India in England 2011

Flower unhappy with limited DRS

ESPNcricinfo staff

July 27, 2011

Comments: 261 | Text size: A | A

Andy Flower will soon have to make a final decision on who replaces Stuart Broad, Perth, December 13, 2010
Andy Flower: "We all know that DRS is not going to be 100%, but we also know you get more right decisions using it" © Getty Images
Related Links

Andy Flower, the England coach, has said the ICC should have over-ruled India's insistence on using a watered-down Decision Review System (DRS) for the ongoing Test series. He felt the system for the series - which doesn't use ball-tracking technology, and doesn't allow lbw decisions to be reviewed - was "unsatisfactory", a view shared by England bowlers Graeme Swann and James Anderson.

England had several close lbw appeals turned down as they hunted for wickets on the final day of the Lord's Test, including against Sachin Tendulkar and Suresh Raina off Stuart Broad. Though England ultimately completed a straightforward 196-run victory to take a 1-0 series lead, Flower was unhappy.

"It would have been wrong if the outcome of the game was seriously affected by a couple of those decisions. It's unsatisfactory the way it is, no doubt about that," Flower said. "I think the ICC should be stronger in taking a lead on these issues. They are the world governing body and they should lead."

The DRS for this series uses infra-red technology and stump microphones, which meets the minimum standards stipulated by the ICC. Both the ICC and the England board had made it clear before the start of the series that they would have liked to incorporate ball-tracking in the DRS, but for India's refusal.

"We all know that DRS is not going to be 100%, but we also know you get more right decisions using it, so let's not quibble about millimetres here when we know you get more right than wrong and that's why most Test-playing nations want to use it."

Swann advocated the use of ball-tracking to ensure more accurate decisions. "I think we should use the Hawk-Eye tracking device because it has worked well over the last couple of years and can take flashpoints out of the game," he wrote in the Sun. "We all knew Broady's appeal for lbw against Raina was out but umpire Billy Bowden thought there might have been an inside edge. Similarly, Broady's shout against Tendulkar would have been given out on review.

"They could have been massive moments and, if India had clung on for a draw, there's no doubt we would have been very frustrated."

Anderson said that the available technology should be used. "We have used it in the last few series we have played and were starting to get used to the method of using it - when you refer and don't refer. We have enjoyed the fact that at the end of the day more correct decisions were made than the wrong ones. The most pleasing thing was that as frustrating as it was to not have it we managed to not let it affect us and just got on with the job in hand."

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 is the first time India are using the review system in Tests since 2008.

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by WPDDESILVA on (July 29, 2011, 11:37 GMT)

So let's do what BCCI says going forward...why do we need ICC?? What's Next?? The BCCI will scrap run outs for the next test?

Posted by yorkshire-86 on (July 29, 2011, 11:03 GMT)

KP's not out desicion was NOT a referral - it was the onfield umpire going to the television umpire. This has been going on for years, and just about everyone agrees that television is useless for judging low catches - but the umpires still use it. Hawkeye may not be 'perfect' but it is FAR more 'perfect' than the umpires eye, especially since the umpire does not get a dynamic view of the action because of his bad position directly in line with the stumps meaning he has very little perception of length. The World should go to India and tell them straight - No DRS = No Cricket.

Posted by ven562 on (July 29, 2011, 9:15 GMT)

URS was successful? look at the success rate of this in WC 2001 none of the teams were able to get it rite......

Posted by anver777 on (July 29, 2011, 5:20 GMT)

I agree with Flower, DRS system must be fully utilized.......ultimately its fair & square for any team !!!

Posted by   on (July 29, 2011, 4:16 GMT)

@Quazar, I apologize if I was accusing the whole community of Indian fans, but I do not and did not mean that. My point is that if BCCI had allowed the UDRS in India's tour of WI, there would not have any wrong decisions in that series. I do not want to offend any fans or any team or BCCI here, but BCCI should not keep the UDRS with hawk-eye just because of the bitter experiences with it in the past. India seem to be wanting to stay away from UDRS with hawk-eye since their test series against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka in 2008 where they failed to use UDRS for their advantage, whereas Sri Lanka used it so well for their own advantage.

Posted by csango on (July 29, 2011, 4:05 GMT)

With 1 test win all "whose who" in English cricket are blowing the trumpets, Just imagine a situation if Pommies were with Jamie Anderson pulling out after 12 overs, KP not available for selection, Strauss having bruised elbow midway in match and Trott or Bell getting viral fever again midway in match and tell me how they would have fared? Guys it's one thing to say that No1 team has to come up trumps in all situations but when 3 men fail mid-way in match out of 11 and the team still push the match to last 20 overs on day 5 for me that team is winner. And on top of this, English coach is whining abt. DRS, which is defective technology! Remember what it decided in crucial match in World Cup b/w India & Eng. If the technology is not complete and human being is also not accurate then I would rather go with Human Being as Human Being created technology and not vice-versa. No DRS Period!

Posted by shanghai_chinaman on (July 29, 2011, 3:35 GMT)

Looks like my previous post didnt get posted. Many are raising Q on whats BCCI's problem with DRS. Its prediction. A hotspot doesnt decide anything. It merely shows point of impact due to temperature change via infrared detection. Snicko - likewise only shows sound near the stumps which combined with video can help ummpires make a tech-informed decision. The DRS (Hawkeye) on the other hand tries to do umpires job by predicting if the ball would have hit the stumps. Its one thing for hawkeye to predict and another to just faithfully reproduce actual path till time of impact. Cricket ball's movement is not a matter of simple trajectory - variations due to angle of seam, landing on seam/not, spot on the pitch, air/humidity etc all cause changes. Thats why great batsmen also get beaten in the air, off the pitch etc. Using technology to reproduce what happened is different from predicting.

Posted by Lahori_Munde on (July 28, 2011, 23:53 GMT)

KP was out caught before he even scored 100 and refereed, guess what the technology gave him Not out. Even all the English greats Boycott, Aggers, Vaughn - they all confirmed that KP was out.. Guess what, it costed India a test and no whining from India. I stand behind India o DRS!!!

Posted by   on (July 28, 2011, 23:39 GMT)

Mr. Flower, 1) when it is not 100% correct, it means that if it shows hitting top of stump , it may also mean going over the top and vice versa so dont be too sure that those would have been OUT 100%. 2) the flaw in tech was revealed when Ian Bell was given NOT OUT when the ball was seen hitting middle of middle stump. Ironically it was same umpire as in this match. so dont give such excuses as these would have affected outcome of match. What goes around comes around.

Posted by Wesley1 on (July 28, 2011, 22:03 GMT)

In rugby, they have a similar system where if the referee cannot make a decision he will ask a video ref to check it. This is how the technology should be used, at the umpires discretion. As an umpire you do know when you are making a dubious decision and they will all appreciate being able to make the right decision at the end of the day. There is absolutely no bias involved in the DRS system. All it is is a camera watching a ball. The only difference is when the captains make the right choice to refer a decision

Posted by kumarcoolbuddy on (July 28, 2011, 18:54 GMT)

@England_The_Worlds_Greatest, unlike your tile if you think neutrally you will understand why India is #1. ICC is not selling #1 ranks and it evaluates all matches local and overseas for rankings.

Posted by Venkat_Gowrishankar on (July 28, 2011, 18:25 GMT)

First lets get the facts right. I do accept its sad that DRS is not implemented full but the ICC is not a one Man army, there are 9-10 members who decide the outcome of things. Andy flower instead of insisting that it was India who ruined the idea of DRS, should remember that no resolution is passed without approval of the members. So question should be re directed to Cricket australia, ECB and so on. Its only the players who are speaking out for DRS, none of the cricket boards ever have and ever will. Boards do need the money that BCCI has to offer, otherwise you can forget a Friends Provident 40/40 or an English T20 County championship even being held.

Posted by HetalK on (July 28, 2011, 18:22 GMT)

@Quazar .... good sensible posts from you.

Posted by CricCool on (July 28, 2011, 15:51 GMT)

Addressing me54321's explanation on Ian Bell. So according to you, Ian Bell got benefit of doubt in the World cup LBW decision, no matter who the empire is. So did Sachin and Raina in the first test, so what is the fuss all about. DRS was useless with Ian Bell's decision (yeah I know, you will say 2.5m rule. And who and why that rule was put in - because its inaccurate) and so is the case here.

Posted by Zippydidodah on (July 28, 2011, 13:47 GMT)

It will be interesting to see what happens if a batsman is given out for a bat/pad catch, reviews it, and it gets a reprieve because the ball missed the bat. He might then be clearly LBW, but you can't review the LBW decision, so he would survive.

Posted by correctcall on (July 28, 2011, 13:29 GMT)

@BeatTheChamps - that is naive statement that it all evens out in the end. If you have played cricket you realise that the psychological balance (or momentum) impacts greatly on the result. Some decisions are far more critical to the outcome of the game than others. Cricket is best served by maximising the % of correct umpiring calls.

Posted by the_blue_android on (July 28, 2011, 13:20 GMT)

When Fletcher's done in about two years and Andy Flower is made the Indian coach, we'll all see that his views will magically change and align with the BCCI :)

Posted by 360review on (July 28, 2011, 13:07 GMT)

@tomhedley, I don't know what is wrong with non-Indian supporters in general. Why do you guys get so offensive when DRS gets mentioned? The ICC needs to mediate and let both playing counties decided what technology to use, end of!

Posted by brittop on (July 28, 2011, 12:50 GMT)

@Leggie (and others) I believe Mr Flower does realise that it's the same for both sides. I think he's just in favour of "full DRS" and I reckon he said this after an England win so as it did not appear to be sour grapes. Maybe he shouldn't have mentioned specific decisions, but no-one's perfect!

Posted by karthikfromchennai on (July 28, 2011, 12:42 GMT)

If India says YES to of the world says NO. If India says NO to DRS..then rest of the world says YES....

Posted by   on (July 28, 2011, 12:23 GMT)

So if the rationale for not including LBW is the doubt on the accuracy of the ball tracking technology (aka Hawkeye), then for LBW decisions where the umpire thinks the ball would have hit the stumps but suspects an inside edge - why not allow the snicko - we are trusting the snicko anyway. That would at least eliminate one type of errors. Also why not use technology to check where the ball landed - again if the umpire thinks the ball would have hit the stumps but suspects that it pitched outside the leg stump - that element of ball tracking is very accurate as it does not involve any forecasting - so another error type eliminated. In both these situations I think the umpire should be allowed to consult the third umpire without the need of a referral.

Posted by Leggie on (July 28, 2011, 11:33 GMT)

Why doesn't Mr.Flower understand it is the same rule for both playing nations and it was not actually India that benefited first because of DRS. Over #60 first ball, Harbhajan to Broad...there was a loud appeal for lbw that was turned out. Hawk-Eye showed that the ball would have crashed on to the middle stump. (See A wicket even at that stage would have meant that Prior/Broad could not have accelerated therby delaying England's declaration, and psychologically India would have gained an upper hand. Strange that even knowledgeable folks like Flower have selective memory and decide to bash BCCI at any given instant. Like one of the readers said, it just appears that people are simply irked at BCCI becoming a wealthy body - a status that ECB enjoyed for a while!

Posted by brittop on (July 28, 2011, 11:03 GMT)

Anti-DRS arguments seem to be, mostly, Hawkeye is not 100% accurate, and how can it possibly predict the path given that it only has this many frames per second and the impact with the pad is only this far from the impact with the ground and how can it account for differing bounce or where the batsman is. Umpires are not 100% accurate and they have to make a decision whilst taking all those details into account. If the technology improves the percentage of correct decisions given, then I reckon that should be the criteria it's judged on. So does it? I actually worry about Hotspot more than Hawkeye, as it seems to miss some edges, at least if you compare it with Snicko, but has their been any scientific analysis done? Hawkeye appears to be accurate and I believe the has been tests showing this (also it knows when it's accuracy dips, hence the "umpire's call" & "2.5m" messages). My worry is low to the ground catches with the "foreshortening". Not sure what to do about those.

Posted by Quazar on (July 28, 2011, 10:20 GMT)

@Chris_P - I agree with your central point. But you should know that the French Open doesn't use Hawkeye. And in other tournaments, the Chair umpire can overrule Hawkeye. Also if both players prefer, it can even be switched off for that match. Anyway, once Hawkeye's predictive paths are independently tested and validated for reliablity and accuracy (the ICC has commissioned the testing), it will soon become part of the DRS.

Posted by   on (July 28, 2011, 10:17 GMT)

It is very simple; the Indians are spoiling the game by not allowing fair play.

