England v Bangladesh, 1st Test, Lord's May 25, 2010

Decision Review System ditched over cost issues

Cricinfo staff
29

The aim of expanding the use of the Umpire Decision Review System (DRS) has hit another stumbling block after it was ditched from the forthcoming England-Bangladesh series due to cost two days before the opening Test at Lord's.

ICC and Sky, the host broadcaster for the series, failed to reach an agreement over who would foot the bill so the enhanced third-umpire technology won't be available on Thursday or for the second Test at Old Trafford next week. This isn't the first time that cost has been an issue in trying to use the system, with the previous series between these two teams, in Bangladesh, also played without technology.

However, this latest occasion comes just days after the ICC's Cricket Committee pushed for the DRS to be used in all Tests after a revamped version was introduced over the last 12 months around the world.

"Despite constructive negotiations with the host broadcaster we have been unable to reach agreement on the allocation of costs for DRS," an ICC spokesman said. "The whole question of DRS costs will be raised at the next ICC board meeting in Singapore in June and, depending on the outcome of the board meeting, we may revisit the question of DRS for the rest of the English summer."

England's most recent experience with the DRS sparked controversy during the final Test against South Africa, at Johannesburg, in January when Daryl Harper didn't overturn a not-out decision against Graeme Smith despite an edge being audible on replays. An investigation into the incident is ongoing, but despite the frustrations at the Wanderers, Andy Flower, the England coach, ended the series broadly in favour of using the extra technology.

ICC have said that the level of correct decision-making when using the system has risen from 92% to around 97%. In the short-term the absence of the DRS over the next two weeks has meant that Aleem Dar, the Pakistan umpire who was due to be the TV official, is no longer needed at Lord's as only traditional line decisions will be referred and he has been replaced by England's Richard Illingworth.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • YorkshirePudding on May 27, 2010, 6:11 GMT

    Those suggesting that umpires 'play for england' I suggest you review the recent series in SA, where England were on the end of some really bad decisions by one particular umpire, England (along with SA) rightfully reported the said umpire to the ICC...@amhangers, I believe every test match should have at least one Elite umpire regardless of the status of one or both teams, unfortunately all the eligable Elite umpires where standing in the IPL at the time which i think is wholey wrong. Regarding the ICC, I would have thought they would listen to a full member, and they do seem to be pushing hard for the URDS in all formats, unfortunately they will need to make arrangements with the TV companies that own the rights and the equipment that allow the TV umpire to get this data, as there are additional costs involved in facilitaing the feed to the third umpire.

  • wanderer1 on May 27, 2010, 0:45 GMT

    I blame this on the shyster Rupert Murdoch (he who owns BSKYB). Why can't he front the money? It's their TV money which is pretty much keeping ECB coffers in good health, so why can't he come to some sort of decision on the matter? Penny pinching ways, maybe not so rich after all (such a pity...).

  • Baundele on May 26, 2010, 23:05 GMT

    Who cares? The UDRS with its current style of operation (i.e., if not a clear proof, field umpire's decision holds) is practically useless for even 60-40 decisions. Umpires do always play for England and the review of only two of those decisions will not count much anyway.

  • DamieninFrance on May 26, 2010, 20:16 GMT

    Gee, according to Rakesh Sharma we should all just bow down and be grateful that Good Old India is letting us all enjoy some Cricket! Whew! Thanks Rakesh. Don't know what I would have done without all of India's money for Cricket. Don't suppose you could convince the BCCI to come up with the money for the UDRS for the England v BD series, could you? We'd be ever so grateful, sir....

  • McGorium on May 26, 2010, 20:10 GMT

    @SachinIsTheGreatest: Ashes is a big deal, and is therefore commercially viable. Cost is not an issue as far as the Ashes is concerned. It is, when a team that should probably not be playing international test cricket (but for the Asian block's need in the 1990s to strengthen their position in the ICC) tours England. And they will be thrashed royally. It's not the sort of contest where URDS really matters. Eng vs Aus, sure. Eng vs Ban? Geoffrey's mom would make double hundreds against them, and then take a 5-for. The fact of the matter is, URDS or no URDS, they're an ordinary side in tests (as the prophet Sehwag said). They've lost 90% of the games they've played (and they are numerous... India won its 22nd test. SRL is near there. These guys are nearing 80 with most of them losses). If they don't lose by an innings in Eng, it'll be a big deal. Ban needs to play A sides and learn how to bat long periods before playing with the big boys. Same with the current Zim side.

