ICC news

DRS research not shown to ICC board

Daniel Brettig

July 9, 2012

Comments: 103 | Text size: A | A

Ross Taylor calls for a review after being given out against Peter Siddle, Australia v New Zealand, 2nd Test, Hobart, 1st day, December 9, 2011
The ICC board did not take DRS to a vote but were not shown all the research © AFP

Independent research that may have swayed the ICC's executive board into approving mandatory use of the DRS was not shown at its meeting in Kuala Lumpur, despite being pivotal in convincing both the cricket committee and the chief executives' committee of the technology's accuracy.

Wally Edwards, the Cricket Australia chairman, has revealed that the research on ball-tracking conducted by Dr Ed Rosten, an expert in computer vision technology, was left off the agenda of the executive board meeting, which concluded without the issue of DRS even being put to a vote due to India's reluctance to accept its use.

The ICC will now send a mission to India to show Dr Rosten's research to the BCCI, alongside details of the enhancements made to Hot Spot, the infrared cameras used to detect edges that had their accuracy questioned after the 2011 Test series between England and India.

Edwards told ESPNcricinfo that while other members of the board had also expressed some reluctance to go ahead with mandatory use of the DRS, he believed the tabling of Dr Rosten's research may have resulted in a different outcome.

"ICC had got some independent research done on the accuracy and all those issues. Now unfortunately they didn't present that information to the board," Edwards said. "India have agreed and the boards have agreed for ICC management to go to India and take all the information, take their presentations, take their technical support and talk to them over there.

"India are willing to look at it, but they're sceptical, and others are too - it's not just India. I think it is part of the game for the future, but it's a good time to review. Unfortunately if that presentation, or whatever it is they had, had been presented to the board it might have changed things. But we probably need another process, because people would have to go back to their boards and say 'this is the latest, can we move from where we are to there'. Obviously Australia supports it, and we understand there's still an error factor, but overall it's better than what we had."

The accuracy of the DRS had been warmly endorsed by both the ICC's cricket committee and chief executives committee, with Dr Rosten's research a critical part of winning their approval. Following the CEC meeting, an ICC statement read: "CEC recommended to the Board the universal application of the DRS after being satisfied with the technology enhancements provided by new Hotspot cameras and the results of the independent research on ball tracking conducted by Dr Ed Rosten, an expert in computer vision technology. Dr Rosten had tested the accuracy and reliability of ball tracking in a recent Test series and concluded that the results were 100% in agreement with the outcomes produced from his assessments."

Much has been made of the back-room politics of the executive board, which appears to be far more consequential to the running of the global game than anything said in formal meetings. Edwards, however, said he did not find it unusual that the DRS was not tabled for a vote, based on his previous experience on various corporate and cricket boards in Australia. Instead, he awaited India's response to the research they will be presented with.

"Obviously if there are debatable issues we try to debate them. The more difficult the issue, the more you should talk," Edwards said. "But in any boards that I've been on, there are very few decisions that will actually go to a 'we're going to count the votes here' situation. Governance is one of them, but most others you'll find a consensus that says 'yeah right we'll give that a run'. I didn't find it unusual.

"We knew where India stand on it, and at this point in time they're not ready to change their thoughts. Those lines you see on TV, are they accurate, that's the scepticism. It looks accurate, but from their point of view they are reluctant just to accept it as gospel. I think it is possible they'll change, but we'll have to wait and see how they go with this new information in India."

Previous attempts have been made to demonstrate the intricacies and accuracy of ball-tracking and other technology to the BCCI, notably via a planned trip to Australia during the 2010-11 Ashes series. On that occasion the visit was at first approved by the BCCI but then ruled out due to "scheduling difficulties".

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Daniel Brettig

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Meety on (July 12, 2012, 4:53 GMT)

@NP_NY - should UDRS become mandatory everywhere, simple supply & demand theory would suggest that the technology would become far more economical in a short space of time. There is only something like 4 cameras designed for certain techs, in operation on the International Cricket scene atm. Eventually that would grow to 20 or so (maybe more if Domestically countries use it). The transportation costs alone would almost disappear. The cost arguement only remains an arguement when there is a renegade in the ranks. @hhillbumper on (July 09 2012, 20:36 PM GMT) - you are probably a lot closer to the mark than you think. Interesting that this the 4th time I've tried to respond on this issue. Lucky I am not paranoid!

Posted by NP_NY on (July 11, 2012, 9:05 GMT)

@desilvac39: Good thing you're not running any cricket board :). It's a simple matter of economics. World cricket cannot financially survive without Indian fans. The SL and Pak boards cannot even finance DRS and that's why they didn't use it for their bilateral series. So, good luck leaving out cricket's cash-cow :).

Posted by   on (July 11, 2012, 0:40 GMT)

@bored_iam. As you and many others had pointed out, just empower the third umpire. As simple as that. I had argued for that many a times. I had even chided, what are they ( third umpire & match referee ) being paid for -- just to sit in and watch the game from the comfortable chambers upstairs? That will take care of most of the problems, including the cost of installing and running the DRS technology, which still will raise contentious issues, and in 50:50 cases goes back and support the doubtful decisions of the field umpires -- wasting everyone's precious resources.

Posted by Rally_Windies on (July 10, 2012, 19:39 GMT)

@ sportofpain @ Bigizzy

there are experts to make an assessment on the technology ..

but they are being deliberately avoided, by people who already know what they will say.

We have heard the argument that Hawk-eye is used in Tennis. (this is what the owners of hawk-eye keep repeating). But where in tennis is there a need to PREDICT the path of the ball, AFTER something gets in its way? ....

hmmm.. the only time it is used, is if a player plays a ball, and the crown want s to know if it would have been in or out, if the player left it ... But guess what.... that is purely for the viewers and has NO BARING on the game, and is not refereed to by the umpire. It is purely speculation.

We already know that the Prediction technology is not 100% accurate..

So why should it be used to decide the fate of a batsman ?

the only people who want hawk-eye are those who can profit from it, and those who are misinformed.