Posted by Quazar on (July 28, 2011, 10:08 GMT)

@Joy Macwan - your allegation against some Indian fans is as true for quite a few English fans, and your cricket press. And I think you missed the Jamaica Test - Daryl Harper blatantly lied in his press statement. He made 5 poor calls against India (that I saw) in 1 single Test! This included 4 bad calls in 1 session on Day 3 - Kohli and Raina (clearly no glove, as apparent on the replays), Dhoni (Daryl missed a no-ball by a spinner! - how difficult is it to track a slow run-up of a spinner?) and finally Bhajji (lbw when the ball hit him easily above the knee roll; and Bhajji's 6 feet tall). The bloopers vs the WI were not from the same umpire and were spread over 2 Tests. Quite a difference. (Btw, Harper has a history of bad calls against India, starting from 1999 in Adelaide, when you had 1 neutral and 1 home umpire. That's why he draws such over-the-top vitriol from overly passionate fans)

Posted by yorkshire-86 on (July 28, 2011, 10:02 GMT)

Predictive hawkeye eliminates the glaring error made by all umpires from grassroots to Elite Panel level - nowhere in the LBW law does it say a batsmen is not out if he is 'too far forward'. If the ball pitched in line or outside off, struck in line (or outside off if the batsmen was not playing a shot), and would have hit the stumps, it is OUT. Whether the batsman was hit on the back toe an inch away from the stumps, or on the front foot after a huge stride down the pitch, is IRRELEVANT. And predictive hawkeye knows this - to the benefit of players like Swann who keps getting refused lbws because the ump keeps creating an imaginary law that you cant be lbw on the front pad - which pad the batsman is hit on does not affect the fact that had it not hit the pad it would have hit the stumps.

Posted by Quazar on (July 28, 2011, 9:57 GMT)

Hawkeye will soon be independently tested by an expert technical panel (as announced by the ICC), and become part of DRS. What annoys me is the English press and coach (Andy Flower) not acknowledging the umpiring calls that went their way! Another 3rd umpire might well have ruled Pietersen caught on 49 (Geoff Boycott, Lawrence Booth and other commentators in England said it was out). And if that was marginal, Stuart Broad was plumb LBW to Bhajji on Day 4 (bowling from around the stumps) half an hour into his innings, but was not given. Reading the English press and fan comments, you'd think all that never even happened!

Posted by   on (July 28, 2011, 9:47 GMT)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Man up BCCI and embrace a system that can only do more right than wrong. At the end of the day, we all want the fairest possible decision. Don't see why it cannot be used in conjunction with hot spot and snicko. Plus, it is embarrassing that we're backing away from something that most of the Test cricketing world is ready to accept. Whingeing about wrong umpiring decisions after rejecting a system that could have avoided the same is simply unacceptable.

Posted by Chris_P on (July 28, 2011, 9:31 GMT)

The umpires on the elite panel all agree they want to use DRS. They are the best of the best, so why do we see ill informed armchair critics, who mostly have never participated in a serious game of cricket profess to believe it shouldn't be used? Similar technology is good enough for Wimbledon, Roland Garros and all major tennis tournaments, why can't it be used when the very men who adjudicate the game believe it is better!!?? This is a step for improvement, yet plenty seem to keep their heads stuck in the sand. Let's move with times, folks.

Posted by BeatTheChamps on (July 28, 2011, 9:29 GMT)

Why people like Flower don't understand that India don't get any special benefit by not using DRS. The playing conditions are SAME for both the teams. If India were lucky this time, England could get lucky in the next match!

Posted by BeatTheChamps on (July 28, 2011, 9:22 GMT)

England first innings: Morgan given out caught behind. Morgan himself is convinced that he has nicked it. The snicko shows nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, that's technology for you. I think India or for that matterany country would be justified in their reservations against such technology. Better have more umpires like Asad Rauf who seem to be more accurate than machines

Posted by   on (July 28, 2011, 9:04 GMT)

Whether or not the technology is 100% accurate, it has been proved to be more accurate than the human eye, and that there are more correct decisions as a result. The Indian position smacks of wielding power for the sake of it, and being scared of having no-one to blame when they fail.

Posted by   on (July 28, 2011, 9:03 GMT)

Phew!!! I agree we should use technology to full extent so that right decisions are made. Hey but things were the same [marginally] few years back when technology was not used. ICC should take the lead and start thinking about the future of cricket. As per ICC the only thing they have on mind is 'making more $ and push lesser cricketing nations out of window'. Need strong administration on ICC part and acceptance on respective cricket boards.

Posted by taniap on (July 28, 2011, 8:57 GMT)

I'd like to see horrible decisions made and Sachin, Dravid and Raina being given out and as a result India losing the next test. At least that will open BCCI's eyes to using DRS.

Posted by gancric on (July 28, 2011, 8:37 GMT)

looks like Andy Flower and co cannot accept the change in power i.e.BCCI rather than ECB controls world cricket

Posted by Fluffykins on (July 28, 2011, 7:45 GMT)

Back to Full DRS please accepted it as part of game seems we are going backwards not good advert for cricket

Posted by on (July 28, 2011, 7:45 GMT)

I am of the view that you take a decision on weather or not to use technology. there is nothing wrong in leaving it al upto umpres. Similarly tehre is nothing wrong in leaving it all upto the technology. Iagree in both cases some wrong decisions would still be there, but take a stand and stick to it. The current situation is not feasible in the long run. A lot of teams including India would want the ball tracking to be there at some point in future. So it is just a stop-gap arrangement currently. We will soon see all of the technology being used in decision making in cricket.

Posted by HetalK on (July 28, 2011, 7:33 GMT)

@B.randy I don't have anything against DRS and I am of opinion that BCCI should have supported DRS when everyone else wanted to use it, even though they had reservations regarding it's effectiveness. But, saying that BCCI is against technology as their batsmen lack technique is foolishness. Are you sure you're talking about Sachin, Rahul, VVS, Gambhir, when you're saying that they lack technique? If yes, I got nothing else to discuss with people like you.

Posted by   on (July 28, 2011, 6:58 GMT)

I agree with John Firth and S DASWANEY.

I also do not at all like when the bad decision is given in any match when there is a lot of technology available. I do not like some of the Indian fans' attitude of getting happy when an Indian batsman is saved by umpire even if he was out and getting angry when a rival batsman was given not out. This shows the double standards of Indian fans and India's captain.

Remember when Dhoni criticised D Harper for wrong decisions in the first test against WI in India tour of WI, all the fans noticed that; and thus accusing umpire to be anti-Indian. (I don't think any umpire does it knowingly, wrong decision is always given by mistake.) But, nobody noticed when S Chanderpaul was given out lbw on a ball that was going far away from the off-stump in the second test. Even in the third test KA Edwards and MN Samuels were victim of the poor umpiring. What would had happened if Sammy had called the umpires involved in that decisions to be anti-West Indian.

Posted by khurramsch on (July 28, 2011, 6:53 GMT)

i think use it completely or not use at all. we all seen tht not having lbws in this match could have changed result. 1 more thing which will b confusing in future, suppose there was a shout for lbw & it was straight but umpire turn it down coz he thinks there was a edge. what if bowler refer it for caught behind & it comes no edge what will haoen to that LBW then? will the umpire change it?

Posted by RS_Cric_11 on (July 28, 2011, 6:53 GMT)

Dear Andy! Look back n feel happy that you are in winning position. What happens if Hawk eye were used and KP was given out in the first innings. I bet INDIA would have benefited more than any others in the world... Only INDIA advocating a more accurate technology. I can Point out the out of Morgan in the first innings, even Hot spot could not find the edge which was supposed to be 99% accurate... so think off Hawkeye which is more dependent on pictures captures in a minute.. I am not very sure how are they taking account of surface .....

Posted by khurramsch on (July 28, 2011, 6:51 GMT)

the thing india should understand is that it will not benifit them all the time. for example: in WI it went agianst india & dhoni had to say"if right decisions were made i might b having diner by now" BUT in 4th inings of lords this went in favour of india so he didnt say that this time. thing is stop being selfish. what if next time england comes in this situation & 2 important lbws truned down & england save a test then? yes it might not b 100% but if u dont use a thing how would u know its errors & correct it?

Posted by Tendliya143 on (July 28, 2011, 6:44 GMT)

I do agree with Flower's comments, but the use of DRS is costing lot of money on ECB and i don't see a reason BCCI playing any part in it, from what i see is ECB has already planned on cancelling the WI tour to England because of budget issues because of washed out matches and on top of it DRS is another huge factor for both ECB & ICC. For Example- SL vs Aussi, sri-lanka is still thinking weather to pursue DRS or not.

Posted by   on (July 28, 2011, 6:39 GMT)

India have been afraid of UDRS since their test series against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka in 2008 where they failed to use UDRS for their advantage, whereas Sri Lanka used it so well for their own advantage. That is why BCCI has been using its power wrongly to keep UDRS from the International series involving India since then. Shame on BCCI.

Posted by nawwabsahab on (July 28, 2011, 6:29 GMT)

its really really diccicult now a days to pass censor in this website wuhile talking against india and bcci. I donno why indian board is opposing sense which is already prevailed in nearly all other boards. why indian board dont wana let udrs have a go? why on earth ? icc can reject it once we all agree on its flaws but y icc cant take indian pressure? its really sad and disaointing

Posted by tomhedley on (July 28, 2011, 6:19 GMT)

I don't know what is wrong with Indian supporters in general. Why do you guys get so defensive when DRS gets mentioned? The ICC need to stamp their authority on this or just disband and let each home country decide what technology to use, end of!

Posted by GrassBanks on (July 28, 2011, 6:10 GMT)

Players are there to play, not to guess if the umpire made the right decision or not. DRS should be under the control of the umpires (including the TV umpire). And Hawk-eye or any tool, needs to be verfied by independent analysis by the ICC. Once they are verified, there should be appropriate recommendations on the minimum camera speed that must be available. Going by what the vendors like Hawk-eye say makes no sense.

Posted by charlie1863 on (July 28, 2011, 6:07 GMT)

Andy FLOWER, a venerable coach, is becoming too BIG for his boots. The revised watered-down DRS while not being helpful to anyone is the same for BOTH teams. He should just get on with it rather than moping & moaning. He has conveniently overlooked the fact that KP in the first innings was let off by the umpires when they could not trust their own three-dimensional eyes, but instead chose a 2D televisional replay for a close catch [which Rahul Dravid sportingly acknowledged that he did not know whether he caught it] which in the biggeer picture changed the outcome of a match. In everyone's & cricket pundit's eyes it was a clean catch and was a big let off and KP went on to score 150+ more runs. So Andy Flower should not be sitting on his high horse and voice complaints.

Posted by me54321 on (July 28, 2011, 6:05 GMT)

I always find myself reading these comments, and then getting annoyed by the blatant inaccuracies with which some blinkered people reply. Try doing some actual research, rather than spouting whatever press release BCCI makes. The accuracy of balltracking has been tested and found to be within a few milimetres, which is distinctly better than some of the umpires' several inches error margin. I also have a lot more faith in balltracking than I do with hotspot, which repeatedly misses the faint edges. And regarding the Ian Bell world cup decision, DRS didn't save him, as the on field umpire (guess who?)had given him not out, but although appearing plumb, it was decided 2.5m was outside the juristiction (not accuracy) of ball tracking.

Posted by chokkashokka on (July 28, 2011, 5:35 GMT)

take your team and stay home then....the No. 1 team in the world could use the rest nicely - India that is.

Posted by rkannancrown on (July 28, 2011, 5:34 GMT)

At the ICC meeting, the accurate technologies were accepted and the inaccurate technologies were not. The problem is Swann has got a lot of favourable decisions by using the DRS and england is worried that this tool will not be available to help them. In all the debate on DRS, let us not forget that DRS was what helped Peterson. England also benefited from Broad being given not out.

Posted by bhaloniaz on (July 28, 2011, 5:17 GMT)

India vs WI: most indian fans were focusing on one umpire and his incorrect decisions. Now one umpire had made 3 mistakes against England. We are not even allowed to talk about it. There were actually more than two (two were obvious to everyone). Without DRS, cricket will lose fairness and it would not be long many (including indians) will lose interest and with that the money would be gone. NBA has the most attendance and most exciting season (guess what Lakers did not play finals). India definitely has the talent. If they win (in a fair game), we can support them, we are concerned about the fairness and machine would not be biased to one team ( job security and fan pressure do not get to the machine).