  • Vinit_Sharma_Singh on May 26, 2010, 19:44 GMT

    @Kalim-Bangladesh that is without a doubt the funniest thing I've heard for a long long long long time: "Sub-continents teams, for decades together, suffered due to poor/partial umpiring decisions" lmao!!!! Yes those poor poor sub continent teams with their home umpires who'd have their finger already on its way up to upholding an lbw decision while the bowler was still only in his deliver stride!!! The extent of their suffering was incredible- luckily they don't have to put up with their unfair home umpires in test matches any more.

  • amhagers on May 26, 2010, 19:30 GMT

    @ YorkshirePudding Do you believe that would make any effect by appealing to ICC?; ICC, who can grant the situation of two systems for one Test world (UDRS and non-UDRS or absence of elite-panel umpires for matches against BD or other low-'profitable' teams)?

    If there were UDRS system in the Dhaka Test (or 3rd ODI at Mirpur), and have a chance to review on England's first innings 3 shouts (as well Tamim's 1st innings out), where would be the lead at that day, and the result? How come misfortune of 'diffy' decisions only come to one side and especially on the crucial and rare moments for an improving side (quite a few in number). And then everybody only blame that side under-performing, and can't remember those crucial moments which can turn the match. Few wins/good figures can boost up and push a side to next step, please dont deprive them of that.

    @SachinIsTheGreatest: great comment!!

  • YorkshirePudding on May 26, 2010, 17:08 GMT

    @plmx, I did get one thing wrong in my previous post a 92% error is not 3 mistakes per innings, its 3 mistakes per match....As for the BD mistakes being Targeted, you seem to be suggesting some consipracy here, if you have the proof I suggest that you goto the ICC anti-corruption unit and ask them to investigate the umpires. BD was not the only team that had some iffy decisions go agaisnt them, England were in the the same series, and im not talking about Trotts dismissal, the england bowlers had several very close good LBW's turned down, at least 2 where plumb in the first innings of the 2nd test.....@bd_zindabad, i dont like what you're suggesting which is that the umpires have some how been subverted, and are biased against BD, again i suggest to write to the ICC and raise this issue with the anti-corruption unit.

  • Kalim-Bangladesh on May 26, 2010, 16:35 GMT

    This in deed is shame, a team like England shouldn't have taken this short cut way to win a series which has always been in their favor in sporting capabilites. Last time also Shakib spoke strongly against this non use UDRS I wonder what would have been the case had that been against Australia or against South Africa. Sub-continents teams, for decades together, suffered due to poor/partial umpiring decisions and it seems it will continue for some more years, especially for Bangladesh.

  • Rakesh_Sharma on May 26, 2010, 15:56 GMT

    People from Indian subcontient fails to understand that without India in equation Cricket is actually a very very very poor game.

  • YorkshirePudding on May 27, 2010, 6:11 GMT

    Those suggesting that umpires 'play for england' I suggest you review the recent series in SA, where England were on the end of some really bad decisions by one particular umpire, England (along with SA) rightfully reported the said umpire to the ICC...@amhangers, I believe every test match should have at least one Elite umpire regardless of the status of one or both teams, unfortunately all the eligable Elite umpires where standing in the IPL at the time which i think is wholey wrong. Regarding the ICC, I would have thought they would listen to a full member, and they do seem to be pushing hard for the URDS in all formats, unfortunately they will need to make arrangements with the TV companies that own the rights and the equipment that allow the TV umpire to get this data, as there are additional costs involved in facilitaing the feed to the third umpire.

  • wanderer1 on May 27, 2010, 0:45 GMT

    I blame this on the shyster Rupert Murdoch (he who owns BSKYB). Why can't he front the money? It's their TV money which is pretty much keeping ECB coffers in good health, so why can't he come to some sort of decision on the matter? Penny pinching ways, maybe not so rich after all (such a pity...).

  • Baundele on May 26, 2010, 23:05 GMT

    Who cares? The UDRS with its current style of operation (i.e., if not a clear proof, field umpire's decision holds) is practically useless for even 60-40 decisions. Umpires do always play for England and the review of only two of those decisions will not count much anyway.