Posted by bored_iam on (July 10, 2012, 19:28 GMT)

@Jose Puliampatta: Loved the fact that you compared this to animal farm...snowball and Napoleon.. :-) @Tahir Anjum: Amongst other things a BCCI spokesperson in a recent interview pointed out that they have a couple of issues: 1. Who bears the costs? 2. The ICC isnt setting up cameras for eg. How do u ensure that the very technology is not compromised due to an error on the part of a technician 3. U have contradicting evidence (as @Rahul_78 pointed out as well). What kind of a priority order do u set ,ie, Hawkeye>snicko>hotspot? 4. The "100%" accuracy is a slighly misreported fact. Their stand is that in 50-50 cases u are retaining the on-field umpire's call, what then is the point of this technology if it is to be overruled? u aren't giving technology the 100% right to make a call and neither are u allowing the technology. Figure out the %involvement of both. 5.Lastly, for outstanding bad decisions u DONT need DRS. Use conventional replays to eliminate howlers. Empower the 3rd umpire.

Posted by   on (July 10, 2012, 18:12 GMT)

I really still not able to understand how ICC can allow a certain board to take any decision about the rules of the game. One day BCCI will say we dont want LBW in the cricket. Then what ICC will do? strange....

Posted by Bigizzy on (July 10, 2012, 16:38 GMT)

@ sportofpain - Spot on from a technical standpoint..I doubt anyone has any answers :)

Posted by Bigizzy on (July 10, 2012, 15:38 GMT)

If all the member countries support it and only India does not then why is the ICC not putting it to vote. Maybe the other countries don't really support it and will vote against it if put for a vote but just don't have the balls to openly take a stand.

Posted by   on (July 10, 2012, 15:37 GMT)

George Orwell, where are you? Your book "Animal Farm" is so prescient! ICC, BCCI and their ilk prove it.The whole lot is like the animal farm, you depicted so powerfully, where all animals are EQUAL, but some animals are MORE EQUAL than others! WOW!

Posted by maddy20 on (July 10, 2012, 15:36 GMT)

Ths is exactly what I posted. Make the research public to inspire confidence. @nav84 Very well put though I think that 3% of difference can often be the difference between winning and losing. But I am yet to be convinced , especially with hawkeye which has n-number of limitations such as the 2.5 meter LBW rule. As for hotspot, if it cannot help reverse decisions such as the gayle dismissal(which I do think was bat first) then its really not worth wasting time on, especially after its laughable accuracy in India's England tour last year. You do not get a second chance to make a first impression so DRS is hard to accept right now but if they have really improved it, then I'm sure the results will make BCCI change its mind. At the moment though all the other cricketing boards are skeptical of spending so much money for hardly any better results.

Posted by Plz_Dont_Get_Whitewashed on (July 10, 2012, 13:00 GMT)

@All DRS Supporters & Haters - DRS is a Costly, Semi-Efficient, White-Elephant, so plz ACCEPT it as it is !! ;)

Posted by   on (July 10, 2012, 12:40 GMT)

I say give BCCI about 10 years to think about it.. They need time to be up to date with the technology. But then they will be another 10 years behind though. ICC should have a vote with all the countries and the majority wins. easy as that.

Posted by MMahmood1 on (July 10, 2012, 11:34 GMT)

Why DRS another tool which can be expolited very easily. The pitch can be moved very easily on the screen. We can curse the onfield umpire but what after then. The results on ajmals LBW against tendulkar in world semi, was that manipolated or technology error. When people have explained the error or manipulation DRS technology Director response was, his technology is right and you are doing the copy right stuff (as if threatening do ask any question on my technology)

Posted by satish619chandar on (July 10, 2012, 11:28 GMT)

Even BCCI is coming up with some reason and presentations for rejecting the DRS but why ICC doesn't come up with explanation or other ideas to improve the decision making? I am damn sure BCCI WILL accept a cost effective DRS.. And, it is the responsibility of ICC to set clear guidelines for the umpires and make it public so that every team is aware of it and so do the fans..

Posted by satish619chandar on (July 10, 2012, 11:25 GMT)

Ok ICC.. Time to act.. BCCI is not going to share the sponsoring of the DRS.. So what next? Go to the market and get sponsors for DRS.. Or try out the other possible ways to reduce the howlers.. Do something to satisfy the fans and the member nations.. Don't simply stand there itself and block the views.. DRS will be the same(in terms of eliminating howlers) without hotspot or hawkeye.. What is stopping you to do it? We do see them coming up with several interviews that BCCI is not accepting or others but why not on things that can be done by themselves?

Posted by mngc1 on (July 10, 2012, 11:22 GMT)

@nav84 and praveen4honestremark. In the England WI series, there were 25 reviews. Of these 5 showed that the umpire was correct, 10 the ball was clipping the stumps and 10 were definitely wrong. Those clipping the stump remained ON FIELD DECISION. These decisions were not uniformly applied as close decisions were given not out when barely clipping were given out. 7 favoured England and only 3 for the WI. This was series changing. From these figures only 20 % of reviews showed the umpires to be definitely correct. In the 2nd ODI WI vs NZ the umpires gave 2 LBW decisions where the ball was missing the stumps by over 3" (7.5 cm). That is how bad the human factor is. I would be happy to accept the removal of the ON FIELD DECISION by UNIFORMLY APPLYING NOT OUT to balls clipping the stumps because of the margin of error in ball tracking.

Posted by satish619chandar on (July 10, 2012, 11:20 GMT)

@getsetgopk : Yes we do get sponsors for the things you mentioned.. But will you spend 5000$ a day for two referrals? How many referrals do we see these days? How many referrals did we have at the maximum? 7 for a day(That too in Aus-SA freak day and it is a once in lifetime match)? If i am a sponsor, i wouldn't spend 5000$ a day for DRS for 7 times at the max and there might not even a referral if there is no close call.. 6's or catch is different.. It happens more often and it is in T20 alone..

Posted by praveen4honestremark on (July 10, 2012, 11:05 GMT)

@ nav84 on (July 10 2012, 10:52 AM GMT)....Nice point made. Unless it becomes cheaper even affordable for boards like Zimbabwe, wasting money on DRS of any kind it is foolish.

Posted by nav84 on (July 10, 2012, 10:52 GMT)

@bobmartin even if we agree to your stat that DRS gives 98% accuracy, 95% of that is correcting howlers which can be corrected by using simple tv replays and does not require expensive sky sports or channel nine toys. on closer cases, DRS has proved to be more useless than useful because after wasting a hell lot of time and money, eventually the on field umpire's decision is upheld. So when 95% accuracy (by eliminating howlers) can be achieved by using simple tv replays, do you think its wise to spend ridiculously large amount of money for just that extra 3% accuracy?

