ICC news August 3, 2013

India in discussions over DRS compromise

104

India have been offered a compromise solution in an effort to persuade them to accept the Decision Review System so it can be universally adopted at international level.

The BCCI currently refuses to sanction use of the DRS in series involving India and, under the chairmanship of N Srinivasan at the ICC, has declined the recommendation of the ICC'S cricket committee to embrace the DRS in all formats of the game at international level.

Supporters of DRS are optimistic, however, that the BCCI's attitude to the issue has softened and believe that misgivings are now less about the technology and more about the number of reviews allowed in each innings.

At present, two unsuccessful reviews are allowed in each Test innings but private discussions have led some to believe that the BCCI favours unlimited reviews.

Unlimited reviews are likely to remain unacceptable to the ICC on the grounds that it risks slowing the pace of the game and encourages speculative use of the system.

But a compromise has been suggested whereby a side would not lose one of its two reviews if its appeal only failed on the basis of "umpire's call" - the margin of error built in to give the on-field umpires the benefit of the doubt in marginal decisions.

The BCCI declined to comment, but a spokesman did admit that they had been in discussions with the ICC over the issue "for a while."

It may also be relevant that Jagmohan Dalmiya is currently the acting president of the BCCI in the absence of Srinivasan, who temporarily stepped aside to ensure no perception of bias while the BCCI looked into allegations of spot fixing within the IPL.

The ICC has also sponsored testing of various ball-tracking methods in recent times, with the results generally vindicating faith in the system.

The timing of the news that universal introduction of DRS is back on the agenda is still surprising. The current Investec Ashes series between England and Australia has contained several umpiring controversies and highlighted deficiencies with the DRS system. Indications are that discussions began before the series and may be difficult to maintain.

But while the ICC have accepted there have been problems during the Ashes, they feel they have been caused more by failures in protocols or human error than problems with the technology.

As a result of the problems, the ICC will consider developing specialist TV umpires and are also using the current Ashes series to trial an updated system whereby the TV umpire will have access to more images and technology than ever before rather than being reliant on the broadcaster to provide a limited number of images.

It is also possible that overseas umpires could be invited to officiate in county cricket. Up to four or five umpires may be accommodated for up to a season at a time in order for them to gain experience and add to the number of officials eligible to stand in Ashes series.

At present the ICC's elite list of international umpires contains only four men who can stand in Tests between England and Australia due to the neutrality rules that prevent on-field or TV umpires officiating in games involving their home nation.

Billy Bowden, the New Zealand umpire removed from the elite list in June after some modest performances, may be reinstated in a bid to ease the burden on the four officials involved in the back-to-back Ashes series, and there is an acceptance from the ICC that further reinforcements are required.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • landl47 on August 5, 2013, 3:11 GMT

    The 'compromise' mentioned in the article, that a side which has a review fail because of 'umpire's call' does not lose a review, is not only good if it keeps India happy, it's good full stop. It should be universally adopted immediately.

    The current series has had its problems. However, it is notable that very few decisions of the on-field umpires have been reversed. If anything, the 3rd umpire has erred on the side of not overturning decisions (notable exceptions being the Trott LBW and Agar caught behind).

    If next year we get automated, real-time snicko, most of the debate will cease. Hotspot, for obvious reasons, is the least reliable indicator in marginal cases. Change the umpire's call rule and the process will be very reliable- though not, Ashwini, 100% mistake proof. I'm not sure if you realize this, but nothing made by humans is mistake proof. I'll settle for the highest degree of accuracy that can be achieved and for that technology is necessary.

  • GrindAR on August 7, 2013, 4:05 GMT

    @Smithie: It is not the question of DRS technology in most part. Its about what are the resources DRS depend upon. If the media resources are used, then they will have the say in missing captures or partial captures, which make DRS helpless. It has to have certain number of rendered frames to make sure the whole incident is captured fully and available fully for the referee/umpire to visualize clearly. That itself is a question now, and very visibly the issue in on going ashes. Let ICC provide a standalone umpire package with their standalone/non-shared resources. Then, yes it can be used as a mandatory requirement. Until then, let ICC spend time and money on it to make it stable and standalone affordable package for the hosts (SURELY NOT COMBINED WITH MEDIA RIGTS).

  • CricketChat on August 6, 2013, 11:58 GMT

    Hope ICC can make DRS mandatory for international matches. The hosting country should bear the costs of setting up. ICC should provide assistance to those countries that may not have the financial wherewithal.

  • chathuradil on August 6, 2013, 5:07 GMT

    A good call that it doesn't waste a review on "umpires call". Two reviews in an innings of a test is the optimum amount, i guess. Other than that captains may go for more and more reviews and it will kill the over rate as the writer has stated here. Technology is a good thing. Every sport should move on with it. It can correct human errors and can make most fair decision than the on field umpire who sees the incident just split of a second. But there should be available all the tools including hot-spot, snico and hawk-eye view. The most recent decision review case was that KP was ruled out in the Eng's 1st innings of 3rd Ashes by the on-field umpire. KP took time to go for a review, coz he didn't feel that he had an inside edge. There was a tiny hot-spot appeared but it was not enough to turn down the on field umpires call. But lately Snico did show the edge. So it is mandatory to see the snico in a DRS, not lately but on time.

  • on August 5, 2013, 19:17 GMT

    The best option on DRS et al - trash DRS & the 3rd umpire. Both sides may have 2 / 3 of their own members watching on TV, allowed as many replays as they can get within 30 secs. The fielding side may withdraw the appeal. After the fielding side appeals, the batsman may be asked to walk (by his team-mates). If the side suffering the error spots an incorrect decision any time before the next break, they can simply say what would have happened upto the break, the match continues after the break as though what they said had happened. Nobody will have the guts to claim borderline / half-volley catches as if they are sure, batsmen who nick will not wait, umpires will be left with the necessary mental peace to actually decide on the actually borderline / tough decisions.

  • on August 5, 2013, 17:03 GMT

    I think ICC should remove hotspot and use only a snicko

  • on August 5, 2013, 14:57 GMT

    To improve the DRS system, ICC need to do the following to remove its teething problems : "To implement the DRS they need to Paint the Crease with Yellow or Red or Phosporscent colors, have Crease or Front Crease Call men at the end of the Crease on the both sides of the wicket and and at both ends, just like is the system in Tennis courts from where the idea has been taken and being used in Cricket for the Run out and Stumping Decisions. Also the Ball should have a "LED" inbuilt that can light up on contact with the bat or vice versa the Cricket Bat should have the LED that lights up on contact with ball, which is better probability since the Bats being so large can have a Micro Electronics Chip with LED installed in it to remove all doubts and so that Umpires with eyesight problem can see the light and if they are "ColorBlind" should be provided with Color code scheme to judge the decisiion.

  • Smithie on August 5, 2013, 14:47 GMT

    @ProdigyA please give an instance where DRS TECHNOLOGY has been incorrect. There have been a very few instances where hotspot has failed to register feathers but there have been more examples where it has overturned incorrect onfield umpires decisions. The objective is to MINIMISE umpiring errors - not eradicate them. DRS technology has improved cricket. DRS human protocols need revision because it is in this area that the vast majority of the angst is arising

  • on August 5, 2013, 14:46 GMT

    The ICC will go to any length in saying the DRS is not the problem and it is Human error in the ongoing Investec Ashes Series, India should stick to its NO Use of DRS as it is not a "failproof" system and the 2 reviews or 10 reviews will make no difference if the Umpires continue to do the "Human Error" 10 out 10 times.

