Decision Review System June 18, 2011

DRS has to be totally error-free - Srinivasan

ESPNcricinfo staff
100

N Srinivasan, the BCCI secretary, has reiterated the board's stance against the DRS, saying it was not convinced the technology used at present was accurate all the time and that the resistance would continue until further improvements were made.

"Nothing much has changed since we first opposed it. We welcome technology when it is 100% error-free," Srinivasan told the Indian Express. "In this case it is not, so we would continue to oppose the implementation of the DRS."

The BCCI has been consistent in its refusal to use the system - most recently for India's upcoming tour of England - since it was first trialled in the India-Sri Lanka Test series in 2008. Sachin Tendulkar is often named as one of two Indian players (captain MS Dhoni the other) who are resistant to the referral system and therefore tacitly responsible for the BCCI's opposition of the DRS. Tendulkar told ESPNcricinfo that while he was not against the use of technology, the DRS needed the support of Snickometer and Hot Spot to make it more consistent.

Srinivasan, however, said the BCCI's stand had not changed despite the growing support for the system.

"They [the players] are entitled to their opinion and they can express it as well. But the BCCI is a structured organisation. Yes, we are always open to ideas but we make our own decisions.

"Everyone has their own choice and we cannot question them. At the same time, we have our own ideas and we would stick to our decision till further improvements are made."

Srinivasan said the BCCI had no objection to Snickometer or Hot Spot, but was not convinced about the accuracy of Hawk Eye, which is one of the technological aids used in the DRS.

"The Hawk-Eye is yet to convince us. This is a technology that deals with the projection, trajectory and angle of the ball. And from where the cameras are placed, it cannot give a foolproof solution.

"We raised these issues when the company had made a presentation in Chennai and no one was completely certain about its accuracy," he said. "This technology is basically based on assumption, which comes in the way of the judgment of the umpires, which we think is not good for the game. So, for us to approve the DRS, it has to be totally error-free."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on June 22, 2011, 0:01 GMT

    BCCI should have representation in every country's cricket board to ensure it's 100% transperent in all its decisions. Should get itself involved to check if Gayle's exclusion is 100% right. Right now the umpires are 100% right and better than DRS according to BCCI. Even obvious umpire errors like snicks into the pad given out cannot be corrected without DRS. Duckworth Louis is the messiest system for T20 and even for 50 overs game sometimes its methos is close to ridiculous. Hope they start using it for tests too with BCCI support as they feel its 100% efficient. BCCI is using the money power of the large base of Indian Cricket lovers to its unfair advantage. I hope all other countries join together and bring BCCI down to realistic levels. ICC should force its decisions in all cricket playing nations and not leave it to the whims and fancies of BCCI. The day is not far off.

  • bobmartin on June 20, 2011, 9:21 GMT

    SCOOP !!!.. NEW REVIEW SYSTEM UNVEILED BY THE BCCI. The BCCI have recommended its new system be accepted by the ICC in all matches involving India. The T/D UDRS, developed by two of India's top test cricketers, is described as being the most radical and innovative system yet. It claims to satisfy the stringent demands imposed by the BCCI and its players. Using a unique tracking system, all balls delivered by Indian bowlers which strike the pads are predicted to have been hitting middle stump halfway up. All those bowled by the opposition will be shown as either missing the stumps or to have hit the bat first or be a no-ball. Hotspot and snicko are retained in their current form with some small insignificant adjustments; they will be automatically disabled during the India innings and digitally enhanced during the opposition innings. The BCCI feel that with this system in place they can be 100% satisfied that all decisions will be acceptable to themselves and their players

  • kunallanuk on June 20, 2011, 5:35 GMT

    Somebody please ask the BCCI if the Duckworth Louis method 100% error free? is that what they think? which technology has ever been 100% error free. they are just fooling around with some bigger (stupid) agenda. With players demanding and supporting UDRS there is no point for an administrative board which hardly consists of cricket players to judge against something that will benefit the game. It's all about money and dominance. If the ICC really has some spine left, they should make UDRS mandatory for the benefit of cricket and also for the fans.

  • on June 19, 2011, 23:50 GMT

    Is the BCCI saying that Umpires are 100% correct? Or are they afraid that the DRS might get more Indian batsmen out and give the Indian bowlers less wickets. It looks like they have not got over the way the DRS worked against them in the series against Sri Lanka.

  • HmmmCricket on June 19, 2011, 12:01 GMT

    It is really worrying to know that ICC cannot make decision for the beenfit of the circket and forced not to take the decision that will improve the game.

  • on June 19, 2011, 8:15 GMT

    umpires are about less accurate then technology!!

  • gothetaniwha on June 19, 2011, 7:27 GMT

    I agree with Sudhir - heres hoping its SRT that gets a few howlers v england .

  • Alexk400 on June 19, 2011, 6:21 GMT

    If you want to stop IPL , you have to put better products that is attractive to indian viewers. With 1.5 billion people , it has to be closer or some way it is freely available first few years for viewers to get hooked into. Or keep the Location across the world and flight cost down with flight company do advertisement free. 6 month world league like NFL or MLB or Ice hockey.

    Main cost is flight across world...atleast you are not moving 100 people like in NFL. 20/max travelling including coaches.

    Time cut IPL off. if there is enough money , people don't mind going against BCCI as it is a private orgaization.

    Can a indian get cricket scholarship in Australia? Until the free flow happens India will rule cricket.

  • Cricketfan333 on June 19, 2011, 6:08 GMT

    This is an example of BCCI dominating and dictating in ICC.If BCCI don't like UDRS and if all nations are equal,BCCI has the right not to use it only when India host bilateral series.When India tour WI or Eng,it is for WICB or ECB to decide.BCCI is dominating in ICC because cricket earns mainly from India.Cricket may not last long.