Posted by praveen4honestremark on (July 10, 2012, 9:14 GMT)

"India have agreed and the boards have agreed for ICC management to go to India and take all the information, take their presentations, take their technical support and talk to them over there".That's the answer. Go and ask Indian software professional , he will make this Baby DRS to Perfect DRS. This time it is really 100% even on field. Guys i can guarantee that Indian software professional can do this, and there will be no further Debates like this again.

Posted by bobmartin on (July 10, 2012, 8:21 GMT)

@gdalvi..... Should my last comment regarding your post get published... my apologies for misreading it. Having said that, the 98% accuracy currenttly achieved by DRS is proven to be better than that achieved by the human eye. So to reject the DRS on the grounds that it isn't 100% means you are willing to accept less than the best that's available.

Posted by   on (July 10, 2012, 7:54 GMT)

Posted by gdalvi on (July 10 2012, 04:36 AM GMT) " How many of you will travel on planes that are 98% reliable - 2 crashes every 100 flights?" I've never read so much nonsense in all my life... There are many thousands of flights everyday all over the world, and crashes are a very, very rare occurence. If you are going to quote a statistic at least make some attempt to make sure it is accurate... Comments like yours, which clutches statistics out of thin air simply make you look foolish.

Posted by havefun2008 on (July 10, 2012, 7:10 GMT)

Will Cricinfo obtain a copy of Dr. Rosten's report and post it online? Why can't ICC post the report online and also post information on how and where the tests were conducted?

Posted by getsetgopk on (July 10, 2012, 7:01 GMT)

@satish619chandar and all others: Dude you still dont get it do you? Sahara is sponsoring BD cricket, is it because of their love for BD cricket or did they sensed a business opportunity? Similarly, a number of Indian companies rushed to buy franchisees in SLPL because they were all humanitarians and wanted to lend a helping hand to cash strapped SL board or the company sponsoring Kamal catch or maximum dlf or something like that, how about Emirates panel of elite umpires, every sponsor in cricket is a humanitarian according to your logic. No, its a business if all the countries agrees in principal that yes DRS is there for the betterment of the game im sure a number of sponsors will rush to sponsor it and will make money out if it, a win win for everyone, its the silly stance of BCCI that dont even recognize DRS to be an effective anti howler system.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (July 10, 2012, 6:50 GMT)

I would like to think that the Indian stance against the use of technology in reaching contentious decisions was informed by reference to their representation on the ICC elite umpires' panel. But I can't, can I? Oh well, the less-than- elite will have to do - which is one reason we are where we are.

Posted by praveen4honestremark on (July 10, 2012, 6:49 GMT)

"From the outset the DRS system has been flawed in design and execution, and has continued to disappoint. In fact,it got to the point this year when the creator of Virtual Eye,Ian Taylor from Dunedin, cried out loud that, with the players criticising the system so much,he thought it was time for the DRS to start again, to go back to the drawing board.This was a truly honest moment and I for one stood and applauded Taylor.As the techno, he was actually saying this was too hard in its present form and therefore was in effect potentially removing his company from the work.It was a significant revelation, one at which the BCCI would have been seen nodding its approval and feeling some justification. ICC said Ed Rosten, a Cambridge professor, had given ball-tracking technology the 100% tick. Yet Ian Taylor, the creator of Virtual ball tracking says it isn't 100%. Whom shall we believe? The inventor, of course, not the professor"-http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/570308.html

Posted by praveen4honestremark on (July 10, 2012, 6:23 GMT)

@clarke501 on (July 09 2012, 21:40 PM GMT) Even though it's from recent series, he might have hidden some facts about errors only to sell his product. I have told a possibility by example. And moreover Dr.Rosten is not transparent about his errors, he just says" We knew where India stand on it, and at this point in time they're not ready to change their thoughts.Those lines you see on TV, are they accurate, that's the scepticism. It looks accurate, but from their point of view they are reluctant just to accept it as gospel". That looks to me a big marketing strategy and way to cover up his errors and not being transparent. He feels what he has done should be accepted. If questioned anything he may not answer. Bizarre. Big question mark on his work. mngc on (July 09 2012, 22:41 PM GMT) Like how a human gets tired even machines malfunction. Malfunctioning is what leads to errors. We need to make a DRS for sure that is effective. I doubt this DRS by the way he spoke out. I pasted it above

Posted by Chetan007 on (July 10, 2012, 5:35 GMT)

HEy guys!!! DRS is good for australian condition but not subcontinent pitches. Bounce of the ball is very much differ in Perth or Kolkatta or Chennai or Centurian or Columbo. There is no way accuracy near to perfect. What's the use of technology by spending 60k which is not going to provide accurate result. For fast bowlers Chennai and Kolkata pitches will provide maximum errors. BCCI can't able to build the technology for each and every grounds...

Posted by Kapil_Choudhary on (July 10, 2012, 5:33 GMT)

The biggest problem with the DRS is not the technology but the implementation. The DRS system implements the practice of "the benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire" as opposed to "the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman". That is just ridiculous. The ICC should remove all "umpire's call" features from DRS and simply let it give a out or not out verdict - at least in all LBW calls. Also, all the ridiculous rules about 2.5m and 3.5 m etc are not required. Even at those distances, the technology is better than the umpire. The system works in Tennis because it gives a direct "in" or "out" verdict - the system doesn't say that more than half the ball should have clipped the line for an "out" call to be turned into an "in" call. I guess the entire problem is this ridiculous need to uphold the "authority" of the umpire - and thus the desire to overturn just "howlers" rather than to just make the correct decision every time. People watch the game for the players, not the umpires...

Posted by satish619chandar on (July 10, 2012, 5:01 GMT)

@getsetgopk : You still don't get the point.. the issue BCCI has is, who to pay for it? ICC can't as it is BCCI's money there and BCCI don't like to spend the money they earn by hard promotion to a technical company they don't trust.. Then the ICC have two options.. Seek outside sponsors for DRS or go for a cost effective DRS which will remove the howlers alone.. It is upto them to go for the best one..