  • ProdigyA on August 5, 2013, 13:34 GMT

    The DRS itself is going thru its worst possible crisis since its inception. The number of howlers that DRS is making during the Ashes is ridiculous and we are bare halfway through it. It seems the umpires are a bit more relaxed because of the DRS which inturn is failing terribly. Its becoming a lose-lose situation. Even today KP's dismissal was again another fail by DRS.

  • landl47 on August 5, 2013, 3:11 GMT

    The 'compromise' mentioned in the article, that a side which has a review fail because of 'umpire's call' does not lose a review, is not only good if it keeps India happy, it's good full stop. It should be universally adopted immediately.

    The current series has had its problems. However, it is notable that very few decisions of the on-field umpires have been reversed. If anything, the 3rd umpire has erred on the side of not overturning decisions (notable exceptions being the Trott LBW and Agar caught behind).

    If next year we get automated, real-time snicko, most of the debate will cease. Hotspot, for obvious reasons, is the least reliable indicator in marginal cases. Change the umpire's call rule and the process will be very reliable- though not, Ashwini, 100% mistake proof. I'm not sure if you realize this, but nothing made by humans is mistake proof. I'll settle for the highest degree of accuracy that can be achieved and for that technology is necessary.

  • GrindAR on August 7, 2013, 4:05 GMT

    @Smithie: It is not the question of DRS technology in most part. Its about what are the resources DRS depend upon. If the media resources are used, then they will have the say in missing captures or partial captures, which make DRS helpless. It has to have certain number of rendered frames to make sure the whole incident is captured fully and available fully for the referee/umpire to visualize clearly. That itself is a question now, and very visibly the issue in on going ashes. Let ICC provide a standalone umpire package with their standalone/non-shared resources. Then, yes it can be used as a mandatory requirement. Until then, let ICC spend time and money on it to make it stable and standalone affordable package for the hosts (SURELY NOT COMBINED WITH MEDIA RIGTS).

  • CricketChat on August 6, 2013, 11:58 GMT

    Hope ICC can make DRS mandatory for international matches. The hosting country should bear the costs of setting up. ICC should provide assistance to those countries that may not have the financial wherewithal.

  • chathuradil on August 6, 2013, 5:07 GMT

    A good call that it doesn't waste a review on "umpires call". Two reviews in an innings of a test is the optimum amount, i guess. Other than that captains may go for more and more reviews and it will kill the over rate as the writer has stated here. Technology is a good thing. Every sport should move on with it. It can correct human errors and can make most fair decision than the on field umpire who sees the incident just split of a second. But there should be available all the tools including hot-spot, snico and hawk-eye view. The most recent decision review case was that KP was ruled out in the Eng's 1st innings of 3rd Ashes by the on-field umpire. KP took time to go for a review, coz he didn't feel that he had an inside edge. There was a tiny hot-spot appeared but it was not enough to turn down the on field umpires call. But lately Snico did show the edge. So it is mandatory to see the snico in a DRS, not lately but on time.

  • on August 5, 2013, 19:17 GMT

    The best option on DRS et al - trash DRS & the 3rd umpire. Both sides may have 2 / 3 of their own members watching on TV, allowed as many replays as they can get within 30 secs. The fielding side may withdraw the appeal. After the fielding side appeals, the batsman may be asked to walk (by his team-mates). If the side suffering the error spots an incorrect decision any time before the next break, they can simply say what would have happened upto the break, the match continues after the break as though what they said had happened. Nobody will have the guts to claim borderline / half-volley catches as if they are sure, batsmen who nick will not wait, umpires will be left with the necessary mental peace to actually decide on the actually borderline / tough decisions.

  • on August 5, 2013, 17:03 GMT

    I think ICC should remove hotspot and use only a snicko

  • on August 5, 2013, 14:57 GMT

    To improve the DRS system, ICC need to do the following to remove its teething problems : "To implement the DRS they need to Paint the Crease with Yellow or Red or Phosporscent colors, have Crease or Front Crease Call men at the end of the Crease on the both sides of the wicket and and at both ends, just like is the system in Tennis courts from where the idea has been taken and being used in Cricket for the Run out and Stumping Decisions. Also the Ball should have a "LED" inbuilt that can light up on contact with the bat or vice versa the Cricket Bat should have the LED that lights up on contact with ball, which is better probability since the Bats being so large can have a Micro Electronics Chip with LED installed in it to remove all doubts and so that Umpires with eyesight problem can see the light and if they are "ColorBlind" should be provided with Color code scheme to judge the decisiion.

  • Smithie on August 5, 2013, 14:47 GMT

    @ProdigyA please give an instance where DRS TECHNOLOGY has been incorrect. There have been a very few instances where hotspot has failed to register feathers but there have been more examples where it has overturned incorrect onfield umpires decisions. The objective is to MINIMISE umpiring errors - not eradicate them. DRS technology has improved cricket. DRS human protocols need revision because it is in this area that the vast majority of the angst is arising

  • on August 5, 2013, 14:46 GMT

    The ICC will go to any length in saying the DRS is not the problem and it is Human error in the ongoing Investec Ashes Series, India should stick to its NO Use of DRS as it is not a "failproof" system and the 2 reviews or 10 reviews will make no difference if the Umpires continue to do the "Human Error" 10 out 10 times.

  • ProdigyA on August 5, 2013, 13:34 GMT

    The DRS itself is going thru its worst possible crisis since its inception. The number of howlers that DRS is making during the Ashes is ridiculous and we are bare halfway through it. It seems the umpires are a bit more relaxed because of the DRS which inturn is failing terribly. Its becoming a lose-lose situation. Even today KP's dismissal was again another fail by DRS.

  • on August 5, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    I think the idea given by the ICC to BCCI is much better side would not lose one of its two reviews if its appeal only failed on the basis of "umpire's call" - the margin of error built in to give the on-field umpires the benefit of the doubt in marginal decisions.

  • bljangidmorla on August 5, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    1 unsuccessfull review for each batsman for both batting and fielding sides.

  • satishchandar on August 5, 2013, 6:36 GMT

    Lets think like this.. Two reviews for every team.. Every wrong review that follows will have 10 runs penalty.. Unless you are so sure, player wouldn't risk 10 runs.. And, the reviews which are based on "Stick with on field decision" shouldn't be counted as wrong review.. Just continue with the stuffs.. Frame a clear guideline like the same for the other decisions too.. A very close edge detected only by the hawk eye and not detectable with the replay(deflection or a clear edge) should be counted as void review.. This would make more sense.. One more request.. 10% fine for the umpires for every wrong decision thru review.. After all, they haven't used the available expensive technology well and let them share the expenses for that :-)

  • docsunny on August 5, 2013, 3:39 GMT

    It is asinine in today's world not to adopt technology as it has become pretty standard in all spheres of life including sports , India seems reluctant to adopt DRS. I wonder what they have to fear. Agreed that DRS is not flawless but it cuts out blatant errors and howlers. In my opinion DRS can be better utilized if it taken out of players hands and handled solely by umpires. A set of TV umpires should monitor the game and notify the field umpires immediately if they pick up any errors . Additionally the umpires on the field should ask for clarification whenever in doubt . The review option should be taken away form the players. We have the technology, we just have to learn how to use it.And the more we will gain experience with it , the better we will get with it. C'mon India , come off age , we are living in the age of self driven cars..