  • on June 19, 2011, 5:39 GMT

    i hope they get a few howlers against them in england. And bell should be included in most of them

  • on June 22, 2011, 0:01 GMT

    BCCI should have representation in every country's cricket board to ensure it's 100% transperent in all its decisions. Should get itself involved to check if Gayle's exclusion is 100% right. Right now the umpires are 100% right and better than DRS according to BCCI. Even obvious umpire errors like snicks into the pad given out cannot be corrected without DRS. Duckworth Louis is the messiest system for T20 and even for 50 overs game sometimes its methos is close to ridiculous. Hope they start using it for tests too with BCCI support as they feel its 100% efficient. BCCI is using the money power of the large base of Indian Cricket lovers to its unfair advantage. I hope all other countries join together and bring BCCI down to realistic levels. ICC should force its decisions in all cricket playing nations and not leave it to the whims and fancies of BCCI. The day is not far off.

  • bobmartin on June 20, 2011, 9:21 GMT

    SCOOP !!!.. NEW REVIEW SYSTEM UNVEILED BY THE BCCI. The BCCI have recommended its new system be accepted by the ICC in all matches involving India. The T/D UDRS, developed by two of India's top test cricketers, is described as being the most radical and innovative system yet. It claims to satisfy the stringent demands imposed by the BCCI and its players. Using a unique tracking system, all balls delivered by Indian bowlers which strike the pads are predicted to have been hitting middle stump halfway up. All those bowled by the opposition will be shown as either missing the stumps or to have hit the bat first or be a no-ball. Hotspot and snicko are retained in their current form with some small insignificant adjustments; they will be automatically disabled during the India innings and digitally enhanced during the opposition innings. The BCCI feel that with this system in place they can be 100% satisfied that all decisions will be acceptable to themselves and their players

  • kunallanuk on June 20, 2011, 5:35 GMT

    Somebody please ask the BCCI if the Duckworth Louis method 100% error free? is that what they think? which technology has ever been 100% error free. they are just fooling around with some bigger (stupid) agenda. With players demanding and supporting UDRS there is no point for an administrative board which hardly consists of cricket players to judge against something that will benefit the game. It's all about money and dominance. If the ICC really has some spine left, they should make UDRS mandatory for the benefit of cricket and also for the fans.

  • on June 19, 2011, 23:50 GMT

    Is the BCCI saying that Umpires are 100% correct? Or are they afraid that the DRS might get more Indian batsmen out and give the Indian bowlers less wickets. It looks like they have not got over the way the DRS worked against them in the series against Sri Lanka.

  • HmmmCricket on June 19, 2011, 12:01 GMT

    It is really worrying to know that ICC cannot make decision for the beenfit of the circket and forced not to take the decision that will improve the game.

  • on June 19, 2011, 8:15 GMT

    umpires are about less accurate then technology!!

  • gothetaniwha on June 19, 2011, 7:27 GMT

    I agree with Sudhir - heres hoping its SRT that gets a few howlers v england .

  • Alexk400 on June 19, 2011, 6:21 GMT

    If you want to stop IPL , you have to put better products that is attractive to indian viewers. With 1.5 billion people , it has to be closer or some way it is freely available first few years for viewers to get hooked into. Or keep the Location across the world and flight cost down with flight company do advertisement free. 6 month world league like NFL or MLB or Ice hockey.

    Main cost is flight across world...atleast you are not moving 100 people like in NFL. 20/max travelling including coaches.

    Time cut IPL off. if there is enough money , people don't mind going against BCCI as it is a private orgaization.

    Can a indian get cricket scholarship in Australia? Until the free flow happens India will rule cricket.

  • Cricketfan333 on June 19, 2011, 6:08 GMT

    This is an example of BCCI dominating and dictating in ICC.If BCCI don't like UDRS and if all nations are equal,BCCI has the right not to use it only when India host bilateral series.When India tour WI or Eng,it is for WICB or ECB to decide.BCCI is dominating in ICC because cricket earns mainly from India.Cricket may not last long.

  • on June 19, 2011, 5:39 GMT

    i hope they get a few howlers against them in england. And bell should be included in most of them

  • on June 19, 2011, 5:21 GMT

    I am not convinced about DRS either...current test between England and SriLanka....England decided to use DRS for Paravitana wicket on an edge to keeper after umpire didnt give that out..DRS as would always do lyk tht didnt show a thin edge...Hotspot didnt show the edge i.e. the spot where ball hit the bat...while there was considerable difference between bat and pads,Snickometer showed there was an edge...so which technology is right????anyways all three of them can be used as BCCI said to minimise error...n people who r defending DRS are just lyk those asking a man who wants to walk on foot to drive the car but the one with no brakes...The technology or the car has to be perfect to change the system.....and I fully support technology to reduce umpiring errors...

  • sjitendran on June 19, 2011, 4:44 GMT

    This is utterly foolish of BCCI. It calims that DRS is not 100% error-free. These fools do not understand that nothing in this world is 100% error -free or perfect. The only way to improve is by using thetechnology more often. These same idiots were crying against umpire human mistakes when they toured Australia last to the extent of vilifying one of the decent umpres( Steve Bucknor). I wonder is there any sane head in BCCI. By the by I am an Indian and disgusted by this bull-headed obstinacy of BCCI.

  • VisBal on June 19, 2011, 3:07 GMT

    @ Isaac_7: What you are saying is true. There has been plenty of research on the issue of sub-concious bias by referees/umpires in favour of the bigger name players in various sports. One example is Fergie time: the referee 'forgetting' to check his watch to blow time during injury/stoppage time when Man U are trailing. It has been known for long that bigger name batsmen get more benefit of the doubt than lesser batsmen. DRS eliminates this bias.