Posted by JohnnyRook on (July 28, 2011, 5:16 GMT)

I really wonder how many pro-UDRS (and anti-UDRS) people understand the physics and statistics behind it. When a bowler is bowling at 140 kmph i.e. 38 m/s, ball reaches the batsman in half a second. If virtual-eye cameras operate at 25 frames per second, ball would have travelled a whopping linear distance of 1.55 meters between frames. Is this good enough to judge where exactly the it pitched. How much would it deviate and so on. Can we please have a neutral discussion about it instead of having stong opinions and feelings and accusations...

Posted by Patchmaster on (July 28, 2011, 4:02 GMT)

@ Toon-Harmy - VERY well said mate.

Posted by landl47 on (July 28, 2011, 3:48 GMT)

@ssenthil and others commenting on Broad being given not out on 37: England were 180-6 at the time. With the lead of 188 they had in the first innings, that means they were 368 ahead, with Prior still there and three more wickets, including Swann, to come. India scored 261 in their second innings. How can that have possibly had more influence on the game than the wrong decisions in favour of Tendulkar and Raina? England had to take 12 wickets in the second innings. Happily, they still managed it comfortably. Get real, guys, all that was proved was that the technology should have been used. I'd gladly have swapped Broad's wicket for those of Tendulkar and Raina. It would have made no difference whatever to the result if Broad had been given out, but it might very well have turned the game if England hadn't been good enough to get Tendulkar and Raina out twice.

Posted by Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas_Atheist on (July 28, 2011, 2:14 GMT)

Hope Flower puts in some effort to understand how accurate or dubious a tool is before announcing his disappointment for not using it in the highest form of Cricket. What a shame!

Posted by 360review on (July 28, 2011, 2:11 GMT)

Physics!!! What a joke, Physicist still are trying to figure out how gravitation exists on earth and we are trying to project the path of a ball on a variable pitch. Sounds like a company is trying to force down a mediocre product down Cricket's throat.

Posted by Mfalme on (July 28, 2011, 2:09 GMT)

@allblue - Its really amazing how some of you guys nail such issues. You are absolutely right.@Patchmaster/Yevghenny - How did you manage it??? I posted a comment exactly on the same lines yesterday. But it was never published; must have failed the moderators censorship. I was wondering why all 3 wrong decision {KP in first innings, which was overturned,SRT & SR} were by the same umpire and against England !!!!@@@@@ === hope this post passes censorship === Though BCCI is against ball tracking, I am glad there are many Indians who are in favour of it, as I see from the comments. Can't we have it this way; in the same test let the team which wants ball tracking use DRS for LBWs and let the other team refrain from DRS for LBWs and accept umpires decision. That would be fair and both will be happy. Ha... Ha... Ha...

Posted by gzawilliam on (July 28, 2011, 1:56 GMT)

Seems we have all forgotten the main problem with this DRS. Its the fact the players have the control. Not the umpires.

Its ridiculous that we would allow players this much control. Like really.. Cricket should take a leaf out of the NBA.. You speak out of turn you get a technical. Stop all this talking back from players when their job is to just play not argue..

What should happen is the 3rd umpire needs to be more prominent in making on field decisions in a fast manner through a communication device like a radio.

The umpire can make a decision and have the 3rd umpire question it in his ear without the players getting involved..

The more control the players have out there the more discipline issue's will arise.

Posted by bhaloniaz on (July 28, 2011, 1:47 GMT)

I agree with Flower. Fair cricket is needed. Sachin and Raina were plumb and DRS would have got them out. Teams can be allowed 4 incorrect reviews per innings.

Posted by   on (July 28, 2011, 1:45 GMT)

Let's do it this way . Get the great Sachin Tendulkar , Dravid and Laxman out by bloody wrong LBW decisions, that even a dumbo would know it's not hitting the stumps and then make India lose by a humiliating Inns & 350 runs ... then the DRS will be brought into play... Indian Cricket Council (ICC) u rock..

Posted by maddy20 on (July 27, 2011, 23:42 GMT)

Unlimited referrals? Come on people! We will then have 50 days tests instead of 5 and test championships would last for about 20-30 years! Better yet just remove the umpires and put the freaking computer in its place! I can't believe people support hawkeye!

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 23:40 GMT)

You can't have a pick and mix DRS system. If nothing else, how is it fair? One system used in every series except against India, when another system is in place? The lack of DRS for LBWs was shown up immediately, in the first test under the "compromise" system. As you just knew would happen, Tendulkar was involved, and he was plumb.

The ICC are supposed to run the game, not individual boards. Stop playing politics and actually take charge.

Posted by Toon-Harmy on (July 27, 2011, 23:02 GMT)

Quick question - what does DRS stand for? Is it a) Don't Remove Sachin b) Don't Remove Suresh c) Don't Reward Stuart or d) All 3. On the evidence of Monday the correct answer has to d) but thankfully it didn't affect the deserved outcome of the Test and England got the TWELVE fourth innings wickets they needed to win, even if Stuart Broad was shamefully denied a five-wicket return and a fully-merited listing on the Lords Honours Board for bowlers. Andy Flower is spot on with his comments about the ICC and their failure to show any authority. Can anyone provide an example of another sport where one team can dictate the rules of the game to suit them in the way India have been allowed to with DRS?

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 22:19 GMT)

For all its claim to be traditional, cricket is actually very non-traditional when it comes to use of statistical techniques and technology. D-L method is one outrageous example. And now DRS (Hawkeye or otherwise, whose founders are busy commenting on this board about how it is all good) is being adopted blindly. Look at NFL football where what they review, if that, is video evidence of what occurred, not what was about to possibly/probably/maybe occur. Baseball doesn't even do that for strikes and balls -- just foul balls and home runs. Leave it to clueless cricket administrators at the behest of ignorant cricket fans throwing around notions of confidence intervals and 2.5m to bring in all kinds of "crystal ball" stuff. No wonder the sport is in trouble -- it has lost its soul.

Posted by crikkfan on (July 27, 2011, 21:23 GMT)

Oh no ..not again :( Is there no end to this back and forth? For every article in this vein - complaint of Flower and Swann - can we have a link to the well thought out counter articles by Rob Steen, Sambit Bal etc? There are good points on both sides but it is very clear to most that until hawkeye/virtual eye improves, this is the best compromise.

Posted by Evilpengwinz on (July 27, 2011, 20:50 GMT)

I still think that LBW referrals should be allowed - If there's no hawkeye, still allow referrals for whether it hit the bat or the pad first. For instance, when Gautam Gambhir got out to Swann, even though the umpire made the right call, you could tell from his reaction that he would've reviewed it because he thought it hit the bat first. Decisions like that one should still be allowed to be referred, even when hawkeye isn't being used.

Also, what's the problem with the pitch map? Why aren't we still using that to determine whether the ball pitched outside leg, for instance?

Not using hawkeye at all for LBW's just makes no sense at all to me.

Posted by kalyanbk on (July 27, 2011, 20:16 GMT)

Can't we use Hotspot/Super slow mo to spot an inside edge in an LBW? Is this not the greatest frustration (Raina dismissal) for Andy Flower? I am all for DRS but I am with India in saying that Hawkeye is not that accurate. We could perhaps only use hawkeye to see if it pitched in line and then use super slow mo to decide if it might hit the stumps.

Posted by rphy on (July 27, 2011, 20:05 GMT)

Does anyone cares to know how this "Hawk-eye" thing works? If you look at the working principle you will find it really inaccurate. In tennis the technology works with better confidence as you can track the ball for long time (after release from the racket and the first drop). Where in cricket after the first drop and the impact to pad can happen within a very short time and thus makes it very inaccurate.

Posted by m_ilind on (July 27, 2011, 19:54 GMT)

Flowere needs to be careful not to irk the BCCI! Else India may pull out of this tour or worse Andy may lose his job! :-)

Posted by sai_spider on (July 27, 2011, 19:52 GMT)

All umpiring decisions should be reviewed if DRS is to be made mandatory. Why have we limited the use of DRS to 2 correct reviews per side? What if England or India run out of reviews? It might be better to review every single decision made on the cricket field and eliminate the use of reviews altogether or instead have robots instead of umpires. This decision review system is not useful in the current format. Sides have to pick and choose what they review anyway and the chances are still 50/50 with the DRS. It is not a fool proof system for getting correct decisions. Instead an automatic review with the third umpire should be made mandatory for every single decision.

Posted by hulk777 on (July 27, 2011, 19:31 GMT)

why only 2 chances. Give unlimited chances, but every unsuccessful review will give the other team 6 runs extra.

Posted by tanvir1974 on (July 27, 2011, 19:09 GMT)

wonderfull statement,correct comments, UDRS is compulsory for any team of the world and it will be to used in any circumstances becuase sometime field umpire cant judge correctly due to speed of ball.i will not hate india but they are not doing well it is also useful for them too. it is just rule for more accurate decisions.UDRS is useful for every team.

Posted by kumarcoolbuddy on (July 27, 2011, 19:08 GMT)

@Randy_Wilson, r u guyz not tired of the boring song "India didn't play like #1"? Dhoni have been saying that India's plan is to perform as good as possible as per the situation and build young team in parallel but not going behind #1 ranking. Ironically u guys are behind India's ranking. Boring song. India didn't buy the rank and ICC considers all local and overseas matches for ranking. ENG's performance was worst when they toured India last time. At the same time India performed very well when it toured ENG last time. Currently ENG is performing better so good for cricket. Because of inconsistent DRS India was already big victim couple of years back. Now Andy is talking about "would have" situations for ENG. By the way why isn't he talking about Pieterson's catch which was very very crucial? You guyz claim that Dhoni cries after losing but Andy is crying even after winning.

Posted by Valavan on (July 27, 2011, 19:07 GMT)

Most of Indian batsman are backfoot players and tend to get lbw on a bouncy wicket. Such reservations make them not to accept the DRS. @Ashok Kumar, except PK who made test debut recently, has any of Indian paceman have average less than 32. Mate it isnt India to give them a wicket favoring harbhajan singh. he will score 4 more 100s in bowling, as i see, series may be 2 - 1 on English favor, if english will get their team plans right, it can be even more. There is no hard feelings except the childish dhoni who blames everything when he dont get it right. This shows he isnt a Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Allan Border, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh or Ricky Ponting type captain. All Indian fans can\chest thump dhoni is some captain cool but actually he is a captain lame who blames pitch and other factors rather having definite game plans to adjust the game when its played out of India. Accept UDRS and play it rather crying

Posted by La_Bangla on (July 27, 2011, 19:03 GMT)

Very Intersting comments. All Srilankans seem to be on BCCI Bashing mission here....haha. By the way, why no Umpires are complaining about Swann comments on Umpiring? Just a few weeks ago, Umpire Harper made a big deal about the post match comments by Dhoni. Aren't players from Subcontinent allow to say anything, but players from Aussie and England can express their opinion freely?

Posted by CrikBug on (July 27, 2011, 18:50 GMT)

Some try to 'script' the game like "Lagaan"...

Posted by coatsie89 on (July 27, 2011, 18:49 GMT)

with or without the full DRS in place, England will finish this series as number 1 in the world. Good luck to India taking 20 wickets in a match especially without Zaheer. Quite comical there is all this talk of them finishing the series well etc when England had to declare twice to make a game of it in the first place - and if you go back to the warm up game, all the county players had a good laugh smacking the Indian bowling line up round the park. I think this Indian team have finally met their match and they're going to struggle their way through this series.

Posted by Jack_India on (July 27, 2011, 18:49 GMT)

Panesar bowling to Sachin also irks Flower. Where is the report on

Posted by CrikBug on (July 27, 2011, 18:44 GMT)

SR Tendulkar c DRS b BCCI 12

Posted by Rocket_180 on (July 27, 2011, 18:37 GMT)

When England beat India there go number because they deserve it and have been the best test side in the world over the last few years, the record stands for it self

India wreckon there the best side in the world yet they only drew with South Africa and will lose to England dont sound like the best to me

Posted by CricCool on (July 27, 2011, 18:20 GMT)

Andy, what happened when Ian Bell was not given out because of DRS in the world cup? The LBW decision went against India because of the stupid 2.5 meter rule. And India drew that One day match becuase of that decision. India went on to Win the World Cup but had India won that match against England, the road to World Cup victory would have been a bit easier. So Dhoni & Co. will stay away from DRS as much as possible.