  • jaguar7777 on August 5, 2013, 3:34 GMT

    i had written earlier and i am repeating myself again, if the idea of drs is to get the correct verdict then why restrict the reviews to two in a test match inning and one each in an odi or t20. i think 4 and 2 respectively will be a fair call.unlimited would be a mockery of the system and waste of time as well.with the current limit, clever use of the technology favours one side or the other.another good thing to add would be to allow the field umpires to use the technology themselves or better still to allow the third umpire to overrule any obvious mistake.chris broad's decision is a good example on the ugly side of drs

  • osecond on August 5, 2013, 0:18 GMT

    In my humble opinion, hotspot improves the decision review significantly than the snicko. As a general rule, bring in specialist TV umpire instead of using on field umpires should be considered as both are different roles (review vs action)

    In tournaments or test series, instead of allowing reviews per match, it could be interesting if it is allotted per series basis. It would be certainly add strategic thinking to the game.

  • Nathan74 on August 4, 2013, 21:51 GMT

    After watching the current Ashes matches do you still want to go down the DRS route. So far no one have investigated the umpires for match fixing either. Unless the DRS technology is improved and umpires are investigated India should not agree DRS

  • on August 4, 2013, 19:59 GMT

    DRS is not 100% mistake proof, as evident from the curent Ashes series. It is creating more problems then it was intented to solve. There ought to be a better solution.

  • on August 4, 2013, 19:18 GMT

    ColdCoffee, penalty is a good idea, but 5 runs is almost a joke. If it was Cook for England, Gayle for WI, Kohli for India, Smith for SA, Misbah for Pak, Clark for Aus, any side would take a speculative review for 5 runs. The penalty should be 20% of the batsman's average in his last 5 innings, mounting by 10% for every failed review.

  • on August 4, 2013, 18:45 GMT

    Dear Mr. David Richardson CEO ICC.

    Greetings.

    I take this opportunity to submit the following ideas for your. Kind consideration, for the betterment of the glorious game of cricket, as well as, enhancement of its image.

    1. It should be made mandatory for the TV camera to show the stopped coin after the toss. This will remove any doubt about the rumours that huge money is involved in betting regarding the toss decision, which obviously is not shown these days on the TV screens.

    2. Rules regarding the UDRS may be amended so that batting or bowling side may ask for unlimited number of reviews, with a condition that EVERY unsuccessful review will result in deduction of 10 runs from the grand total of the team's TOTAL score, as UDRS penalty; only for deciding the result of the match. It is repeated that these penalty runs will not be deducted from the individual scores of the batsmen, but only from the total score of the team, to only just decide the winner of the match.

  • symsun on August 4, 2013, 18:37 GMT

    Keep it simple. For lbw, let's check whether it pitched outside leg or the batsman had edged to pad. No need to track the ball, let the in-field umpire take the call.

    Normal TV replays with slow motion and zoom are enough to find edges, if its not conclusive, regardless of in-field call, give the benefit of doubt to the batsman just like runouts.

    How simple is it. Don't waste money on technology where you actually don't need. Keep the sport as sport. Spend the money to develop cricket or help those cricket loving fans who comes to stadium with cheaper tickets. Don't just think to steal peoples money.

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 4, 2013, 17:52 GMT

    Given the amount of controversy that still seems to surround DRS in each & every match - just look at the three Ashes tests thus far - I can fully understand why IND are reticent about the whole process. It certainly hasn't got rid of the howlers, and as so much of the 50/50 DRS calls hinge on the umpire's decision anyway, why waste the time & money - just go with the umpire's original decision. We see far too many batsman now walking off shaking their heads and 'carrying on' like petulant children - they should cop it on the chin and accept the umpire's call, just like the many generations of test cricketers before them. Yes, I am an OZ fan and I realise that some of our players are amongst the worst offenders in this regard.

  • Priyavrat96 on August 4, 2013, 17:39 GMT

    BCCI has done the good thing for not using DRS because DRS is not properly working in England during the ashes series which has raised problems for the Australia cricket

  • coldcoffee123 on August 4, 2013, 17:36 GMT

    I do not understand why ICC keeps coming up with ever more complex "solution". The simplest solution is to penalize teams for every wasted review. Every review that goes wasted is essentially a speculative review in the first place. So, put a 5-run penalty on the team that uses DRS and gets it wrong. This way, the teams will use DRS only when they are convinced beyond doubt that the on-field umpire made a mistake.

  • Cpt.Meanster on August 4, 2013, 17:30 GMT

    I have always supported the use of DRS. This is good news that the BCCI are still considering the use of technology. As the world's cricketing superpower, it is up to them to oversee the betterment of the game in the future. Nothing is perfect in this world, but it never hurts to try. I am curious to see how these developments take shape. Unlimited reviews is not a good idea because it will prolong the game by a big margin. This will doubly impact test cricket because already a lot of people have lost interest in the format. Unlimited reviews will only extend an already 'long' format. They could have 3 reviews instead of 2 and leave the rest of it as it is. They can also bring in SNICKO to shed light on edges.

  • on August 4, 2013, 17:13 GMT

    cricket 2 much technology and drama and drs is poor also

  • timohyj on August 4, 2013, 16:17 GMT

    unlimited reviews is just a short step away from umpire controlled review whihc is the most logical solution

  • ADI2608 on August 4, 2013, 16:06 GMT

    I know that most of the people supporting DRS argues that it gives right decisions mor often than not...but what about the completely bizzare ones like KHWAJA and TROTT...now my friends would argue that one of those was due to poor umpiring..but arent the umpires part of DRS....shouldnt they be trained thouroughly beforeusing the whole DRS system....and also that DRS is very expensive....so even at the expense of money and TIME...if we cant geta correct decision than whats its use....the only decisions it has succeeded to correct are quite obvious ones where field umpires have done a poor job...but in all close ones the system has failed....I love technology but i wont buy an iphone5 if i cant make calls or listen to music on it...i bet everyone would return an iphone back to the store if it has a teeny tiny problem though it might be better than all other phones.....SIMPLE LOGIC...and plus if SACHIN TENDULKAR doesnt like the system , then there must be something..

  • Nutcutlet on August 4, 2013, 16:04 GMT

    The essential point here is not the merits & demerits of DRS & those who are charged to come up with correct decisions, but the simple fact that the BCCI is, at last & after a considerable hiatus, prepared to engage in discussion. Any genuine discussion is welcome! This is reason for rejoicing in itself as it seems to me that there has been a great deal of bad feeling engendered by the BCCI, precisely because Srinivasan would 'never discuss, never explain' (the precise expression I have used several times hereabouts over the months) & that inflexible attitude of his created an impasse that prevented any meaningful discussion with the BCCI by other goverening bodies away from the subcontinent. To all those who have decided to step out of the trench, well done. Keep talking & all things become possible. Stop talking (again) & nothing gets sorted out. (PS Does this mean that the ICC is also going to get its act together now? They have much work to do!)

  • on August 4, 2013, 15:46 GMT

    Unlimited reviews but fine the whole team 10% of their match fee for every unsuccessful one! That will make them think.

  • binojpeter on August 4, 2013, 15:32 GMT

    @jmcilhinney Also I don't think any player will review if he is bowled or he gives a clear edge to the slip as in 99% situations I have seen, players walk even without looking at the umpires. So only decisions that will get reviewed are faint edges and lbws.

  • binojpeter on August 4, 2013, 15:23 GMT

    @ jmcilhinney What is the problem in reviewing it and removing the doubts? Is it not player entitled to know the truth and whether umpire made a mistake especially the rate at which we know the umpires now make mistakes?

  • on August 4, 2013, 15:02 GMT

    BCCI's reason for opposing DRS as it is 'not perfect' is nothing but a ridiculous excuse. Is there anything in this world which is 100% foolproof and perfect? If DRS is not perfect, what is the alternative? Rely on human umpiring alone, which is even more imperfect? The attempt should be to make the game as error-free as possible - DRS has been unquestionably demonstrated to bring down umpiring errors significantly. Cricket matches should be decided on players' competence and not umpires' incompetence.