  • DamieninFrance on May 26, 2010, 20:16 GMT

    Gee, according to Rakesh Sharma we should all just bow down and be grateful that Good Old India is letting us all enjoy some Cricket! Whew! Thanks Rakesh. Don't know what I would have done without all of India's money for Cricket. Don't suppose you could convince the BCCI to come up with the money for the UDRS for the England v BD series, could you? We'd be ever so grateful, sir....

  • McGorium on May 26, 2010, 20:10 GMT

    @SachinIsTheGreatest: Ashes is a big deal, and is therefore commercially viable. Cost is not an issue as far as the Ashes is concerned. It is, when a team that should probably not be playing international test cricket (but for the Asian block's need in the 1990s to strengthen their position in the ICC) tours England. And they will be thrashed royally. It's not the sort of contest where URDS really matters. Eng vs Aus, sure. Eng vs Ban? Geoffrey's mom would make double hundreds against them, and then take a 5-for. The fact of the matter is, URDS or no URDS, they're an ordinary side in tests (as the prophet Sehwag said). They've lost 90% of the games they've played (and they are numerous... India won its 22nd test. SRL is near there. These guys are nearing 80 with most of them losses). If they don't lose by an innings in Eng, it'll be a big deal. Ban needs to play A sides and learn how to bat long periods before playing with the big boys. Same with the current Zim side.

  • Vinit_Sharma_Singh on May 26, 2010, 19:44 GMT

    @Kalim-Bangladesh that is without a doubt the funniest thing I've heard for a long long long long time: "Sub-continents teams, for decades together, suffered due to poor/partial umpiring decisions" lmao!!!! Yes those poor poor sub continent teams with their home umpires who'd have their finger already on its way up to upholding an lbw decision while the bowler was still only in his deliver stride!!! The extent of their suffering was incredible- luckily they don't have to put up with their unfair home umpires in test matches any more.

  • amhagers on May 26, 2010, 19:30 GMT

    @ YorkshirePudding Do you believe that would make any effect by appealing to ICC?; ICC, who can grant the situation of two systems for one Test world (UDRS and non-UDRS or absence of elite-panel umpires for matches against BD or other low-'profitable' teams)?

    If there were UDRS system in the Dhaka Test (or 3rd ODI at Mirpur), and have a chance to review on England's first innings 3 shouts (as well Tamim's 1st innings out), where would be the lead at that day, and the result? How come misfortune of 'diffy' decisions only come to one side and especially on the crucial and rare moments for an improving side (quite a few in number). And then everybody only blame that side under-performing, and can't remember those crucial moments which can turn the match. Few wins/good figures can boost up and push a side to next step, please dont deprive them of that.

    @SachinIsTheGreatest: great comment!!

  • YorkshirePudding on May 26, 2010, 17:08 GMT

    @plmx, I did get one thing wrong in my previous post a 92% error is not 3 mistakes per innings, its 3 mistakes per match....As for the BD mistakes being Targeted, you seem to be suggesting some consipracy here, if you have the proof I suggest that you goto the ICC anti-corruption unit and ask them to investigate the umpires. BD was not the only team that had some iffy decisions go agaisnt them, England were in the the same series, and im not talking about Trotts dismissal, the england bowlers had several very close good LBW's turned down, at least 2 where plumb in the first innings of the 2nd test.....@bd_zindabad, i dont like what you're suggesting which is that the umpires have some how been subverted, and are biased against BD, again i suggest to write to the ICC and raise this issue with the anti-corruption unit.

  • Kalim-Bangladesh on May 26, 2010, 16:35 GMT

    This in deed is shame, a team like England shouldn't have taken this short cut way to win a series which has always been in their favor in sporting capabilites. Last time also Shakib spoke strongly against this non use UDRS I wonder what would have been the case had that been against Australia or against South Africa. Sub-continents teams, for decades together, suffered due to poor/partial umpiring decisions and it seems it will continue for some more years, especially for Bangladesh.

  • Rakesh_Sharma on May 26, 2010, 15:56 GMT

    People from Indian subcontient fails to understand that without India in equation Cricket is actually a very very very poor game.

