Decision Review System June 25, 2011

DRS technology expensive, unreliable - Niranjan Shah

ESPNcricinfo staff
142

BCCI vice-president Niranjan Shah has criticised the Decision Review System (DRS) in its present form, saying it offers marginal gains for a technology that is exorbitant and not error-free. The Indian board's stand so far has centred on the perceived unreliability of the ball-tracking technology, but Shah has also questioned the economic feasibility of the system and the lack of competing technologies.

Shah's statements come ahead of the ICC's annual conference in Hong Kong, at which the cricket committee's recommendation that DRS be used in all Tests - a stand the BCCI disagrees with - will be considered.

"You have to look at the economics. Every board is not making money out of Test matches and ODIs. The system requires about $60,000 per match," Shah told DNA. "Last year, about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply those numbers with $60,000. It would be a staggering amount for one or two decisions in a match.

"The ICC can come up with such technology because the money is not going from its coffers. The member boards have to pay for it. There might be some matches in the world where the money coming in from the ticket collection will be less than the amount spent on DRS."

There are two companies that presently offer competing ball-tracking technologies, Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye. Shah said more options were needed so that the technology could become affordable before it could be universally used. "I see some vested interests working here. Unless there are 10 different technologies and they become competitive and cheaper, we cannot adopt [the system]. A $1000 a day should be fine. Not $60,000 a day. That kind of money should go into the development of the game among the Associate members."

Shah also was not in favour of the manner in which the DRS is currently used, with teams allowed a maximum of two unsuccessful reviews per innings of a Test. "The DRS cannot be used for the whole game. If a team exhausts its options in the very first over, what happens then? For the rest of the innings, the team has to live without the system. If you can't have the system for the whole match, what is the use?

"If you want to use the technology throughout the match, then the game will never finish because the batsmen and bowlers will go on appealing. If there is a restriction, it won't justify the cost. Only the first few batsmen get the advantage. The others don't. Where is the fairness?"

Shah reiterated the BCCI's opposition to the ball-tracking technology, saying that it was the imagination of technology versus the imagination of the umpire. "They have to prove on what basis the tracking is going on, because every square centimetre of the pitch is different. If there is a human error, take the umpire to task.

"Even the accuracy level of the system is suspect. I'm told that the accuracy has gone up to 97% from 92%. It is not 100% still. I cannot fathom so much money spent for so little returns."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Meety on June 28, 2011, 6:17 GMT

    @Deepanjan Datta - $60k per match NOT per day. This means maybe as much as $12k per day. The comment Shah said is very deceptive. One of the articles mentioned a price more like $5k per day. So the comment "...about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply those numbers with $60,000..." is completely wrong. Also - most ODIs did not use UDRS last year. Also - once the technology becomes mandatory, economies of scale will mean that will come down in price too. Also the comment "...It would be a staggering amount for one or two decisions in a match..." Is plain ignorant. In Tests, there can be many more then a couple of referrals. Particularly if they are upheld. Its easy to think that there could be at least 5 to 10 decisions a day used by UDRS. On top of that decisions not referred but looked at by the technology is important in establishing umpire accuracy.

  • Meety on June 28, 2011, 6:07 GMT

    @AjaySridharan - re: opposing UDRS. They oppose quite possibly because they want a share of the action & have yet to come up with the technology to match Hawk-eye. Don't believe me? Think ICL! Self Interest? Think the Modi-IPL scandal where all the decision makers (well a lot of them), somehow have interests in the franchises. @Sanjeev_Talwani - 90% of the money hey? Hmmm sounds like you made that one up. Well when you get 80,000 people lobbing up to a test match - (Boxing Day Test 1st Day), talk to me about revenue raising! LOL!

  • vj3478 on June 27, 2011, 21:28 GMT

    If a team exhausts its options in the very first over, what happens then? For the rest of the innings, the team has to live without the system. If you can't have the system for the whole match, what is the use?.. hmmmm interesting point. though i thought the second team can go for reviews if first team is done with their reviews :D

  • crikkfan on June 27, 2011, 18:03 GMT

    I dont know much about Mr Shah but his arguments seem very logical and very reasonable. People are crticizing because it is fashionable to do so and they are used to it - BCCI has got to be the villain, right? They have a lot of issues to be sorted, no doubt but like someone pointed have you really thought why BCCI is opposing - what is there for THEM to gain ??? Not using DRS guarantees the Indian side anything ? Some nincompoops have even suggested maybe that is why India won the wc, etc etc! The decision to use DRS WITHOUT hawkeye/virtualeye is a great decision - Finally !!! Looking forward to that from next series.