    More relevant to Test matches however, is the number of times top-order batsmen get away with feather-nicks to the keeper because the umpire CANNOT KNOW. An article on Cricinfo - maybe a year or two ago - confirmed what many believed: more erroneous decisions go in favour of the batsmen than against them. So, in a sense, DRS helps to improve the balance between bat and ball. Has anyone noticed that worldwide, it is only the batsmen that complain against DRS?

  • Baltimoreboy777 on June 18, 2011, 22:18 GMT

    Isn't ICC the one to decide what to implement and not BCCI? So why even bother to ask BCCI ! It's a ridiculous statement from BCCI. There's no technology that is 100% accurate.

  • on June 18, 2011, 22:06 GMT

    Oh right and we are worried about 100% accuracy because currenty we have 100% accuracy??? So when it reverts back to the umpires call when there is doubt is that not minimizing the judgement bias?? We have seen some terribe decisions over the years, and I hope we see lots more on the Indian tour to Engand!!!!

  • Isaac_7 on June 18, 2011, 22:02 GMT

    umpires certainly aren't 100% sure!!!!! so use the technology

  • Isaac_7 on June 18, 2011, 20:52 GMT

    BCCI fuuly well know using is the best way for the game. however, it sort of gives everyone an equal chance and since India is the superepower, it's the only to give parity to everyone. it;s quite simple, when it comes to human judgment, the "big" decisions always go to the big dogs, so say an lbw appeal against Tendulkar would not be given but against a lesser batsman, if the umpire makes an incorrect decision,it doesn't matter. because who cares? it's why in football they are calling for instant replay, as the Chelseas/India of this world will always get the big deciosions to go their way.

  • on June 18, 2011, 20:16 GMT

    BCCI in all fairness has not contributed to the improvement of cricket one bit. It is the Australians and English that are experimenting with different formats, including day-night tests, pink colored balls, split-innings one-day matches, 4-day tests, and much more. India on the other end sits like the big boss dismissing any advancements made to improve cricket as whole for the viewing public. It has contributed absolutely nothing, in spite of having all the money. If BCCI is so critical why doesn't it invest in making the technology better, rather than whine like a baby every time there is an international tour!

  • on June 18, 2011, 19:42 GMT

    if we want to play the game fair, use the technology including snico. if all cricket nation agree to technology then INDIA should give it a chance, if not they will be accused of playing the game unfair. jai ho.

  • on June 18, 2011, 19:29 GMT

    loool this guy must be one heck of a dumbass!! is normal umpiring 100% error free? obviously not! hence we have da DRS system!

  • topeleven on June 18, 2011, 18:50 GMT

    i think UDRS is necessary and should be made mandatory in all tournaments. Why asking BCCI for an away series.Had it been home series they can say we cant install those technollogy its a away series and England are the host. So they should accept to the terms and conditions made by the ICC and ECB and stop giving instructions to other boards. If not let them pull out and pay the money for the loss to the ECB. They have more money and are trying to show the might of it. I pray India should lose this series due to many bad decisions and then lament for not having the technology

    Had UDRS been in Sydney test Aussies wouldnt have cheated India,...........

  • on June 18, 2011, 18:12 GMT

    BCCI has gone from protecting indian interests to total destruction of the game. Nothing more bone headed and substance-less statements than this ... from Mr. Srinivasan.

    Validates the claims from everyone else that all they care about is money.. We need to stop this silliness

  • rohufish on June 18, 2011, 18:07 GMT

    BCCI are a bunch of power-hungry luddites. Man children tasting wealth and power for the first time.

  • Arthaurian on June 18, 2011, 17:41 GMT

    How can their argument be "its not error free". Umpires are not "error free" either, but if you use DRS, we not saying it completely wipes out the chance of errors, but it does reduce them significantly. So in a way, BCCI are contradicting themselves...

  • nymphsatyr on June 18, 2011, 17:12 GMT

    Will some one made this bone headed BCCI hammered the notion that no system is 100%

  • sameer111111 on June 18, 2011, 16:48 GMT

    Just because its not 100% error free is no reason not to use it. Of all the other options, its the best of the lot and prevents umpiring howlers. 50-50 decisions going one way or the other is acceptable to the fans but it sure gets ugly when the only person unaware of a huge nick is the umpire. Going by their line of thought selectors may say " Since there is no 100% guarantee that X player will perform all the time, we dropped him"

  • on June 18, 2011, 16:41 GMT

    @Bob_the_Kazoo - that was cheeky! Trust me, BCCI is an obstinate body. Asoka De Silva, if he officiates and blunders, will not result in calls for DRS. It will result in him being removed like Bucknor was!

  • SnowSnake on June 18, 2011, 16:07 GMT

    While I disagree with the UDRS process, I also disagree with BCCI on 100% accuracy. No technology can be proven to be 100% accurate, so BCCI should be some what considerate. I say, 3-sigma (3 errors in 1000) is good enough accuracy for technology. However, technology errors are only part of the problem. What about human errors? Why can't BCCI and ICC hire an independent consulting company and resolve the review process issue? I guess I probably know the answer, which may have to do with keeping the field umpires AND technology. In such a case, technology is just a patchwork on existing process. If this is the case then it is no wonder that debate on this issue keeps going on and on.

  • on June 18, 2011, 16:00 GMT

    Heights of narrow mindedness. If there was a documented evidence on the error % manual decisions lead to over a period, its easy to understand the improvement technology offers. BCCI is desperately trying to throw its weight around on something where the results are clear and direct. BCCI's decision is clearly absurd and myopic

  • gk92129 on June 18, 2011, 15:53 GMT

    I wonder how it is possible to make anything 100% error free. What DRS has does is it has reduced the umpiring errors. It is just like 3rd Umpire review for Run-out decisions. Is it still possible to make 100% correct decisions for Run-outs? No. For marginal decisions, the decision is made in favor of batsman.