Posted by superstar100 on (July 10, 2012, 5:01 GMT)

umpire should be there and no technology should use .. It's ICC job to find umpire like ALLEM DAR , Simon Tauffel we have seen they dont make any mistake but i have seen TV umpire make mistake manu times ... Like in last world cup IRELAND V/S wesT Indies IRISH team was lost due to the fault of bad umpiring with the help of technology

Posted by gdalvi on (July 10, 2012, 4:36 GMT)

@DRS supporters: Why do you give silly examples like cell phones and that no technology is Perfect. Actually many CRITICAL technologies used commonly are close to perfection. How many of you will travel on planes that are 98% reliable - 2 crashes every 100 flights? How many of you will buy cars that break-down every 100 km? These commonly adopted technologies are way way more than 98% accuracy - closer to failure rates of 1 in Million or beyond. How so convenient of you NOT to make this level of comparison. If DRS is critical as you say - then it should be accepted ONLY after it reaches very high level of accuracy. Otherwise may I humbly suggest all of you to be test passengers in airplanes that have 98% success rate - the same level you accept in DRS.

Posted by kh1902 on (July 10, 2012, 4:32 GMT)

I'm totally confused by what determines hawkeye accuracy. What is Dr Rosten actually comparing? He has the observed DRS results, based on what has happened in a test series. Then he's comparing them to his "own" assessments. What does that mean? It seems to me like the observed DRS results are always being compared to a subjective benchmark. The reality is that there is no adequate benchmark against which to assess the output from the DRS. To make meaningful comments on accuracy, we're assuming that as a starting point we know what is actually the "right" outcome.

If anyone can explain I'd really appreciate it.

Posted by kh1902 on (July 10, 2012, 4:19 GMT)

The rationale for the DRS has always been that it is used to eliminate the "howlers" or really bad decisions. Can't such decisions be overturned with the use of a simple video replay?

Hawkeye will show the ball just hitting the stumps and the umpire's original not out decision can be upheld on the basis that it is a marginal decision which could go either way. This shows that Hawkeye is not relied upon for line-ball decisions. The "accuracy" of Hawk-eye is then irrelevant if it is only applied in blatantly dubious decisions which can be verified with basic video technology.

Posted by iamgroot on (July 10, 2012, 3:50 GMT)

Simple question.. What will indian team do after the number of referrals are used up? Do you think 2 referrals are enough per team per innings? or even in ODIs Do you think that bounce that balls gets on the ground and what showed on TV is same? What about the edges? Will there be more Rahul dravid type of decisions? Even in WC2011 the other teams had a raw deal not just India. What if there is a questionable LBW decision AFTER those two reviews are done? Wont that team feel screwed up by the technology? It can be any team but India has been vociferous for various reasons. You want DRS to be implemented and accepted by Indian board first remove that stupid 2 decisions per innings per team. Let the DRS be used for every decision which umpire is not sure. If you want to use DRS then use it fullfledged but this half baked implementation is what is questionable.

Posted by Stumpbreaker on (July 10, 2012, 3:29 GMT)

@getsetgopk: So here is the truth... if you already dont know... India dont want to share the burden of this inconsistent technology... as your country and others are wanting to have one global tender for the media rights of DRS. Basically its like if you really like it you pay out of your own pocket... we dont like it so we wont pay it either. Is that very difficult to comprehend in any language. P.S. Teams would even play under 45 degrees sun if the stadiums are given literally rent free.. lol

Posted by getsetgopk on (July 10, 2012, 3:06 GMT)

All silly statements against DRS here flying at will with no sense to it all what so ever. I dont wana use my cell anymore because the coverage is not 100%, dont wana use a car either because it emits co2, pollutes the environment, bad for health, besides not a 100% safe, dont want to eat antibiotics in case of sickness because they have side effects... I could go on and talk about almost everything because I dont think there is anything that is a 100% accurate, enough with this non sensical argument.

Posted by Natx on (July 10, 2012, 2:27 GMT)

The main issue for India is lack of viewership for Tests. Why to spend 60k (max referrals per team per 2 inns) on a technology that is still unreliable and has less than 10k viewers. England and Australia - its the opposite. People will watch 5 days, no matter what the result will be. If I'm a smart businessman, my support is for India. One days and T20's, I don't see a problem India buying into the idea if it's not doing it already. Makes sense to me. May not if you're an Eng or Aus supporter. Simple logic - enter an agreement with India to share 50k per test when India is playing and you will slowly see support. One may ask if 50k is a big money for BCCI as it anyways makes millions through IPL, but reality is tests are slowly dying in India and BCCI doesn't want to waste more on the patient who's going to die soon. Smart move!

Posted by Ozcricketwriter on (July 10, 2012, 2:17 GMT)

DRS is not the problem. The problem is that the benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire, when it should go to the batsman.

Posted by Stumpbreaker on (July 10, 2012, 0:04 GMT)

lets put a proposal that the home team pays for the DRS and BCCI would not have any problems with it... so who is voting for this motion??? Or is everyone waiting for India to bank roll it?

Posted by Stumpbreaker on (July 10, 2012, 0:02 GMT)

@getsetgopk: you want to use Indian money but you have problem accepting India's supremacy... well go try eliminating India from International scene... good luck to u

Posted by sportofpain on (July 9, 2012, 23:38 GMT)

Why do we blindly assume that what we see on TV is right? It is far, far more important to make sure that when you accept the technology, it is as near foolproof as possible. Because once you accept it, it stays for good (DL with all its imperfections is a good example - how ludicrous some of its calculations are)

We get seduced into thinking that what we see on TV is perfect - hey great umpires and great players might know better because the level of precision at which they operate might be higher. My question is simple - how does DRS take into account the bounce in Chepauk versus the bounce in Perth? How does it account for the turn? And for that matter how does it account for the changes to the bounce that will happen during the course of the 5 days in Chepauk itself? And if it is rainy and overcast how does DRS account for that? Who determines these algortihms and based on what? We should beware - it is very different from line tracking in tennis which is just a replay.

Posted by mngc1 on (July 9, 2012, 22:41 GMT)

@praveen4honestremark. Your comment does not make sense in that if he is worth his salt, he would have made assessments according to the laws of cricket. The current technology is showing up the umpire errors are running at least 2 per match with the most in Sri Lanka vs Pakistan where there were about 16. There is no way that technology could be nearly as bad as that. The technology of the human eye cannot match the cameras used. Additionally people tire, not cameras. Before any further discussion on how accurate the match umpires are, go look up the eye on Wikipedia and compare it to slow motion cameras. I repeat that in the England WI series 33-40 % of the umpire decisions reviewed were WRONG.