  • SachinIsTheGreatest on May 26, 2010, 15:26 GMT

    Oh! So if this was the Ashes all concerned would still have found the "costs" an "issue". And why should Sky foot the bill? The ICC wants it, they should pay for it. What next? Asking Taufel and Dar to buy their own tickets to umpire in a test?

  • WhoCaresAboutIPL on May 26, 2010, 15:11 GMT

    Sky is a ruthless commercial enterprise, and is really only interested in the money. The ICC is at fault for insisting that the system be employed without negotiating that it is available. In future perhaps it could be a condition of Sky (or another broadcaster) being allowed the rights.

    Unfortunately this has resurrected the "we waz robbed" line of BD's supporters. If any one of these "incorrect" decisions had been given, then it could be argued that the succeeding one would never have occurred!

    The net result is that, despite BD doping the pitches to oblivion, they still could not manage a draw. I wish them the best over the next two weeks but, in the absence of rain, I cannot see these matches getting beyond Day 4.

  • plmx on May 26, 2010, 13:17 GMT

    @YorkshirePudding, Trott's dismissal was unacceptable and regrettably affected his personal averages but in the context of the game it did not affect the outcome as by then the damage was already done and BD was doomed. The wrong decisions against BD on the other hand were targeted with precision and altered the course of the game. As regards 3 wrong decisions in each innings the pattern seems to be 3 wrong decisions in England's favour when they bat and 3 wrong decisions in England's favour when BD bat. A clear case of heads you win and tails BD lose. The term "Its just not cricket" seems to apply the most when it comes to cricket!!

  • bd_zindabad on May 26, 2010, 12:14 GMT

    wer playing england in endland, of course they will utlise the 2 umps the best they can. if they can do it in bangladesh, surely they will do it at home. typical english greed. ur history is full of it, and nothings changed.

  • amhagers on May 26, 2010, 10:33 GMT

    So funny, ICC and world of cricket is now showing. Money game, imbalance and not fair to all.

    Why Bangladesh again? Have we forgot the recent series at Dhaka? Should be any other team to be put in a same situation by Sky? Hilarious control of the game!

  • alexbrowne on May 26, 2010, 10:16 GMT

    There appears to be more to this than meets the eye. As far as I am aware, Sky (and C4 before it) pioneered all of the technology required for the DRS, ie Hawkeye, Snickometer, Hotspot and the ultramotion or whatever it's called, plus cricket in HD. As they will be making this equipment available to their UK subscribers and viewers around the world, there cannot be too much expense in giving a TV umpire his own feed/equipment when the replays will be scoured anyway by the commentary team. Is the lack of agreement more due to a matter of principle (given that the Sky commentators have aired their issues with the system a number of times) or do they feel that their investment in improved cricket coverage is being undervalued or exploited by the ICC?

  • YorkshirePudding on May 26, 2010, 9:45 GMT

    @Plmx, you really do have a jaded view, do you agree that Trott was incorrectly given out in the first test in Bangladesh?.....The largest area of consternation has always been the LBW's, Low catches, and feathered edges, even technology can be unconclusive in these area. As the article says the umpires are right approximately 92% of the time, with Technology that rises to 97%, to put that into pespective its aroud 3 incorrect decision an innings, with technology that drops to around 1 incorrect decsion.

  • Chabanda on May 26, 2010, 9:02 GMT

    This is a very good system to be implemented. As our team (SL) is much defend on our spinners, We would like to use it in all format of games (i.e. 50 over, tests, even t20's)

  • plmx on May 26, 2010, 9:00 GMT

    This is a false economy for ICC and Sky! Without DRS the game will finish in 2 or 3 days when it could have lasted 4 or 5 days bringing in more gate receipts and advertising revenues! With BD having to take 13 or 14 English wickets in each innings and England having to take only 6 or 7 BD wickets in each innings (on field umpires making up the difference in each case) it will be a 3 innings affair instead of 4 and nobody comes out as "winner". Shame!!