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:47 GMT

    First Shah says it's $60,000 per match: "The system requires about $60,000 per match," Shah told DNA. "Last year, about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply those numbers with $60,000. It would be a staggering amount for one or two decisions in a match." Then later he says: "A $1000 a day should be fine. Not $60,000 a day." That's a big difference. It makes one feel that he doesn't know what he's talking about... And indeed, today when the ICC's decision for mandatory DRS was announced, they said the cost was much lower- more like $5000 per day. Also, the "one or two decisions" per game thing is inaccurate: there have certainly been more than one or two in the recent West Indies games... Plus doesn't having the DRS technology in place benefit the umpires as well? Am I wrong, or don't the umpires also have the option of electing to use the DRS technologies if they are unsure?

  • KBCA on June 26, 2011, 20:22 GMT

    this makes no sence. how ridiculous it would be if a team were allowed unlimited udrs challenges as Shar suggests. every call would be challenged, even bowled out in chance of a no-ball. the BCCI will be the death of cricket

  • AjaySridharan on June 26, 2011, 19:46 GMT

    A few things baffle me. Everyone is criticizing Shah for the economic stance he has taken. Can someone explain what BCCI stands to gain by opposing the system...that they can save ~1MM for the tests India plays?...come on guys, that's peanuts for BCCI. I think Shah has a point. That is a lot of money for 4 decisions in an innings. There is no incentive for anyone to use it...i'm wondering why the other boards are not opposing it. Shah's argument that the technology should become cheaper is redundant...no company is going to invest to bring down the cost of a technology that only benefits a minority sport like cricket. Now what would be interesting is if BCCI is secretly nurturing a home grown tech company that will come out with a competing low cost technology! Then again, I don't see anything wrong with it...just makes business sense. Let's get real...you and I would weigh the pros and cons of such an expenditure if it were our own business! So far, cost outweighs the pros

  • on June 26, 2011, 19:46 GMT

    Regardless of the political sharks they are and economic arm-twisting BCCI does - there are couple of pertinent points here .. (a) The financial viability - $60k a day isn't peanuts. Armchair critics from SA, ENG, PAK or SL can point that BCCI with it's deep pockets shouldn't have to worry. But what about other boards? A test match held anywhere other than IND and AUS doesn't make that kind of money. Period. ( b) Uniformity - any system which wasn't clear even to umpires and players officiating in World Cup, and can be used only 4/6 times a match isn't helping the officiating. Either use it for the entire match or don't.

  • khan-touch-em on June 26, 2011, 18:48 GMT

    BCCI currently do not want DRS, any resons or arguments they put forward are in line with that stance. The objection now is on the economic model, however when they were asked if they wanted DRS to be used in their comming series with England they towed the same line (when money was not an issue, it was reliability). Excuses, excuses & excuses for political and personal gain. What grass roots investement have the BCCI made in the emerging nations, to sit on thier high horses suddenly and try to suggest they are objecting on the gorund of benefiting or saving international cricket ? ?

  • Malret on June 26, 2011, 18:46 GMT

    Guys, don't we know that everything with the BCCI is about money. Is it going to turn a profit if it invests 60000$ a test match? What are the returns? Are the people going to watch test cricket more if the umpiring decisions are made right, thereby translating into more money to BCCI? If BCCI believes it'll make even a 1$ profit by investing 60000$ then DRS will make sense to it and it is going to claim it is the best technology in the world. This is the same organization that has two "strategic timeouts" in the midde of the T20 game to make money. Figure out what it cares about. IPL was never about cricket and I am going to think BCCI is not about cricket unless it does something to make me believe otherwise.

  • Meety on June 28, 2011, 6:17 GMT

    @Deepanjan Datta - $60k per match NOT per day. This means maybe as much as $12k per day. The comment Shah said is very deceptive. One of the articles mentioned a price more like $5k per day. So the comment "...about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply those numbers with $60,000..." is completely wrong. Also - most ODIs did not use UDRS last year. Also - once the technology becomes mandatory, economies of scale will mean that will come down in price too. Also the comment "...It would be a staggering amount for one or two decisions in a match..." Is plain ignorant. In Tests, there can be many more then a couple of referrals. Particularly if they are upheld. Its easy to think that there could be at least 5 to 10 decisions a day used by UDRS. On top of that decisions not referred but looked at by the technology is important in establishing umpire accuracy.

  • Meety on June 28, 2011, 6:07 GMT

    @AjaySridharan - re: opposing UDRS. They oppose quite possibly because they want a share of the action & have yet to come up with the technology to match Hawk-eye. Don't believe me? Think ICL! Self Interest? Think the Modi-IPL scandal where all the decision makers (well a lot of them), somehow have interests in the franchises. @Sanjeev_Talwani - 90% of the money hey? Hmmm sounds like you made that one up. Well when you get 80,000 people lobbing up to a test match - (Boxing Day Test 1st Day), talk to me about revenue raising! LOL!

