India in England 2011 July 20, 2011

DRS to be used, but not for lbw decisions

ESPNcricinfo staff
123

A watered-down version of the Decision Review System (DRS) will be used in the England-India series with both sides agreeing to not use the system for lbw decisions. A day before the first Test starts at Lord's, the ICC announced that infra-red technology and stump microphones will be part of the DRS - though not for lbw decisions - but not ball-tracking.

This meets the minimum standards for DRS usage stipulated by the ICC at its annual conference last month but the decision to do away with reviews of lbw decisions could lead to anomalies. For example, if a batsman is given out to a bat-pad catch, he can get the verdict reviewed and if it is overturned because there is no bat involved, the fielding side has no recourse to an lbw appeal.

The two captains didn't play up the issue at their pre-match press conferences. Andrew Strauss praised the overall efficacy of the full DRS but said the "half-way house" would have to do. "I don't think it's ideal but that's the situation we are faced with. For us as players to be overly concerned about it would be unhelpful."

His counterpart MS Dhoni has been one of the more vocal critics of ball-tracking technology and appeared more satisfied with the decision. "We're not really convinced 100 per cent as of now when it comes to the tracking system, especially with the spinners and the kind of bounce the ball generates so until we're 100 per cent satisfied we won't go on with it. But of course we are quite happy with Hotspot. I feel that's a very good technology to be used."

An ICC statement said the ECB wanted to include ball-tracking technology (such as Hawk-Eye or Virtual Eye) but the Indian board didn't.

"While we are disappointed that the full DRS will not be used to support the umpires, we are pleased that the ECB and BCCI have worked hard to ensure the minimum DRS is used in this much anticipated series," ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat said.

"It is common knowledge that the ICC and ECB would have liked ball tracking to have been included so that LBW decisions could have also been reviewed, but the last Chief Executives Committee and Board meeting in Hong Kong agreed to independently confirm the accuracy of ball-tracking technology. This will now take place as a matter of urgency."

The Indian board has long been averse to the DRS and had announced last month that it didn't want the system to be used in the England series. A compromise on the DRS was thrashed out at the ICC's annual conference later in the month. The series against England will be the first time India will be using the review system in Tests since 2008.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on July 21, 2011, 21:14 GMT

    @ abzbabz : Dude, did you even read Jai211's post. He clearly says he is not against DRS. I too am not against DRS. In fact, I am a firm believer in the use of a review system. All we pointed out were some grey areas in the actual implementation of DRS. I strongly believe that technology with all its inaccuracies is still way more accurate that umpires. But, technology still has to be implemented correctly. In close LBW decisions, it is my belief that technology should not go back to the on field umpire. If limited data is available for good ball tracking, then the same limited data is available to the umpires (he does not have access to any special data). So there is no point in going back to the on field umpire. The DRS should pick its decision independent of the umpire's original decision.

    Note that I am not saying that DRS shd not be used till its problems are sorted out. I am just saying that we should strive to keep improving the system and not be ok with arbitrary rules.

  • on July 21, 2011, 20:48 GMT

    @ itsfredtitmus : Thanks for providing the link to a most informative article. I have always been a firm believer in ball tracking. My only problem is with the way DRS is implemented as I have described in my previous 2 posts.

    I will also give an interesting scenario that can result from the current implementation of DRS (not related to ball tracking). When a batsman refers a decision, the ball is deemed dead and runs are not awarded for the ball (you can check this out under DRS rules).

    Consider an ODI, last ball of the match and the batsman needs 3 runs to win. Bowler bowls a full ball to the batsman, the ball takes a faint inside edge, hits the pads and runs away to fine leg boundary. The bowler however had appealead for LBW and the umpire had given it out (not seeing the inside edge). The batsman refers the decision. 3rd umpire detects the inside edge and overturns the decision. But the bowling team still wins as the ball was deemed dead after the on field umpire gave it out.

  • on July 21, 2011, 20:16 GMT

    @Johnxyz : I agree with most of your points except the last one. If the DRS decsisions are made objective (not depending on the umpire's original decisions), then keeping or losing reviews should also be made objective. I dont think you can have something like if the decision is a close one, then you dont lose your review. That will be a very subjective rule and will only open another can of worms. Then we will be arguing about why this decision was close and why this decision was not.

  • Johnxyz on July 21, 2011, 8:55 GMT

    As a big fan of UDRS, I fully agree with those pointing out the flaw whereby a ball clipping the stumps is out if the original ruling by the umpire is out (reviewed by the batsman), but it's not out if the original ruling is not out by the Ump (reviewed by the fielding side). This is stupid because you are creating different results with the same equation. To add insult to injury, one also either retains or loses a review under these circumstances. Insane!

    The ruling simply should be out or not (regardless of the umpire's ruling) i.e. The ICC should rule that if the ball clips the stumps by say less than half the circumference of the ball or whatever, then it is not out. Period. Additionally, under such circumstances where the batsmen or fielding side have lost a review where the ball is shown to be just clipping, they could rule that you do not lose a review in a close decision such as this.

  • GrassBanks on July 21, 2011, 8:50 GMT

    Why not use technology for all decisions and get rid of the umpires? Since everyone seems to think what Hawk-eye shows is "always right" then why not use it for every decision? Surely even more correct decisions will be made compared to using it for a few "referrals"?

  • on July 21, 2011, 8:35 GMT

    The reason why quite few Indian batsmen (not all) oppose is due to this: - DRS can't differentiate a LBW decision whether its top order batman or a tailender; - Umpires does differentiate; They tend be more careful (200% sure) to give a batman of Sachin's caliber LBW than someone like Ishat Sharma. That human element is what our batman want to take advantage of because umpires tend to give benefit of doubt to batsman for LBWs not DRS.

    Anyway its ridiculous not to use DRS even for decisions if ball pitched in-line or not and whether ball hits the bat/glove instead of pads for LBW decisions.

  • crickesh on July 21, 2011, 8:23 GMT

    @Sir_Freddie_Flintoff : haha ...just because you won a couple of them it make Ashes "real" ... a couple of years back even test against Bangadesh was more real. Dont take Oz for granted ...they will show your position next time

  • anurag4u10 on July 21, 2011, 8:18 GMT

    hotspot technology is based on thermographic cameres nd it wrks well in colder temperatures so hopefully in eng there shud be no problem. however in hot conditions d use of hotspot doesnt provide that accurate results nd faint edges r nt spotted by it

  • anurag4u10 on July 21, 2011, 8:10 GMT

    a lot of comments sayin dat swann will lose lotof decns becoz ofabsence of ball trackin. i ask y cant d reverse hppn? if a bad decn can go against swann it can also go in favor of swann nd in dis scenario batsmen will nt be able 2 review coz of absence of ball trackin. so equal risks on both sides. however i do feel d overall use of drs is batsman biased. bcoz a batsman is sure whether he edged or nt nd accordingly he will review so he will rarely get d review wrong whil bowlers hav 2 tk chances coz dey r unsure of nicks nd edges so dier chances of unsuccesssful review get increased

  • stambake on July 21, 2011, 6:40 GMT

    why this DRS system becoming so tough to BCCI....?? as indian team was the victim for all kind of wrong decisions many times... it is better to implement this system.. strange that it is not applicable for LBW.. how strange.......infra red, ball tracking,hawk eye... etc.. all good technology although ........