    Same way, some set of rules are there for DRS when marginal decisions needs to be made. And it seems BCCI is not clear about that.

    At least, all howlers have been avoided in World cup with basic DRS. Probably, hotspot and snickometer needs to be made Mandatory. But, because of current political and financial environment, there are some practical difficulties in having these technologies in every match. Probably, ICC has to work on it to make it available everywhere. BCCI can contribute to it.

    And how it helped measuring the umpires performance in the world cup? It was amazing to how some of the Umpires are of so much perfect decision makers.

  • on June 18, 2011, 15:34 GMT

    I think BCCI should come out of 20th century thinking and embrace the change. In this era of computers technology must be embraced even for domestic cricket matches played in India. DRS is better than umpires gut feeling of a decision, and it allows the third umpire to look at different angles as well.

  • addiemanav on June 18, 2011, 15:11 GMT

    i had given a seminar on hawkeye in my final year in college,couple of months back..i researched about the technology & realised that it was not error-free but still was correct atleast upto 95% and more!no system will ever be 100% and to reject it on those basis is foolish!i saw the hotspot 5 yrs ago during the ashes in 06-07,and immediately felt that it was almost fool-proof compared to snickometer..if udrs is used without hotspot ,then it is of no use..even if the hawkeye is excluded,the udrs will still be very successful!!most of the ppl who dont believe in hawkeye,dont agree with the ball-tracking where ball path is predicted..what can be done is , when it comes to lbw the 3rd umpire can check where the ball pitched and hit the pads(help of hotspot) and then give his opinion to field umpire if the ball is hitting or not!currently the whole decision is dependent on the camera..and some ppl dont like it!!this way it can be adjusted so everyone is happy and decision is fairer!!

  • SpeedCricketThrills on June 18, 2011, 14:28 GMT

    In terms of numbers, 1 in 3 lbw decisions is "doubtful", 3 in 5 "doubtful" decisions are umpiring errors if technology is not used. Use of DRS will help reduce, if not eliminate, these doubtful deicsions by 80%.

    The day India Cements produces cement that is 100% crack proof is the day technology used in DRS will be "totally error free"!

    Even Sachin has relented - which is a good sign. Since BCCI doesn't want to be seen as toeing Sachin's line, I guess they are taking time. It is now only a matter of time.

  • on June 18, 2011, 13:47 GMT

    Fix one issue first. Is it DRS or UDRS? Is ICC waiting for BCCI to tell them, which one to use? Totally Sunkey.

  • on June 18, 2011, 13:34 GMT

    BCCI should accept the best available technology which is better than no technology at all. ICC should stand firm in this matter and ask the BCCI to go to hell.

  • Bob_the_Kazoo on June 18, 2011, 13:26 GMT

    Simple solution. Assign Asoka de Silva to all matches involving India. See how long it takes for them to change their tune.

  • on June 18, 2011, 13:17 GMT

    Umpires should be removed from the game since they are not 100% error free... Wait who will officiate the game then..... BCCI...

  • on June 18, 2011, 13:04 GMT

    This is ridiculous, DRS is not 100% error free, but it has higher accuracy than most elite umpires. I would have loved this system to be in place when Lara was still playing. Once Lara crossed 150 almost all his dismissals were from error, because once he was "in" getting him out was almost impossible.

  • JavagalSrinath on June 18, 2011, 12:56 GMT

    These ball tracking, snicometers, hot spots should not be used even while commentating for India's matches if its not reliable, why allow spectators to be fooled.

  • popcorn on June 18, 2011, 12:51 GMT

    This is the END of World Cricket.I suggest the other Cricket Boards form a separate League where DRS is mandatory. Leave India out of the new League. Srinivasan, even umpires give lbw decisions based on assumptions - would you remove umpires too? Stupid.

  • JavagalSrinath on June 18, 2011, 12:46 GMT

    Even umpires are not 100% error free, why BCCI is not opposing them

  • DazTaylor on June 18, 2011, 12:39 GMT

    BCCI reiterate their stance as DRS not 100% correct. Maybe not but it is more correct than relying on the umpires alone, no? I therefore reiterate that I sincerely hope Sachin gets an absolute shocker, preferably when he is on 99. After all, DRS could overturn this.

  • on June 18, 2011, 12:23 GMT

    I wonder how many people commenting have actually taken the time to find out about hawk-eye....I know I have. If you want to come at this with an informed opinion I suggest you read this:

    http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20accuracy%20and%20believability2.pdf

  • THIMMU on June 18, 2011, 12:09 GMT

    wat the hell is wrong with bcci????just because of the fact india doesnt know how to use it effectively,its no solution to oppose it....i personally feel drs is a grt innovation coz a match can be decided on a wrong decision,so if technology is there why cant they use it..i actually blame the icc for this.... icc should control things and not bcci,hope icc has balls

  • jr1972 on June 18, 2011, 11:53 GMT

    That's right Srinivasan, let's wait for the UDRS to be absolutely perfect. Maybe this wil be the case in 1 or 2 years time to coincide with the retirement of a certain player who holds a few records. Why not produce this BCCI endorsement with a few law adjustments like: no limit on bouncers per over, bringing back bodyline, abolishing the front foot rule for bowlers, uncovered pitches and my particular favourite, blindfolding batsmen. That will stop anyone getting near 50 test centuries... sorry... I meant that it will bring back the public's waining interest in the test format. I don't usually go for conspiracy theories but I can see Scully and Mulder sniffing around this one in the not too distant future.