  • vj3478 on June 27, 2011, 21:28 GMT

    If a team exhausts its options in the very first over, what happens then? For the rest of the innings, the team has to live without the system. If you can't have the system for the whole match, what is the use?.. hmmmm interesting point. though i thought the second team can go for reviews if first team is done with their reviews :D

  • crikkfan on June 27, 2011, 18:03 GMT

    I dont know much about Mr Shah but his arguments seem very logical and very reasonable. People are crticizing because it is fashionable to do so and they are used to it - BCCI has got to be the villain, right? They have a lot of issues to be sorted, no doubt but like someone pointed have you really thought why BCCI is opposing - what is there for THEM to gain ??? Not using DRS guarantees the Indian side anything ? Some nincompoops have even suggested maybe that is why India won the wc, etc etc! The decision to use DRS WITHOUT hawkeye/virtualeye is a great decision - Finally !!! Looking forward to that from next series.

  • on June 27, 2011, 13:47 GMT

    First Shah says it's $60,000 per match: "The system requires about $60,000 per match," Shah told DNA. "Last year, about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply those numbers with $60,000. It would be a staggering amount for one or two decisions in a match." Then later he says: "A $1000 a day should be fine. Not $60,000 a day." That's a big difference. It makes one feel that he doesn't know what he's talking about... And indeed, today when the ICC's decision for mandatory DRS was announced, they said the cost was much lower- more like $5000 per day. Also, the "one or two decisions" per game thing is inaccurate: there have certainly been more than one or two in the recent West Indies games... Plus doesn't having the DRS technology in place benefit the umpires as well? Am I wrong, or don't the umpires also have the option of electing to use the DRS technologies if they are unsure?

  • KBCA on June 26, 2011, 20:22 GMT

    this makes no sence. how ridiculous it would be if a team were allowed unlimited udrs challenges as Shar suggests. every call would be challenged, even bowled out in chance of a no-ball. the BCCI will be the death of cricket

  • AjaySridharan on June 26, 2011, 19:46 GMT

    A few things baffle me. Everyone is criticizing Shah for the economic stance he has taken. Can someone explain what BCCI stands to gain by opposing the system...that they can save ~1MM for the tests India plays?...come on guys, that's peanuts for BCCI. I think Shah has a point. That is a lot of money for 4 decisions in an innings. There is no incentive for anyone to use it...i'm wondering why the other boards are not opposing it. Shah's argument that the technology should become cheaper is redundant...no company is going to invest to bring down the cost of a technology that only benefits a minority sport like cricket. Now what would be interesting is if BCCI is secretly nurturing a home grown tech company that will come out with a competing low cost technology! Then again, I don't see anything wrong with it...just makes business sense. Let's get real...you and I would weigh the pros and cons of such an expenditure if it were our own business! So far, cost outweighs the pros

  • on June 26, 2011, 19:46 GMT

    Regardless of the political sharks they are and economic arm-twisting BCCI does - there are couple of pertinent points here .. (a) The financial viability - $60k a day isn't peanuts. Armchair critics from SA, ENG, PAK or SL can point that BCCI with it's deep pockets shouldn't have to worry. But what about other boards? A test match held anywhere other than IND and AUS doesn't make that kind of money. Period. ( b) Uniformity - any system which wasn't clear even to umpires and players officiating in World Cup, and can be used only 4/6 times a match isn't helping the officiating. Either use it for the entire match or don't.

  • khan-touch-em on June 26, 2011, 18:48 GMT

    BCCI currently do not want DRS, any resons or arguments they put forward are in line with that stance. The objection now is on the economic model, however when they were asked if they wanted DRS to be used in their comming series with England they towed the same line (when money was not an issue, it was reliability). Excuses, excuses & excuses for political and personal gain. What grass roots investement have the BCCI made in the emerging nations, to sit on thier high horses suddenly and try to suggest they are objecting on the gorund of benefiting or saving international cricket ? ?

  • Malret on June 26, 2011, 18:46 GMT

    Guys, don't we know that everything with the BCCI is about money. Is it going to turn a profit if it invests 60000$ a test match? What are the returns? Are the people going to watch test cricket more if the umpiring decisions are made right, thereby translating into more money to BCCI? If BCCI believes it'll make even a 1$ profit by investing 60000$ then DRS will make sense to it and it is going to claim it is the best technology in the world. This is the same organization that has two "strategic timeouts" in the midde of the T20 game to make money. Figure out what it cares about. IPL was never about cricket and I am going to think BCCI is not about cricket unless it does something to make me believe otherwise.