  • on July 21, 2011, 21:14 GMT

    @ abzbabz : Dude, did you even read Jai211's post. He clearly says he is not against DRS. I too am not against DRS. In fact, I am a firm believer in the use of a review system. All we pointed out were some grey areas in the actual implementation of DRS. I strongly believe that technology with all its inaccuracies is still way more accurate that umpires. But, technology still has to be implemented correctly. In close LBW decisions, it is my belief that technology should not go back to the on field umpire. If limited data is available for good ball tracking, then the same limited data is available to the umpires (he does not have access to any special data). So there is no point in going back to the on field umpire. The DRS should pick its decision independent of the umpire's original decision.

    Note that I am not saying that DRS shd not be used till its problems are sorted out. I am just saying that we should strive to keep improving the system and not be ok with arbitrary rules.

  • on July 21, 2011, 20:48 GMT

    @ itsfredtitmus : Thanks for providing the link to a most informative article. I have always been a firm believer in ball tracking. My only problem is with the way DRS is implemented as I have described in my previous 2 posts.

    I will also give an interesting scenario that can result from the current implementation of DRS (not related to ball tracking). When a batsman refers a decision, the ball is deemed dead and runs are not awarded for the ball (you can check this out under DRS rules).

    Consider an ODI, last ball of the match and the batsman needs 3 runs to win. Bowler bowls a full ball to the batsman, the ball takes a faint inside edge, hits the pads and runs away to fine leg boundary. The bowler however had appealead for LBW and the umpire had given it out (not seeing the inside edge). The batsman refers the decision. 3rd umpire detects the inside edge and overturns the decision. But the bowling team still wins as the ball was deemed dead after the on field umpire gave it out.

  • on July 21, 2011, 20:16 GMT

    @Johnxyz : I agree with most of your points except the last one. If the DRS decsisions are made objective (not depending on the umpire's original decisions), then keeping or losing reviews should also be made objective. I dont think you can have something like if the decision is a close one, then you dont lose your review. That will be a very subjective rule and will only open another can of worms. Then we will be arguing about why this decision was close and why this decision was not.

  • Johnxyz on July 21, 2011, 8:55 GMT

    As a big fan of UDRS, I fully agree with those pointing out the flaw whereby a ball clipping the stumps is out if the original ruling by the umpire is out (reviewed by the batsman), but it's not out if the original ruling is not out by the Ump (reviewed by the fielding side). This is stupid because you are creating different results with the same equation. To add insult to injury, one also either retains or loses a review under these circumstances. Insane!

    The ruling simply should be out or not (regardless of the umpire's ruling) i.e. The ICC should rule that if the ball clips the stumps by say less than half the circumference of the ball or whatever, then it is not out. Period. Additionally, under such circumstances where the batsmen or fielding side have lost a review where the ball is shown to be just clipping, they could rule that you do not lose a review in a close decision such as this.

  • GrassBanks on July 21, 2011, 8:50 GMT

    Why not use technology for all decisions and get rid of the umpires? Since everyone seems to think what Hawk-eye shows is "always right" then why not use it for every decision? Surely even more correct decisions will be made compared to using it for a few "referrals"?

  • on July 21, 2011, 8:35 GMT

    The reason why quite few Indian batsmen (not all) oppose is due to this: - DRS can't differentiate a LBW decision whether its top order batman or a tailender; - Umpires does differentiate; They tend be more careful (200% sure) to give a batman of Sachin's caliber LBW than someone like Ishat Sharma. That human element is what our batman want to take advantage of because umpires tend to give benefit of doubt to batsman for LBWs not DRS.

    Anyway its ridiculous not to use DRS even for decisions if ball pitched in-line or not and whether ball hits the bat/glove instead of pads for LBW decisions.

  • crickesh on July 21, 2011, 8:23 GMT

    @Sir_Freddie_Flintoff : haha ...just because you won a couple of them it make Ashes "real" ... a couple of years back even test against Bangadesh was more real. Dont take Oz for granted ...they will show your position next time

  • anurag4u10 on July 21, 2011, 8:18 GMT

    hotspot technology is based on thermographic cameres nd it wrks well in colder temperatures so hopefully in eng there shud be no problem. however in hot conditions d use of hotspot doesnt provide that accurate results nd faint edges r nt spotted by it

  • anurag4u10 on July 21, 2011, 8:10 GMT

    a lot of comments sayin dat swann will lose lotof decns becoz ofabsence of ball trackin. i ask y cant d reverse hppn? if a bad decn can go against swann it can also go in favor of swann nd in dis scenario batsmen will nt be able 2 review coz of absence of ball trackin. so equal risks on both sides. however i do feel d overall use of drs is batsman biased. bcoz a batsman is sure whether he edged or nt nd accordingly he will review so he will rarely get d review wrong whil bowlers hav 2 tk chances coz dey r unsure of nicks nd edges so dier chances of unsuccesssful review get increased

  • stambake on July 21, 2011, 6:40 GMT

    why this DRS system becoming so tough to BCCI....?? as indian team was the victim for all kind of wrong decisions many times... it is better to implement this system.. strange that it is not applicable for LBW.. how strange.......infra red, ball tracking,hawk eye... etc.. all good technology although ........

  • Thyagu5432 on July 21, 2011, 6:15 GMT

    @abzbabz, spot on! It is a level playing field is what is being made possible by DRS. An umpire can be biased but DRS will help in balancing that out. I am unable to understand not using DRS for LBW. Pitching outside leg, impact outside off, clearly hitting or missing the stumps (even after giving enough margin for error), bat before pad or vice versa can all help. DRS has added that zing in test cricket to make some moments exciting and all these are needed to make test matches interesting.