  • a328232 on August 4, 2013, 14:52 GMT

    Increase the number of total reviews to 5. What is so complex in that.

  • on August 4, 2013, 14:29 GMT

    Invest in making the technology better:

    Why does it take too long to have snicko used in the decision process? Make it quicker.

    Why does hotspot miss some feather-edges? Fix it.

    Hawkeye may seem the best but it seems to be taken to be the absolute truth - it's not, it's a prediction, and while the "umpire's call" accounts for some error, it doesn't factor in how much of the ball's bath is predicted. A batsman can run 10 yards down the track and be struck on the pads, reviewed and given out over basically a complete guess. It's s similar issue for spinners when there is a very small distance between the ball pitching and hitting the pad - can DRS be sure how much the ball has turned based on one or two sample points? This all needs looking at too.

  • jmcilhinney on August 4, 2013, 14:20 GMT

    @Narayanasamy Balasubramanian on (August 4, 2013, 11:44 GMT), firstly, I assume that you mean the first Test because there was no DRS involved in Haddin's dismissals in the second Test. Secondly, Haddin said himself that he hit the ball in the second innings at Trent Bridge so I'm not sure how anyone can use that as an example of anything other than how DRS can correct a wrong decision. Thirdly, how can leaving it to the on-field umpire to decide whether the players have a legitimate case for a review work? If an umpire gives a batsman out then he must be sure that he's out so how would they ever think that a batsman had a legitimate case to demand a review?

  • jmcilhinney on August 4, 2013, 14:10 GMT

    @binojpeter on (August 4, 2013, 13:34 GMT), do you watch cricket? Did you see the England-vs India series recently when there were three or four appeals per over? What makes you think that every one of those appeals wouldn't have been reviewed? If there's no penalty for doing so then why would the players not review everything?

  • binojpeter on August 4, 2013, 13:34 GMT

    I don't understand why everybody is against unlimited reviews. Already umpires have unlimited reviews for run outs. Why shouldn't players have unlimited reviews? I don't think that it will take up lot of time if it is implemented.

  • PeterJerome on August 4, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    Do away with all umpires. Let the on-field players decide whether one is out or not. Its called a gentlemen's game after all.

  • recycle-bin-is-empty on August 4, 2013, 12:52 GMT

    DRS is good for the game, only that its present from, the way it is used is not. It can be made much more efficient. I remember reading an interview of Srinivasan on this site about an year or so ago where he mentioned somewhat similar sentiments, that BCCI is not opposed to DRS but the way it is used. Though other members of BCCI have raised concerns about the technology itself. Regardless, I hope BCCI accepts DRS and also the implementation of DRS be changed.

    I think if, a big IF, BCCI acts really stubborn over the inifinite number of reviews in a match, I think it will still be fine and good for the game. Only that rules should be made to ensure that players reviewing wrongly should be punished or better the team should be punished by imposing penalty of a few runs except for in case of some very marginal calls, where the umpires can see that the player reviewing is using it on fair terms.

  • mngc1 on August 4, 2013, 12:22 GMT

    Those arguing that DRS is faulty have to distinguish between technology and the humans using it.The human body that takes still frames at 10 per second and made into a motion picture by the brain is no match for multiple cameras at 400 frames or more per sec.The fix is properly training people who use it. All decisions in the "On field" call should be made not out to standardize the system and level the playing field. Increase the reviews with a charge for failed additional reviews so frivolous ones will cost. Increase the review TV size to help close decisions. Whilst there are certain conditions where the technology is not perfect it would still be in the 90+% range compared to humans that are currently in the 25 % range based on counts that I did..

  • RednWhiteArmy on August 4, 2013, 12:16 GMT

    Why do people say "why don't we have unlimited reviews?" or "let the umpires review everything"? . 5 day cricket would become 8 or 9 day cricket, do you get it now? It needs to be limited & 2 is perfect. It adds to the drama of test cricket & I cant stand playing India because they stubbornly wont use it. India are the most boring team in the world to play.

  • on August 4, 2013, 12:13 GMT

    Nice DRS should be must for all

  • on August 4, 2013, 11:44 GMT

    There should not be any limit in seeking DRS. Just like run-out decisions the umpire on the field has to refer to the third umpire whenever the fielders or batsman raised a genuine doubt. It is up to the umpires on the field to decide whether it is genuine or not. Haddin was unnecessarily declared out by the DRS in the Ashes second test match.

  • ArMd on August 4, 2013, 11:16 GMT

    each batsman should be given a single review and each bowler should be given 2 reviews

  • Rajnish_aggarwal on August 4, 2013, 11:09 GMT

    Purpose of DRS is good. The difference is in its implimentation. Why reviews are limited to just two. Umpires are human beings and can definitely do mistakes and DRS is supposed to correct the wrong decisions. But third umpires and technical staff are adding more wrongs to it by showing replay of different balls, or hot spot not working properly because of colder conditions or slippery surface of bat or ball. Trajectories of ball after hitting pads are often seem to be manipulated. In an innings of 100 odd overs right to review ceases if some team has erred in going in for review two times. it means after that any big blunder of umpire in that innings, after finished with the quota of reviews, it cannot be challanged. So increase the reviews to total 15 including batting and bowling reviews whether it is right or wrong, instead of stopping the reviews after just two wrong ones per innings. 2) Third umpire should be a panel of three.3) Manipulation by technical staff should be checked.

  • on August 4, 2013, 10:36 GMT

    Followup comments-Every doubtful decision should be reviewed by the 3rd umpire prior to being adjudicated by the onfield umpires. Empower the umpires with technology, no need to be "cavemen" in this day & age. If this minimises errors, cricket will be the better for it. Just because until now errors have been continually been made & accepted by the players this should not be allowed to continue. As I propose the need for reviews would be led by the umpires, not the players. This should reduce needless appealing. It would add to the atmosphere; be accepted by the players & public alike as it would be seen as for the betterment of the game. Concentrate on catches, runouts, stumpings & no balls.Hotspots and snickometers have merits. LBWs are a problem because of the inherent problems with predictive paths. Wickets are inherently unpredictable so limited reviews could be used for LBWs. LBWs probably attract the most appeals & errors would be impossible to completely eliminate.

  • on August 4, 2013, 9:59 GMT

    Cricket is the most "rule-based" game in the world. This makes it a very complicated game. Addition of DRS to the rules increases the complications.In an ideal world, introduction of DRS would have meant that the game became fairer. In other words, howlers would get eliminated. But as we have seen, its not happening. The administrators should therefore aim to arrive at a method so that the original objection of DRS is somehow achieved. Debates on the accuracy etc of DRS are of secondary importance!

  • jmcilhinney on August 4, 2013, 9:41 GMT

    @Rob Heinen on (August 4, 2013, 8:10 GMT), don't you think it's just a little bit arrogant to speak for everyone? If we all knew that DRS is nonsense then this debate would not even be going on. DRS has made an effort to retain the importance of on-field umpires, even though many people's suggestions would basically make them redundant. You seem to think that you're a bit more important to the game than you are. From what I've heard, most umpires accept that getting the largest possible number of decisions as right as possible is the most important thing and anything that can help that happen is not nonsense. It obviously needs some tweaking to make the most of it but it's far from a nonsense.

  • StevieS on August 4, 2013, 9:40 GMT

    I disagree with the "Umpires should be the only ones allowed to use DRS." train of thought, it makes them sloppy and lazy, it will also slow the game down. Look what happened to run outs now the batsman will be past the stumps and the umpire will call for the 3rd umpire, it was suppose to stop the millimeter decisions.