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:41 GMT

    People are pointing out that how ridiculous it is that BCCI being the richest of the crickets boards should complain about cost. Has it occured to anyone, that maybe, because BCCI is extremely prudent about when it spends, where it spends and how much it spends, that it is the richest board?

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:37 GMT

    Let's consider Mr. Shah's economics. There are 40 tests per year (200 days), 100 international T20s, 100 ODIs and another 300 days of first class matches and other T20s where this technology may be used. That's a total of 700 uses per year. At $1K per use that's $700K/year. That's just revenue not profits. Only a one man garage band would be interested in those numbers. No serious company would look at it under $20M/yr revenue. Cricket isn't big enough for the kind of innovation Mr. Shah is seeking.

  • on June 26, 2011, 18:14 GMT

    I am not sure whats the extct reason the bcci in NOT SUPPORTING DRS ..but I agree with niranjan shah 60000$ is too high a price for the technology.. I mean other boards are supporting it bacuse they think ICC will be providing funds if it gets approved.. again my argument is if they do that for e.g for a WI vs bangladesh series they will spend approx. half a million dollar per series and I dont see a point financially speaking...If the boards were to fund for DRS technology ... do u think a board like WI, Bangladesh ,zimbabwe, NZ, Pak will be able to afford ..say hotspot technology.. Yes BCCI has funds for the technology ..and the financial viablity shud not be aproblem for them .but just forget about BCCI ..my question is in a series like WI vs bangladesh where the players playing the series wont be getting half a million dollar for playin ..is it worth spending that kind of money on technology.. and to say u have money then u shud spend it doesnt make sense

  • rohitsinha on June 26, 2011, 17:51 GMT

    Can someone please explain to me why it costs $60K per match for DRS? Can we bring that cost down?

  • Bhaskar.cricketer on June 26, 2011, 17:12 GMT

    If the answer is as simple as Mr. Shah is making it out to be, ie, the methods are not cost effective, then how come other boards are not complaining about the cost? After all BCCI is the richest board and if they cannot afford it than surely NZ, WI, Pak etc should also be complaining about the cost.

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 26, 2011, 16:49 GMT

    Most of the other cricket boards are fully in favour of the DRS so for the BCCI to proclaim that financial issues are behind not supporting it is farcical. Are they saying that allegedly the richest board in world cricket can't pay for the DRS??? NZ, Pak, SL etc are all in favour, and Eng, SA and Aus have been using it extensively. So exactly who's interests are the BCCI protecting? If you honestly think that the BCCI is doing this for other boards financial implications (boards which favour the DRS mind you), you might as bury your head in the sand and believe whatever you want.

  • ada123 on June 26, 2011, 16:47 GMT

    BCCI is complaining about money?? Are you kidding me???

  • bezawada.ravi on June 26, 2011, 16:33 GMT

    1) Never think about field umpires importance...as no one watching cricket for them or for their decisions... 2) the ball tracking technology will be one and same for all the nations..it wont show any partiality to any nation..3) UDRS is 97 % accurate..but did did any one calculated the present field umpires accuracy percent..? 4) if even a school going kid able to judge the wrong decision given by the umpire..(watching on tv)..still if you proceed to play the game with those wrong decisions...its just silly... 5) instead of 2 review appeals, better give full powers to the 3rd umpire and let him change the on field umpire's decision ( whenever he finds ANY wrong umpiring decision) Lets use technology to the full for a better game. Kindly dont avoid UDRS as becasue 2 senior players oppose it.... you can remember how foolish run-out decisions were given in the past..before 3rd umpire was introduced..even 3rd umpire is not 100 % correct in run-outs..but still we are using 3rd umpire.

  • DaGameChanger on June 26, 2011, 16:30 GMT

    I am not sure how many people are true businessman here but sports is a BUSINESS. Fans from other countries are saying that if poor Board can support it why not Rich BCCI can? They forget the only reason other boards are even slightly above the water is because when India is playing with them they cover enough cost for whole year. Expenses eventually comes from the revenue pool of India's sponsorship market. .....Have a small question, How many people waited for LCD TV prices to come down when they initially came out? Got the point.

  • AndyZaltzmannsHair on June 26, 2011, 16:27 GMT

    If the BCCI can't afford $60,000 a match for DRS, maybe they're not nearly as rich as they'd like us all to believe. Maybe the politicians and hangers on, want to maximise as much of their salaries as possible? Who cares about cricket when there's money to be made.