  • FaHaD685 on July 21, 2011, 5:53 GMT

    Hoping for an awesome series but I just pray ... I mean I ask everyone to pray that all the LBW decisions go 'wrong and against' India. Might help them get 100% convinced with the ball tracking system and also provide us with some comedy whining! :D

  • Champ2000 on July 21, 2011, 2:31 GMT

    @Vignesh Kanagaraja : You spoke my mind. what if batsmen is certait had bat first and given lbw.. can he not claim it. that i

  • peterss on July 21, 2011, 2:16 GMT

    ICC should enforce this issue on BCCI. BCCI is not being smart and they are being annoyingly adamant on something peripheral. It is going to be common for all teams not as if India are alone on this. Come on BCCI stop being fussy.

  • kristee on July 21, 2011, 1:10 GMT

    Only common sense is needed to realize that whom umpires would be reluctant to estrange, under the prevailing circumstances; and who are going to benefit more. And hence the 'watering-down'!

  • on July 20, 2011, 23:48 GMT

    @Jai211 : Great arguments. I have been pointing to the same implementation flaw in DRS for a long time. I would also take your example and take it one step further. If the ball clips the top of off stump, and umpire A gives it out while umpire B gives it not out, DRS agrees with both umpires and ICC goes ahead and claims that both the umpires were right and use it in their argument that majority of umpire's decisions are upheld by DRS. DRS should provide an objective decision. I do not have problem with DRS using margins of errors (like when the ball is shown to be clipping the top of off stump). However, the decision of the DRS should not be based on the original decision of the umpire. When a player is appealing against an umpire's decision, you do not make the umpire the judge of his own decision. After all, you do not make an accused the judge of his alleged guilt.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on July 20, 2011, 23:22 GMT

    While I appreciate the usage of DRS, I'm stumped with regards to hot-spot/LBW interplay. Why can't the batsman be allowed to review the decision if he thinks there is an edge (hot-spot) before the ball hit the pad (LBW)? Leave the ball tracking. Why can't there be a review just to see if the ball pitched outside the leg-stump?

  • on July 20, 2011, 22:33 GMT

    Clearly this benefits the batting side, who now have no reason ever to lose a review!

  • kemmisito on July 20, 2011, 21:12 GMT

    Those of you critisizing DRS because it is not perfect are being very unrealistic. We all know that DRS is not perfect but I have watched quite a few matches where huge umpiring errors were corrected by DRS. As long as it is better than what is being used currently then it only makes sense to use it. I don't think that anyone can say that DRS has caused more issues than it has fixed. The same can be said about a car. Every year thousands of people die in car accidents but hardly anyone will say that we shouldn't use cars because of this. At the end of the day common sense prevails and we realise that without cars we would take forever to get from point A to point B. So inspite of the obvious risks we continue using cars on a daily basis because the positives outweigh the negatives. Anyone who thinks that more incorrect decisions are being made because of DRS either live under a rock or are just plain biased. Safe driving folks :-)

  • abzbabz on July 20, 2011, 21:11 GMT

    @ Jai211: I would beg to differ from your pov simply because Cricket is played under a certain set of rules defined by the governing body. For eg; there are 11 players and not 12, if the ball pitches outside leg stump it will never be given out LBW even if the ball goes on to hit the stumps and many more like this. The point I am making is that if the guidelines are set/pre defined and consistent for all the teams then it does not really matter because in one way or the other and at one point or another each and every team/player will be impacted by that set of rules. Net net, what technology is designed to do is to REDUCE the errors being made and NOT eliminate them completely and clearly the success rate of DRS has proved that it does REDUCE errors significantly.

  • itsfredtitmus on July 20, 2011, 21:07 GMT

    @Victor Mukherjee (and others) The predictions made by Hawkeye are not based on the type of pitch, bowler, altitude etc. The path is tracked and then extrapolated using a physical model i.e. factoring gravity etc. Once the ball is in the air after pitching its trajectory can be predicted from the data gathered about the path it follows before hitting the pad. Also, the makers of Hawkeye did not admit to it being defective and there is no such thing a faultless or completely accurate technology of this kind. As any scientist or engineer will tell you calculating the 'error' of a piece of equipment is essential if you want to use it effectively. Read this to educate yourselves. http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20accuracy%20and%20believability2.pdf

  • on July 20, 2011, 20:28 GMT

    this sounds like how kids play cricket without LBW

  • on July 20, 2011, 20:15 GMT

    Hot-spot will be used but not for LBW decisions...WTH is wrong with MSD and BCCI?? Doesnt make any sense to me... Does this mean tht inspite of having DRS an LBW decision involving inside edge will be OUT??? I too wish MSD himself be given out in the same fashion multiple times to make him understand his stupidity...

  • on July 20, 2011, 19:55 GMT

    BCCI criticizing seems to be fashion now-days especially from fans jealous of BCCI success story and financial strength which it has gained by proper marketing and top class management skills. The makers of hawkeye have acknowledged its faulty and defective. BCCI just said if its faulty it should not be part of UDRs. The cricket pitch has variable bounce depending soil, altitude of ground , weather, the condition of bowl and the bowlers release and his action. It is difficult to predict it electronically the path it will take. If the hawkeye is not in your favor then fans cry conspiracy(prime example is Ajmal fans in CWC2011 SF).The faulty hawkeye worked in India's favor but despite that the BCCI are opposing it because of precisely that..its not error free technology. BCCI has said if technology is error free they will happily accept it but now respecting ICC decision they have humbly accepted DRS which needs to be appreciated.

  • Chalachala on July 20, 2011, 18:35 GMT

    Funny ICC and smart BCCI...........................

  • dabomb_758 on July 20, 2011, 18:19 GMT

    ICC and BCCI should switch places.I don't care how you look at it, India always get their way. Daryl Harper experienced it first hand but everyone else seems to sweep it under the rug.

  • Pravy_Charming on July 20, 2011, 17:26 GMT

    What if a batsman is given out LBW and he thinks he edged it? He has no chance to ask for a review?

    I wish this happens to Dhoni...thats the only way BCCI can learn the lesson.

    I dont understand the exclusion of LBWs from the half-DRS.

  • raghav249 on July 20, 2011, 17:16 GMT

    BCCI's stand on DRS is ridiculous.... if they dont want to use it for LBWs, then what is the motive of using it? Why dont they look around the record of reviewed decisions to find that more than half of them have taken place against an incorrect LBW decision...

    They say Ball Tracking is not perfect, fair enough, but isn't it still the best alternative Cricket has. Even human umpires are not perfect, so why keep them?

    Why has Ithe CC given them the license to ridicule the game?