Posted by Ajay_Toronto_ on (July 27, 2011, 18:20 GMT)

BCCI says that ball-tracking is not 100% accurate, but hey, so aren't the umpires. At least with the DRS, the third umpire (or the ball-tracking review system) gets enough time to decide which way to go, and there is some scientific evidence (even if not 100% accurate) to go by as well...I think this opposition to the use of technology is not well thought out (remember how Dhoni got worked up with Harper's incompetence in WI) a staunch Indian supporter, I would hate to be a witness to the Indian side bearing the brunt of poor decisions especially when they are looking for a comeback in the series...I know it is more of an ego issue right now for the BCCI as they are quite powerful on the world cricket scene...and they want to stand up to the old memories of an all-England domination of the game's regulations...but I think the BCCI has chosen the wrong forum and opportunity to make their point...please let sanity and good judgement prevail...

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 18:16 GMT)

@karthikfromchennai What is your point about Flower? The fact that the Zimbabwe team was so poor only magnifies how great a player Flower was. Surely Flower was one of the best wicketkeeper-batsmen ever, and he has far and away the best batting average of any wicketkeeper ever (with more than 10 Tests as keeper). Strike-rate aside, he was statistically a far better batsman even than Gilchrist (e.g. look at ratio of 50's/100's to innings batted).

Posted by HetalK on (July 27, 2011, 18:08 GMT)

The way everyone's been commenting on BCCI's reluctance to use"complete" DRS package, I feel all test records so far, of matches without DRS should be dumped as they aren't accurate. Andy is commenting like DRS is the be-all and end-all of all cricket issues.

Posted by Lahori_Munde on (July 27, 2011, 18:07 GMT)

I stand by India's stance on DRS. Really poor argument from Flower. How about when Kevin Pietersen was out and his catch was refereed to the third umpire and he then ruled him Not Out? Didn't that go against India? Didn't that cost India a match? And I don't hear India whining about that.. Mind you, even Vaughn, Agger and Boycott said that Pietersen was out.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 18:05 GMT)

What is there to complain ? Both sides abide the same law of cricket. They play under similar conditions and same rules. It's not like Team India has no reviews and Team England has reviews. When the ICC [ a global governing body] has decided why complain and show your weakness. Try to win within this framework. It is funny to see all anglo names in this forum complain about hegemony while they have been lording ever since cricket was played in a stadium. And the other subcontinent teams lack an iota sense of gratefulness. These teams would have never made it without BCCI.

Posted by B.randy on (July 27, 2011, 18:04 GMT)

Rajeevdesilva's comment is spot on. HetalK's arrogant puerile response is typical of most Indian cricket fans. They cannot see India doing wrong. Like the ostrich burying it's head in the sand. Come on be man enough to accept that India is resisting hawk eye because Indian batsmen benefit greatly by not having a referral. Shouldn't Strauss have made a similar statement to Dhoni's in the West Indies? In fact Dhoni should have had the guts to have said at the press conference that had the correct decisions been made by the umpires on on the field, both teams would have been back in the hotel a few hours earlier and Tendulkar would have had more time to rest for the next test match!!!!!!!

Posted by HetalK on (July 27, 2011, 17:52 GMT)

@Randy_Wilson Being number one doesn't mean India is the best team ever to play cricket. It just means it has been BETTER than other teams during period considered. Everyone knows India isn't close to being a dominating team like Aussies in last decade or windies before that.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 17:52 GMT)

A lot of Sensitive Indian Supporters here------ Lets face it Our bowling is weak - not effective- and toothless to be honest Our players are nowhere close to atheletic And as obvious it can be -- our strength has always been our Batting. The funny thing is that Yuvraj must be shellshocked to see Broad bowl so well -- or he may just be laughing inside. Either way from a country of a billion folks --- all we have are skinny medium pacers-what we need is some PACE.

Posted by HetalK on (July 27, 2011, 17:41 GMT)

Looks like Andy and rest of English cricket fans are already savoring their cherished number one spot. They've started saying Indian batsmen are without technique and stuff. Still you got 3 more matches to go. You'll find out why our team is number one and this batting line-up is best in business pretty soon. Stop counting your chicken before eggs hatch.

Posted by HetalK on (July 27, 2011, 17:35 GMT)

@Andy It's naive on your part giving out such idiotic statements... You should 1st talk to your bosses at ECB and find out why they didn't oppose these half-baked DRS rather than "complete" package. ECB has same amount of votes as BCCI.

Posted by 360review on (July 27, 2011, 17:29 GMT)

@Phil Kirk, don't agree with your assessment. What are your views in regards to Ian Bell's not out during Worldcup match against India? He was plumb out as well, but DRS saved him Is this the reason why England's coach want DRS? If Swann is indicating that Broad was on receiving end due to lack of DRS, then what about the instances where Indian bowlers were on receiving end - especially Bhajji? I think both teams are at a disadvantage due to lack of DRS. Also, what happened to ICC code of conduct for speaking out against umpires in press? @rajpanm, total agree with you.

Posted by AzmeAlishan on (July 27, 2011, 17:28 GMT)

I agree with HRehman's comment that all other countries should block Indianism of ICC. Remember Logart is also an Indian turned South African guy and with him there I have a doubt if thats gonna happen. Infact I get a feeling that the real meaning of ICC is "Indianized Cricket Council"

Having said this I must also state that I cannot understand why would anyone oppose some thing which gives equal advantage to both the playing team. DRS must be approve and that it must be made mandatory fr all cricket playing country. All other cricket nations must do all possible to make it a reality.

Posted by HetalK on (July 27, 2011, 17:25 GMT)

@rajeevdesilva your statement "95% is better than 0%" undermines on-field umpires's decision as being wrong all the time. Idiotic.

Posted by Randy_Wilson on (July 27, 2011, 17:22 GMT)

@CricSar India isnt playing like a Number 1 team in the world. West Indies Tour proved it. If India was de number 1 team in de world they would of beaten a West Indies 3rd Rate Team 3-0. BEcause had a very good Team which toru West Indies, the likes of Dravid, Dhoni, Laxman, Kohli, Raina, H Singh and I Sharma. While West Indies had only Chanderpaul, f Edwards and R Rampal. yet India couldnt post nothing Over 300 Run beside that one time when West Indies had only 2 bowlers. with 1st Test 246 Allout, 252allout, 2nd Test 201allout, 269/6. 3rd Test 322 (yet got all out with only 2 bowlers from West indies F Edwards and Bishoo) 94/4 ( was scared to go after the run, where any other team would of go after it). World Champions are meant to Dominated in any condition. India still have a long way to go.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 17:21 GMT)

Hay valavan how can you say Indian bowling is week .. In worst case this series going to be drown other wise India will win this series I agree Indians are the poor starters and good finishers too more over , India won the world cup test series against the West Indies.

Posted by yorkslanka on (July 27, 2011, 17:19 GMT)

I dont understand why so many indian fans are saying they dont like drs because there are only two chances, that is not right, there are two chances for INCORRECT decisions i.e if a team is trying to manipulate the game using drs. If a team knows how to use the system and uses their appeals correctly, they will get more than two referrals... basically the bcci are trying to protect their players as they play pad first(which i think you have to do on slow,low sub continental tracks) and therefore are at a higher risk of LBW's...imho, the full system should be mandatory in each and every match

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 17:19 GMT)

If you want the perfect DRS system in place.. please have Robots play the cricket.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 17:18 GMT)

Andy Flower just suck it up and allow England to prosper within the rules. There could be more to it if we start modifying the game. It is Test Cricket for heavan sake. Not county cricket or T/20 or ODI's. Let the umpire have a role to play we pay them for their job. If technology is what we want to be used; than why umpires, do away with them. just tech will help make decisions. Make a wise statement.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 17:18 GMT)

Really happy to see so many people positive abt Ball tracking technology. There's no doubt that Billy Bowden was dreaming of Hamilton pitch at Lord's(imagining the bounce of NZL) because there is no other reason why he didn't give the lbw's. It clearly shows the defensive nature of umpires like Billy where they start giving decisions in favour of batsmen. I really wonder Billy not giving those 2 out if DRS had been in place. I would add Gambhir's appeal as well. Flower's statement where he mentions the crib over millimeters is an awesome one. It's totally absurd what India's management is waiting for inorder for them to start believing in DRS. Maybe when things go against them it will make them realise importance of it. ICC is a joke to me.

Posted by SUNILDASWANEY on (July 27, 2011, 17:15 GMT)


Posted by a_a_b on (July 27, 2011, 17:07 GMT)

Spot on Andy. Wonder when the day will come when ICC would start acting independantly !

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 17:06 GMT)

FLOWER is angry because his most affective bowler in last few series Graem Swan is not affective without DRS, he is one of those bowlers who enjoed this technology a lot, most of his wickets came through the DRS, so he is right in his saying Mr Flower.

Posted by Lahori_Munde on (July 27, 2011, 17:04 GMT)

Really poor argument from Flower. How about when Kevin Pietersen was out and his catch was refereed to the third umpire and he then ruled him Not Out? Didn't that go against India? Didn't that cost India a match? And I don't hear India whining about that.. Mind you, even Vaughn, Agger and Boycott said that Pietersen was out

Posted by jackiethepen on (July 27, 2011, 16:57 GMT)

There are more probable paths for the ball than we see on the screen, so the Indians do have point about predictive technology. Lots of fans talk about the ball "hitting the stumps" as though HawkEye is a film. It isn't. It is a machine making an educated guess much like the umpire. But why the Indians are against using it with umpires making the first call is beyond me. If there ball on the stumps is a few millimeters out either way the call stays with the umpire. If the prediction shows the ball hitting the stumps fair and square then the player will be out. If the player is beyond the 2.5m mark where the machine cannot reliably predict the path of the ball, then the decision stays with the umpire. The umpire seems to control the grey areas. So what exactly is the matter with that???

Posted by karthikfromchennai on (July 27, 2011, 16:56 GMT)

Do u remember the last time that Eng won a series against Ind...either in Eng or in Ind...last time, Ind toured eng in 2007 and won the series.Eng lost to Ind in the 2008 series in India.... Let Eng win one series against Ind and talk of becoming no 1.

Posted by hulk777 on (July 27, 2011, 16:52 GMT)

What is the big fuss about this. What happens if they had already used both their reviews and got it wrong before Sachin's or Raina's. They would have put their hand in their mouth and kept quite isnt it? Ball tracking technology is not reliable, and you want it just because it can give you correct decisions when its plumb?

Posted by roxap on (July 27, 2011, 16:50 GMT)

I agree with flower, forget about mm, on the whole its better for game,

Posted by MeraBharatMahaan on (July 27, 2011, 16:50 GMT)

That's the irony. When decisions go against them Dhoni/Sachin shout from rooftops. When it goes in their favor then also Dhoni says "Everything that could go wrong, went wrong!!!!". I wrote on Sachin's greatnes. Please read:

Posted by khiladisher on (July 27, 2011, 16:46 GMT)


Posted by phoenixsteve on (July 27, 2011, 16:44 GMT)

India or UDRS.. that is the question? The answer is simple. All the countries agreeing to UDRS should play each other and all the countries not agreeing should also play each other! At least this way India won't be beaten and can cling to their number one rating in their own version of the game..... I think once the Indian old men have retired from the game, that India should be onboard with UDRS. Maybe the ICC should award Tendulkar an honourary hundred and then he can retire and the wonderful game of cricket can progress! It's ridiculous - all test teams should be playing by the same rules otherwise records/staistics are meaningless!

Posted by karthikfromchennai on (July 27, 2011, 16:38 GMT)

Even the ICC boss cant convince BCCI but hilarious to see comments from a man hails from a country that hardly had won a TEST match in his playing days....currently coaching a "one game no 1" team......probably the so called fans from the "cricket invented country" want their team to be no1 just after one win. Remember, Oz lost to Ind in the historic match in Eden gardens in 2001 and lost the series as well. But they were still NO 1 then....India dint reach no1 just by winning one match/series...consistent performance over the years took team India to the top spot. Instead of being over jealous at BCCI's power and wealth, follow the series and enjoy

Posted by K.A.K on (July 27, 2011, 16:33 GMT)

@Harshad Trivedi - lame excuse. Good decisions are important and if technology helps it, it should be supported. LBW is one of the legitimate ways to get a batsman out and not inferior to caught or bowled

Posted by kumarcoolbuddy on (July 27, 2011, 16:33 GMT)

I am not supporting or against to DRS because I donno which is really useful but my question is did ENG agree for this kind of DRS before the start of this series? If yes, what's the use of raising the concern now?

Posted by Rocket_180 on (July 27, 2011, 16:29 GMT)

After watching India in the 1st test its really easy to see why BCCI dont want DRS

IF there was DRS in the series then the Indians would struggle even more because there technique is dodgy, they play the seamers off the back foot even when the ball is patched up meaning there more like to get out LBW so any help the Indians can get with there troubled technique means that less chance of getting out

When playing Swann as shown by Raina the whole India side like to play on the front foot with there bat and pad together, which is great when there is no DRS system in the game as it is hard for an umpire to be confident that the ball hit pad first and also going to spinand hit stumps, if DRS had been in place the Indians would have to change there whole technique around as they would have to play the spinner with the bat and not with the bat&pad combination

India will fight and fight to never have DRS as it would show flaws in there technique everyone knows it.