  • DamieninFrance on August 4, 2013, 9:40 GMT

    The solution is pretty simple. The problems with the DRS stem from the time taken, and that the call for a review should not be a playing tactic. Umpires already call for a review for catches, and when they're not sure of a no-ball being bowled. The only contentious issue surrounds LBW reviews. Just make it that both sides get two reviews (for missed nicks, or mistaken edges being adjudged caught), and penalise a fielding side one over extra required in their over rate for each time they call for an LBW review, with the judgement procedure remaining the same. Captains have been suspended for matches for poor over rates, and they would baulk at calling for tactical reviews if it meant they would risk missing games because of gamesmanship. Additionally, if folly reviews were being called for, as soon as the 'pitched outside leg stump' evidence was shown, the review would return a not-out result fairly quickly, while adding an extra over to the required rate. A much better solution.

  • --.-- on August 4, 2013, 9:29 GMT

    DRS is full of errors. We have witnessed it before as well. And now Ashes is showing it is full of flaws.

    No wonder BCCI is against it.

    First make it flawless then it should be accepted by all boards.

    How to implement it is also a big issue. Whether Players should go for the reviews or the umpires should have that power or Third-Umpire should overrule the decision of on-field umpire or The Replays should be seen on Big Screen like in Tennis. Too many issues to discuss.

  • on August 4, 2013, 9:04 GMT

    Umpires should be the only ones to refer to the DRS. So the TV umpire can overturn the decision of an on-field umpire. Currently the two successful appeals in an innings works against the spirit of the game. It's more of gamble and less of justice!

  • on August 4, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    Retaining a review in the case of Umpire's call is a good decision. This will curb teams from appealing for every single decision while at the same time eliminating howlers with teams having more reviews at hand. Yes, the pace of the game will still suffer, but i think cricket will be better served in the end.

  • getsetgopk on August 4, 2013, 8:42 GMT

    The recent ashes series have made a bit of mockery of DRS mostly from the Australian side. Such pathetic use of the DRS is playing right into the hands of those who are opposing technology. Squeezing a decision out of the DRS in your favor knowing that its a marginal call at best should never have been reviewed in the first place and there was nothing left when the actual thing came around, the howlers for which it was intended. A shining example of bad publicity but I think ICC should remain steadfast in their stance, maybe increase it to 3 reviews per side but no more and a little tweak to DRS protocols is more than enough and let the Aussie use of DRS be an example to all that if you try to play the system, your gona get the short end of the stick. Nothing wrong with that, its like a DRS misuse penalty. Big no to unlimited reviews, ppl want to see real cricket not hawk eye and 3D animations on their screens all day long.

  • on August 4, 2013, 8:36 GMT

    I would like to see the use of DRS in all international formats of the game. But the right to use the DRS should only be with the on-field umpire. The players can request the umpire for DRS, but its the umpire's call to go for it or not. I feel that the way currently its implemented, its denting the confidence of on-field umpires. That makes them more vulnerable to give bad decisions.

  • Zendog on August 4, 2013, 8:33 GMT

    Umpires should be the only ones allowed to use DRS. If they are unsure they refer to DRS. They should remain the sole adjudicators of the game.

  • WarMonger on August 4, 2013, 8:23 GMT

    Its common sense really. Allow unlimited appeals. But beyond the third appeal, teams will be penalised in terms of deductions from the pay of the appealing player if the appeals are misused (witness the recent contoversy surrounding the Warner case; Clarke knew Warner was out, yet allowed the appeal, thus wasting it). How can this go wrong? Of course, the third umpire must be sufficiently capable, though there will always be a chance for human error.

  • on August 4, 2013, 8:10 GMT

    DRS is nonsense and we all know it. on field umpire mistakes are exchanged for thurd umpire mistakes. having players decide whether or not to review is a limp form of democracy that has no place in any sport. if I Were an umpire - which I am - I would think to myself: You're asking me to pass judgement - how's that? - and then you say: I don't agree with it. Why then bother to ask me in the first place? In fact why bother at all to ask me at all to come an d umpire if you know better.

  • AltafPatel on August 4, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    BCCI wants to dictate the world cricket by their own ideology, though invalid. BCCI need to mind that their values remain till IPL is there. 2008 recession forced shutdown that time reble Indian league ICL. If it comes again and turns for IPL to shutdown, they should accept same response from ICC that they did earlier to them. Time never remains with someone, so be neutral and more adopting to the others and world.

  • milepost on August 4, 2013, 7:44 GMT

    I just don't like it. This Ashes series has hardly been a great advert for the DRS. There's no common sense with it in use and it leaves players and fans bemused. The idea of it is great, the implementation so far is terrible.

  • mjrvasu on August 4, 2013, 7:21 GMT

    When DRS is flooded with 'human' errors by the off-the-field umpires, what is the point? May as well limit the human errors to the umpires on the ground. ICC is trying through backdoors to sneak its own agenda, when Srinivasan is absent.

  • Smithie on August 4, 2013, 7:17 GMT

    It is ironic to say the least that the country who says leave all decisions to the umpires does not have high enough standards to contribute ANY manpower to the Elite ICC panel. With all India 's wealth you would think that they would put resources into raising umpiring standards and contributing their share of umpires. We are constantly told by their supporters that they contribute 80% of global cricket revenue so it is reasonable for them to contribute 80% of elite umpires rather than a big fat ZERO. Given the Srini controversy and Umpire Rauf's removal from the ICC Panel the stance of the BCCI on DRS is strange. If they are so against technology why are they not contributing in any effective way to the human alternative?

  • on August 4, 2013, 7:17 GMT

    (1) A cricket legend, (2) a Captain, & (3) a now sidelined President together do NOT constitute the whole of BCCI. So, please keep that in mind, before commending on the apparent vacillations of BCCI! Unfortunately the three together was a little too powerful. Rather others let these three to be too powerful!

  • on August 4, 2013, 7:08 GMT

    I do believe that it is high time that the Indian dominence over what happens or does not happen in World cricket is ended in the over all interest of the game. The latest stand by BCCI on the Haroon Longart matter is a classic case of over stepping and should not be accepted by the cricketing fraternity. The way the IPL match fixing matter is handled speaks volumes on the state of affairs of BCCI itself. let the BCCI clean themselves up before meddling into the affairs of other's. This would help world cricket better.

  • on August 4, 2013, 7:05 GMT

    Ask any player (e.g. Khawaja) badly affected by DRS and they would confide in private that the current system sucks. The players don't care if it is human error or technology shoft comings. At the end of the day they get dealt a hard blow and careers are consigned to the ashes. The TV umpire panel should contain more than one umpire to mitigate errors. If both TV umpires are in disagreement, benefit should go to the batsman as the bowlers will get more chances to get the batsman out. If the ground umpire is wrong, the decision should be over ruled by the TV umpire panel. No ifs or buts.

  • TommytuckerSaffa on August 4, 2013, 6:47 GMT

    Thank goodness, BCCI are starting to see the light and are interested in adopting the technology. People need to come to grips that bringing technology in the game will develop it and take it to the next level. Its a professional sport now, wrong decisions cost players their livelihoods. Im not saying that DRS the way its currently setup is optimal but these things take time to perfect.

  • on August 4, 2013, 6:37 GMT

    DRS is helpful for every team to come out the confussion of players mind, wheather it's out or not.