  • leftarmtweaker on June 18, 2011, 11:21 GMT

    The BCCI will make any excuse to get its way while the ICC have no balls to speak up. It shouldn't be up to a board to make a decision but rather the ICC! If this goes on with big boards like BCCI and ECB making decisions which the ICC should make - why not scrap the ICC and finished?!

  • on June 18, 2011, 11:03 GMT

    dont know if '100% not correct' is the real reason.... indians have blamed umpires for losing matches for some time now.. atleast this is the way to go ahead...

  • on June 18, 2011, 10:56 GMT

    BCCI is not 100% error free and I don't understand Sachin and Dhoni's opposition of DRS. Its not 100% error free but it is helpful against LBWs of inside edges, knicked and not given out and vice versa, plumb LBWs etc. Why not look at those dismissals rather than beating a bush around 2.5 m rules and saying it error prone. BCCI has taken it on its ego to oppose as for them agreeing to DRS meen conceding defeat. Shame on BCCI.

  • on June 18, 2011, 10:39 GMT

    BCCI wants to have its own system in place?

  • Spicy17 on June 18, 2011, 10:36 GMT

    Well i beleive BCCI and Indian Cricket TEam alll at once should agree on its use as DRS was the one which let them win the world Cup, if there was no DRS TEndulker was plumbed by Saeed Ajaml in Semi Final.

  • on June 18, 2011, 10:33 GMT

    If India are opposed to the UDRS and the umpire gives an LBW decision to an Indian batsmen, who feels he is not out, what happens if he can't review the decision. Does he just accept that the umpire made a bad decision and move on or complain and make the BCCI remove the umpire for future test matches? What happens if the bowlers feels confident that the England batsmen is out but the umpire disagrees? This decision could backfire and India would regret it.

  • on June 18, 2011, 10:19 GMT

    DRS not 100% error free says BCCI...as opposed to umpiring which as we all know is squeaky clean 100% error free!

  • on June 18, 2011, 9:55 GMT

    I agree its not 100 per cent error-free, but if it isn't implemented, the game is only 1% error-free.

    India is just making themselves funny. I guess its none of their fault, just the lack of common sense.

  • Afta on June 18, 2011, 9:48 GMT

    Now that India does not want the DRS, why bother to have Hawk-Eye for all Indian matches, you don't need to see the ball deviating from the stumps or going above the stumps or bat first or pad first or bat pad or even the ball hitting the stumps, doesn't mean anything at all, because the on-field umpire is ERROR FREE, he can make the decision and whatever may be, good or bad, don't complain. You could only have the run-out decisions on camera and forget the rest. How about that? I am sure all Indian fans will be thrilled with such results? On the contrary. Sooner or later India will have to take a positive decision in favour of the DRS. Time's UP.

  • m_kamb on June 18, 2011, 9:31 GMT

    HOPE DHONI, OTHER SENIOR PLAYER AND MEMBERS OF BCCI, WHO OPPOSES UDRS MAY GET SOME SERIOUS ILLNESS AND NO DOCTOR IN THE WORLD CURE THEM,BECAUSE THERE CHANCES OF SURVIVAL ARE NOT 100%.

  • m_kamb on June 18, 2011, 9:29 GMT

    SO REMOVE UMPIRES ALSO,THEY ARE NOT 100% CORRECT. GO TO TWITTER AND ABUSE BCCI AS MUCH AS U CAN,MY BROTHERS.

  • on June 18, 2011, 9:26 GMT

    BCCI are a bunch fools including Sachin and Dhoni.. How on earth can a system like DRS can be 100 percent accurate ? No DRS, NO cricket .. Come on ICC do not be a scary cat .. Speak up !! Other boards should boycott playing cricket against India if this is the case until they agree to use DRS. Pls cricinfo post my comments where most of the time it doesn't get posted.

  • on June 18, 2011, 9:20 GMT

    Mr. Srinivasan, can I humbly ask you a question? Are the things you already using 100% correct? I'll point you out a very simple & small incident. In the cricket matches we use the third umpire. Are you 100% sure that a third umpire gives the exact correct decision using the technology (I'm not referring the DRS here)?

    Please don't tell kindergarten talks, speak maturely as the secretary of BCCI.

  • Afta on June 18, 2011, 9:16 GMT

    What can you say... Seems like that the umpires decisions were always error free..! It has been proved beyond doubt that the DRS has reduced human error to a great extent and players officials and even the cricketing fans are so convinced that it is so. I just cannot undderstand the stubborness of the BCCI. Tell me one thing that is not error free? Except God. After all we are humans. Lets wait and see how India fair in their quest for a non existant DRS. A couple of wrong decisions and its bound to backfire on them very soon. Best of luck India, lets see who will have the last laugh....

  • neutralise on June 18, 2011, 9:05 GMT

    The BCCI has spent a lot of money to be able to intimidate and replace officials at will. They're not going to let some new-fangled computer even the playing field!

  • rkannancrown on June 18, 2011, 9:04 GMT

    A lot of comments about BCCI's reservations are based on a complete lack of logic. BCCI is opposing the introduction of a system which is inherently unreliable. The correct way for the supporters of this technology would be to see how the reliability of the system can be improved. We saw Hawk Eye being used to deny a plumb LBW against Bell because Hawk eye was deemed unreliable. We have a number of instances of umpires refusing to refer close run out calls to the third umpire. why is there not more focus on improving this aspect - a situation where the technology is well accepted. Unfortunately, BCCI bashing has become the favourite past time of some.

  • Vernacular_Press on June 18, 2011, 9:01 GMT

    Wembley to host 2013 UCL final.FA in football=BCCI in cricket.We r powerful.