Posted by Mephistopheles01 on (July 27, 2011, 16:29 GMT)

Surely can't be long. The daily mail reported that even tendulkar has been convinced, although whether that is accurate cannot be said! Indian fans, I know most of you are for DRS- which players oppose it most? If tendulkar now likes it will that be enough, along with Sehwag/Dravid? Or does dhoni hold sway?

Posted by Mfalme on (July 27, 2011, 16:24 GMT)

@Patchmaster - How did you manage it??? I posted a comment exactly on the same lines yesterday. But it was never published; must have failed the moderators censorship. I was wondering why all the 3 wrong decision {KP in first innings, which was overturned,SRT & SR} were by the same umpire and against England !!!!@@@@@ === hope this post passes censorship ===

Posted by spiritwithin on (July 27, 2011, 16:19 GMT)

india got two favourable decisions but so does england(Bell & Broad who went on to score 70odd runs and shared a crucial match winning partnership of 166 with Prior), stop giving silly excuses and crying foul when english team was also a beneficiary

Posted by spiritwithin on (July 27, 2011, 16:15 GMT)

@CricSare,since u r critical of india's no.1 ranking temme does england deserves no.1 spot??england lost in india,in SL,in WI,just managed to drew in SA..they even lost at home to SA & India last time,their only away win were in aus & nz and against top 3teams(SA,India & aus) they won only against aus but lost to india(home & away),lost to SA at home,does this stats make them no.1?just winning at home which england is doing wont make them the top ranked team unless they win in india & SL...and this series is not even at halfway mark and all of u started calling Eng as best..the fact is SA & india r still the top two teams,let this series is finished and only then u can judge a team

Posted by screamingeagle on (July 27, 2011, 16:14 GMT)

@Cricsare, well, would be nice to know which teams came to India and won a series? Not England for sure. :)

Posted by Mfalme on (July 27, 2011, 16:14 GMT)

@jonlah- you are a genius. Wonderful suggestion. I second it. Will it be accepted unanimously or should we go for a poll????

Posted by Thisismyopinion on (July 27, 2011, 16:13 GMT)

I can understand not using Ball tracking technology for LBW's, don't know why we can't use DRS or hotspot for determining "bat and pad" or "pad and bat" decisions? Clearly Raina was out, there was no bat.

Posted by siddharth_WC2011 on (July 27, 2011, 16:11 GMT)

The reasons that BCCI gives are ridiculous. Agreed that the technology is not 100 % but isn't the on field umpire doing the same thing as predicting the path of the ball when giving LBW's. Surely, the software that's used for these predictions will minimize human errors, and isn't that the whole purpose of bringing technology in the game. The ICC should not bend to BCCI and start acting like a governing body for the game's sake.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 16:10 GMT)

@Harshad Trivedi: The best bowling attack took 20 wickets against the best batting line up in the world, each time getting them before 300 mark. But result mattered the most, India loss by 196. It's high time we start to think objectively and retrospect our performances and not blame the other team.

Posted by nasharda on (July 27, 2011, 16:09 GMT)

nothing to say other than that india scared on DRS as ajantha mendis took more than 20 wickets in the sieries where there were few beautiful DRS wickets.That sieries was the first to use DRS which held in Sri lanka.

Posted by sunglassesron on (July 27, 2011, 16:08 GMT)

All this "oh but England benefit sometimes too" nonsense is missing the point. Using the technology means we'll get more right decisions than if we don't. That is stark staringly obvious imo. That is why Flower wants it.

I don't sign up wholesale to the Indian and umpires conspiracy theories, but I don't know why they don't want to use as much technology as there is available and by not signing up for it they only serve to invite suspicion.

Posted by Rahulbose on (July 27, 2011, 16:08 GMT)

Even with DRS they will not get Tendulkar, Andy needs to go watch reruns of the Ind-Pak world cup semi-final. He will then understand how DRS will make it worse for his bowlers.

Posted by Mfalme on (July 27, 2011, 16:05 GMT)

@rajpan, what you have pointed out have intrigued me from beginning. Why any team should be denied the right to have the correct decision once the 2 review are exhausted ? I know there will be lots of arguments; of wastage of time if unlimited reviews are allowed. Sure, its true. Definitely a better alternative should be searched rather than limiting to 2 reviews. Suppose a batsman who was wrongly given not out goes on to make a record score against an opponent which has already exhausted the 2 reviews, would the world accept the record and celebrate????? Will the record make the history books. Most will say yes but I will beg to disagree.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 15:57 GMT)

Flower should stop bleating about absence of full drs,should have objected strongly enough to make it count before the series began.Besides England won convincingly,wonder what would have been saying had they lost? As for India,replace Zak with Munaf,and Bhaji with Mishra. Mishra deserves a chance and it might do Bhaji a bit of good. Roll on Friday !!!!

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 15:57 GMT)

common.... we should use the DRS system.Somebody just tell the BCCI n the ICC that DRS is ment for LBW decisions most specifically and it makes the game interesting for the crowd as well.Dont say u wanna go for traditional decision making then drop the 3rd umpire as well n use only field umpires to give decisions.. The point is when u have the technology then use it and the hawk eye may not be 100% accurate but the point is it increases the accuracy n is more accurate then the naked eye of the umpires,hen just go for it.

Posted by match_referee7 on (July 27, 2011, 15:56 GMT)

As the TV commentators pointed out, there are 2 main reasons why India doesn't like full DRS. 1.They believe that umpires are reluctant to give LBW to Sachin and their big guns.(as it happened in this test match) 2. Indian batsmen play spin with pad bat when defending. i.e bat behind the pad. Its difficult for human eyes to be 100% accurate to decide whether the ball hit the bat or the pad first, hence benefit of the doubt goes to the Indian batsmen. But with DRS technology it can determine what hit the ball first and then predict the path. Obliviously nothing is 100% perfect in this world, but 95% is better than 0%

Posted by StatisticsRocks on (July 27, 2011, 15:51 GMT)

Being an Indian even I cannot understand the resistance from BCCI. This is ridiculous. Further the rules set by ICC should be accepted by everyone and no one country should drive the decision process. I am a little surpised to see ICC and ECB agreeing to INDIA. Agreed India is generating major chunk of the cricketing revenue but that should not be the reason to give leverage to India. Everone needs to follow the rules laid down by ICC and maintain integrity of the sport. I still question why only 2 reviews instead why not have only 1 review (successful or not) per batsmen since a team needs to take 10 wickets and not just 2. If you lose both the reviews no more reviews left. This is not very logical.

Posted by Alexk400 on (July 27, 2011, 15:49 GMT)

I was furious that raina did n't given out. It was middle of middle stump. BCCI is bringing badname for all indian cricket fans.

Posted by Outswinging on (July 27, 2011, 15:48 GMT)

I fully agree with Andy Flowers. The DRS only improves the quality of the game. Additionally, both teams have an equal opportunity. Shame on the ICC and shame on India.

Posted by beyondcricket on (July 27, 2011, 15:34 GMT)

hotspot and snicko can detect obvious errors and thats what the game wants, detecting obvious errors...ball tracking may be a good aid...but international umpires are doing a very good job at giving LBW decisions..even the company that markets the technology says its close to being 100% but not 100% accurate, these things need be taken into account...frankly looking at ball tracking during the world cup game for reviews seemed lame....but thats just me...others might have their opinions...and what is this talk about indian will find the most passionate people for cricket in India by sheer numbers..people just love their cricket..all the talk about the clout is just blah blah blah...

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 15:34 GMT)

I cant understand that Why BCCI is against the UDRS! I think they are opposing this law in order to show some kind of uniqueness and thus showing that they are the superior in CRICKET! In all this situation ICC is looking as their sub institution waiting for BCCI's approval!

Posted by Midonoff on (July 27, 2011, 15:29 GMT)

I thought when the DRS was introduced all countries were in favor for it. It also saved Tendulkar wicket in the Worl Cup against Pakistan, where the result could have been different .

Posted by correctcall on (July 27, 2011, 15:24 GMT)

Spot on Andy. Time for Mr Lorgat to make public the timetable for the Imperial College review of the accuracy of ball tracking. Then make public the results. Then BCCI can confirm they will participate. ( face saved !). No need to wait for any further ICC meetings and decisions. This can be sorted in a matter of weeks if you want Mr Lorgat - please get moving asap so we can all concentrate on the cricket!

Posted by makeshift on (July 27, 2011, 15:21 GMT)

For a change India controls how cricket is played now and you see the likes of England & Aussie complaining. People seem to have a short memory that in the 80's England & Australia could not face the pace attack of the WI and then introduced one bouncer per over. Sorry guys but India will dominate how world cricket is run because it feeds most of the top professional cricketers and some officials via IPL

Posted by golax on (July 27, 2011, 15:17 GMT)

Even though the ball tracking isn't 100% accurate, the designers are able to provide error bounds on performance. To this effect, there however do seem to be checks placed in the system to inform the umpire when the tracking system can be trusted or not. Cases in example, being the "2.5 m" rule and "half of the ball within the stumps". So, I do feel that with this additional checks, the DRS can still be used to ensure that 'glaring errors' are corrected.

That being said, I do find it a touch ludicrous to see a few comments that India opposes the DRS because it is always at the better end of dubious decisions. I note that neither Flower, Swann or Anderson (going by this article) mentioned Broad's lbw being turned down in Harbhajan's bowling in the 2nd innings, which was probably a more crucial juncture and could definitely have affected the game. Understandably so though, because each team will present the case to fight its own cause.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 15:16 GMT)

The sheer insane paralysis caused by 22 challenges an innings would mean that games would never end. Let the captain ask for a challenge if he wants.

Posted by Valavan on (July 27, 2011, 15:12 GMT)

DRS should be there in place. Indians fear because if they get 4 decisions correct for them when they bowl, all their batting lineup will get out for 5050 LBW shouts as it happened in SL in 2008. lot of PPL talk about Broad LBW at 180/6 so if broad is out, will India take the rest of wickets for 10 runs. The reality is Indian bowling is weak, very weak, looks nothing if zaheer finishes his career. Accept DRS, we are ready to take up.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 15:11 GMT)

Talk of variable bounce being the reason the Indians are refusing UDRS..... Isn't that why they lost in the end because the pitch had variable bounce and their technique is based on a truer bounce than they received at Lords. Another point not mentioned here as to why top batsman don't like it is because the UDRS is more objective, it doesn't take into account the umpire's emotion. An umpire will naturally be less inclined to give a Sachin or a Kevin out LBW than a number 8 batsman, as they will subconsciously thinking that this batter knows how to use his bat better. The top batsman know this and this is why they fight it. Basic human instinct, self preservation.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 15:06 GMT)

Its about time the BCCI realised that they can't alter the rules of cricket to suit themselves. Had it not been for their stance on DRS England would have won the test far more comfortably.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 15:04 GMT)

Absolutely correct. I strongly feel that BCCI and their senior cricketers like Sachin,Dhoni are holding the cricket world to ransom on some issues like this one and separate cricket window for IPL The Indians are against DRS because many of their appeals in the Sri Lanka series a few years ago were quite correctly turned down.We made a mess of choosing mostly 'correct decisions' by umpires to appeal for.Also now,in a way, the Indian stand is 'vindicated' somewhat because of late i.e. over the past year Sachin is regularly getting the benefit of doubt by the umpires on lbw decisions-may be they are too much in awe of him.No wonder Indians didn't want DRS for lbw decisions on some flimsy,airy fairy pretext. It would've been very harsh to the English cricketers if the Indians had somehow managed to hold on for a draw in the Lord's Test-two plumb lbw decisions were turned down by Billy Bowden on the final day

Posted by pawaramol22 on (July 27, 2011, 14:57 GMT)

@ Harshad K Trivedi - Well said.. best bowling attacks and cares only about lbws decisions by drs?

Posted by pawaramol22 on (July 27, 2011, 14:49 GMT)

Sorry mate!! but you are just a coach. I would be happy if someone listens you.

Posted by 200ondebut on (July 27, 2011, 14:46 GMT)

It was predictive technology that also put a man on the moon. They didn't just sit in the rocket and try and drive it there! The technology is far more accurate than the doubters give credit for - after all it is based on the laws of physics (or are we now saying these are wrong) - and far more accurate than the margins that are built in for "the umpires call".