  • jmcilhinney on August 4, 2013, 6:13 GMT

    It would be interesting to know the proportion of people that is for and against DRS in each country. I don't think that there's much doubt that the proportion against would be highest in India and it's fairly easy to see why. When the BCCI took an anti-DRS stance, many from other countries attacked the already-somewhat-unpopular BCCI and many Indian fans then adopted an anti-DRS stance as a show of support for their board. Now it appears that the anti-DRS stance of the BCCI may been primarily driven by one man and that his absence has allowed others to make a more pragmatic decision. It will be interesting to see how those Indian fans who have necessarily convinced themselves that DRS is bad react to this. We've already seen some of it here.

  • freddy83 on August 4, 2013, 6:10 GMT

    I think it should be Out or Not out, why do you need an on field umpires call? It means that they don't have complete faith in DRS outcome. If the ball is hitting the stumps it's out if not not out. That's the law of cricket. Stick to it. And they do need specialist TV umpires. Darmasena was awarded the best umpire in the world but he doesn't have a clue to use the technology. And for caught behinds they should have snicko together with hotspot. And there definitely has to be a limitation in reviews otherwise it's just gonna be a joke, everyone reviewing every appeal. The first thing ICC should do is make DRS compulsory and give the technology to all test playing nations. The inconsistency with the usage of DRS is confusing players and umpires alike. With consistent usage i think DRS will eventually become a success.

  • on August 4, 2013, 5:41 GMT

    Couple of things need to happen. (A) It makes sense to remove the "Umpire's Call" decisions out of the allowed number of appeals. (B) The third umpire needs to be better trained to review available technology to take the right decisions. It should be recognized that the skills required for third umpires are slightly different from that of the on-field umpires (C) The third umpire's powers to intervene & areas of purview should be enhanced (D) In addition to the two teams, the on-field umpires should be allowed to take decisions on when they can refer to the third umpire (E)Current rules relating to the reviews allowed to the fielding side are in the right direction but tweaking is required for the batting team reviews. As of now, the rules favor the earlier batsmen who could use up the reviews to the detriment of the lower middle order. Also, ego of the batsman, lack of objectivity & the power equations between the striker and the non-striker may adversely impact calls for review

  • AlbertPintoGussaHua on August 4, 2013, 5:25 GMT

    If DRS is used then please do not put any artificial constraints on it, like the number of reviews or umpires call, etc. No half-baked measures should be accepted. Once review is requested, the TV umpire should look at all the evidence and give a ruling -- out or not. Don't send it back to the on field umpire. And keep Dharamsena away from TV umpiring.

  • Indiana_jones99 on August 4, 2013, 5:07 GMT

    It is obvious that the DRS system is not working and should be scrapped and the umpire in consultation with 3rd umpire and using all means of technology to give the decision in all but the obvious ones. Take a leaf from the rugby referee. He gives a try c lose to the touchline ONLY after consultation with the video referee NOT AFTER he has made his decision. This takes out many of the anamolies associated with the current DRS system. This unnecessarily makes the umpires look silly. The suggested method will only enhance the umpire's standing. Also if more than half the ball hitting the stump should be given out for LBWs which will eliminate which will again eliminate the anamoly with LBWs. Just to illustrate these changes in the current Ashes series : Broad would have walked. KP would have given LBW in the current test when he was 62. Bell would have been given out caught at 4. Hope common sens prevails and the ICC implements these changes ASAP. Also will cut down incessant appeals

  • hasib9 on August 4, 2013, 5:05 GMT

    Why does it matter whether India accepts it or not? Cricket playing nations should vote, and majority vote will decide the fate of DRS., simple! ICC needs to step up and take charge before cricket becomes just like politics.

  • calcu on August 4, 2013, 5:03 GMT

    DRS should be made compulsory . The System is perfect, it is the umpires which are not using it correctly.

  • on August 4, 2013, 4:54 GMT

    Considering the amount of time taken for every review (hardly 90 to 120 seconds), ICC should think of allowing any number of reviews during a game. Everyone is going to enjoy reviews and accept the right decisions! it will add more interest to the game and eliminating the discussions about the manual errors or running out reviews.

    Who knows matches will be over sooner than scheduled time if the DRS used and takes all correct decisions by the system.

    Yes, give more images and views for the TV umpires or let them work with the broadcast team directly so they can directly seems all camera angles needed.

    If we use technology for reviews and making decisions then the teams should be able to use it for the entire game - no limits. We can focus on the game and quality of the players instead of the umpire's human error.

  • on August 4, 2013, 4:10 GMT

    DRS has worked well 90% of the time and should be adopted India should not be allowed to dictate terms they have to accept it

  • on August 4, 2013, 3:42 GMT

    The DRS system is very difficult to get right, coz it neva considers the roughness on the ball, it dosn scan the pitch surface or measure the breeze . The movement of the balls differs based on these attributes,rather the movement of the ball could alter based on these attributes even if it bowled in the same trajectory and revolutions.

  • SamRoy on August 4, 2013, 3:40 GMT

    Well if BCCI proposes to accept DRS with no team losing reviews on umpire's call it will be the best form of DRS in use in the world. Any way, we would want snicko and better hawkeye as well to be more conclusive as in Indian conditions often hotspot will be a total failure because of the external heat.

  • pinn on August 4, 2013, 3:35 GMT

    DRS by itself is a perfect system, as the on field umpires for cricket. If someone makes a mistake ( list the Aussies case), it is as good as the on field umpire makes the mistake. But the chances are very minimal, as there is no excuse in 2nd umpiring with so much of technologies around him.

    India used DRS to full extent in the ICC champions trophy ( and they had poor DRS history before that ) and realizing the benefits of the same. I believe, the number of reviews should be increased and if they are not using in one match , needs to be carried forward to benefit in some other situation.

  • on August 4, 2013, 3:24 GMT

    DRS should be exercised by the field umpires when they feel they are in doubt. Limited number of reviews to the teams is meaningless. It should be left to the honesty and integrity of th field umpires to exercise the right o ask for a review, IN the Khwaja case, it was clear that evek third umpires can make mistakes. In Broad's case, though the batsman was out, their was no review left to appeal for DRS! Let the filed umpires be given the full control of the match and be humble and honest enough to accept a review.

  • on August 4, 2013, 3:20 GMT

    The deficiencies were predominantly to do with bad decisions to review by players, and also bad calls from third umpires. The technology itself isn't under any cloud in the Ashes, but the decisions of third umpires have been questionable at best. More guidance, and perhaps what the NRL are doing and have 2 x third umpires to concur on a decision to allow greater scrutiny will completely fix the issue. I would still like to see penalties given for incorrect reviews to discourage strategic use, but I like the idea of not losing a review on an umpires call.

  • Rodc on August 4, 2013, 3:20 GMT

    Along with the DRS i think the third umpire should be given more power,he should be able to no balls if the on field umpire fail to call it,as we can see from reply that the bowler some times oversteps the line but the on field umpire fails to notice it.

  • on August 4, 2013, 2:48 GMT

    Finally DRS is getting accepted by India. The technology is good, the umpires using it have been poor

  • wrenx on August 4, 2013, 2:24 GMT

    @Waqar Hasan I disagree, if anything, the batting side should have FEWER reviews, not more. Ideally, the batting team should have 1 and the fielding side should have 3: this would stop speculative use by batsman and only be used for the howler. Ideally, an innings should end with all the reviews intact. The fielding side should get 3, because they need to get an entire team out, and are more adversely affected by incorrect umpiring calls.

  • trumpoz on August 4, 2013, 2:20 GMT

    At long last the BCCI is seeing sense, the compromise with 'umpires call' decisions makes perfect sense, because they are 50/50 and in many purists eyes the umpires are still in the best position to call it. The current issues in the Ashes series are largely nothing to do with the technology (apart from the J.Trott dismissal but that was network error)...... just the people using them - both the Australian team and 3rd umpires.