  • gdalvi on June 26, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    We should ask the players - whether they want to spend 60K on DRS technology or rather to increase their pay for entertaining the public. That should resolve the issue once and for all

  • nnvv on June 26, 2011, 16:12 GMT

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-sri-lanka-2011/content/current/story/520814.html I think the article justifies the argument of BCCI.

  • nnvv on June 26, 2011, 15:45 GMT

    1. Why use hawk-eye in the first place? What it essentially does is to mathematically predict the path of the ball based on previous (minimum three) frames. An umpiring howler involving pitched outside leg or hitting out of line can be removed simply by action replays. No need for expensive hawk-eye. Also, it is a tool designed by a private company. We should look at other such tools and see the variations in predictions. And I bet you there would be variations in predictions (based on the model used for prediction). This would confirm the fact that it is just an imagination, a mathematical one at that... 2. Hot-spot is another tool in question. While most of the players (including tendulkar) agrees with this tech. But there are some IP issues.... 3. Snicko is too slow. It takes too much time to generate a snicko graph. The makes it useless. 4. Value for Money: The technical tools are not cheap enough.

    Hate BCCI for removing ICL wrongfully, but BCCI has got some valid points on DRS.

  • Ravishankara on June 26, 2011, 15:37 GMT

    Having been pushed to the wall, BCCI has now come out with cogent, convincing response to DRS. $60K per day is too high. The supporters of DRS need to counter BCCI. About the accuracy, even after the manufacturer claims it 100% reliable, BCCI will not accept it. It wll then release its ultimate weapon - the DRS technology companies are indirectly owned by Lalit Modi.

  • RajeevAlukkal on June 26, 2011, 15:18 GMT

    I am not against the use of Technology. But My Question is, if we need to use technology, why do we need onfield umpires. Let the TV umpire take all the decisions with use of technology. ELSE its like, we are not giving any respect to the onfield umpires by reversing their decisions. And this is also waste of time. More over I think UDRS system is all about fortune. If you are lucky, you get to use review for most time of the match. If you aren't lucky, you have finished using reviews very early like Mr. Shah says and gives opposition team advantage. That's not fair. Can Anybody guarantee that the UDRS is fair to both the teams in the whole match with just 2 reviews available? It's just 100% LOTTERY.

  • on June 26, 2011, 15:18 GMT

    I am a fan of DRS. At least it will enable the umpires to avoid howlers like that of Bucknor in India-Australia series. one solution may be that ICC foot the bill for DRS. It is hardly fair that an India- Australia will have DRS but Zimbabwe-Bangladesh match will be played without it. So the cost should be borne by ICC and not the home board.

  • on June 26, 2011, 15:12 GMT

    BCCI is making themselves the laughing stock of the cricketing world with their stupid opposition to DRS. It is BCCI vs. the rest. It is time the BCCI's arrogance is put an end to.

  • on June 26, 2011, 14:42 GMT

    First logic which actually makes sense against DRS !!! I fully agree with it ...

  • JavagalSrinath on June 26, 2011, 14:31 GMT

    Why dont on field umpires carry smartphones or some smart device, check out the replays whenever they have doubt through smartphone and give their verdict. Why do we need DRS which costs $60k. $60k is lot of money just to check few LBW decision, I am sure all 4 umpires and match referee combined wont get $60k salary for a match.

  • shripadk on June 26, 2011, 14:30 GMT

    The issue is with the implementation of ICC and current guidelines for UDRS. Two most undoubted technologies are not mandatory. Snicko and thermal camera are not the part of minimum mandatory requirements of UDRS. When India first made its opposition to UDRS clear, this is exactly what they pointed out. UDRS without these two is a joke. All of us have seen matches where hawk eye shows the ball is going to hit, but with naked eye and our own judgement you can easily see that ball will continue swinging or hold its like to miss stumps. Its very obvious that the ball tracking technology is currently a not upto the mark. As a person coming from physics and science background, the use of this technology in Tennis Grand Slams baffles my mind where it shows the entire circumference of ball as impact area and 1mm of it hitting baseline or sideline. Thats joke even when you consider shape warping on impact. With swing and seam movements of cricket ball, you must take objection to this.

  • quark on June 26, 2011, 14:28 GMT

    This is surprisingly, a very pragmatic statement by BCCI. Looking at things in the way it has been explained, it simply means that logistics need to be worked out. As on the financial front, not every board can afford this tech. Broadcasters dont want to pay for it, ICICI does not want to pay for it as well! BCCI can infact manage and sustain such systems in home matches, but what about countries like Bangladesh and NZ??? Can they afford such tech on a consistent basis.....?

  • on June 26, 2011, 13:32 GMT

    India have nearly 15 to20 international stadiums , funding money to every venue wii be lot costlier

  • UnderDog1630 on June 26, 2011, 13:27 GMT

    BCCI ... Why did it take so long to explain why you oppose DRS. It makes PERFECT sense.