Posted by bvnathan on (July 9, 2012, 21:56 GMT)

Hello all, NO TECHNOLOGY IS PERFECT, PERIOD. In case of technology deployed in LIFE SAVING incidents, the success rate is measured by RATE OF ERROR OCCURENCE over its continuous deployment and use or mis-use. Similarly, what determines the success of DRS TECHNOLOGY will be equal to the RATE OF ERROR OCCURENCE over a period of time. In case of DRS, its use or mis-use at least, is not a LIFE THREATENING CASE, but one may have to look at the points of reference where DRS is referred - and rate / evalaute the occurrences as RIGHT or WRONG. All the more the SATISFACTION, of all involved in the use of DRS will determine its ACCEPTANCE with no finger-pointing. If the margin of ERRORS made by manual umpires is acceptable in the current norm of rules & regulations, may be that margin of ERROR can be skewed to a higher acceptable level in the case of DRS usage. Acceptance of TECHNOLOGY is becoming a norm in almost all sports across the globe and not left to FANTASIES of the individuals/board.

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 9, 2012, 21:40 GMT)

@praveen4honestremark - Dr Rosten tested the accuracy of the ball tracking technology in a recent test series, not the resulting umpiring decisions.

Posted by Kaze on (July 9, 2012, 20:39 GMT)

So many armchair experts on this forum, I wonder if most of them have a proper job ?!

Posted by hhillbumper on (July 9, 2012, 20:36 GMT)

BCCI seem to have an issue.But why with DRS? is it because it is not an Indian invention.maybe you could market it at Umpire lite with Ravi Shastri doing the commentary.Just a suggestion

Posted by SanjivAwesome on (July 9, 2012, 20:27 GMT)

I think I am getting bored with this silly DRS debate. I am more interested in game news - will it stop raining on day 3 in Sri Lanka, is Mark's eye going to recover completely for him to play again, will Aus and Eng games become a game in the English backyard. Can cricinfo stick to game coverage, relegate backroom technology chat - and asssociated fan anguish - into perhaps a discussion thread.

Posted by The_bowlers_Holding on (July 9, 2012, 18:49 GMT)

The DRS is never going to be 100% accurate the purpose is to prevent howlers and cut down on the travesties, I have seen some of the current series in Sri Lanka and a large number of very iffy decisions have occured (mostly against Pakistan). The use of DRS is still in its infancy and will develop over time, for instance when a bowling side appeals an LBW for and the ball is only hitting half ball the not out stands and a review is lost, the loss of review is harsh as the ball is hitting the stumps. There will always be talking points but hopefully the technology can get rid of the ridiculous decisions scenario and all of the boards need to accept that surely it is in the interest of a fair result in line with the cricketing ethos p.s. not sure why only India get blamed as SL can install it if is willing to pay.

Posted by thalalara on (July 9, 2012, 18:47 GMT)

If money is the issue I would suggest, have only 1 umpire since most of the runouts at the batsmen end are referred to the 3rd umpire. let them play with one umpire!!! save money on 2nd umpire and use that for DRS.... ha ha ha

Posted by Ajay02 on (July 9, 2012, 18:22 GMT)

Lets talk to DRS and hawk eye people and put an agenda in front of them. Ask them to take a part of the proceeds from every match played depending upon number of spectators in the ground, tv revenues etc and at the same time allow other competitors in the game willing to improve standards. Hopefully it will have a positive impact as no body will be out of pocket and game can evolve further.

Posted by mngc1 on (July 9, 2012, 18:14 GMT)

@clear view. The complex factors that affect the motion of the ball after impact does not really affect the ball tracking based on extrapolation in a big way because the distance is so short. It will be far better than the eye. If there is doubt call it not out consistently. In the England WI series it was quite consistent. When England was batting (Bell, Trott) they got the benefit of the doubt. When WI was batting (Chanderpaul, Samuels) the English bowlers got the benefit of the out. This made a huge difference to the series outcome.

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 16:49 GMT)

For everybody saying that it's only boards with money who are able to use DRS, it's being used in the series between New Zealand and the West Indies. Which one of these two boards has money?

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 16:25 GMT)

I am a bit confused about BCCI's stand on the DRS. Accuracy or Economic Viability, Which one of the two do they have qualms about? If it's the latter, then this research would serve no purpose for the time being, Would it?

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 16:05 GMT)

Ed Rosten's research is independent. The suggestion that he hopes to profit from his research by concluding that DRS is accurate is in my view a wild allegation that (unless proved otherwise) cannot be substantiated and I am therefore going to ask that this observation from Harshad Trivedi is moderated.

Posted by AndyZaltzmannsHair on (July 9, 2012, 15:32 GMT)

The attacks on Dr Ed Rosten are absurd. His "technical expertise" is being questioned by the very people who take the BCCIs words as gospel.

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 15:15 GMT)

Just a small word for those who are stiil sceptical about DRS... Yes.. it may not be able accurately predict the flight of a ball post-interception...I ask the question.. who can ? With DRS the one thing you do get without any shadow of doubt is consistency, unlike the situation when the onward trajectory is at best a guess by the on-field umpire. And judging by all the comments which follow debatable decisions pre-DRS, consistency is what all cricketers want.

Posted by kitten on (July 9, 2012, 15:10 GMT)

Selassis-I 'Just look the other day at Finn to Warner, it couldn't've been any more plumb but was not given and reviewed and was gone, if it was given not out a destructive player like Warner could have completley changed the game from there adn unfairly so. I'm just not sure how it can't be of benefit in the game.'

If I remember correctly, Dravid in the series against England, was given out caught behind, even though it showed clearly his bat hitting his bootlaces!! And on another occasion, he was given out wrongly, and he was their best player, who would have certainly made a huge impact to the result. Can you blame BCCI for digging their heels in, after these sorry episodes.

I feel, like many others do, that players should not have to make appeals for the DRS, the job should be with the third Umpire(TV). If he feels a blunder has been committed, he should step in and rectify it. Many times. the ball is seen hitting the stumps, but because it's 'umpire's call', the decision stays

Posted by StopSmoking on (July 9, 2012, 14:54 GMT)

@ ClearView hit the nail on head. Personally, most of this talks about DRS is in media massively overrated. It's just creating 'Hate-Shenanigans' among fans for silly reason. We didn't have DRS before 2007-08, cricket was being played, cricket was being played even with non-neutral umpires and cricket will be continued to play regardless of DRS situation. Main issue of DRS is not its accuracy. It's how it will be financed. I don't expect top boards to pay for lesser wealthy boards. Fix that situation first. Convincing BCCI will not give DRS for everyone.

