India in England 2011 June 13, 2011

Tremlett questions India's refusal of the DRS

ESPNcricinfo staff

Chris Tremlett has given his full support to the Decision Review System and admitted he is mystified by the Board for Control of Cricket in India's unwillingness to allow the DRS to be used in India's upcoming series against England.

"I am a fan of the system. If the technology is there it should be used," said Tremlett. "Who knows why they [India] don't want it involved. There have been a few decisions that have been rightly overturned and as a bowler you want those decisions given out. It's a fair way of doing things. I'm fully in agreement with it."

The DRS was introduced in 2009 and the ICC's cricket committee recommended in May this year that technology ought to be incorporated in all forms of the game. While some teams have struggled to adapt to the system, England are one side who have begun to show the benefits of a canny referral despite their early teething problems on tours of West Indies and South Africa.

DRS technology has been used without incident during the current Test series between England and Sri Lanka, and indeed Tremlett was one of the players to benefit from it when he removed Tillakaratne Dilshan after a referral during England's dramatic victory in the first Test at Cardiff.

"It's something that we like to use and it should be used in every Test if the technology is there and it's a shame that they don't want DRS involved in the India series."

Many of India's senior players, including Sachin Tendulkar and captain MS Dhoni, have been outspoken in their criticism of the DRS, however, and the BCCI have repeatedly stated that they are not satisfied with the accuracy of the technology used.

"The hot spot has shown that it works. In Australia we had a few decisions correctly overturned,'' countered Tremlett. "It is very accurate. Sometimes there is a lot of noise around a Test match and an umpire might not hear a fine nick so it's an important thing to have.

"Hawkeye is fair too so it'll be a shame. It has been a successful thing over the last six months."

A win against Sri Lanka in the third Test at the Rose Bowl, which begins on Thursday, would lift the England team to joint-second with South Africa in the Test rankings and, with or without the DRS, Tremlett is confident that England can go on to beat India and rise to No. 1.

"There's no reason why we can't win that series against India. This side is going from strength to strength and we're on a good winning streak at the moment. I'm fully confident that we can beat any side.

"We had success against Australia but the next step is to beat the No. 1 side in the world. If we can beat them convincingly then we will deserve to be No. 1."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Amar Nath on June 16, 2011, 7:05 GMT

    What the fuss on UDRS? If DRS is so good then don't limit the number of attempts and let umpires decide to call the third umpire in cases where the confusion is. Why allow players to challenge the decision? Another thing is time and again despite UDRS wrong decisions has been made despite all technology assistance available to umpires - so trust is always a concern.

  • Mithun on June 16, 2011, 1:28 GMT

    I second Tremlett's views. More than people getting baffled by BCCI, I think it is time people asked some credibility and integrity from them.

    Being an Indian supporter, I always connect BCCI's refusal of DRS with the 2008 Sydney test v. Aus. That test gave me the impression that BCCI would be the first to embrace DRS. Each time the Indian board rejects the DRS, they just shed a piece of clothing to come close to being naked and exposed with regards to their stand on the Sydney test. If you cannot come up with a solution, at least have the humility to accept the solution that almost all other national boards have accepted (and personally, I am for DRS. It sucks to see a great match dampened by poor umpiring). Whatever be the flaws in the technology, the great thing is that it allows that second chance.

    DRS usage should be decided based on majority by a vote from all boards at the start of the season. This issue is too fundamental to have 1 arrogant member board influence the outcome

  • Bob on June 15, 2011, 14:09 GMT

    @bajirao.. IF I have played cricket.. ? Let me tell you that I played for more years than I care to remember and when I retired I became a fully qualified umpire.. Therefore I think I feel a little more qualified than you have proved to be by the rest of your post. I clearly qualified and explained the reasons why the 2.5mtr rule has been introduced, but you in your prejudice have obviously ignored the reason.. In fact..whatever you say, it's just another unqualified excuse for you to decry a system simply because a couple of Indian superstars have. The UDRS has corrected more incorrect decisions than it has confirmed... If you can deny that is not the case, then you are clearly not watching the same matches as me or you refuse to recognise proven facts.. which dooesn't say a lot for your judgement.

  • Sagar on June 15, 2011, 13:16 GMT

    @bobmaritn: I was amazed to see you considering swing of the ball for 2.5m rule. I you are inducting humane constraints like ball swinging in last 2.5m, why not look at other constraints: 1) the bowler was a spinner and ball was bowled at 90kmph. If YOU have played cricket, is it not fair to say that bowl won't swing in INDIAN condition? 2) Why 2.5? It takes only 1 m for the ball to deviate considerably at 140kmph with considerable wind. and it doesn't swing for ages in other places.

    Some of these questions will always be their when hawkEya is used. Sure UDRS is improvement. But whats the point when they are not using hotspot which is the reliable part of it and HawkEye which has flaws?

  • Bob on June 15, 2011, 12:12 GMT

    As a postscript to my last post... I don't think it's the technology of Hawkeye which is the actual problem, despite what some people are claiming. What is the problem, and always has been, is the unpredictability of the flight of the ball when it has a certain distance to travel after pitching... Hence without UDRS umpires have always been reluctant to give LBWs on the front foot when the batsman is well forward. The 2.5 mtr rule is merely an extension of what umpires have been doing for ages, and that is give the benefit of any doubt to the batsman. The choice in these cases rests with the on field umpire... which is what the ante-UDRS brigade want.. so I can't see what their beef is. The one difference is that the UDRS does give the umpire the opportunity to change his decision... whether or not he does so and whether or not that decision is correct, is NOT a fault of the technology..

  • Deepak on June 15, 2011, 11:21 GMT

    @Bobmartin all cricket boards including ECB follows BCCI like a sheep. As far as knowledge comes Tendulkar and Dhoni has deep knowledge of Cricket and thats what matters the most. Anyway I am waiting for this series as much as any Cricket lover.

  • Deepak on June 15, 2011, 11:16 GMT

    I don't understand why England players specially Swann making so many comments one month before the series. England believe they should be no. 1 not India. When was the last time they beat india in India or in England ? Ok its really impressive that they beat Aus but thats it what else have they won ? They drew the series in SA also.

  • Bob on June 15, 2011, 10:31 GMT

    @Alex Scott... I aagree 100% with what you say about the 2.5 mtr rule... I mean, how many times have we seen a ball swing for no apparent reason after it's passed the batsman... and but for the swing would have bowled him.. But Alex, I think most genuine cricket lovers have accepted the UDRS as an improvement. For goodness sakes even the umpires support its use, even though they are the ones who are sometimes shown to millions of people to be in the wrong. That must say something in the systems favour. My personal take on it is that all those supporters against the system have little or no in depth knowledge of it and like the BCCI are just following Tendulkar and Dhoni like sheep in their rejection of it.. Which is the point I was making (sarcastically) in my previous post.

  • James on June 15, 2011, 9:40 GMT

    Thankyou @bobmartin, I believe that you have hit the nail on the head with regards to many of the opinions expressed on this matter. The debate should be whether we have the UDRS or another alternative not who can and can't opt out of it's use when and where it suits. What I would like to see is the TV umpire be active in the requesting of a review and take this matter away from the captains. I would also like to see the ICC grow a pair, but that may be a little too much to wish for.

  • Bilal on June 15, 2011, 7:34 GMT

    It is quite ironic that India detest the DRS so much, had it not being for this system India would have lost the world cup as Tendulkar would have been given out lbw off Ajmal in the semi final early and they would have lost that match.

  • No featured comments at the moment.