The real benefit of this type of technology is that it will improve player behaviour and therefore improve the image of the game. Players from both sides can no longer shake their heads in disbelief at decisions and there is no need for the over the top appeals that seem to happen when DRS is not being used.

Posted by CricSare on (July 27, 2011, 14:43 GMT)

England might have their fun time after the match much early if LBWs were reviewed.because SRT and Raina both had their luck.

Posted by CricSare on (July 27, 2011, 14:39 GMT)

well said Andy.yeah all countries must get together against Indianism of cricket.ICC have no backbone at the moment

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 14:39 GMT)

I agree wid him i mean icc should tak desicion by dem self..evn though m indian but m against dese y ICC hav 2 listen BCCI n i don't udastand y india is not takking DRS system it's really very useful specially 4 LBW...

Posted by CricSare on (July 27, 2011, 14:36 GMT)

yes.seems nowaday all working according to India's will. though they made all the things for thier favour they still cant win outside India..Is this the world rank no 1 team?when they beat a stronger team outside India in tests for the last time except recent WI tour? they leveled in SA2010, SL2010,lost 2008 SL,lost Aus2008..this is highly unlikely world no 1 team contrast to the previous Aussie team.they dominated in everywhere.

Posted by rajpan on (July 27, 2011, 14:30 GMT)

The reason for BCCI to resist is simple. BCCI is simply backing the players and players find only two chances per inning discriminatory. Let there be one chance for each player per inning and the resistance will evaporate. To balance it, let every bowler too get one chance each. If removing all doubts about every dismissal is the final goal, only two chances for 11 palyers is itself unfair. To accommodate the review time, the play may be extended by half an hour or number of overs in a day may be reduced by five overs. One has to lose something to gain something!!

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 14:24 GMT)

@Madhu Raina and Tendulkar were both plumb LBW. Good decisions were given otherwise but giving someone not out when it's hitting the middle of middle stump is something that can be assessed by Hawkeye. Nobody moans about it in tennis. It's all about locating cameras around the pitch that then can predict the path of the ball after contact with the batsman. It's nothing to do with guessing how it comes off the pitch. You can't say that technology is ok for run-outs etc then dismiss it for LBW. You either use all the technology to hand or none of it. The fact is that TV channels have all the gadgets to help with their commentary (Hawkeye on British TV for years!) so it just sets up umpires for criticism if you don't allow them to use it.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 14:24 GMT)

I agreed with eng coach Icc should rule that DRS must in test match otherwise bowler always asking umpaire high tone whole cricket nation waching ruddness of bowlers ,raman pancholi

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 14:24 GMT)

Loos like Flower and the England team are only thinking of getting more LBWs then caught or bowled decisions, with DRS in place.....What happened to the Best Bowling Attack in the World claim.

Posted by Sanath-aiyya on (July 27, 2011, 14:14 GMT)

Well said Andy! Finally someone who speaks up against the big bully called BCCI. I think its laughable the excuses and reasons MS Dhoni and India use against DRS. We all know its not 100% but it improves overall accuracy in the game. Why are we using DUckworth lewis method then when we know its not 100% either? i think when england win this series 4-0 and i know they will. that shall start india ;s fall

Posted by vijayshankar2003 on (July 27, 2011, 14:10 GMT)

I completely agree with flower. what ever may be the reason, the quality and the standard of cricket should never be compromised. The DRS should be there with every possible technology that is available. i dont understand why BCCI has problems with it.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 14:06 GMT)

Absolutely correct.Am an Indian myself but strongly feel that BCCI and our senior cricketers like Sachin,Dhoni are holding the cricket world to ransom on some issues like this one and separate cricket window for IPL The Indians are against DRS because many of their appeals in the Sri Lanka series a few years ago were quite correctly turned down.We made a mess of choosing mostly 'correct decisions' by umpires to appeal for.Also now,in a way, the Indian stand is 'vindicated' somewhat because of late i.e. over the past year Sachin is regularly getting the benefit of doubt by the umpires on lbw decisions-may be they are too much in awe of him.No wonder Indians didn't want DRS for lbw decisions on some flimsy,airy fairy pretext. It would've been very harsh to the English cricketers if the Indians had somehow managed to hold on for a draw in the Lord's Test-two plumb lbw decisions were turned down by Billy Bowden on the final day

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 14:05 GMT)

It is quite silly for people who are non-technical like Flower and Swann to insist on use of predictive technology they barely understand. Quite commonly, there is no frame that can be associated with ball hitting the pad or hitting the pitch -- it is interpolated meaning scientifically guessed and then used as a virtual (not real) ball. Those of you who really trust DRS (mostly blindly), do read up on the famous Tendulkar LBW DRS reprieve in WC 2011 that Pakistanis claim cost them the match.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 13:46 GMT)

Agree that a watered down version of DRS is not acceptable, but aren't Swann's remarks regarding Bowden's decisions a violation of the code of conduct and thus deserving of censure ?

Posted by Smithie on (July 27, 2011, 13:44 GMT)

Time for Neilson and James Sutherland to lend support to Flower and seek assurances from India that the Australian tour will use FULL UDRS. Perhaps now that Sachin has missed out on the Lords 100/100th he may join with Dhoni and whisper in Mr Srinivasan's ear that it is time to fully accept UDRS.

Posted by Qdzy on (July 27, 2011, 13:43 GMT)

It appears the ICC is not stamping it's authority on international cricket about the DRS. How about they decree that the DRS is now mandatory for all Test matches. This "watered down DRS" is a joke.

Posted by badboynj on (July 27, 2011, 13:42 GMT)

"ICC should have over-ruled India's insistence on using a watered-down Decision Review System (DRS) for the ongoing Test series"......really? How is it possible when ICC is run by BCCI because BCCI is the most rich cricket board in the world. you can't go against them, c'mon!!

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 13:41 GMT)

I'm very disappointed,because 2 days ago I expressed similar comments using the SRT/BROAD lbw decision & Raina/ PRIOR stumping. I also mentioned that the influence the BCCI have on wrld cricket is real & the the ICC aught to do s/thing about it. H/ever I made some other comments & in so doing I think I broke the rules & the comment was not published. The BCCI/ICC situation is both worrying & frightening, especially for small org. like the WICB , that do not have money. A very powerful article. Hope mine is published.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 13:38 GMT)

Just goes to prove the power the BCCI have over the ICC. The ICC have no credibility in the game and this only goes to cement that world view.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 13:33 GMT)

DRS is a provision intended to improve the quality of decision making in Cricket. Some of the details can make some unhappy, flower should learn to live with that.

Posted by Spicy17 on (July 27, 2011, 13:27 GMT)

Sooner or latter ICC will be the governing body for Cricket Control in Inida as per wishes and benefits of BCCI.

Posted by justtruth on (July 27, 2011, 13:24 GMT)

Let me tell the reason why DRS is not being used by indian team,, India had a very hard time using DRS playing against Srilanka,, since then they never wanted to use..

Everyone knows that the Rules are always in favour of one man " SACHIN"

Posted by Praxis on (July 27, 2011, 13:17 GMT)

[contd]...Recently read an article where Hawk-Eye inventor Paul Hawkins said that Tendulkar thought that this tool was manually operated! Well, that says a lot, doesn't it? ICC being incompetent and ineffective about UDRS doesn't make hawk-eye unreliable. This tool simply lets the umpires correct their decisions.

Posted by StatisticsRocks on (July 27, 2011, 13:14 GMT)

Being an Indian even I cannot understand the resistance from BCCI. This is ridiculous. Further the rulesset by ICC should be accepted by everyone and no one country should drive the decision process. I am a little surpised to see ICC and ECB agreeing to INDIA. Agreed India is generating major chunk of the cricketing revenue but that should not be the reason to give leverage to India. Everone needs to follow the rules laid down by ICC and maintain integrity of the sport.

I still question why only 2 reviews instead why not have only 1 review (successful or not) per batsmen since a team needs to take 10 wickets and not just 2. If you lose both the reviews no more reviews left. This is not very logical.

Posted by Praxis on (July 27, 2011, 13:13 GMT)

Yeah, ENG should count themselves lucky that those decisions didn't have any devastating effect on the match. It could've been different though, then we would've seen some very different kind of articles on this site. Most of the fans post their comments here & express their views don't have clear ideas about this Hawk-eye tool. I've seen people keep saying that this tool can't measure the variable bounce of different surface or the condition etc etc. That's quite funny, cuz you don't need to measure the variable bounce, each delivery is measured differently & the ball has already pitched. Its about the frame rates actually, ICC is making DRS compulsory & yet they can't set the rule for the minimum frame rates for the cameras. Also why don't BCCI give the full explanation behind their view? They trust hot-spot which proved to be inaccurate at times yet they won't use hawk-eye? & what is with the senior players from IND, what's their view?[cont'd]

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 13:08 GMT)

absolutely right.....why Indian Board are so against it??? Any Ideas?

Posted by Houley on (July 27, 2011, 13:07 GMT)

Pretty harsh on Billiy- "We al knew it was out" You win some you lose some. It's not that I don't agree with technology, but the beauty of test cricket is its inconsistencies and twists and turns. We have neutral umpires and in the case of Raina's lbw it was mighty close to the bat.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 13:06 GMT)

First off, I agree that the whole DRS package should be used. But even if they only used the minimum snicko-hotspot combination, they should not have restricted the use of any DRS for lbw. Not only was such selectivity unnecessary, it was confusing, especially in situations where it is not clear what the appeal is for (caught or lbw). Personally I think all Tests, for example, need to be played with the same DRS provisions. All of the other rules are consistent, why not DRS?

Posted by PACERONE on (July 27, 2011, 13:02 GMT)

What good is all this technology if each team only gets 2 tries. Supposing that the opening batsmen uses the allotted 2 then the remaining batsmen are at the mercy of the umpire. We watch appeals been made when one of the players appealing should know that it is not really out.England was turned down twice on appeals that were frivolous. A penalty of 5 runs should be given for these types of appeals.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 13:01 GMT)

I saw the Raina appeal and was shocked to see it was even given not out. Let alone the DRS technology, that was a horror of a decision by the umpire. I wonder why? I don't think there is anyway around it and everyone knows it. The BCCI should stop being so cowardly and the Indian team should have the guts to face the English with the use of such technology. Pakistan did it even though their in absolute tatters right now and could use a win or two. Why not India? Another reason why I don't consider them as the number one team. Their ranking is bought, not earned.

Posted by backwardpoint on (July 27, 2011, 13:00 GMT)

I would agree. Had the decisions hurt England, it would have really hurted them. Lets not forget that the famous Indian draw to take the series in India wouldnt have been so if there was the DRS (Ishant was plumb!) I am an Indian and support fair cricket rather than might proves right. Frustrating indeed!

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 12:58 GMT)

I do not think DRS on LBW is not required. Why don't these players have no faith in umpires, I do not understand. Technology is ok for run outs, stump out and catches but there is no need for LBW in my view. I never understand how can technology asses the bounce of the ball. After hitting the pat it might go up or go down. But so called Hawk-Eye accurately measure the bounce of the ball. There is no point in complaining about Indian team no interest in this DRS. I am happy with umpiring and do odd mistakes happen but it does not mean everything must be depended on technology. Sometimes even technology do not help for some decisions.

Posted by landl47 on (July 27, 2011, 12:56 GMT)

As I've said before, the ICC is going about this the wrong way. The DRS is unnecessary. EVERY decision should be made by the three umpires working together- the two on-field umpires and the third umpire, who uses whatever technology is avaiable to assist in making the decision. The players appeal, wait for the decision and that's it. The three umpires control the game completely. That is already the case for run-outs- why shouldn't it be the case for everything? Instead we have this ridiculous pantomime of the players standing around deciding whether to appeal and, if they get it wrong a couple of times, being denied the correct decision later in the innings. Control of the game has always been and should always be with the umpires; it both strengthens their authority and leads to more correct decisions. The only difference now is that technology exists to help get it right, so three umpires are involved instead of two. Wake up, ICC.

Posted by WTEH on (July 27, 2011, 12:54 GMT)

Well why do you think Sachin didn't like the DRS. He need a hundred, and no lbw is going to ruin it.

Posted by ssenthil on (July 27, 2011, 12:51 GMT)

60.1 Harbhajan Singh to Broad, no run, 86.7 kph, ooh, with a DRS I reckon Broad might have struggled here. Lunged forward a long way and was struck in front. Appeal denied and where was that review? Oh yeah, I remember................ England were 180/6 that time and S Broad is at 37, Talk without Bias people. Who got the best benefit. India or England.