  • Jay_N on July 20, 2011, 17:01 GMT

    Continuing with my previous post. Let's say the ball is clipping the top of the stumps and if the umpire gives it out even if the batsman reviewed it he will still be out, however if the same decision was given notout by the umpire batsman would be notout if reviewed by fielding team so how can the same decision be out or not out at the same time? How is it different from umpiring errors? the point is just make it decisive either it's out or notout regardless of who reviews it as long as it is consistent. Having technology is one thing but using it correctly is another. The DRS doesn't need anything extraordinary, all it needs is to apply some common sense to the rules but as they the only problem with common sense is that it is not so common.

  • on July 20, 2011, 16:58 GMT

    In the aspect of development of cricket, DRS is a good technology.But you cant expect everyone to be of same opinions.Since we are humans our thoughts differ from each other.Thats where the BCCI is differing from the rest of the boards.Everyone needs some time to realise their mistakes.But one day the BCCI would accept the use of the DRS technology.So we have to wait and see what the BCCI is going to do in the upcoming years.

  • Jay_N on July 20, 2011, 16:35 GMT

    Let me say that I am not against the DRS, but certainly the indecisiveness the system has doesn't make any sense. If you remember the world cup match between India and England Ian bell was given not out on review because he was more than 2.5 meters forward even though the ball was shown hitting the stumps halfway. Well the rule clearly states that such decision can only be overturned in exceptional cases, if that wasn't one i don't know which other can be? but the point is even after using technology we still bring in human judgement and thus human error. Not that technology did not do its work but rules framed lack complete common sense i mean at the end of the day if you are still relying on human judgement than where is technology in that?

  • on July 20, 2011, 16:31 GMT

    The ICC shouldn't be giving cricket boards the option of DRS but instead should make it compulsory for all test playing nations and for any ICC affiliated cricket. Umpires shouldn't be retiring and players shouldn't complaining to the point where politics gets in the way of improving the percentage of correct decisions made. There's no halfway house in rugby, the referee can use tv replays as he chooses, so it should be the same in cricket (and include ball tracking tech- it'll never be 100% correct, but no umpire ever will be either!)

  • on July 20, 2011, 16:20 GMT

    what if inside edges on to the pad are given as lbw ??? no review???

  • cricfan2007 on July 20, 2011, 16:08 GMT

    For those who whine in every forum about BCCI and DRS system, please stop doing that. Why don't you understand the simple truth " The Ball tracking is simply prediction, not exact data points. So the projected path is not accurate no matter how nice it appears on TV. it needs more data points to make a better guess" This is simple mechanics. Specifically, the data points on bounce and spin are extremely complicated to calculate. Please be knowledgeable before commenting on technical matters. there are other thousand reasons to criticize BCCI but not on this one. The technology will improve in next few years and will be accepted for sure.

  • g.narsimha on July 20, 2011, 16:01 GMT

    MR.MOHD.ADEELAHMAD WHY YOU PEOPLE bring lbw reversal in wc every where india availed the system moreover it is as if sachin is the only playerinihe team pl note gone are the days when indian batting heavily depandaed on him at present we have very good young players. see what happened in the wc final SACHIN&SAHWAG both got out cheaply what happened than i,e history sodont harp on the lbw reversal&drop catches even if sachin had gone cheaply raina who was not out would have scored enough runs

  • VEXXZ on July 20, 2011, 15:48 GMT

    The ICC is made to look like a toothless body because two top teams can have their say on the DRS rule . If two of the lesser Countries were playing we all know it would have been a different decision handed down by the ICC.

  • suprabadh on July 20, 2011, 15:30 GMT

    Why the hell both ECB and BCCI accept for DRS? I advocate for all decisions that could be reviewed with DRS. Why leave a part of it and keep others? It is very funny to note that BCCI which has told before a fortnight that it will not accept for implementation of DRS or think of using it now agreeing with out a main clause which will put the system into jeopardy. It is of my humble opinion that all review system should not be implemented and the old system of Umpire's decision without any review will be the final. Umpires are not fools to always make mistakes.

  • on July 20, 2011, 15:30 GMT

    From this one thing is very clear India is not feeling confident against the best sides in the world.... poor decision

  • rakibul-narail-bd on July 20, 2011, 15:23 GMT

    No drs on lbw! So what is the meaning of introducing drs. Its a clear joke, india making again at icc. May be another umpire is going to retiring!

  • fbyg on July 20, 2011, 15:12 GMT

    To get the best decision for anything debatable or controversial, such as lbw's, it is necessary to utilize all the technology available. I believe everything should be used, including hot spot, snicko, ball tracking etc. Using all these technologies together will produce the most accurate decision. I don't know what the BCCI is playing at.

  • on July 20, 2011, 15:06 GMT

    lets see how this works

  • sheels on July 20, 2011, 15:04 GMT

    with out optimum utilization DRS is of no use to any one other than the Umpire

  • autopilot1 on July 20, 2011, 14:54 GMT

    It really does not matter, with or wothout DRS England going to win 3-0 or If India is really lucky 2-1. If they have full DRS India would loose 4-0 because of Swann factor.

  • unclemarlers on July 20, 2011, 14:52 GMT

    The argument that the DRS is not 100% correct is irrelevant - the whole point of the DRS is that it is the same for both teams and removes unfairness, i.e. one team won't receive 3 "shockers" which tips the balance of favour in the direction of the other team. This has really set cricket back - I'm due to be going to the test on Sunday and this is detracting from my enjoyment - thankyou BCCI.

  • Sri1967 on July 20, 2011, 14:45 GMT

    Does ICC have a say on any decisions? If they don't why are they coming out with them? One searies is using the technology and the other is not using. This has an impact on the match results and it's not fair for others. This means ICC's rankings are not appropriate.

  • Tatsache on July 20, 2011, 14:43 GMT

    For me UDRS is good coz...Sachin is saved in WC semi :D

  • demosthenes_wiggin on July 20, 2011, 14:40 GMT

    re bat-pad and lbw (first comment above), simple solution: fielding side appeals for both LBW and catch. this is alowed.

  • I_am_Prime on July 20, 2011, 14:28 GMT

    To add onto what has been said about, I would request everyone to consider the India -SL test series in which DRS was used (not sure abt the year). I think Sehwag was given out on basis of a review where the ball hit the front pad and then went on to hit the back pad. In the replays showed during review, the point of impact was considered as the backpad and it was shown to hit the stumps. The explaination was the ball could not be tracked via the first impact (front pad) which would hav surely missed the stumps. It was a clean not out and though the third umpire (Mr.Koertzen) saw it , he had to give him out. This is the other side of technology. If you dont have something without these loop holes, then why not trust the umpires and bring back this system when it's ready... I mean this for all the games not only for INdia specific matches so that these anomalies dont occur again...