Posted by Last_Wicket on (July 9, 2012, 14:48 GMT)

@InsideHedge "If a host country is unable to pay for DRS, they should NOT be able to stage a game"

No way this should happen, if it did I would boycot cricket entirely. If a cricket board can't afford DRS they should not be excluded from international cricket. It will destroy the game and prevent developing countries from competing.

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 14:06 GMT)

The issue was never just about the accuracy of the system used. The issue is when there is no conclusive evidence (like no hot spot but still given out). There was handling but it was to avoid injury (and not to stop the ball hitting stumps). This human intervention is what is unacceptable. Once agreed to use DRS, either everyone agrees to go by technoloby interpretation with no human intervention/ or we stick to risk of human error which is acceptable. A society which eats, breathes and lives discrimination can easily recognise the risks of a combined system (Techonology + Selective Human Interpretation) and hence to avoid.

Posted by FarSight on (July 9, 2012, 13:59 GMT)

Dr Rosten doesn't seem to have expertise in the mechanics and fluid mechanics of sports balls. Tracking the actual flight and trajectory of a sports ball is ball tracking. Its use is very accurate in tennis. In cricket, leg before wicket (LBW) is defined as "in the opinion of the umpire the ball would hit the stumps if the batsman had not obstructed it" (other conditions are there). The flight of the cricket ball or any sports ball depends on complex fluid mechanics depending on the shape and surface conditions of the ball, air properties and what the bowler/striker imparts to the ball- his skill. The software Hawk-Eye tracks the actual flight and trajectory of the ball very accurately until the ball hits the batsman's pad and then extrapolates the same trajectory beyond the pad. This extrapolation has no fluid dynamic basis. In fact it is wrong and does injustice to the bowler's skill and the umpire's human judgement.

Posted by Riderstorm on (July 9, 2012, 13:43 GMT)

The only reason why the ICC is pursuing the implementation of DRS is to stay relevant. Since its inception, ICC have never been able to make a decision on anything with conviction. Stop blaming the BCCI. Nobody is ready to bear the cost of DRS, there are no sponsorships either. The boards with money itself are choosing the use of DRS, maximising their overall effect on the series.

Posted by Selassie-I on (July 9, 2012, 13:41 GMT)

Rahul_78, not sure that the evidence for Morgan was 'inconclusive' as otherwise the decision wouldn't have been overturned; there was a mark on his bat from the ball hitting it... that's not out LBW, sniko is a little more sifficult as there was only a fraction of a second between ball hitting bat and then pad(I also believe that the umpires don't use snicko as we see it on TV, but just have a stump mike with the video replay?) I think that the BCCI need to accept it, it will take a little getting used to but now teams are mastering it and rarely wasting reviews, thus eliminating the shockers. Just look the other day at Finn to Warner, it couldn't've been any more plumb but was not given and reviewed and was gone, if it was given not out a destructive player like Warner could have completley changed the game from there adn unfairly so. I'm just not sure how it can't be of benefit in the game.

Posted by getsetgopk on (July 9, 2012, 13:36 GMT)

@YorkshirePudding: Thats an interesting idea, I would say all the countries should make it mandatory and let indians fall in line, India can't afford to sit out side they will come to accept it whether they like it or not, but there is another all improtant angle to this debate, currently there is a series played between Pak and SL without DRS mainly because SL board is cash strapped, we need all the test playing countries or at least the major ones barring ZIM and BD to support DRS to help find a centralized sponsor for DRS, with Indians not supporting it that wont be possible im afraid. honestly no one cares if there is DRS in India's test series, they loose away games anyways but there lack of support is hurting DRS's implementation elsewhere.

Posted by InsideHedge on (July 9, 2012, 13:30 GMT)

Eventually, the BCCI will agree. When it does, let's hope there's a rule that the cost for DRS is footed by the host country. If a host country is unable to pay for DRS, they should NOT be able to stage a game. Let's see how Lanka a& Pakistan deal with that.

Posted by Mfalme on (July 9, 2012, 13:29 GMT)

@ Noel-Kalicharan - absolutely agree with you. Why should there be only 2 review? What happens to incorrect decisions once the 2 reviews are exhausted? @ correctcall - Spot on, "this is an aid to umpires' decision making NOT an alternative". India want a 100% accurate system. Many people are not getting the point. 1) They want a system where all incorrect decisions should be referred and not just a few that could be managed with 2 reviews. 2) They want a system where, whenever team India reviews, it has to be a 100% successful so that they don't need more than 1 review which can be recycled for subsequent reviews. Think I have made it clear to all. LOL...LOL (I wont be surprised if this comment, as usual, is not published.)

Posted by the_wallster on (July 9, 2012, 13:09 GMT)

Re: no.1_multicultural_team - The BCCI is not victimised because of its stance in refusing to use DRS for its home series, but its stance means the absence of DRS for series of which it is the visitor/touring party. Take the England and Australian tours recently. Both Australia and England are proponents of its full use, yet were forced to play in its absence due to the ridiculous rule that DRS use must be mutually consensual. ie. have the approval of both cricketing boards. It's unfair that a touring party, regardless of whether it be India, Sri Lanka or South Africa, can have so much power over the administration of a series. And as India are the only away team to refuse its use, this is the reason they are resented.

Posted by shrnk on (July 9, 2012, 13:02 GMT)

The issue is not technology, but consistency. This is true with decisions related to dismissals and also disciplinary punishments. There has to be a clear code to make a decision. As long as it is subjective (even aided by technology), theres bound to be a feeling of being done in.

Posted by jackthelad on (July 9, 2012, 12:54 GMT)

'Venki_Indian', it is not being used because the SL Board wouldn't make the funds available to pay for it.

Posted by nandwani88 on (July 9, 2012, 12:44 GMT)

Excellent points, desilvac39 & YorkshirePudding! But I seriously believe that the ICC should do what they should have done from the start: Grow a pair and make it mandatory for every single match! It is still not too late. They should still do it, if only to show and prove who is (and rightly should be) the real top dawg in international cricket.

Posted by Fast_Track_Bully on (July 9, 2012, 12:43 GMT)

If Pakistan, Srilanka not going to use DRS thats not an issue, why the fuss on India?? Let others do this first and then criticize India.

Posted by LWGLWG on (July 9, 2012, 12:42 GMT)

I want to comment Rahul_78. If you think technology is not 100% because technicians who are humans still can make mistakes in controlling machines, Then how can you expect an umpire who is also a human to give correct decisions with out any technology support. You should understand that by using DRS you are aiding umpires to take correct decisions. That is the motive behind DRS nothing else.