    I totally object to India's request to have unlimited reviews. I can see now that they will review everything (as well as Shane Watson!). That would remove the need for on-field umpires completely.

    A separate feed to the 3rd umpire aside from the network makes sense after what happened to Trott.

  • humdrum on August 4, 2013, 2:18 GMT

    It seems that the cupboard is bare if umpires with modest performances have to be recalled to ease pressure on the others. Surely there will be a few at the county level who can be drafted in and given some training in the interpretation of the DRS rules and protocols.The focus at present should be how to eliminate the howlers that are effecting the outcome of matches and if it means making the system more player friendly than it is at present, it should be done pronto even if some time is wasted due to such changes. A fair system delivering justice is more important than having a half baked one(as at present) which pleases neither the players, the administrators or the audiences.

  • on August 4, 2013, 2:15 GMT

    I still dont see a clear strategy for use of DRS emerging. It should firstly be for howlers by on field umpires and not for faint nicks and close calls. Power to use DRS should be with umpire and not on review basis with fielding team. Technology should be with umpire and not broadcaster or producer. Use snickometer along with audio and hot spot

  • Happy_hamster on August 4, 2013, 2:10 GMT

    The DRS is meant to prevent howlers and 2 per innings should be sufficient given a review is not lost if an appeal against a howler is successful. HOWEVER it is used for marginal decisions and glaring errors are then not able to be challenges such as Kuwaja and Smith in the current Ashes game. Not losing an appeal when it goes with the umpires decision makes good sense and still deters speculative appeals, still people will whinge however. The awful umpiring in the current series stems from all the best umpires ie. Australian and English not been allowed to officiate.

  • jmcilhinney on August 4, 2013, 2:03 GMT

    This is very good news for everyone. The stand-off between the BCCI and everyone else, be they pro-DRS or just prepared to accept it as progress, has actually hurt the development of the system. The technology has improved and, despite what some people claim, been shown to be an improvement over the eyes of even the best umpires. Most issues we have seen lately - and I admit that there have been a number but not as many as the anti-DRS lobby would have us believe - are procedural. If everyone is on the same page then we can all work together to create the best system possible by implementing the best procedures. I certainly can't agree with the idea of unlimited reviews but a lot of people have been suggesting removing the loss of a review on "umpire's call". I'm not sure that it's the answer but I think that it's worth a try. It may take a few goes to optimise the whole thing but it sounds like genuine efforts are being made to do so. I applaud all those involved.

  • SRAM20 on August 4, 2013, 2:01 GMT

    Nonsense. Hope the BCCI stick to their current stand of opposing the DRS. When the whole world is laughing at the DRS right now, why should the BCCI (who have stuck to the anti-DRS stance) change their stance? DRS IS TRASH!!! Throw it out, and bring the game back to how it was before the DRS nonsense came in.

    Equip the umpires with better technology to make decisions. Don't let the players handle decision making. If the technology is not fast enough to handle decision making on an unlimited level, then that technology should never be used. Only when it gets to a point where technology can let people use it on an unlimited basis and yet not slow down playing time, should it be used. DRS on its current level is unusable!

  • jmcilhinney on August 4, 2013, 1:56 GMT

    @isot on (August 3, 2013, 22:04 GMT), it makes perfect sense and just goes to show that all the people who have been saying that every little DRS issue is vindication of the BCCI's position against it are talking through their hat. The BCCI's position was that the technology used in DRS was unreliable but there is plenty of evidence that that is not the case. The technology is not perfect but noone has ever claimed that it is. Pretty much every issue seen in the is Ashes series so far have been procedural issues and improving the procedures of DRS is orders of magnitude easier than improving the technology.

  • Dinesh_KS on August 4, 2013, 1:51 GMT

    I think idea of not counting the use of DRS if it goes in favor of the team is a great idea. This way even if we allow 2 use of DRS in every test innings, they can get it used many more times if used effectively. Making it unlimited will give option to some players to use it for every LBW appeal and we may end up having only 70 overs or so in a day of test match. Hope this get through ASAP so that unnecessary confusion about its usage before every series of India as well as over criticism of BCCI on its use is gone for ever.

  • on August 4, 2013, 1:23 GMT

    there should be unlimited reviews in tests and limited reviews in limited overs cricket. Even if they opt to use a lot of reviews over rate should come into play.

  • BlueSky212 on August 4, 2013, 1:09 GMT

    I dont understand yet why player have to review the decision. It's plain simple if somebody is out then TV umpire can overturn on field decision within a few second.So just call the on field umpire and tell him the decision. Scenario 1. Onfield umpire given out - If player is walking just call him incase it's not out.It doesnt matter if there is review or not atleast it makes game true and fair. Scenario 2. On Field umpire doesn't given out - Resume the game within a one span of ball you will get the required result from TV umpire. So convey to batsman if he is out and resume the game from that point or last ball. Now please dont jump and say it is time consuming process,I just want to make one point these scenario only matters when there is appeal. So make fine or ban for idiotic appeals or reviews thats it. For eg - broad,sehwag,watson Total time wasted in this process is at max 10 to 15 min per day but result is astonishing which all fan wants fair game at last.

  • on August 4, 2013, 1:04 GMT

    This news surely has the weirdest timing ever - with BCCI having opposed the DRS for SO LONG and now considering it when its biggest backers - Eng and Aus - are increasingly having doubts about the system. However, must say the suggestion about umpire's call not costing a review is EXCELLENT. If I were the head of the ICC - I would have got rid of the entire umpire's call concept itself with the benefit of the doubt for the batsman - not the umpire - but this is a good start. Also, the hot spot needs to be got rid off - its ridiculously unreliable and I am shocked that the KP wicket in the 3rd test has not raised a hue and cry - as there was a CLEAR white spot on hotspot on the back of KP's bat when apparently, even KP thought he didn't nick it. That DEBUNKS the theory that hotspot may not pick up faint edges but will never show an edge if there isn't one - as it JUST DID EXACTLY THAT.

  • on August 4, 2013, 1:02 GMT

    The current debacle in the Ashes vindicates the BCCI stance. Personally 2 reviews adds to the problem. We need to eliminate the errors not compound them as is happening. The batsman should still be given the benefit of the doubt if it is not conclusive. We need to eliminate the howlers. When there is a review, it should not matter what the onfield umpire has just decided on. Start from scratch! Eliminating the errors in catches and runouts should be paramount. This should not count as part of the review. Technology is an umpire aid!!! The 3rd umpire reviews, not the onfield captains as importance is to eliminate the errors. Problem is LBWs. Predictive path is questionable. Pitches change during the season as well as during the course of the day. Can never get it 100% correct consequently. But can get catches and runouts close to 100% correct. Even with the technology we have had howlers with catches recently resulting in people questioning DRS because of the mugs running the game

  • Buckers97 on August 4, 2013, 0:57 GMT

    Its not the system, it's the 3rd umpires ysing the technology. The hotspot cameras in Australia are far better than the ones in England but the #rd umpires need to use the technology right. I like the idea that 'umpires call' shouldn't lose you a review but umpires need to get better at using it.

  • Ozcricketwriter on August 4, 2013, 0:44 GMT

    I think a more sensible alternative to "don't lose reviews when it is umpire's call" is to get rid of umpire's call altogether, and go back to benefit of the doubt to batsmen.

  • on August 4, 2013, 0:10 GMT

    India have been proved right in their stance against DRS. It is unreliable and inaccurate at best. Stand your ground India and others will follow!!

  • Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on August 3, 2013, 23:58 GMT

    Here is what BCCI should demand :

    1. Umpire should do the review on their own when they have a doubt. Leg umpire or third umpire could suggest for rethinking on the decision to the main umpire before next ball is bowled.