  • timelord24 on July 20, 2011, 14:16 GMT

    what happens when the umpire doesn't see a huge inside edge? the batsman knows that he got some bat on it but still he wouldn't be able to appeal it.

  • atuljain1969 on July 20, 2011, 14:15 GMT

    Being objective about DRS is the right course to folllow. From our experience we have seen that under DRS foll. technologies are there :

    SLO MO 1. Good for caught, run out,stumping, bat & pad

    HOT SPOT

    1. Good for caught, in appeal for LBW - where ball may have touched bat

    BALL TRACKING

    1. Good for deciding the pitching of ball in line for LBW decision 2. Doubtful for LBW appeal in deciding height of the ball and direction of ball after pitching

    From the above we could see that at present Ball tracking is doubtful in its use, hence it should not be used for deciding LBW decisions. Though HOT SPOT be used for LBW decisons

  • --S-- on July 20, 2011, 14:08 GMT

    @wolf777 "why not then rely solely on human judgment?" Because, and I'm quoting my 80 year old Indian grandfather, if you think the technology is not infallible, what about the human eye, and human judgement? Do you think that they are infallible? Indeed, the discrepancy in the two cases you're quoting sounds (though I'll freely admit to not knowing the exact details of the incidents) like a human judgment on how to apply the DRS was made in two different ways, wrongly. That is a HUMAN error, failing to follow how the technology is supposed to be used. The technology did exactly the same for both - showed the impact to be outside 2.5 metres. HUMAN judgment got it wrong by not making the decision you are supposed to when that is what the technology shows. I hope I understand the incidents right or the last half of this post is somewhat weak. But I reiterate and stand by the first bit - technology is more consistently accurate than the human eye!

  • shishirji on July 20, 2011, 14:06 GMT

    @muhammad adeel----->DRS was used in world cup, as it was ICC tournament, whereas in bilateral series,host team can dictate terms.....there INDIA had to play UDRS even if they didn't wanted to!!!!!

  • Rural_Cricketer on July 20, 2011, 13:54 GMT

    @Bobmartin - if the DRS is not being used for LBW then it would follow that the TMO can't say anything about LBW to the onfield umpire. What happens if.... bat pad catch, batsman asks for the review to see if catch has been made cleanly, TMO say no catch but as he can't rule on LBW he can't point out the onfield umpire's error that it was clearly pad then bat and therefore LBW... Either give the whole package or nothing. What a mess....

  • on July 20, 2011, 13:52 GMT

    WHY BCCI CANT UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS DRS WHO SAVED SACHIN IN THE SEMI FINAL OF THE WORLDCUP AJMAL WAS SURE THAT SACHIN WAS OUT. BUT AT THAT TIME ALL OF YOU EASILY DIGESTED THE DRS DECISION. THATS NOT FAIR

  • Venki_indian on July 20, 2011, 13:51 GMT

    @Muhammad Adeel Ahmed everyone knew that tendulkar's decision in WC semifinal is wrong, why everyone supporting UDRS then if its not accurate..

  • Venki_indian on July 20, 2011, 13:47 GMT

    people who are talking about BCCI should understand, ball tracking is not accurate, thats why LBWs are not reviewd; Please dont write for the sake of writting something.

  • iamafish on July 20, 2011, 13:44 GMT

    This is insane! We can't continue to have this absurd mix-and-match of different systems in different series. ICC need to put their foot down and stop the BCCI insisting for no good reason against the UDRS. The ICC is the international governing body, so they should be able to overrule the BCCI on matters that concern the world game, such as the UDRS. It should be the same for everyone in every series, whether they like it or not. The system work; it has increased the number of correct decisions. It's not perfect, but that's no excuse; the only way to improve it is to use it and figure out the faults. This compromise is especially silly, because you can bet your bottom dollar that Sky Sports will be using Hawk Eye for LBW decisions, so fans watching at home will see when a bad decision has been made, but there will be no way for the players to appeal it. Madness. ICC, please show some backbone and put the BCCI in its place, for the good of the game, the fans and the players.

  • inswing on July 20, 2011, 13:43 GMT

    @rajpan agree that two chances per side is not enough. Once can automatically review all 'out' decisions. Since most outs are clear, it does not take much additional time. Right now, the problem is that the batsman really doesn't know if he was out or not in many cases of LBW (always feels that he was not out). A top order batsman, given LBW, reflexively reviews it and then everyone is upset that the review is wasted and now only one chance is left. Reviewing all outs removes this problem. The fielding side, on the other hand, can have three chances per innings and they have to use them judiciously. Once chance per bowler may work also, but some bowlers send down many more overs than others, and hence the chances of them getting a wrong decision are more.

  • on July 20, 2011, 13:41 GMT

    then for what the hell DRS is used if not for LBW's??????????????????????this is ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • on July 20, 2011, 13:31 GMT

    Some BCCI /India haters just seem to need a reason to belittle India/BCCI . It does not take a genuis to figure out its more because of blind hate and perhaps jealousy that this venom against BCCI is shown. However looking practically BCCI has asked DRS to be 100% error free before being accepted. Nothing wrong in it.People asking for DRS today blindly will start cursing it moment decison goes against them..perhaps then murmurs of Indian computer engineers manipulating the hawkeye will start. But hey I know one thnig for sure..if DRS decision goes against India the nthe same haters will sing praises for DRS.

  • wolf777 on July 20, 2011, 13:30 GMT

    Good decision. If LBW is an opinion and it remains an opinion even with the use of DRS to some extent, why not then rely solely on human judgment? I don't think Indians are oppose to the use of DRS to determine if the ball has pitched outside the leg or if the batsman has, in fact, has played. Indians are rightly oppose to the use of the DRS in LBW decisions and those who do not understand their opposition should review the famous 'Ian Bell LBW' decision side by side with less famous 'Chigimbura decision' in Zim. Vs Aus. Match. Bell was judge not out because the impact was outside 2.5 meters and within few days Chigumbura was given out even though the impact was outside 2.5 meters. Why Indians, let alone anyone, would trust DRS after such decisions?

  • StatisticsRocks on July 20, 2011, 13:27 GMT

    As an Indian I don't get it as well. Why is the BCCI so adamant about not using technology as it will only help and not do any harm. Don;t whine about bad umpiring decisions later as umpires are humans and are and will make some mistakes which can alter the course of the game. The irony being India now is the technology hub of the world and yet we don'twant to use technology.