Posted by voyager on (July 9, 2012, 12:38 GMT)

What is there to show and convince. It is clear that DRS is much much better than no DRS it is an improvement in right direction. Only reason to India's refusal is the show of power. Is there any such thing in life which is statistically 100% correct and reliable?

Posted by HumungousFungus on (July 9, 2012, 12:33 GMT)

In no way surprised by continuing incompetence at the ICC. Still surprised at India's stubbornness though. Ultimately, the longer India prevent the introduction of DRS in games in which they participate, the greater the likelihood of a game that sees them on the end of an umpiring 'performance' along the lines of Bucknor and Benson at the SCG in 2008, at which point India will have nobody to blame but themselves. And should that happen, I am afraid that there will be no sympathy from the rest of the world (probably quite the opposite, in fact)...

Posted by mngc1 on (July 9, 2012, 12:25 GMT)

@rahul_78. Where there is doubt the batsman should be given the benefit of the doubt as in the case of Morgan and many others who suffered from the "on field decision". The problem is not technology which is fixed but with the person (3rd umpire) using it. I have been tracking the on field umpire error rate recently. In the England WI series between 33 - 40 % of decisions reviewed were being overturned. That is massive. WI NZ ODI there were 2 LBWs given with the ball missing the stump by a wide margin. One was reviewed and overturned and the other (Pollard) was not reviewed.

Posted by Master01 on (July 9, 2012, 12:22 GMT)

Every other country could use DRS, but they choose not to. Thats not Indias fault. Remember that. India doesnt like DRS< but if everyone else loves it so much, they should vote for it. But they didnt.

Posted by SnowSnake on (July 9, 2012, 12:16 GMT)

To me balling tracking is only part of the problem. The real problem with DRS is the bureaucracy of the process. The bowler has to talk to captain and then captain has to make a call. And then there are only two reviews available. So human decision making error is not eliminated with DRS. India should reject DRS because it gives an impression of improved decision making.

Posted by mngc1 on (July 9, 2012, 12:13 GMT)

The eye takes frames at 0.1 sec apart. At 90 mph the time elapsed between bouncing on a good length and hitting bat or pad, would just be 0.045 sec. In that time the eye will take 1 frame at best and rely on the brain processing subsequent images and sound to give the continuous motion. Ball tracking uses several frames to determine the projected path of the ball and will inherently be better than the umpires with proper programming of the computers. TV replays and ESPN commentaries show umpires are making 2 or more errors in almost every game including T20 and ODI. There is no way that the umpire could accurately determine which was hit first in a close bat/pad decision off a pace bowler.The eye alone would not detect a faint snick where there is very little deviation of the ball. He would rely heavily on sound and he may not know what the ball hit. The Snicko technology and Hot Spot is far better. It is time to remove "On Field Decision" and implement full technology.

Posted by PeterDrucker on (July 9, 2012, 12:11 GMT)

I think the organization of ICC should be wind up now, because it is unable to make and implement any decision that annoys India. From now onward all cricket boards should be affiliated with BCCI and BCCI should solemnly organize the cricket in the word. Shamed ICC.

Posted by sidsway14 on (July 9, 2012, 12:10 GMT)

@Rahul_78: i hope you saw the entire series.. atleast whatever has been played between the teams.. the very first decision was the one tht was overturned using drs by bell.. not to mention the others here.. the shane watson decision.. nobody talks abt those which were right.. moreover in my opinion indians were the ones who were crying abt not getting decisions right.. i remember the havoc our medias were making over the sydney test.. i find their attitude a bit hypocritical.. i endorse udrs completely for tht makes the game much fairer.. even if it can get one decision better than umpires, i would advocate tht..

Posted by jackthelad on (July 9, 2012, 12:06 GMT)

There are a number of points of issue about DRS as it now stands - uppermost to my mind being that it removes the absolute right of decision from the men on the field ('the Umpire's decision shall be final' - isn't that what I learned when I learned cricket?), and equally it is still opinion-based, since so many referred decisions are highly marginal even after DRS is applied. In my estimation, however, primary is that every other Test-playing country has endorsed the new technology, and 'special cases' shouldn't be made for individual nations. You play cricket under the same rules as the rest of the world, or you shouldn't play at all. The same, I may add, applies to Pakistan, in another context: if you can't guarantee the physical safety of visiting teams, you should be excluded from international competition until you can.

Posted by praveen4honestremark on (July 9, 2012, 12:01 GMT)

Welcome Mr.Ed Rosten!! Welcome to India.Let see what comes out. I am hoping a positive result, which i means is " Rejection of DRS if it is still a baby" or " Accept it if it can show it is cheaper,99% flawless". No pending should be there. Either Yes or No.

Posted by Amu7 on (July 9, 2012, 11:58 GMT)

I think DRS is fine but umpires should be given a thorough training of how system works and how to use it. Dharmasena and Dar produced momentous blunders in the recent ODI series.Dharmasenas lapse could be understood,but Dar influenced only by quick referral saw a pretty non existent spot to rule the batsman not out.BCCI was embarrassed in 2008 when DRS was used because hardly any Indian referral was overturned and pretty much exposed Kumble and Harbhajan's knowledge of the LBW laws

Posted by number-09 on (July 9, 2012, 11:53 GMT)

As much as I support DRS there are numerous issues to be resolved. A simple problem is that of speed guns. These are calibrated every series and cannot be trusted. In the England / Pak series finn and co. was hitting 90+ MPH consistently. In England couple months later they barely go above 85MPH. They used different systems. @Rajan Nagarajan - Pak - Sri lanks series - Cost is a big factor.

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 11:50 GMT)

SL is not using DRS because they cant afford to hire the equipment in case all you @cricket lovers' have been asleep for the last 6 months the SL board is broke. @Noel-Kalicharan - no DRS is not there to give a verdict on marginal decisions but to remove the howler. The reason that Indial/MS Dhoni dont want DRS is becasue he made such a mess of it when it was used in the SL v India series.

Posted by cricindia4life on (July 9, 2012, 11:48 GMT)

Any research that results in 100% correlation between experimental and theoretical is flawed. The makers of HawkEye or similar technology have themselves said that the technology is NOT 100%. So Dr. Ed Rosten's research, that evidently shows ball tracking is 100% in accordance with his "calculations" says one of two things: either his research is bogus and ICC paid him to say what he said, or his "calculations" are also as inaccurate as the ball tracking technology, in which case his calcs are not a good reference point. Basic science guys...