  • clytus on June 26, 2011, 13:26 GMT

    Again the BCCI wants things their way, what amazes me however is how the ICC continues to bow to their demands. When a few years ago, India demanded that umpire Bucknor be removed for the remaining test between India/Australia or they will boycott, the ICC again bowed. Now I'm hearing of an IPL window? I think the ICC has to demonstrate now that no board is bigger than the game! Btw had the DRS system been in place for the said test match, India might of at least saved the series. Seems to me they want a perfect system to rid of bad decisions, that is, no DRS and at the same time no errors from umpires, IMPOSSIBLE! I wonder if this was England/Australia flexing their muscles what the cricketing world would think? (im Trinidadian btw)

  • on June 26, 2011, 13:21 GMT

    I am sure other boards are not thinking it through. $60K per match is too much money for any board to sustain...

  • skn005 on June 26, 2011, 13:09 GMT

    really ppl.... its become a fashion to criticise bcci for anything n everything.... i agree not all that they do is correct but seriously i would like to know how the zimbabwe or an almost bankrupt sri lankan can get 60k per test for drs.... there's some truth to what shah says, so most of the ppl here just dont jump in the bandwagon n badmouth bcci just coz your country's cricket board cant stand up to them. All the boards need money so they are just following bcci or else dont tell me that 9 test playing countries cant outvote bcci...so stop whining about bcci forever....

  • vish515 on June 26, 2011, 11:42 GMT

    just goes to show why BCCI is the richest board in the world .. !!

  • girdoc1 on June 26, 2011, 11:04 GMT

    Atherton, David Lloyd, Hussain all in the recent Eng-SL commentary has been discussing a lot of IPL which is irrelevant in the context!! They were unanimous in saying IPL is not good for cricket and in particular test matches. Agree that IPL is slightly boring but certainly it is not a damage to cricket. Amazing. I very much look forward to there opinions when India tours to England and what they have to say on IPL. Chameleons, typical sour grapes.

  • sjitendran on June 26, 2011, 10:59 GMT

    Oh yes now I understand why BCCI opposes to DRS. This is because Hawk eye, Hot spot, Snickometer are not under their control. As a result they would not any commision from these companies. This is all power play by BCCI. They only want "HMV" (His Masters Voice). It is easy to negotiate with human umpires than technology. That is why BCCI stringently oppose UDRS.

  • on June 26, 2011, 10:58 GMT

    Shah - you made sense. 60000 USD per day is not small money. Some months back in Dubai, PAK and Aussies were bickering for the match money. If they would have used DRS, then therewould not have been any money left to bicker. HAAHAHAHAHAHA.

  • johno04 on June 26, 2011, 10:39 GMT

    wow, the BCCI is rulling our beautiful game. I'm hatting every minute of it too.

  • on June 26, 2011, 10:20 GMT

    60K $ or whatsoever the cost..the point is that ICC, the governing member is not funding it..so there is no point..it is like we are an organisation which provide charity, but asking the beneficiaries to give the organisation the money to do the charity work..

  • sanath007 on June 26, 2011, 10:19 GMT

    India lives in ice age. the game has to move on, that's the future. accept it mr.shah

  • darkknight1072 on June 26, 2011, 9:35 GMT

    I think BCCI thinks there is a vested intreats in this technology and they want to stop those people. 60k is huge sum for any cricket board.

  • on June 26, 2011, 8:56 GMT

    Robert Hanlon, New Zelaand cannot afford it. They just like it. If they are thinking about economy and planned properly, they would not be starving now. The same goes to other boards who are struggling.

  • CricEshwar on June 26, 2011, 8:42 GMT

    Shah has a very valid point here. When we talk about NZ and SL can afford DRS, I guess they are not paying for it. The efficiency and productivity is the first aspect one looks for when purchasing a product, that's where it fails according to Shah. I hope ICC can bring some kind of closure to this fiasco, as this is just getting uglier by the day.

  • on June 26, 2011, 7:47 GMT

    Another thing to think about - a 'man of the match' usually gets around 50,000$ as prize money. add to that cheques of 10,000 - 20,000$ for the sixes and catches. this means sponsors spend more than the 60000$ on just 2 - 3 players. So why not get the sponsors to pay for the technology. In fact, why not get the companies providing the technology to sponsor matches and prizes. They get enough exposure and maybe other sport will notice and hire them, and we don't have to pay them. Nice barter.