    2. No Snicko, Hot Spot or ball tracking technology. They just create confusion and are not required to eliminate howlers.

    3. Just use super slow motion replay to do the review. If decision is inconclusive with a super slow motion review, it is not a howler and decision of the field umpire should stay.

    4. Pitch map technology can used to see where the ball pitched and whether it hit the batsman's pad outside off.

    5. Use DRS to eliminate howler and not to decide the 50-50 decisions.

  • on August 3, 2013, 22:41 GMT

    Having seen the Ashes, I will have to say that BCCI's stand against the DRS would have to be admired and people like me should go eat their words. It is far from a perfect system that is leading to too a great deal of not-welcome acrimony. Cricket is a sport, whose talking points recently have been more about the accuracy of the technology, human error surrounding this system, or players' abilities in knowing when to review. I am sorry but we follow the game to see excellent cricket, not to see who chose to review or not review. I agree it adds a new dimension by adding to the theatre when a player reviews. But Cricket is above all that. It is about the contest of bat and ball. The question remains, where do I stand on DRS and viability of it? The answer is, I do not know. Conceptually it is good. But, it is creating too much hassle than its worth. There has to be a complete rethinking of the system.

  • on August 3, 2013, 22:17 GMT

    Its totally appropriate for India to ask for a greater use of UDRS.Allowing only a single review to both teams in an ODI is just ludicrous.Even if unlimited reviews means going overboard,not deducting reviews available to teams based on umpire's call is a good idea.Having said that,the number of reviews in both ODIs and Tests are currently insufficient.Alongwith this new suggestion,the ICC should allow atleast 3 reviews per inns in Tests,2 per inns in ODIs and atleast one per inns in T20s.From what i have observed,the use of UDRS isnt time consuming if all the tools required for the technology are in place.ICC should expedite the matter if BCCI has eventually decided to countenance the system.Its about time the game got standardized.

  • isot on August 3, 2013, 22:04 GMT

    Does not make sense. BCCI opposed DRS all the while but when everybody around the world is realizing the deficiencies of DRS, it is supporting it now.

  • isot on August 3, 2013, 22:04 GMT

    Does not make sense. BCCI opposed DRS all the while but when everybody around the world is realizing the deficiencies of DRS, it is supporting it now.

  • on August 3, 2013, 22:17 GMT

    Its totally appropriate for India to ask for a greater use of UDRS.Allowing only a single review to both teams in an ODI is just ludicrous.Even if unlimited reviews means going overboard,not deducting reviews available to teams based on umpire's call is a good idea.Having said that,the number of reviews in both ODIs and Tests are currently insufficient.Alongwith this new suggestion,the ICC should allow atleast 3 reviews per inns in Tests,2 per inns in ODIs and atleast one per inns in T20s.From what i have observed,the use of UDRS isnt time consuming if all the tools required for the technology are in place.ICC should expedite the matter if BCCI has eventually decided to countenance the system.Its about time the game got standardized.

  • on August 3, 2013, 22:41 GMT

    Having seen the Ashes, I will have to say that BCCI's stand against the DRS would have to be admired and people like me should go eat their words. It is far from a perfect system that is leading to too a great deal of not-welcome acrimony. Cricket is a sport, whose talking points recently have been more about the accuracy of the technology, human error surrounding this system, or players' abilities in knowing when to review. I am sorry but we follow the game to see excellent cricket, not to see who chose to review or not review. I agree it adds a new dimension by adding to the theatre when a player reviews. But Cricket is above all that. It is about the contest of bat and ball. The question remains, where do I stand on DRS and viability of it? The answer is, I do not know. Conceptually it is good. But, it is creating too much hassle than its worth. There has to be a complete rethinking of the system.

  • Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on August 3, 2013, 23:58 GMT

    Here is what BCCI should demand :

    1. Umpire should do the review on their own when they have a doubt. Leg umpire or third umpire could suggest for rethinking on the decision to the main umpire before next ball is bowled.

    2. No Snicko, Hot Spot or ball tracking technology. They just create confusion and are not required to eliminate howlers.

    3. Just use super slow motion replay to do the review. If decision is inconclusive with a super slow motion review, it is not a howler and decision of the field umpire should stay.

    4. Pitch map technology can used to see where the ball pitched and whether it hit the batsman's pad outside off.

    5. Use DRS to eliminate howler and not to decide the 50-50 decisions.

  • on August 4, 2013, 0:10 GMT

    India have been proved right in their stance against DRS. It is unreliable and inaccurate at best. Stand your ground India and others will follow!!

  • Ozcricketwriter on August 4, 2013, 0:44 GMT

    I think a more sensible alternative to "don't lose reviews when it is umpire's call" is to get rid of umpire's call altogether, and go back to benefit of the doubt to batsmen.

  • Buckers97 on August 4, 2013, 0:57 GMT

    Its not the system, it's the 3rd umpires ysing the technology. The hotspot cameras in Australia are far better than the ones in England but the #rd umpires need to use the technology right. I like the idea that 'umpires call' shouldn't lose you a review but umpires need to get better at using it.

  • on August 4, 2013, 1:02 GMT

    The current debacle in the Ashes vindicates the BCCI stance. Personally 2 reviews adds to the problem. We need to eliminate the errors not compound them as is happening. The batsman should still be given the benefit of the doubt if it is not conclusive. We need to eliminate the howlers. When there is a review, it should not matter what the onfield umpire has just decided on. Start from scratch! Eliminating the errors in catches and runouts should be paramount. This should not count as part of the review. Technology is an umpire aid!!! The 3rd umpire reviews, not the onfield captains as importance is to eliminate the errors. Problem is LBWs. Predictive path is questionable. Pitches change during the season as well as during the course of the day. Can never get it 100% correct consequently. But can get catches and runouts close to 100% correct. Even with the technology we have had howlers with catches recently resulting in people questioning DRS because of the mugs running the game

  • on August 4, 2013, 1:04 GMT

    This news surely has the weirdest timing ever - with BCCI having opposed the DRS for SO LONG and now considering it when its biggest backers - Eng and Aus - are increasingly having doubts about the system. However, must say the suggestion about umpire's call not costing a review is EXCELLENT. If I were the head of the ICC - I would have got rid of the entire umpire's call concept itself with the benefit of the doubt for the batsman - not the umpire - but this is a good start. Also, the hot spot needs to be got rid off - its ridiculously unreliable and I am shocked that the KP wicket in the 3rd test has not raised a hue and cry - as there was a CLEAR white spot on hotspot on the back of KP's bat when apparently, even KP thought he didn't nick it. That DEBUNKS the theory that hotspot may not pick up faint edges but will never show an edge if there isn't one - as it JUST DID EXACTLY THAT.

  • BlueSky212 on August 4, 2013, 1:09 GMT

    I dont understand yet why player have to review the decision. It's plain simple if somebody is out then TV umpire can overturn on field decision within a few second.So just call the on field umpire and tell him the decision. Scenario 1. Onfield umpire given out - If player is walking just call him incase it's not out.It doesnt matter if there is review or not atleast it makes game true and fair. Scenario 2. On Field umpire doesn't given out - Resume the game within a one span of ball you will get the required result from TV umpire. So convey to batsman if he is out and resume the game from that point or last ball. Now please dont jump and say it is time consuming process,I just want to make one point these scenario only matters when there is appeal. So make fine or ban for idiotic appeals or reviews thats it. For eg - broad,sehwag,watson Total time wasted in this process is at max 10 to 15 min per day but result is astonishing which all fan wants fair game at last.