  • on June 18, 2011, 8:56 GMT

    In soccer they have Joseph Sepp Blatter, in Formula 1 they have Bernie Ecclestone, but in cricket we have the worst, the BCCI otherwise known as the Bureaucratic Commission of Cricketing Idiots.

  • svinodmenon on June 18, 2011, 8:55 GMT

    Without Snickometer or Hot Spot DRS is not useful, Hawk Eye isn't 100%, So what is the use of DRS despite there is error in technology. The technology isn't 100% successful in tennis, however they are happy with the errors. India is relucant to use the DRS because the ICc's basic eligibility doesn't have snickometer and hotspot. And LBW's decisions given through hawk eys is not 100% accurate. So remove the Hawk Eys in cricket and use DRS only with the help of Sniko and hotspot. Bcci will accept, even all indians. When technology is no even 90 % accurate then why use it.

    The Australian media in cricket were critical of a specific LBW appeal made by Anil Kumble when Andrew Symonds was batting. The ball, as suggested by Hawk-Eye, would have bounced over the stumps, but to the naked eye looked absolutely out.[21] In the Nadal-Federer final at Wimbledon in 2008, a ball that appeared out was called in by 1mm, a distance well within the advertised margin of error

  • mirchy on June 18, 2011, 8:40 GMT

    As most of these comments are judgemental, I can't agree with most of them. There are, IMO, three issues here: 1. Availability to all cricket playing nations of Snicko and Hotspot technologies. This argument is a result of Australian resistance to export the required know-how and instrumentation, leave alone the cost factor. 2. The adequate documentation of Hawkeye's inaccuracy and 3. The possibility of umpires being allowed to interfere with a technologically derived decision, e.g. Billy Bowden's match-changing assertion giving Ian Bell not out in the recently concluded WC, thereby overriding a technological decision. There can never be any technology that accounts for human ego. IMO, a decision based on technology should never be subject to human confirmation. Either its technology all the way or it's none at all. Once these problems are competently addressed, I'm sure there will be no further resistance from the BCCI.

  • SaqlainHK on June 18, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    Jokers got power in hands, look at ICC president Sharat Powar (indian) he is not 100% acurate (phicicaly) i think he should be removed from the post .

  • on June 18, 2011, 8:37 GMT

    Technology might give little bit of errors (not even fractions). But DRS purpose is completely different, it gives the chance to overturn the unfair decisions taken by the on-field umprires. When do these stupid BCCI rulers realize it ? I wish India to loose this series because of poor umpiring decisions, like in 2008 Sydney Test. SORRY FANS.

  • on June 18, 2011, 8:30 GMT

    To be fair to the BCCI, they were the first to accept UDRS in Sri Lanka. However, it was a pathetic series for them with the indian batsmen failing to read the Sri Lankan spinners. Matters were made worse for them with UDRS, when even marginal decisions were given in the opposition's favour by the TV umpire. I remember Sehwag given not out by on field umpire, but given out LBW through UDRS, even when a particular replay clearly showed he had hit the ball! Somebody has to make the BCCI understand that things have improved tremendously since that "stupid" series. Probably the ICC also has to understand that it gives the 3rd umpire a very big role, and may be we need to have neutral, and well qualified umpires for the 3rd umpire's job as well.

  • shery2floyd on June 18, 2011, 8:25 GMT

    Hot Spot will never be used in India, as as per report during world cup, technology cant be imported to india. If so, DRS should be opposed. If ICC is serious about DRS, it should own DRS and implement everywhere. Then no question about cost, no question of export/import rules will come.

  • Quazar on June 18, 2011, 8:21 GMT

    @Rahul Ramachandran... Sachin-haters don't let facts get in the way of abusing him! Never have, never will.

  • on June 18, 2011, 8:15 GMT

    are umpires '100% error-free'? What a pathetic decision it is not to use this technology, how do you expect to improve something by 'snubbing' or 'ignoring' it. Udrs has saved many matches from 'unfair' results, every wicket can change the result of match. I hope asoka de silva officiates in india's wi and england series, then bcci would now how bad can umpires really be!

  • on June 18, 2011, 7:52 GMT

    BCCI has to be 100% accurate or else we do want BCCI.

  • getsetgopk on June 18, 2011, 7:52 GMT

    Look if the hawk eye is rejected because its a projection then what is the on field umpires decison? isnt it a projection as well? lbw's are always gona be like this where the ball never actually hits wickets and some form of imagination or projection must be used. there will never be a 100% accurate system weather the umpire calls it or the hawk eye or some other tecchnology these are all lame excuses by the indians the reality is that with the DRS in place more decisions tend to go the bowlers way and indian strength is batting. the world's so called best batsman is afraid of the DRS? Pathetic!

  • wicked.wizard on June 18, 2011, 7:50 GMT

    Are television replays for run outs 100% error free? Dont we have cases of a missing frame? We are then happy to give the batsman benefit of the doubt? Personally i think the BCCI is resisting the technology, due to the numerous cricket grounds in india and the conflict between broadcasters and BCCI as to who should pay for the technology esp hotspot

  • on June 18, 2011, 7:48 GMT

    @Mannix16, that's a ridiculous statement. Most Indians are all for the DRS and we all hope that the BCCI will turn around and change their mind later. Just because the BCCI are buffoons, it doesn't mean you take cricket away from a nation who love the game.

  • Bob_the_Kazoo on June 18, 2011, 7:42 GMT

    From my understanding it is the Hawk-Eye predictions that the BCCI believe are not 100% correct. Predictions are, by defnition, never 100% correct. I hope nobody at the BCCI ever checks the weather report. Weather reports simply cannot be allowed until they are 100% accurate. Until then we should all just hope for the best and not use the technology currently available to us.