  • on July 20, 2011, 13:19 GMT

    BCCI opposes DRS simply because it is faulty and error prone not becaue it fears DRS. Just ask Saeed Ajmal on how reliable it is although Ajmal and fans like to believe it was some Indian computer genius sitting with the third umpire who manipulated a software within a second (surely must be genius if he can do that at such short notice). However BCCI has just said they would and now they have accepted DRS as per ICC directive..only hitch was please remove glitches from system.Ball tracking should be used only after its accuracy is confirmed or else we will have Ajmal type of conspiracy believers galore always. Guys please do not hate or riducle BCCI just because of its success.

  • ashankar on July 20, 2011, 13:14 GMT

    @Muhammad Adeel Ahmed Dude, we were still against it. Really, we thank god for forcing us to use it:):)

  • on July 20, 2011, 13:08 GMT

    Guys, India just like any other tean has been a victim of few poor umpiring decisions. Indias basic reservation with DRS has been ball tracking system.Indias allegations were concrete and has solid base. It has also failed to detect late swing! which is quite obvious for the guys who watch matches in england regularly because BTS connects only dots upto the frame available and gives an expected trajectory. This method fails miserably in case of late swingers.Try to be sensible and meaningful in your comment MR.Hammond

  • Stouffer on July 20, 2011, 13:00 GMT

    Well, I guess it's better than no UDRS at all. I do have some sympathy with how hawk-eye assesses the path of a ball delivered by a spinner. I clearly remember seeing the predicted path of a ball from Shane Warne which was supposed to "swing" after it had pitched. The path had taken Warne's drift and mistaken it for swing, the drift would have been lost as soon as the ball pitched. However, there shouldn't be a problem in seeing where the batsman was hit, ie outside the line, or where the ball pitched.

  • on July 20, 2011, 12:49 GMT

    Problem with ball tracking technology but whats the problem in using tramllines for seeing whether the ball pitched in line and hit the batsman in line for lbw decisions and whether it took the inside edge.

  • on July 20, 2011, 12:47 GMT

    What is the fun in using DRS without LBWs?

  • on July 20, 2011, 12:31 GMT

    surprised the Indians have allowed a DRS for bat-pad OVER the lbw's. Harbhajan, as good as he is, has had a lot of rough bat-pad catches go in his favour over the years. He's gonna lose that now. Okay, the Bell decision in the World Cup was ridiculous, speaking as an Englishman, Bell was plumb and should have been out. But that was a technicality (although it was out, umpires didn't break any rules following the 2.5m rule). Also, if India want to prove they are the number 1 team, they should do it following the mode everyone is doing, not what suits the Indian team as and when

  • on July 20, 2011, 12:18 GMT

    Regarding Law 27.4, if the ball hits the pads, what's to stop the Indians appealing for a catch, saying they think he got a slight edge, and asking for a review and when that is turned down, asking for LBW instead as it has now been shown in slo-mo and everyone can see it would have hit the wicket?

  • RD270 on July 20, 2011, 12:18 GMT

    I am an Indian fan and all I can say on this one is that ICC is stupid and the Indian board is even more stupid!

    What happens if an Indian batsmen is declared out LBW and has got a thick inside edge and hot spot shows it? Using technology that exists only for select decisions is farcical.

    You can use hot-spot for a bat pad, or for an edge, but not for an edge involved in an LBW decision! Work that one out?!

  • yorkermania on July 20, 2011, 12:17 GMT

    i seriously have a feeling the umpires in the upcoming ODI and test series will wantedly make a mess of decisions involving india. this will infuriate the BCCI, who will react in an almost BCC-ICC DIVORCE sort o manner...and the BCCI might form an independent body! the IPL will still draw playas from abroad...on conditions in favor of the BCCI and against the ICC! not that it already isnt...but the world order in cricket is gravitating towards the BCCI.

  • on July 20, 2011, 12:17 GMT

    India should play with DRS and win the series.

  • on July 20, 2011, 12:10 GMT

    Swann get lots of lbw decisions from DRS just a bit odd then that India don't won't the lbw technology in place.

  • mensan on July 20, 2011, 11:58 GMT

    ECB too is afraid of BCCI. ECB must have insisted on use of full DRS.

  • on July 20, 2011, 11:56 GMT

    India should play with DRS and win the series.

  • on July 20, 2011, 11:56 GMT

    I wonder why India allowed UDRS to be used in World cup ? Remember Tendulkar decision in semi final ? Their world cup dream was saved by UDRS and still they oppose it ? BCCI ruling ICC !!

  • mail2shiv on July 20, 2011, 11:52 GMT

    I also have a problem with ball tracking technology but whats the problem in using tramllines for seeing whether the ball pitched in line and hit the batsman in line for lbw decisions and whether it took the inside edge.

  • rajpan on July 20, 2011, 11:51 GMT

    Only thing unfair about DRS is that only two chances per innings are given. Every player should be given one chance (both bowlers and batters) per inning. Whatever form of technology you use, since the same is applied to both sides, there is nothing unfair about it. Just as some grounds are smaller than others but is the same for both sides.

  • Midonoff on July 20, 2011, 11:51 GMT

    The DRS was used for LBW in the world cup where allot of teams benefited from it. Why the DRS can be used at such prestigious event and then can be putted to one side in an important test series such as this. If the DRS is showing clearly that the ball was going to hit the stumps then what's the problem? Thought the DRS was for eradicate mistakes.

  • Hammond on July 20, 2011, 11:36 GMT

    Harbajhan has obtained too many wickets against left handers with the ball pitching outside leg stump. Hence no ball tracking.

  • kubban on July 20, 2011, 11:28 GMT

    i don`t understand why indian team or board have reservetions on full DRS? indians are true world champions they should behave like a champions. waiting and counting days to watch india vs. England test series.

  • on July 20, 2011, 11:25 GMT

    shows how poewerfull BCCI is !! They making their own rules in cricket !! When you use DRS Use the whole bloody thing !!

  • --S-- on July 20, 2011, 11:20 GMT

    Leaving aside the possible motives of each side wanting/not wanting full DRS, what is really ridiculous is that individual boards are allowed to opt out at all. This series is being billed as England's attempt to overtake India and become the No.1 Test side. Such an accolade is open to any international side with the gumption to aim for it and the skill to achieve it, but in a world ranking system every side aiming to progress should be held to the same standard, be playing the same game. Perhaps DRS is a relatively minor point (although, given the degree of controversy and comment it generates, perhaps not) but the point stands that every Test match should be played the same way. It is difficult to please everyone, and India clearly have issues with DRS, as is their right. But pick any aspect of the game that one person might want to tweak and there will be another who disagrees. What is important is consistency, uniformity. Every Test match should be played with DRS, or none should.