Posted by fleetwood-smith on (July 27, 2011, 12:49 GMT)

Good on you Andy! Great to see a man of character tell it like it is. Now if only the ICC were listening........

Posted by ssenthil on (July 27, 2011, 12:47 GMT)

yeah talk abt Broad Plumb LBW not given from where he taken England to a safe Total. So England got the Max benefit If they look without any bias

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 12:38 GMT)

I agree with Flower that it would have been very frustrating for the English team if India were helding the 1st test as a draw. I would like to see some scenario (for the betterment of the cricket) where some similar decisions would go against the Indian and as a result, BCCI crying for the systems, once they denied!

Posted by bumsonseats on (July 27, 2011, 12:37 GMT)

im affraid until this part of the drs is added to all its parts we will have this problem. it showed that at times umpires get it wrong. billy bowdens non decisions were very poor.and it was a pity that india got the benifit of these as they did not want its use. umpires will make mistakes as he did but if we used it i take it at least it will make the same mistake all the time. i wonder sometimes when a umpire made a real baddie of a decision or non decision do they go back to the hotel and watch the highlights do they cringe or just say they got it wrong this time. dpk

Posted by S.N.Singh on (July 27, 2011, 12:31 GMT)


Posted by sm77e on (July 27, 2011, 12:29 GMT)

Other countries should never vote for an Indian ICC chairman again. Indians are just self centered and think ICC is their property since Lorgat's appointment.

Posted by SyedKabirHussainy on (July 27, 2011, 12:26 GMT)

I totally agree with Flower. One day or other India will agree to the use of this technology. The decission of Raina's LBW [notout] could have affected the outcome of the game badly which to even a simple replay looked out. DRS picked it 100 accurate. I can be agaist India also but currently umpires are not taking risks against India. As I said earlier ICC should conduct a test for multiple scenarios and the parameter of these scenarios should be speed, distance between picthed and stuck points, distance between hitting point an wicket, swing, degree of turn and so on. There can be around 20 scenarios. For all those succussful test scenario results which are okayed by reputable experts and cricketers panel [involving all test playing countries] should be allowed to implement without asking any team. The technology will keep on improving with time and more n more scenarios can be implemented.

Posted by cricchic on (July 27, 2011, 12:24 GMT)

Who is really the governing body ICC or India Cricket board...ICC should have the final say in all pertinent decisions regards all Cricketing Nations directly under it's umbrella...It should be across the board for every match being played...Certainly we will have discrepancies if one mode of decision making is made in one series as against another....

Posted by Ah_Mughal on (July 27, 2011, 12:19 GMT)

DRS is a new system and without any doubt, it has flaws. But that doesn't merit its exit from cricket. We have witnessed some very good decision being made by DRS and its auspicious start should not be overlooked. I feel this system serves a very good purpose and as time will pass, it will get better.

Posted by WPDDESILVA on (July 27, 2011, 12:15 GMT)

Cannot agree more!! ICC is bowing their heads for whatever BCCI says!?! Ridiculous! What's next?? ICC doesn't have the back bone to stand up for consistency. DRS should be implemented as a full system not parts of it. Why do we have the ICC???

Posted by P.Srikanth on (July 27, 2011, 12:12 GMT)

Andy flower only points about the decisions given not out by Umpires for his bowlers, but he fails to admit that Pietersen was out on 49 and was given not out. Yes the decision on DRS has to be uniform. It should not depend on a country's choice but has to universally followed among all teams.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 12:10 GMT)

Thats BCCI for you . Always making their power felt . :s

Posted by nurdleoffpads on (July 27, 2011, 12:01 GMT)

Andy Flower is always understated, concise and invariably correct. If anybody can dispute these comments and present a convincing counter argument then I would love to hear it. His comment about UDRS not being 100% but improving accuracy is very true. Please can somebody who supports the minority view give me a credible argument against this?

Posted by sukans on (July 27, 2011, 12:00 GMT)

These are one sided comments in this article. It reflects as if in the match only England didnt get the benefit of DRS. By refusing there is no benefit to India or England, therefore, similarly, the result is same even by accepting. Flower forgot to mention that in the first inning Kevin Petersen was out at 49 but due to weakness of the technology, it was not given out. TV cameras are two dimensional where as our eyes are three dimensional, therefore close catches appear as if the ball has been picked up from the ground. Tendulkar and Raina are any ways suffering from poor umpiring with or without technology. I guess instead of India bashing and suggesting ICC, England needs to look at their own history when they kept on changing cricketing rules to avoid Indian spinners rules over them. When England lead the ICC then you guys throw Zimbabwe or any other counter out of the game and rule as you wish. Where as India is democratic enough to raise issue.

Posted by loveb on (July 27, 2011, 11:59 GMT)

i agree....DRS should be 100 % or either scrapped

Posted by getsetgopk on (July 27, 2011, 11:57 GMT)

the master got two chances one of the LBW and another dropped catch in the 2nd innings but still failed miserably. Indians are quite clever they knew right from the begining that they would fail miserably if they go for the DRS and they got the maximum of having no DRS but thanks to English bowling they never gave an inch to india. India's problems are far from over. Sanjay majrekar now saying you cant use a test for warmups well i guess sanjay didnt see this day coming while he was comentating for that useless IPL.

Posted by 5wombats on (July 27, 2011, 11:56 GMT)

Completely right from Flower. There were some appalling decisions that were given not out. It was like being at Chennai in 2008 all over again....

Posted by poderdubdubdub on (July 27, 2011, 11:52 GMT)

Andy Flower is absolutely right here. All the other test playing countries want a full DRS system implementation except India, what happened to the rule "Majority has the Authority"? wake up Mr.Logart wake up.

Posted by GoCho on (July 27, 2011, 11:52 GMT)

Andy your pleas will fall on deaf ears. The only hope for all us genuine cricket fans is that India are denied victory due to unavilability of ball tracking, in not one but all the remaining matches. But that may not happen because Indian bowlers seem incapable of beating the bat anyway Karthik London

Posted by m_kamb on (July 27, 2011, 11:52 GMT)


Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 11:51 GMT)

andy flower seems to conveniently forget that even England benefitted on atleast a couple of occassions when KP batted in the first innings acc to hawk eye..can we please get on with the game...

Posted by 200ondebut on (July 27, 2011, 11:47 GMT)

It should be in place unless both teams chose to opt out - rather than needing both teams to opt in. Alernatively, if the issue is about cost, then it should be the choice of the home side.

I think it is worng to blame the situation on India - afterall I presume the ICC is a democracy. The countries that really need examining are the ones who will use DRS but then back India (for probably financial reasons) when the ICC consider it.

It should also not be forgotten that there were decisions that went in Engalnds favour because of the absence of DRS. But I agree, despite the potential inaccuracies with the predictive elements of the technology you do get more right decisions with it in place.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 11:46 GMT)

I wonder what would happen if the ECB had flatly refused to listen to India and just stated that DRS in its entirety will be used. They are the home board right?

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 11:44 GMT)

Ball tracking tech is not 100% accurate!Let them make it 100% accurate.Then we can introduce it.No point investing so much money on something which is not 100%.

Posted by suresh.chary on (July 27, 2011, 11:31 GMT)

I feel the England team is right on their frustration and rightly so. When there is a technology for use which gives 95% of correct decisions when compared to the (~) 75-80% of manual correct decisions, its always better to go for the more accurate one. Indian team should agree to the DRS for LBWs, which will really bring out the genuine bowling talent!

Posted by ahassan on (July 27, 2011, 11:31 GMT)

Fully agree with Andy.Technology should be used to the full whenever and wherever it is available. India would have made a lot of fuss had they been in England's place.

Posted by mysecretme on (July 27, 2011, 11:24 GMT)

This is a doubt I have that has not been cleared till now. Does the ball tracking take the distance of the position of impact from the stumps into account? The replays during the Broad-Tendulkar-Bowden appeal seem to indicate it does not. Tendulkars front foot was atleast 1 yard down the pitch from the crease and the ball hit him on the knee roll. Coming from Broad, this ball would have comfortably sailed over the wicket taking into account the length of the crease too. But the replays indicated that the ball would've hit the stumps. This makes it look as if the ball tracking technology assumes the point of impact to be around the crease. Otherwise, why would it not show the side view to prove the height argument? That would be more conclusive than the front view right?

Posted by SagirParkar on (July 27, 2011, 11:23 GMT)

what Andy Flower should realise that a couple of LBW shouts against England were also given not out that could have been overruled by the DRS... i admit that it is a bit remiss of the BCCI not to accept DRS earlier but the problem had never been with the borderline LBWs.. the problem was always with the catches and the little snicks that the ordinary camera doesnt pick up.. and that is where hotspot and/or snicko are absolultely crucial.... this test match has shown that if the onfield umpires chosen are good quality and consistent, then there is very little use of DRS... and oh, he should also take into account the difference KP made after being given not out and the difference Tendulkar and Raina made to the match.. put it into context please Mr Flower before ranting about.

Posted by synergy001 on (July 27, 2011, 11:23 GMT)

Andy should know that he is not BCCI, and he must learn to live with what ever dictation ICC takes from BCCI.

Posted by kashif670 on (July 27, 2011, 11:21 GMT)

Flower is right i think drs should be same for all teams and we should accept them !

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 11:19 GMT)

Stuart Broad would have out on second ball if there would have been UDRS on LBW. And England would have all out well below 150. There could have other result.

Posted by dsig3 on (July 27, 2011, 11:18 GMT)

Hopefully next match Tendulker will be given out to another Bowden howler and maybe India will feel differently. Bowden umpiring = UDRS mandatory.

Posted by Philip_Gnana on (July 27, 2011, 11:17 GMT)

Compromising on the UDRS when there were great positives to take was a huge error of judgement by the ICC, just to appease the BCCI. Cricket is not politics. It is just not cricket to be compromising. Accuracy is what is needed. You need to take all the accurate data that technology can provide and use it. Predictive technology, is not accurate as it says.. it is predictive. It may be very close, but let that judgement be made by the third umpire and not by software/device. Chucking for instance, the technology proved to us that the human eye cannot read the actual movement of the arm. Human eye was deceived by the quicker movement of the fast bowlers and slow bowlers. Quite rightly so the 15degree tolerance to accommodate, so that cricket would be fair on the slow bowlers. Remember the fast bowlers got away with it as the ICC study revealed that 99% chucked (10Nov2004-cricinfo). Need to use ACCURATE technology for the betterment of the game and that is cricket. Philip Gnana, Surrey

Posted by dsig3 on (July 27, 2011, 11:11 GMT)

You tell em Andy! At least someone is calling it like it is.

Posted by Salim_123 on (July 27, 2011, 11:10 GMT)

I agree with Andy. The two decisions would have defintely caused the whole game to change England were lucky. Somehow Umpirs are reluctant to give Indian players LBW for fear of repercussions. Specially if the player is Sachin. The two LBWs were real plumb. BCCi gets want it wants and ICC is a mere tool

Posted by Nerk on (July 27, 2011, 11:07 GMT)

I do not support the DRS, I think cricket has survived for close to 2000 games without it, surely it can continue on. However, if you do implement a system it has to be universal, otherwise what is the point of having it. If the Ashes was played with it, why is this series without it? Either all series are played with it, or none.

Posted by chin-music on (July 27, 2011, 11:07 GMT)

Flower has a point. Just because a few ageing Indian (batting) superstars are not too keen on it, is no reason for the world to keep pandering to Indian stubbornness over DRS.

Posted by mailinsiddu on (July 27, 2011, 11:06 GMT)

Why should a batting team have 2 reviews per innings , as the batting team will only take reviews for edges which are quiet obivious for the batsman when he nicks and contentious catched which are reffered by on-field umpires ?

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 11:02 GMT)

There is a simple solution...let everyone else who wants it (erm, that's all other nations), use it. If India don't want it, fine, they don't have to refer anything! How long have India been number 1 for if they haven't used the DRS since 2008? I'm beginning to see a pattern now how India became number1, because they keep getting hit on the pad that has been costing other teams from beating them :) Let's face it, India should have been all out for 200 in both innings with the amount of wickets both Swann & Broad should have got. I also now understand why India like Billy Bowden so much :)

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 11:02 GMT)

And what about Kevin pietersen given wrongly not out by DRS? There was no clear evidence to show that Billy bowden decision was wrong! Then how did they overturn that decision? Even Nasser Hussain was surprised by it during commentary.