  • on June 26, 2011, 7:07 GMT

    New Zealand has 4 million people and most of them don't like cricket let alone pay to go the games. They can afford to have DRS. The BCCI hosts what they would like you think is the premier T20 comp in the world that pays players millions of dollars, yet are arguing the cost of installing the technology? So a country at the forefront of telecommunications technology with 1.2 billion people can't but a country with a much smaller population where cricket is a minority sport can.

  • Lovetesh on June 26, 2011, 7:05 GMT

    Shah statements makes absolute sense. Not every board is making money on all the games, so from where does this extra $60k/day would come from? Also when players like Gayle and Sehwag wastes review in the first 5 overs of the day and then you cannot use the system for rest of the day then it is an absolute waste of money. Costs outweigh benefits.

  • harshalb on June 26, 2011, 7:01 GMT

    If economics is the problem behind the implementation of UDRS then it is quite odd that all except the richest board in the world are in favor of it. Meanwhile Indian fans should stop being under the impression that BCCI funds are keeping the other boards afloat. Cricket was doing fine before BCCI started making money and will do fine even if there was a little less money in it. The whole mindset about the Indian money keeping cricket up is flawed. Earnings of players and boards will go down but Cricket will still be played. Indians, stop worrying about others' finances.

  • Meety on June 26, 2011, 6:10 GMT

    @kentjones - mate the other options mean BCCI backed options!

  • NIT2222 on June 26, 2011, 6:08 GMT

    who wants to listen this guy.....DRS should be enables and India want money thats y they dun want drs.....ICC should leave india opinion and enable DRS. Me being an Indian is supporting DRS ....which is 99.9% perfect than umpire decision.

    ONE QUESTION TO NIRANJAN SHAH... as he said this system is not error free...does he think umpires are error free...This system has ability to correct the erros and give more fun to the game....India board should use some brains nw and stop crying for money.....

  • Meety on June 26, 2011, 6:02 GMT

    Everyone talking about the $60k a day cost needs to understand economics a bit better. Without going into economic lingo - the longer a good is supplied (UDRS tech.), the lower the cost will become, generally with better productivity & improvements. The problem is that the ICC has not made it a standard uniform law to have the technology. So at the moment as I understand it - there will only be enough technology to cover two concurrent series. As much as 4 test series can be possibly played at the same time, the acquisition of more cameras & more expertise to use it - combined with the almost definate reduction in profit margins associated with economies of scale, will mean that this price would be drastically reduced within a year or two of being mandatory. The only price issue here is the BCCI is interested in is - what margin they can make out of the technology. If the BCCI had the ability to launch their own licensed UDRS tech - guarantee it will be implemented in no time at all!!!

  • McGorium on June 26, 2011, 5:50 GMT

    @gdalvi: Let me add an additional point to what you are saying: UDRS was *intended* to address only howlers: batsmen out off no-balls, given out LBW when there was a clear inside edge, pitched outside leg and things like that. Not, as it is often used, to adjudicate on whether the ball was missing the leg stump or barely touching it. When you estimate the number of howlers that umps typically give, it's too few to warrant the use of UDRS. Also, the whole 3 appeals per inning is stupid. You can have the UDRS check happening in the background. The batsman is given out, and walks. If he is in fact not out, the 3rd umpire will change the "out" to "retired hurt", allowing him to come back at the fall of a wicket. How hard is that? Sure, it breaks the batsman's momentum, but surely that's better than wasting precious minutes on appealing every erroneous decision, and more fair than an arbitrary limit on unsuccessful appeals.

  • nzcricket174 on June 26, 2011, 5:50 GMT

    More excuses from BCCI. Its funny how every country but theirs can afford to use it even when they have considerably less money.

  • chin-music on June 26, 2011, 5:36 GMT

    Even the most bigoted of Indian fans should find it diffcult to swallow the inanity of BCCIs argument - since DRS is not fool-proof , it is not wothy of use! By that logic , nobody should ever upgrade from a bicycle to car, because the car is not a helicopter & does not fly over traffic.

  • ranjitpp on June 26, 2011, 5:30 GMT

    Totally agrre with Shah. it is evident that some guys in ICC are going to benefit financially by approving this technology..they will get huge amount of money as commision in every match. $60000 in a day is unjustifiable. Letus play in the real world where all human error are there..dont look for perfectionism.

  • on June 26, 2011, 5:24 GMT

    what a u turn.....first indians were saying it is not error free and now they r talking abt economics........... ICC better be disolved and BCCI should govern all the affairs so that every 1 should know in black and white that who is running the show in real terms and not behind the curtains. world cricket is goin no where :(

  • on June 26, 2011, 5:13 GMT

    worlds richest cricket body saying DRS technology is expensive its like Ambani's saying latest model car price is expensive. Its joke or what?