  • on July 20, 2011, 11:11 GMT

    Indian team have been afraid of UDRS since they first time used it their SL tour in 2008. SL players came good to use UDRS and turned many decisions for them, while Indian players could not use UDRS well to turn decisions for them. It seems that Indian players cannot assess the situation on the field well. e.g. Many times they asked for the review when they thought that the batsman was out, but the review had said that the ball pitched just outside off-stump or it was just clipping the stump; whereas SL players assessed the situation very well and successfully appealed for more numbers of reviews that Indians did. Since then, India have been afraid of that.

    The ball-tracking technology (hawk-eye) has become more accurate since its introduction in about 2001-02. Though it might be 80 % accurate, it must be used for the sake of the game.

    It is very unfortunate that BCCI has used its power in a wrong manner once again just because of the fear of Indian playersl.

  • bobmartin on July 20, 2011, 11:09 GMT

    @Rural_Cricketer Absolutely correct...Law 27.4 states that an appeal covers all ways of being out..so the on-field umpire will make his decision as he sees it. The only time the third umpire gets involved is if either side requests a review. Then, I would assume the third umpire, as required by Law 27.4, will look at the all the evidence and advise the on-field umpire accordingly. So to take one scenario as an example, even though the on-field umpire may have thought the batsman was LBW, if hot spot showed an inside edge, he could still be given out caught.

  • spinkingKK on July 20, 2011, 10:57 GMT

    LBW decision should be referred in DRS even if they don't want to use Hawk eye because of its inaccuracy. Hot spot, stump microphone and snicko's are great tools in reversing the most shocking LBW decisions. DRS should be encouraged to be used only for the shocking decisions only. When you use Hawke eye, usually it is to prove the umpire is wrong in a borderline decision anyway. So, I don't see why they can't refer the LBW with the current tools, endorsed by the Indian board.

  • Rajanz on July 20, 2011, 10:57 GMT

    Its really weird to imagine that no review would be available for LBW decision involving doubts over inside edges in spite of the presence of HOT SPOT. Talk about confusing a complicated issue.

  • BifferSpice on July 20, 2011, 10:53 GMT

    i hope india are the victims of some terrible LBW decisions early on and that it makes them realise the review system isn't out to get them - it's out to remove errors from the game.

  • rohiitian on July 20, 2011, 10:39 GMT

    This is the biggest folly ever. The DRS system has time and again proved to be least reliable in 'caught behing' cases (with or without Hotspot). Ive seen atleast 2 incidents of a noise but no spot when it seemed there was a faint edge, and Hotspot is not a hundred percent either as admitted by the suppliers of the technology themselves. And probably the most frequent call for a re-review is in the case of an inside-edge LBW. And that has been done away with inspite of the presence of the very expensive inside-egde detecting tool. What a joke.

  • gracegift on July 20, 2011, 10:32 GMT

    What if a batsman is given out caught behind by the umpire, though there is no edge, then the ball hits pad right in front(clear lbw) before going through to the keeper. The batsman is then caught out of the crease and the keeper throws the stumps down. The batsman reviews the caught behind and since there is no edge, he is safe. now can the umpire himself ask for the lbw decision to be reviewed? Can the fielding side then appeal for the run out? Will the umpire review for the run out too? Could even break for tea and crumpets by the time this gets resolved!

  • on July 20, 2011, 10:31 GMT

    A simple solution. Change the rules so that if one side want it, they can. India don't want the DRS, then they can't use it. England want the DRS, they can use it. You'll soon see each team using it.

  • Abheeshu on July 20, 2011, 10:22 GMT

    what if the umpire gives Out lbw and then the batsman claims that his bat has touched the ball??

  • on July 20, 2011, 10:20 GMT

    Talking as an Indian supporter I don't necessarily agree with the BCCI that ball tracking technology should not be used at all. The reviews can determine if the ball pitched within the stump-to-stump rectangle. There can be no disputing the accuracy of where the ball pitched for example even if you argue that the predictive path the ball takes after impact isn't 100% accurate. Using Hawk Eye we can easily eliminate lbw howlers when the ball pitches outside leg stump 100% of the times.

    Regarding the off spinner swann theory, its ridiculous to suggest India does not want Hawk Eye because Swann will get more wickets that way. India has opposed and not used DRS in any test series since 2008. Those of you who are suggesting that was a reason India does not want Hawk Eye, are basically saying India planned DRS rules for this series since 2008. Our cricket board may be powerful, farsightedness on the other hand isn't one of their strong suits.

  • Lions11 on July 20, 2011, 10:11 GMT

    So how this works ? Inside edge on to the pads, given out lbw... can batsman review that ? If not, throw this whole system out of the window.

  • on July 20, 2011, 10:10 GMT

    What I would like to have is, 'If a batsman is given out LBW, he should be given a chance to review. But if the LBW is turned down, the bowler should not be given reviews.' This will solve inside-edges pblm for the batsmen. As far as the bowlers r concerned, he will always have second chance. Only problem is 'if it is plumb and the umpire turns down the appeal.'

  • on July 20, 2011, 9:56 GMT

    now this is something icc has made mandotry to be used and is being used and they are using what is mandotry and ruling says to use hawk eye only if both boards want and if bcci dont want so the case rests their english making excuses for loss before a single bowl is bowled

  • on July 20, 2011, 9:55 GMT

    Would it be cynical to suggest that because spinners, and particularly offies such as Graeme Swann (just to pluck a name out of the hat at random) have benefitted enormously from the review system, India see it as a way of negating a little one of England's main threats?

  • on July 20, 2011, 9:55 GMT

    it is mostly required in lbw decisions otherwise there is less need

  • Rural_Cricketer on July 20, 2011, 9:53 GMT

    If I remember the laws correctly the fielding side do not have to specify what it is they are appealing for. Where there is more than one possibility (ct or lbw, ct bhd or stumped etc.) the scorers have to confirm the mode of dismissal with the Umpire.

    Similar problems occur in rugby when the ref asks a specific question like "Did he ground the ball correctly" rather than the more open question "Can I award the try."

    To be fair to both sides id the reveiw system is to be used it needs to be an open forum.... the question the onfield Umpire should be asking is "Is that out" not "is that out caught"

  • on July 20, 2011, 9:51 GMT

    Good decision. Game deserves better technology to reduce human error factor.

  • 5wombats on July 20, 2011, 9:43 GMT

    indians are afraid of UDRS for LBW's - there can be no other reason for their refusal to accept it in this series. This refusal shows a weakness that I hope Swann can exploit. @Balaji Ramalingam; No - there is No UDRS - by indias own choice.