  • JANVI11 on June 18, 2011, 7:30 GMT

    Now, Let's capture 100 completed deliveries.You know the complete dynamics of each of the deliveries.(you have seen & recorded your trajectory/ angle/ deviation/ spin..blah..blah..blah). A healthy mix of varieties of balls considered (like offspin / leg spin / in swings / out swings)

    Make Hawk-Eye predict the path of the same 100 deliveries after pitching. Verify the predicted path of these 100 deliveries with that of the completed ones.

    If Hawk-eye is effective enough, they should have executed this simple User Acceptance Scenario long back and tried to explain the reluctant customers. Since I am not a part of them, I would not know if they have done.

    To make it more exhaustive, conduct this test for 100 offspins (all varieties like off break, doosra,arm ball...etc) / 100 leg spins (all variations like flipper, googly, leg break, top spin...etc). 100 each in swings and out swings. I would not see how BCCI would resist if the results are conclusive.

    Is it worth giving a try?

  • GlobalCricketLover on June 18, 2011, 7:08 GMT

    Going by his argument we should also remove the umpires as they are not 100% accurate. How stupid can one be not to understand that a 98% accurate system (with DRS) is better than a 92% one (without DRS)! It's unfortunate that the power lies with BCCI which is controlled buffoons like this guy. It's made even worse by not so intelligent cricketers like sachin switching off their common sense. I am an indian btw....and in total disapproval of bcci and sachin.

  • sanath007 on June 18, 2011, 7:02 GMT

    BCCI is looking for GOD then, nothing is 100% in this world...what a lame excuse

  • Shaneb20041985 on June 18, 2011, 7:02 GMT

    According to Srinivasan, the BCCI also doesn't accept Quantum Physics because it cannot give 100% precise measurements (due to limitations of the uncertainty principle).

    What a joke!

  • VisBal on June 18, 2011, 6:56 GMT

    Refusal for the sake of refusal. It is clear that Srinivasan does not have even a rudimentary grasp of physics. Money, on the other hand...

  • on June 18, 2011, 6:46 GMT

    This is just like saying we wont pick a batsman unless he bats like bradman..how stupid does this sound?? Even the umpires recognize the UDRS as an aid, they are ultimately the decision-makers, if they dont have a problem, i think the BCCI has no business in interfering in this matter.

  • on June 18, 2011, 6:38 GMT

    Getting it totally error-free is impossible Mr. Srinivasan.. But with the help of this 95% fair technology, its possible to avoid 9 out of 10 incorrect decisions..

  • borninthetimeofSRT on June 18, 2011, 6:36 GMT

    Compared to Tennis, Cricket has a long way to go. BCCI is correct in that regard. Umpires of the last century had better judgement and conviction about dismissals as opposed to umpires of today who blink to the third umpire at every appeal. To set the standard, one must find ways that are fool proof, like in tennis. A 'Work in Progress' must not be accepted by the game, and that vision must be embraced by all boards. Its a shame when technology errs because it is again relying on human judgement. The game must step out of 'benefit of doubt' vision of old British era, cricket is a global sport now. If its impossible to upgrade technology further, change the rules of the game. At present the technology is highly non-affordable and cricket is only rich in one country, while others are comforting on that cushion.

  • on June 18, 2011, 6:36 GMT

    Dhoni's Hayabusa is not 100% error-free. Is he willing to gift it to me? Dhoni's mobile phone is not 100% error-free. Is he ready to donate it to someone who needs it more? Tendulkar's Ferrari is not error-free. Willing to give it back and get rid of all the tax issues? The flight Srinivasan travels in is not 100% error-free. Willing to walk from Kanyakumari to Srinagar? Hell, Dhoni himself is not 100% error-free as captain. Willing to step down and retire? A life jacket is not 100% error-free but thanks, I care more about saving my life.

  • Cpt.Meanster on June 18, 2011, 6:34 GMT

    @Mannix: Wow you need to use some common sense next time you write a comment. Strip the BCCI of test status ? well that will be as good as wiping cricket from the face of the earth. Nobody kicks out a super power. I agree with the BCCI. The UDRS cannot be fully supported until every single support feature is added. No snicko or hotspot = no UDRS. Let's get on with the game whiners.

  • on June 18, 2011, 6:28 GMT

    Just an FYI India supports the DRS its the Skynet..i mean BCCI that doesn't support DRS...

  • sleekman11 on June 18, 2011, 6:25 GMT

    All this after DRS won India the world cup after saving its biggest critic sachin Tendulkar of the plumbest lbw you would ever see in the semi final against saeed ajmal. I guess sachin has ample reason to question this system's validity after that:))

  • on June 18, 2011, 6:21 GMT

    Geez the BCCI are a bunch of idiots. Why on earth does it have to be 100% accurate? Why not implement it when it's clearly a far better option than the naked eye? Isn't that the idea? You get MORE decisions correct than without it. I think the real reason is that the BCCI know they get far more decisions go to them than against them, and the Indian team is terrible at using them. The UDRS also brings in a lot more excitement for the viewers.

  • rajithwijepura on June 18, 2011, 6:19 GMT

    There is only one thing to do. Give the rights to the host country to make DRS available or not. Then in this world only one country we'll not see DRS in place. 90% of cricket will played with DRS. WAKE UP ICC.

  • SBMURALI on June 18, 2011, 6:08 GMT

    if icc uses hawk-eye then why should not it use hot spot and snickometer.ICC should accept the requirements of bcci on DRS and please implement it in ind-eng series

  • on June 18, 2011, 6:07 GMT

    Can anyone tell me any technological development which is 100% perfect? Technology is always subject to error terms, but reduce it significantly with long-term usage and modifications. It is easy to find the reason to accept anything good than supporting to implement. As per BCCI all the other test nations have accepted a wrong system and they relay on that badly. Good luck world cricket with BCCI un due influences.

