IN UR DREAMS MATE..IF U R THINKING BCCI WILL BEGG TO AUS AND ENGLAND TO COME AND PLAY IN INDIA....

  • POSTED BY heat-seeker on | June 23, 2011, 7:34 GMT

    When a shareholder contributes 70% of the funds used by a corporation / organization (the ICC), you have to tread carefully. A pragmatic solution would be (as suggested before by many others) to allow removal of Hawk Eye from UDRS in bilateral series until its ball projections are tested and improved further. But implement UDRS with HotSpot, TV replays (and if possible Snicko) in those bilateral series. UDRS is not 1 technology (hawkeye), but a set of tools. So just keep aside the tool over which there is disagreement.

  • POSTED BY CFDanalysis on | June 23, 2011, 7:31 GMT

    Its not BCCI problem, everyone have there own rights. BCCI vote for there thoughts, other should vote what they feel. If they scared of BCCI its there problem not BCCI.

  • POSTED BY Quazar on | June 23, 2011, 7:22 GMT

    As a compromise, why can't we have DRS without only Hawkeye predictions? That is the only point of contention with the BCCI. I mean we had the WC DRS without HotSpot, which is a more accurate technology aid than Hawkeye. So why can't we have the India-England series with DRS consisting of HotSpot, ultra-slow-motion replays, and Snicko (if available)? That still helps the umpires significantly. Why favour Hawkeye over Hotspot and other DRS tools?

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 7:15 GMT

    100% agree with this...India are trying to rule cricket,which is going to be a big problem for the game in future.As we can see only thing which they care about is money.Cricket is just one profit making business.Nobody talks about promoting the game.Getting more countries at the highest level.Only thing they talk about now is how to make more money out of cricket.This is absurd.Everyone should get together to put an end to this madness.This is killing the spirit of the game.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 7:03 GMT

    I must say world cricket is really scared of BCCI and accusing BCCI for every small issue. IF BCCI thinks that UDRS is not fully foolproof then why everyone is after BCCI to make them to change their stand on UDRS. Even i support BCCI for their stand and totally agree that current UDRS is based on imagination and assumtions.

  • POSTED BY mihir_nam on | June 23, 2011, 6:47 GMT

    Mr.G.Boycott , Please convince England and Wales cricket board to Rejects India's proposal. Then if India wants to play then UDRS should be Implemented or else ECB should be ok India withdrawing from Test Series. Same with Australia when India will go there in December. I guess Even Pakistan has problems with UDRS in their home series they don't use it.

    India cannot play lifetime with Sri Lanka,West Indies,South Africa.. Indian TV viewers wants to see matches against England,Australia ..So BCCI will be in more loss if they withdrew tour from Australia or England. Same way Australia/England should withdrew from ODI tours of India. BCCI will come begging to these teams to play in INDIA for money

  • POSTED BY tauhid_aks on | June 23, 2011, 6:45 GMT

    I agree with Boycott. BCCI is just influencing every decision and it is harming other teams playing with India. It is time other teams do some stern action against India for the sake of the game.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY tauhid_aks on | June 23, 2011, 6:45 GMT

    I agree with Boycott. BCCI is just influencing every decision and it is harming other teams playing with India. It is time other teams do some stern action against India for the sake of the game.

  • POSTED BY mihir_nam on | June 23, 2011, 6:47 GMT

    Mr.G.Boycott , Please convince England and Wales cricket board to Rejects India's proposal. Then if India wants to play then UDRS should be Implemented or else ECB should be ok India withdrawing from Test Series. Same with Australia when India will go there in December. I guess Even Pakistan has problems with UDRS in their home series they don't use it.

    India cannot play lifetime with Sri Lanka,West Indies,South Africa.. Indian TV viewers wants to see matches against England,Australia ..So BCCI will be in more loss if they withdrew tour from Australia or England. Same way Australia/England should withdrew from ODI tours of India. BCCI will come begging to these teams to play in INDIA for money

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 7:03 GMT

    I must say world cricket is really scared of BCCI and accusing BCCI for every small issue. IF BCCI thinks that UDRS is not fully foolproof then why everyone is after BCCI to make them to change their stand on UDRS. Even i support BCCI for their stand and totally agree that current UDRS is based on imagination and assumtions.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 7:15 GMT

    100% agree with this...India are trying to rule cricket,which is going to be a big problem for the game in future.As we can see only thing which they care about is money.Cricket is just one profit making business.Nobody talks about promoting the game.Getting more countries at the highest level.Only thing they talk about now is how to make more money out of cricket.This is absurd.Everyone should get together to put an end to this madness.This is killing the spirit of the game.

  • POSTED BY Quazar on | June 23, 2011, 7:22 GMT

    As a compromise, why can't we have DRS without only Hawkeye predictions? That is the only point of contention with the BCCI. I mean we had the WC DRS without HotSpot, which is a more accurate technology aid than Hawkeye. So why can't we have the India-England series with DRS consisting of HotSpot, ultra-slow-motion replays, and Snicko (if available)? That still helps the umpires significantly. Why favour Hawkeye over Hotspot and other DRS tools?

  • POSTED BY CFDanalysis on | June 23, 2011, 7:31 GMT

    Its not BCCI problem, everyone have there own rights. BCCI vote for there thoughts, other should vote what they feel. If they scared of BCCI its there problem not BCCI.

  • POSTED BY heat-seeker on | June 23, 2011, 7:34 GMT

    When a shareholder contributes 70% of the funds used by a corporation / organization (the ICC), you have to tread carefully. A pragmatic solution would be (as suggested before by many others) to allow removal of Hawk Eye from UDRS in bilateral series until its ball projections are tested and improved further. But implement UDRS with HotSpot, TV replays (and if possible Snicko) in those bilateral series. UDRS is not 1 technology (hawkeye), but a set of tools. So just keep aside the tool over which there is disagreement.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 7:51 GMT

    IN UR DREAMS MATE..IF U R THINKING BCCI WILL BEGG TO AUS AND ENGLAND TO COME AND PLAY IN INDIA....

  • POSTED BY denwarlo70 on | June 23, 2011, 7:59 GMT

    For once, I agree with Mr. Boycott. The problem is not with the UDRS or DRS. The problem is the Indians don't know how to make use of it as in, when, where how and why. Ever since they got hammered in Sri Lanka in 2007 or 2008, this system is taboo to the whole of India. BCCI plays a vital role in ICC's monetary affairs and obviously the toothless tiger in ICC gives in to the whims and fancies of the BCCI.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2011, 7:59 GMT

    Well there is nothing wrong in flexing financial muscle if you generate 70% of income. If it can be recalled Australia didn't hosted India from 1992 till Dec 1999, because there were not seeing financial benefits. Secondly BCCI is not against DRS, there only suggestion is if it is to be introduced then, it should be with Hot-Spot, ultra-slow-motion replays, and Snicko along with Hawk-eye, as Hawk-eye alone is inconclusive (remember bell given not out in World cup not so long ago). Also if ICC feels it assist umpires to make correct decisions, then it should be left to umpires to call on UDRS, then players or captain. And for the information of Rest of the world, FIFA is against using technology despite what happened to England in 2010 World Cup, BCCI is not calling the shots there, European countries which has the stronger say in decision making!!! Remember Europe holds every alternate World - Cup…..