  • BarrJNJ on July 20, 2011, 9:39 GMT

    Does this mean that a batsman who edges the ball onto his pads and is given out LBW cannot appeal and use Hotspot to prove it? Does it also mean a batsman cannot appeal an LBW decision if he thinks that the ball pitched outside leg stump? Neither of those reviews require Hawkeye.

    The BCCI are making a mockery of the DRS.

  • Tatsache on July 20, 2011, 9:39 GMT

    For example, if a batsman is given out to a bat-pad catch, he can get the verdict reviewed and if it is overturned because there is no bat involved, the fielding side has no recourse to an lbw appeal Lol :)...if LBW is sure..they y cant be appeal..?? then also it will go wrong decision ..!!!

  • satish619chandar on July 20, 2011, 9:36 GMT

    Why not use technology for hit outside off stump or INside edge LBW decisons?? It does make sense that Hawkeye cant predict the ball after the impact but technology is accurate until the impact right.. It could ve easily avoided some bad decisions.. What if a batsman given LBW wrongly got huge inside edge n its easily visible in the replays!! It ll be even embarrassing than not having DRS.. Those decisions doesnt need ball tracker.. Normal replays enough for that..

  • avi.archit on July 20, 2011, 9:32 GMT

    I really do think LBW inclusion makes it a case of making it a simple way of going for JUST IN CASE scenario from bowlers point of view ! Though , in 2008 Srilanka series , Gavaskar had pointed out that if LBWs were given as per Hawk Eye , then tests would end in 2-3 days !

  • on July 20, 2011, 9:30 GMT

    This statement is to highlight the inevitable squeeling that is about to arise from both sides when a watered down UDRS affects dismissals.

  • mm71 on July 20, 2011, 9:24 GMT

    So, the Poms already have an excuse ready if they lose.

  • on July 20, 2011, 9:24 GMT

    What happens,if a batsman is given out LBW and he's got an inside edge.Does he get to review the decision?

  • on July 20, 2011, 9:23 GMT

    Indian board flexing its muscles once again..

  • on July 20, 2011, 9:09 GMT

    So no use in this well watered DRS

  • on July 20, 2011, 9:05 GMT

    DRS used only for the easiest job that an umpire could do......... Courtesy BCCI!!!

  • ssenthil on July 20, 2011, 9:03 GMT

    I welcome this Move. Well done ECB and BCCI. I wonder they still use Pitch Mat or not for LBW. Any clarification regarding that? Still it's good to have UDRS with Hot-spot and Snicko. I m happy with this

  • on July 20, 2011, 8:56 GMT

    Interesting to see how this limited version brings out accuracy in decisions

  • concerned_cricketer on July 20, 2011, 8:55 GMT

    This is a good decision. This will now give the ICC to go back and encourage companies like Hawk Eye and others to get their act together and come up with more relaible technology with far more increased accuracy than they have managed currently. A game like cricket warrants nothing but the best effort in this matter.

  • on July 20, 2011, 8:54 GMT

    swaan will be the one to lose out the most on not including LBWs. good for the indians though.

  • Dr.J.P on July 20, 2011, 8:50 GMT

    Correct decision taken. Ball tracking should be used only after its accuracy is confirmed by independant ICC committee. It should not be included based on the marketing data provided by the offering companies who naturally have their interests at heart and not essentially crickets. With so many emminent personalities including umpires, players and former players explaining the grave inaccuracy of the current ball tracking technology, we should not jump into it and make an on field umpires decision a mockery.

  • Mooky on July 20, 2011, 8:45 GMT

    Hawk-eye is great for the fans at the ground, when its refered everything goes quiet and everyone stares at the big screen. As it goes through its verdict there are cheers and groans all round, great entertainment. Why cant the ICC decide, they are so scared to upseting India

  • on July 20, 2011, 8:41 GMT

    When will the fear of using DRS purely, escape from the Indian camp, I wonder?

  • warriors99in on July 20, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    No problems regarding it. Lets hope for a great series ahead

  • AJ_Tiger86 on July 20, 2011, 8:35 GMT

    LBW's are by far the most controversial decisions in cricket. Therefore, Hawk Eye is the single most important part of DRS. Ignoring Hawk Eye makes DRS a joke. But at least REAL test series like the Ashes are played with the Hawk Eye.

  • pom_don on July 20, 2011, 8:29 GMT

    Why dont the ICC stand up if UDRS is good enough for the rest of the world they should have given India the option to play using it or go home they (India) are not bigger than the game.......or at least shouldnt be allowed to be!

  • rustyryan on July 20, 2011, 8:29 GMT

    Wow now swanny can't cheat and get loads of wickets.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • rustyryan on July 20, 2011, 8:29 GMT

    Wow now swanny can't cheat and get loads of wickets.

  • pom_don on July 20, 2011, 8:29 GMT

    Why dont the ICC stand up if UDRS is good enough for the rest of the world they should have given India the option to play using it or go home they (India) are not bigger than the game.......or at least shouldnt be allowed to be!

  • AJ_Tiger86 on July 20, 2011, 8:35 GMT

    LBW's are by far the most controversial decisions in cricket. Therefore, Hawk Eye is the single most important part of DRS. Ignoring Hawk Eye makes DRS a joke. But at least REAL test series like the Ashes are played with the Hawk Eye.

  • warriors99in on July 20, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    No problems regarding it. Lets hope for a great series ahead

  • on July 20, 2011, 8:41 GMT

    When will the fear of using DRS purely, escape from the Indian camp, I wonder?

  • Mooky on July 20, 2011, 8:45 GMT

    Hawk-eye is great for the fans at the ground, when its refered everything goes quiet and everyone stares at the big screen. As it goes through its verdict there are cheers and groans all round, great entertainment. Why cant the ICC decide, they are so scared to upseting India

  • Dr.J.P on July 20, 2011, 8:50 GMT

    Correct decision taken. Ball tracking should be used only after its accuracy is confirmed by independant ICC committee. It should not be included based on the marketing data provided by the offering companies who naturally have their interests at heart and not essentially crickets. With so many emminent personalities including umpires, players and former players explaining the grave inaccuracy of the current ball tracking technology, we should not jump into it and make an on field umpires decision a mockery.

  • on July 20, 2011, 8:54 GMT

    swaan will be the one to lose out the most on not including LBWs. good for the indians though.

  • concerned_cricketer on July 20, 2011, 8:55 GMT

    This is a good decision. This will now give the ICC to go back and encourage companies like Hawk Eye and others to get their act together and come up with more relaible technology with far more increased accuracy than they have managed currently. A game like cricket warrants nothing but the best effort in this matter.

  • on July 20, 2011, 8:56 GMT

    Interesting to see how this limited version brings out accuracy in decisions