  • krazzyking on June 18, 2011, 6:06 GMT

    there's no reason not to look for perfection before buying it... but there is no reason to not expect to "improve"... improve it in match conditions... like players you wont know how good a player truly is until her performs under match conditions..we hear it all the time

  • ejsiddiqui on June 18, 2011, 6:03 GMT

    Mr Sinivasan, ball trajectory after the impact would always be upon assumptions. Maybe this technology is not !00% accurate but is this make the technology less worthy to make 99% time correct decision.

    Simply say "We don't want to use this technology no matter what"

  • anunad on June 18, 2011, 5:58 GMT

    Nothing will ever be 100% perfect. The same applies in the DRS. It is impossible to make it error-proof.

  • Mannix16 on June 18, 2011, 5:50 GMT

    ICC has implemented UDRS to be mandatory in all tests. If BCCI does not comply, no matter how much money they generate for the ICC, kick them out and strip them of their test ranking until they decide otherwise. ICC has rules, and no matter how powerful you are, you should not be able to bend them at will

  • johnathonjosephs on June 18, 2011, 5:48 GMT

    "The Hawk-Eye is yet to convince us. This is a technology that deals with the projection, trajectory and angle of the ball. And from where the cameras are placed, it cannot give a foolproof solution." Wait lemme get this straight.... BCCI thinks an umpire's idea of the ball trajectory is more accurate than hawkeye which is proven to be with 95% precision? I guess they want it to be 100% precision so that they can see the ball's trajectory with a fraction of a mm more detailed than hawkeye....

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 18, 2011, 5:45 GMT

    I'm with Srinivasan, and forget 100% error free, I want 147% error free. It has to not only make correct future decisions, it has to also correct all past mistakes made in the history of cricket. I'd also like the DRS to cure Polio whilst we're at it, though this isn't a "necessary" requirement. Also if the ball tracking technology cannot track the path of the ball all the way to the moon, then it's just not accurate enough. Get these into DRS and maybe we'll think about it.

  • johnathonjosephs on June 18, 2011, 5:42 GMT

    Wow BCCI is showing how naive they are The system (any system for that regard) will never be TOTALLY error free.... such perfection is not available in this world Look at it this way.... you can have an umpire who makes all the calls or you can have an umpire who makes all the calls and if a player thinks he made a wrong one, can challenge the umpire to look at a replay and allow the umpire to change his mind if he thinks he is wrong ,i mean even a review system which no technology but only showing a replay of the ball is better than nothing

  • sidzy on June 18, 2011, 5:41 GMT

    How can a politician know in's & out's of a game.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • sidzy on June 18, 2011, 5:41 GMT

    How can a politician know in's & out's of a game.

  • johnathonjosephs on June 18, 2011, 5:42 GMT

    Wow BCCI is showing how naive they are The system (any system for that regard) will never be TOTALLY error free.... such perfection is not available in this world Look at it this way.... you can have an umpire who makes all the calls or you can have an umpire who makes all the calls and if a player thinks he made a wrong one, can challenge the umpire to look at a replay and allow the umpire to change his mind if he thinks he is wrong ,i mean even a review system which no technology but only showing a replay of the ball is better than nothing

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 18, 2011, 5:45 GMT

    I'm with Srinivasan, and forget 100% error free, I want 147% error free. It has to not only make correct future decisions, it has to also correct all past mistakes made in the history of cricket. I'd also like the DRS to cure Polio whilst we're at it, though this isn't a "necessary" requirement. Also if the ball tracking technology cannot track the path of the ball all the way to the moon, then it's just not accurate enough. Get these into DRS and maybe we'll think about it.

  • johnathonjosephs on June 18, 2011, 5:48 GMT

    "The Hawk-Eye is yet to convince us. This is a technology that deals with the projection, trajectory and angle of the ball. And from where the cameras are placed, it cannot give a foolproof solution." Wait lemme get this straight.... BCCI thinks an umpire's idea of the ball trajectory is more accurate than hawkeye which is proven to be with 95% precision? I guess they want it to be 100% precision so that they can see the ball's trajectory with a fraction of a mm more detailed than hawkeye....

  • Mannix16 on June 18, 2011, 5:50 GMT

    ICC has implemented UDRS to be mandatory in all tests. If BCCI does not comply, no matter how much money they generate for the ICC, kick them out and strip them of their test ranking until they decide otherwise. ICC has rules, and no matter how powerful you are, you should not be able to bend them at will

  • anunad on June 18, 2011, 5:58 GMT

    Nothing will ever be 100% perfect. The same applies in the DRS. It is impossible to make it error-proof.

  • ejsiddiqui on June 18, 2011, 6:03 GMT

    Mr Sinivasan, ball trajectory after the impact would always be upon assumptions. Maybe this technology is not !00% accurate but is this make the technology less worthy to make 99% time correct decision.

    Simply say "We don't want to use this technology no matter what"

  • krazzyking on June 18, 2011, 6:06 GMT

    there's no reason not to look for perfection before buying it... but there is no reason to not expect to "improve"... improve it in match conditions... like players you wont know how good a player truly is until her performs under match conditions..we hear it all the time

  • on June 18, 2011, 6:07 GMT

    Can anyone tell me any technological development which is 100% perfect? Technology is always subject to error terms, but reduce it significantly with long-term usage and modifications. It is easy to find the reason to accept anything good than supporting to implement. As per BCCI all the other test nations have accepted a wrong system and they relay on that badly. Good luck world cricket with BCCI un due influences.

  • SBMURALI on June 18, 2011, 6:08 GMT

    if icc uses hawk-eye then why should not it use hot spot and snickometer.ICC should accept the requirements of bcci on DRS and please implement it in ind-eng series