Posted by satish619chandar on (July 9, 2012, 11:47 GMT)

I guess it is the time for certain nations and ICC to give away the talk of the hotspot or a hawkeye and focus on removing the howlers.. Leave a clear guideline to the umpire and make the reason public in the big screen for the denial or reversal of the referral.. Unless they have a good proof, it is tough for all nations to bear the cost of the technology.. ICC should look at the best option to used by all the nations without depending on money from one nation to implement the DRS.. I would say it would be without the high cost technology..

Posted by Dr.Vindaloo on (July 9, 2012, 11:43 GMT)

@no.1_multicultural_team: of course BCCI can do what it wants, no one disputes that. The more important question though is why DRS is good enough for all other governing boards apart from BCCI. Answers please...

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 11:37 GMT)

can i suggest if a country chooses not to trust the technology then they lose their test and one day status as we are all trying to play on a level playing field with the same rules for everyone..HHmm how many times have marquee players i.e Sachin,ponting not been given out when they should have. Stop cheating and play by everyones rules. Trust the technology, its the same for everyone.

Posted by veerakannadiga on (July 9, 2012, 11:35 GMT)

Edwards told ESPNcricinfo that while other members of the board had also expressed some reluctance to go ahead with mandatory use of the DRS........ so it is not BCCI alone opposing this white elephant(DRS)

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 11:26 GMT)

BBCI is the main culprit for not allowing DRS as it lost badly with SL in the early days for DRS anyhow the DRS was not the reason for defeat. BCCI that time blamed on DRS for defeat so they want to take the same stand. Come on the world is using technology every place so why not cricket? Cricket is not growing just because of test cricket. Which is just waste of time in 21st century

Posted by whatawicket on (July 9, 2012, 11:08 GMT)

yorkpudding pudding as india make money of tv rights of their games saying they will not play away should negate that as an excuse. i said a couple of month ago that home teams are the 1s to say if its used should be the way to go.

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 11:02 GMT)

In my opinion What's the use of these reports? When individual boards love to tweak the footage to their convenience in connivance with telecast companies. It happened against India many times.

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 11:02 GMT)

Well, I think DRS should be used in Tests At least... Why BCCI is opposing??? 'Something is better then nothing' if there is technology available that can assist umpires for correct decisions that it should be use..remember nothing is perfect in the world, it will get better with the time but for God Sake use the technology..

Posted by whatawicket on (July 9, 2012, 11:02 GMT)

the so called others , i think will fall in with india in agreement if india feel inclined now to use it. as will all the so called doubters on these forums.

Posted by Venki_indian on (July 9, 2012, 10:57 GMT)

@desilvac39 BCCI is never responsible for not implementing DRS, they have the right to express their opinion and point flaws in the system. tell me why DRS not user in SL vs Pak series? BCCI is doing the right thing.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 9, 2012, 10:48 GMT)

One suggestion I've heard of is that it should be the Hosts decision as to whether the DRS is used rather than the current bi-lateral agreement. The worst case scenario is that India refuse to tour countries that make DRS mandatory when playing at home.

Posted by desilvac39 on (July 9, 2012, 10:43 GMT)

If India not like to play with DRS then please let them play without DRS. If all other countries need to play with DRS then who will come to play with India. Then India has no choice and should play with DRS. Simple theory other countries shoud not play with India if they don't accepet the latest technology.

Posted by Noel-Kalicharan on (July 9, 2012, 10:36 GMT)

The accuracy, or otherwise, of the DRS is not the problem. It is the ridiculous way it is used, giving teams 1 or 2 reviews, that is the problem. For example, if you lose your 1 review on a very marginal decision early on, you can still be the victim of poor decisions later on, with no recourse. Isn't the DRS meant to address those? The best way is to let the umpires ask for it on close LBW calls, the way they do for catches, run-outs and boundary calls. Why discriminate against LBWs? If this is done, we will avoid the current farce where is batsman is given out when not out and vice versa. In the 2nd ODI against New Zealand, Pollard would not have been given out LBW with a ball clearly missing leg stump.

Posted by no.1_multicultural_team on (July 9, 2012, 10:35 GMT)

I simply do not understand why Indian board is being demonised for not accepting something they don't like. They are entitled to do what they think is best in their interest. That they have some control over ICC and hence can chose to do what they want to do in their best interest and also possibly influence some others in their favour is not something unheard of. Everyone does it when they can.Its no big deal.Get over it.It is India time.

Posted by   on (July 9, 2012, 10:33 GMT)

As long as the results are accurate then no Country should stop implementing the DRS. Every one is blaming BCCI for this and however I am noticing that other bilateral series where India is not involved are also not using DRS which means BCCI is not responsible for the implementation of DRS by other Countries. If cost is an issue then ICC should find a framework to see how this cost can be shared between the boards. Alternatively, ICC can discuss with the developer to see whether the cost can be brought down so every Cricket playing Country can use this facility.

Posted by Rahul_78 on (July 9, 2012, 10:26 GMT)

The good doctor Ed Rosten can very well convince the ICC board of executives with his research and theories but I am sure he wont be able to convince the likes of Michael Holding who were commentating when Eoin Morgan was reprieved in the ODI against OZ. It is not the question weather Morgan was out or not..the bottom line is the video evidence provided under DRS was inconclusive and contrasting. DRS comprises evidence provided by collective technological inventions such as Hawk / Eagle eye, Snicko and Hot spot and these different technologies were not able to pin point at exactly same conclusion and this has happened many a times. I am not against DRS and I seriously think BCCI stands on its usage is not right but it is a truth that the technology is not 100% accurate and even though it is gauged through supremely developed cameras and machines it is still dependent on the technicians handling it who are prone to make mistakes while handling it.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Daniel BrettigClose
Daniel Brettig Assistant editor Daniel Brettig had been a journalist for eight years when he joined ESPNcricinfo, but his fascination with cricket dates back to the early 1990s, when his dad helped him sneak into the family lounge room to watch the end of day-night World Series matches well past bedtime. Unapologetically passionate about indie music and the South Australian Redbacks, Daniel's chief cricketing achievement was to dismiss Wisden Almanack editor Lawrence Booth in the 2010 Ashes press match in Perth - a rare Australian victory that summer.
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days