  • jackiethepen on May 26, 2010, 8:39 GMT

    The real problem with the shout against Bell was that the fielders claimed a catch which the umpire dismissed. Bell's lbw was marginal. The way the system works is that the decision stays with the umpire even if Hawk Eye shows it out if the margin of error is allowed for. This is because Hawk Eye is a predictive system. The umpire is only overruled if the ball hits the stumps without that margin of error. That is plumb or near. Clipping the bails and stumps is not allowed. However if the umpire gives it out and it IS marginal then the batsman has to be given out despite the margin of error. This is because the umpire is regarded as in the best position to make that judgement. And to have some respect for that. As we didn't have the Review System in place those decisions weren't put through this kind of scrutiny. Most sides only feel hard done by when a plumb lbw shout has been ignored. Flower's remarks were partisan . He has no experience of batting for so called influential teams.

  • Nipun on May 26, 2010, 8:06 GMT

    Bangladesh got ROBBED in the last series against England....looks like they are going to be robbed this time too !!! ****

  • YorkshirePudding on May 26, 2010, 7:03 GMT

    @EM, I seem to remember that Bangladesh got several iffy decisions in thier favour, like Trott being caught off the helmet as an instance. All in all Bangladesh did have a few marginal decisions go against them but in most cases they werent as bad as Trotts. The Bat-pad, is probably one of those that is on par...... I agree with OCMills, it seems strange that Sky has all the technology there (Snicko, Hotspot, Hawkeye etc) but the umpires arnt getting access, i suspect this boils down to the Sky wanting the ICC to pay a fee for access to its feeds, which i can understand, Sky is a profit organistaion, and so will want to get a return on its investment of the equipment. The question would be how much sky was asking for and how much the ICC was prepared to pay, by the sounds of it there was a BIG difference, otherwise a deal would have been done.

  • simon_w on May 26, 2010, 2:41 GMT

    using technology is good. the UDRS is baaaad....

  • Tjoeps on May 25, 2010, 23:55 GMT

    Yes, the JHB issue with Harper was stupid, volume buttons should not be an issue, his excuse was that he did not have the sound turned up! So there is a training problem, as far as the cost situation goes, the ICC must come to the party as the governing body. If this system is to be used it must be 100% trusted by all, and in use by all, in all Test matches, not just in those countries or grounds that can afford it!

  • landl47 on May 25, 2010, 22:30 GMT

    So now we're going to have the ludicrous charade of Sky showing endless replays of decisions to the viewers, while the people who could use the technology in order to get decisions right aren't able to utilise those same replays.

    It's hard to understand where those on both sides are coming from on this.

  • on May 25, 2010, 22:26 GMT

    I really think its sad, especially for Bangladesh. They are the one will miss out from the fair decisions. Remember what Andy Flower said, "more influential teams tend to get the rub of the green in marginal decisions." And we all remember a very fighting performance from the Elite Panel during England's last tour to BD. For those who dont know what I am talking about- Matt Prior was trapped on the crease on 9 by a reverse-swinging delivery from Rubel and went on to make 62; Bresnan survived a bat-pad catch on 5 before finishing the day on 74 not out, while Bell's innings could have ended on 82 had an lbw appeal by Abdur Razzak been upheld. Who cares if Bangladesh doesn't win. That would be a shame in the History of Cricket. England, father of Cricket, lost to small little Bangladesh! We don't want that, Do we? Well England Don't. So negotiate harder. Its sad & we will accept it saying, they are human, they will mistakes, But really they only make mistakes when it comes to small teams.

  • OCMills on May 25, 2010, 21:03 GMT

    Sky sports spent the tour of South Africa saying that SABC could not afford the cost of all the technology (ie no hotspot cameras) and said that they would have it when the games are on in England. Now they wont provide it because they aren't getting paid enough for technology they will probably be using at the game anyway!! Whether it is the fault of the ICC or Sky, it cant be right that the 3rd umpire will sit there with the information to change a decision but no power.