Posted by Philip_Gnana on (July 27, 2011, 11:02 GMT)

The insistence that Predictive Technology should overule the umpire is what is to be considered. The Tracking should be considered right up to the moment of impact. This will also involve the tram lines and the points of contact(bat/pad/line of delivery etc). Can we take the predictive technology to be perfect when the permutations and combinations are actually programed by man? If it is human surely the umpire has to make the call of the predictive nature. This call has to be requested by the onfield umpire, from the third umpire or the call for a review by the captains/batsmen. To totally ignore point of contact or line calls is unjustified. Pushing for a the Technology to take control was unwise. Prediction should be made by umpires and not the machine, but the umpires need to have all the data that the human eye cannot provide. I am a great fan of the UDRS. I fear we have taken a step back by dismissing in total the use of technology - bat/pad decisions were lost. PhilipGnana.UK

Posted by Sinhaya on (July 27, 2011, 11:01 GMT)

If ball tracking technology was used for this series as part of UDRS, Indian batting will find it hard to survive. They avoid losing a test series since losing last in 2008 all due to UDRS not being used.

Posted by Stark62 on (July 27, 2011, 11:01 GMT)

I agree with everything he just stated!

Also, the icc needs to include the snicko device to the drs package is well.

Posted by MartinC on (July 27, 2011, 11:00 GMT)

It is a joke that ball tracking and the pitch map are not in use. I think it will come very soon once there is the independant review of Hawk Eye showing it is accurate.

Once DRS comes in Indian batsmen are going to have to adjust their technicques to play with bat in front of pad not pad and bat together.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 10:59 GMT)

Andy my friend...your are really correct.......bcoz....When you have the latest has to be used fully pledge. Why India.....have ....resistant always........they know their weakness...........why the ICC allow..them to ...influence..the.....regulation to ''INDIA'' they should have the back borne to comply and complain....their resistant...... I WONDER WHY?????.....have the faith on the DRS....OTHERWISE FORGET we dont have in the past. if not use it......positively...without........listening One nation.......We all welcome...DRS............GOOD LUCK England..........

Posted by Buggsy on (July 27, 2011, 10:59 GMT)

The English have every right to be unhappy. It's a complete farce that India refuse to use it but I don't think it will make a difference in this series anyway; India's form is so pathetic at the moment England are probably looking at a 3-0 result in their favour. With the DRS watered down, Dhoni will have to find other excuses for his incompetence.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 10:58 GMT)

It is quite true that those two decisions should go against India, instead of excellent umpiring of this match. I am surprised why only India is refusing this ball tracking technology with having very technically sound batting lineup. Why they are so scared, having two top runagates in test cricket in their said. I am also surprise why ICC go behind only India, There are other 9 countries who are willing to use Ball Tracking Technology. ICC is the governing body of the world Cricket. They can say Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh cricket boards to away with the political influences. Why they can't overrule India's decision. I think Australia and England shod stand strongly with this situation and force ICC to make it mandatory for all three format because it is a neutral system not going against India only it is same as to England, Ausis, SL, PK and all others.

Posted by Ellis on (July 27, 2011, 10:55 GMT)

Flower and Swann are both right. India's insistence on not using ball tracking is insensible. However, the real issue is that the ICC is a toothless tiger. It seems totally incapable of being firm in matters in which it is required to use it's powers.Therefore, countries and spectators need to push the issue. No country should play against India unless the playing conditions include a complete DRS set-up. Spectators should boycott any matches without DRS. It is long past the time for cricket playing countries and cricket fans to stop being held hostage by the BCCI.

Posted by Psychopathetikka on (July 27, 2011, 10:52 GMT)

I agree with Andy on this. When one has the ability to make better decisions using technology they should be taken. Of course DRS is never gonna be 100%, but it assisting the umpires will take the accuracy closer towards 100%. If the ICC is truly concerned about the "prediction" part of Hawk-eye they should change the law so that for LBW referrals Hawk-eye gives the umpire a visual representation of where the ball pitched and where on the pad it hit. The umpire can then use his own imagination to decide if the ball will hit the wickets or not. I think this is how it was used initially on it's first trial during the Sri Lanka -India series.

Posted by raj_che on (July 27, 2011, 10:47 GMT)

BCCI and indian team management always points out when there is pure umpiring decision against them, but when it really helps them they do not even say a word about the umpires. they woudl have made sure a controversy against the umpires and the media would have telecasted a whole lot discussion for this ultimately the umpires would have been debarred. We had 2 straight forward decisions turned down that too Tendulkar and Raina, and this could have easily changed the result of the game, thankfuly England were good enough to bowl out India.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 10:47 GMT)

The Raina appeal was stone dead, given not out because Bowden thought he may have nicked it - confirmation of that wouldn't be using ball tracking technology, so why couldn't that be reviewed? Are all lbw decisions non-reviewable? What if the situation were reversed and a positive lbw decision was nicked - could the batsman review? There's such a grey area here - it should be all or nothing.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 10:44 GMT)

The Raina appeal was stone dead, given not out because Bowden thought he may have nicked it - confirmation of that wouldn't be using ball tracking technology, so why couldn't that be reviewed? Are all lbw decisions non-reviewable? What if the situation were reversed and a positive lbw decision was nicked - could the batsman review? There's such a grey area here - it should be all or nothing.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 10:42 GMT)

flower is certainly correct ICC should not work under BCCI.they r the controllers not BCCI

Posted by TestIsBest on (July 27, 2011, 10:42 GMT)

Very unfortunate that Andy Flower is not talking about Pietersen catch on 49 and Stuart Broad LBW decision in the crucial 2nd Innings. Come on Andy Flower, if you want to speak something true, don't favor for your team only. Anyway, DRS or no DRS This indian team gonna crush POMS. Chak De India.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 10:35 GMT)

Now i wonder what would have happened had DRS was involved in all series that India played before this one?

Posted by NIPPY_89 on (July 27, 2011, 10:33 GMT)

Good on Andy Flower for taking a stand against this. ICC should consider what other test playing nations think. The rules say that both the host and visiting teams have to agree to it. I reckon DRS should be used as much as possible. Take tennis for example. Hawk eye is used whenever it is available and the ball travels much faster than cricket and no body complains about accuracy.

Posted by Tatsache on (July 27, 2011, 10:32 GMT)

I am fan of DRS from WC semi final,there sachin got not out from UDRS :)

Posted by adith_thegod on (July 27, 2011, 10:31 GMT)

60.1 Broad 37* Harbhajan Singh to Broad, no run, 86.7 kph, ooh, with a DRS I reckon Broad might have struggled here. Lunged forward a long way and was struck in front. Appeal denied and where was that review? Oh yeah, I remember.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 10:27 GMT)

The last line in the article is wrong. Didn't India use DRS in the Sri Lanka Test series recently?

Posted by Nutcutlet on (July 27, 2011, 10:25 GMT)

Would anyone like to comment on the rumour floating around that vaseline or a similar substance smeared on the edge of the bat negates Hotspot? Has this been tested? Should umpires inspect bats once in a while, as they do balls?

Posted by ram5160 on (July 27, 2011, 10:21 GMT)

What's the FPS of the cameras used by the broadcasters? Is it 50 FPS as used in the World cup - the one rubbished by the propietor of virtual eye? Or the high speed >2000 FPS ones? Without knowing that, it is useless to conjecture on what might have been.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 10:20 GMT)

wrong call Andy after england palyed so well to focus on this . the umpires were superb and contributed to this fine test match in a high pressure enviroment on the LB's especilly rauf , Tv showed he got a number or marginal decisions spot on . the players dont help appealing for everything . the decision not use DRs for Lb taken before the series and the debate ends there for the time being . england got lucky enough with zaheer sachin and gambir and wonn by playing brilliantly . Rauf adds to the occaison , he looks like he in charge, cool and collected a great foil to the slight comedy of bowden . Umpires are so undermined that one has to admire the sang froid of Rauf a Pakistani making split second level of judgent that replay can ridicule and turn 1 billion indians against him . also who who ber against india coming to rue their decision not use the DRS

Posted by Nutcutlet on (July 27, 2011, 10:20 GMT)

Absolute common-sense from Andy Flower! Unfortunately, the BCCI is an organization that likes to throw its weight around - because it can whilst the ICC is weak-kneed and supplicant. Logically, even if predictive technology isn't absolutely 100% accurate, it should be used because it can prevent howlers in umpiring decisions.That's what it's meant for! Whilst all of us sitting at home can see what the correct decision should have been, the players in the middle also soon learn whether the correct decision was reached and will react in their different ways, depending on their personality traits - and this 'news' will reach the umpire too! Then everyone is meant to carry on with the cloud of a crucial decision having been called wrongly hanging over the proceedings. The umpire has lost confidence, lost face, the fielders are edgy and the captain probably has a counselling situation on his hands! And it could all have been avoided so simply! Ah well, India/BCCI will come round eventually!

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 10:16 GMT)

well it's not only engalnd affected For India too there were few and was turned down

Posted by A.Ak on (July 27, 2011, 10:13 GMT)

England want DRS, India Dont. Forcing to have it is NOT fair. English people often complaining about India saying 'BCCI are showing the domination'. But remember - No one in the world said no to a by-runner except the current england caption. Now, a new rule is created to not to have a by-runner. Thats the reality.

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 10:12 GMT)

Hey Flower! how could you expect the Indian Cricket Council (ICC) going against BCCI?

Posted by allblue on (July 27, 2011, 10:12 GMT)

So we can have Hot Spot to adjudicate catches, but we can't have Hot Spot to adjudicate on an inside edge for lbw appeals? That's just plain daft isn't it?

Posted by shery2floyd on (July 27, 2011, 10:10 GMT)

How do you know Mr Andy Flower that we get more right decisions. isnt this an assumption as Umpire Harpers report to ICC clearly mentions that ball tracking technology is dependent on camera positions and for which theres no uniformity across grounds. Are you being paid by Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye for marketing their product? How can camera which is having small frames per second catch trajectory. ofcourse you can do that if ICC pays for high spec cameras and ICC owns the technology. How will you avoid tampering of technology. And India got some bad LBW decisions as well, so benefits of mistakes of umpires evens out, thats what history of game suggests.

Posted by Shhy on (July 27, 2011, 10:08 GMT)

Where was Mr.Flower when that Ian Bell decision was ruled in favour of them?? Why didnt he voice his concerns at that time?

Posted by Yevghenny on (July 27, 2011, 9:55 GMT)

There's something not right when Billy Bowden misses two plumb decisions like that. To actually try and claim Raina hit the last one was disappointing to hear.

Posted by Patchmaster on (July 27, 2011, 9:51 GMT)

It's pretty obvious why India don't want the system, because they are used to being able to influence umpires like they do at home. The days are numbered though....

Posted by jonlah on (July 27, 2011, 9:50 GMT)

I get why India doesn't want it. Very few umpires will be brave enough to give Tendulkar out lbw. What we need is the umpires to give him out lbw and then have replays showing the umpire was wrong. I bet DRS would then become mandatory all of a sudden.

Posted by Roamer on (July 27, 2011, 9:49 GMT)

'ICC is a world governing body ..', wrong assumption Andy, ICC stands for Indian Cricket Council and as long as the boads from Australia, England and South Africa donot stand up for the principles we will not see a world governing body !!

Posted by safwan_Umair on (July 27, 2011, 9:47 GMT)

the only thing ICC are good at is setting an example out of weak test playing nations. If a Pakistani player commits an offence, it is treated with as a serious felony worth capital punishment. International cricket has lost its credibility due to the incompetence of ICC as a governing body. Even a layman sitting at home can tell how effective DRS is in determining LBW decisions. But with a team of dumb, imbecile men in charge of the ICC, things only promise to get dumber. Bring back the likes of ehsan mani's and malcolm speed's. save ICC. save the game from becoming a man show!

Posted by emeye on (July 27, 2011, 9:40 GMT)

India should revisit there decision.

Posted by chapathishot on (July 27, 2011, 9:38 GMT)

Mr.Flower ,England were also beneficiaries of not having DRS in the First test.I dont think it will be favourable to one team over the course of a long series.Suerly will even out

Posted by   on (July 27, 2011, 9:38 GMT)

Well done Flower!!! The last day of the 2000th test was an eye-opener to use the full UDRS. ICC must be strong making unbiased decisions.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Tour Results
England v India at Cardiff - Sep 16, 2011
England won by 6 wickets (with 10 balls remaining) (D/L method)
England v India at Lord's - Sep 11, 2011
Match tied (D/L method)
England v India at The Oval - Sep 9, 2011
England won by 3 wickets (with 7 balls remaining) (D/L method)
England v India at Southampton - Sep 6, 2011
England won by 7 wickets (with 5 balls remaining)
England v India at Chester-le-Street - Sep 3, 2011
No result
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days