  • _Rafi_ on May 25, 2010, 18:59 GMT

    Now Bangladesh going to be robbed again by some umpires who actually not biased but pretend to be biased against BD and towards Eng, Nz and other greater nation

  • brunorox on May 25, 2010, 16:48 GMT

    I THINK ICC SHOULD ASK ALL THE TEST TEAMS TO VOTE GAINST OR FOR THE REWIEW SYSTEM SO IT BECOMES FAIR

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • brunorox on May 25, 2010, 16:48 GMT

    I THINK ICC SHOULD ASK ALL THE TEST TEAMS TO VOTE GAINST OR FOR THE REWIEW SYSTEM SO IT BECOMES FAIR

  • _Rafi_ on May 25, 2010, 18:59 GMT

    Now Bangladesh going to be robbed again by some umpires who actually not biased but pretend to be biased against BD and towards Eng, Nz and other greater nation

  • OCMills on May 25, 2010, 21:03 GMT

    Sky sports spent the tour of South Africa saying that SABC could not afford the cost of all the technology (ie no hotspot cameras) and said that they would have it when the games are on in England. Now they wont provide it because they aren't getting paid enough for technology they will probably be using at the game anyway!! Whether it is the fault of the ICC or Sky, it cant be right that the 3rd umpire will sit there with the information to change a decision but no power.

  • on May 25, 2010, 22:26 GMT

    I really think its sad, especially for Bangladesh. They are the one will miss out from the fair decisions. Remember what Andy Flower said, "more influential teams tend to get the rub of the green in marginal decisions." And we all remember a very fighting performance from the Elite Panel during England's last tour to BD. For those who dont know what I am talking about- Matt Prior was trapped on the crease on 9 by a reverse-swinging delivery from Rubel and went on to make 62; Bresnan survived a bat-pad catch on 5 before finishing the day on 74 not out, while Bell's innings could have ended on 82 had an lbw appeal by Abdur Razzak been upheld. Who cares if Bangladesh doesn't win. That would be a shame in the History of Cricket. England, father of Cricket, lost to small little Bangladesh! We don't want that, Do we? Well England Don't. So negotiate harder. Its sad & we will accept it saying, they are human, they will mistakes, But really they only make mistakes when it comes to small teams.

  • landl47 on May 25, 2010, 22:30 GMT

    So now we're going to have the ludicrous charade of Sky showing endless replays of decisions to the viewers, while the people who could use the technology in order to get decisions right aren't able to utilise those same replays.

    It's hard to understand where those on both sides are coming from on this.

  • Tjoeps on May 25, 2010, 23:55 GMT

    Yes, the JHB issue with Harper was stupid, volume buttons should not be an issue, his excuse was that he did not have the sound turned up! So there is a training problem, as far as the cost situation goes, the ICC must come to the party as the governing body. If this system is to be used it must be 100% trusted by all, and in use by all, in all Test matches, not just in those countries or grounds that can afford it!

  • simon_w on May 26, 2010, 2:41 GMT

    using technology is good. the UDRS is baaaad....

  • YorkshirePudding on May 26, 2010, 7:03 GMT

    @EM, I seem to remember that Bangladesh got several iffy decisions in thier favour, like Trott being caught off the helmet as an instance. All in all Bangladesh did have a few marginal decisions go against them but in most cases they werent as bad as Trotts. The Bat-pad, is probably one of those that is on par...... I agree with OCMills, it seems strange that Sky has all the technology there (Snicko, Hotspot, Hawkeye etc) but the umpires arnt getting access, i suspect this boils down to the Sky wanting the ICC to pay a fee for access to its feeds, which i can understand, Sky is a profit organistaion, and so will want to get a return on its investment of the equipment. The question would be how much sky was asking for and how much the ICC was prepared to pay, by the sounds of it there was a BIG difference, otherwise a deal would have been done.

  • Nipun on May 26, 2010, 8:06 GMT

    Bangladesh got ROBBED in the last series against England....looks like they are going to be robbed this time too !!! ****

  • jackiethepen on May 26, 2010, 8:39 GMT

    The real problem with the shout against Bell was that the fielders claimed a catch which the umpire dismissed. Bell's lbw was marginal. The way the system works is that the decision stays with the umpire even if Hawk Eye shows it out if the margin of error is allowed for. This is because Hawk Eye is a predictive system. The umpire is only overruled if the ball hits the stumps without that margin of error. That is plumb or near. Clipping the bails and stumps is not allowed. However if the umpire gives it out and it IS marginal then the batsman has to be given out despite the margin of error. This is because the umpire is regarded as in the best position to make that judgement. And to have some respect for that. As we didn't have the Review System in place those decisions weren't put through this kind of scrutiny. Most sides only feel hard done by when a plumb lbw shout has been ignored. Flower's remarks were partisan . He has no experience of batting for so called influential teams.