  • mathewjohn2176 on June 26, 2011, 5:07 GMT

    @ Herath_UK, In srilanka we only use hawk eye,no hotspot or snickometer..he is talking about the expensive of hotspot. Only in aus and England they use hotspot.other test playing nations can't use hotspot.But hotspot is only correct in UDRS

  • donda on June 26, 2011, 4:52 GMT

    What little beauty by BCCI.

    60000$ per match is big number. I have been seeing many matches lately where not even 10% of the stadium is full and some time no high level TV coverage for Test matches and ODI's . It is wastage of money even if we get 100 % benefit.

    Cricket is being run by Umpires for 125 years and i think these umpires can take us to next 125 years too so its OK to not use technology and only use umpires.

    And most importantly we can use Umpires for whole match but not technology because of quota.

    BCCI is doing good in opposing it because technology is not cheap and its unfair and make game slower and longer.

    Umpires are the best option.

  • on June 26, 2011, 4:36 GMT

    His point is clear, if ICC doesn't have enough funds to facilitate cricket boards with system, then how can we expect the poor cricket boards to avail it. As we all know that few boards are making profit, and its these countries which are keeping game alive in other nations.

    Aren't the boards which can't even afford this technology bothered about how are they going to use it??

    Also when only few vendors are there chance of corruption reigning in is very high, especially when the cost of the technology is so high.

    Indians see its $60000 not Rs, so yes its exorbitant for just 5-6 decisions taken in a match.

  • McGorium on June 26, 2011, 4:23 GMT

    @rajithwijepura: Indian cricket was not particularly profitable for decades, until the mid to late 1990s. India never got handouts from Oz or Eng; in fact, Aus did not tour India for close to 20 yrs; regular cricket contact began only since the late 1990s with the BG Trophy (guess why?). BCCI (Dalmiya in particular) can take full credit for making the game profitable in India. Let the other teams develop their own markets. BCCI never got hand-outs, and BCCI should not be in the business of giving hand-outs. If tests are not profitable against Zim or Ban, it is simply because both teams are lousy. Develop the team, develop your market and Ind, Eng and Oz will come. Not the other way around. This isn't charity; BCCI is responsible for only India. Let BCB/ZCB deal with fixing their game. In the meanwhile, the question is, should they be saddled with a compulsory bill of $60k per match, when they can't pay their players? BCCI has other ulterior motives, but this is a reasonable point.

  • venkatesh018 on June 26, 2011, 4:18 GMT

    How do people uttering such lunacies keep holding on their posts in the BCCI? How does world cricket keep tolerating these people?

  • KUMARVIJAY on June 26, 2011, 4:18 GMT

    Well... It is quite ironical that the richest cricket board,one of the richest sporting bodies in the world, is taking about money.. Even Westindies and Sri Lanka has no prob with UDRS , only for BCCI... Hard to digest!!!..

  • CandidIndian on June 26, 2011, 4:07 GMT

    Six decisions against India in recent test match in WI , still BCCI is opposing UDRS.What if Sydney and Steve Bucknor incident happens again?, a disappointed Indian fan.

  • gdalvi on June 26, 2011, 3:47 GMT

    Lets see - with DRS decisions are 98% correct. With Elite umpires, they are 95% corrects. So the difference is 3%. So basically we are saying that out of 100 dismissals - which is 20 wickets per match in 5-test series - you will benefit by getting a total of 3 better decisions than elite umpires. Given that you will be mostly concerned with wickets of top 7 batsmen - that gives 3 X 7/10 = 2. So here is the math - For 2 correct decisions more than what elite umpires will provide for wickets that actually matter, in a 5 test match series, we want the teams to shell out total of 60K X 5 = 300K dollars - which is 1.35 crore rupees. So basically we are paying 150K or 67 lakh rupees per additional wicket. Really, when half the population is hungry in most countries except Aus and Eng - do we really need to spend so much???

  • Andy26 on June 26, 2011, 3:06 GMT

    Economics. Funny that BCCI are talking about it.

  • sjitendran on June 26, 2011, 2:25 GMT

    May be BCCI will come up withh figures for pitch maintenace and then will ask everyone to play with pitch curators. Then they will say overhead lights are too costly and ask players to play in dark. Whoever opposes technology does at their own peril. It is joke that BCCI is worrying about associate members that is why they have not given any game to Bangladesh. Zimbabwe future matches. Oh yes the cricketers in those country may get scarred for life playing against topnteams. Now I get to understand BCCI logic.

  • vj3478 on June 26, 2011, 1:54 GMT

    I completely agree with EkNiranjan that that kind of money ($60k/day) shud b spent on developing the game among Associate members(NOT full members - so no tour of BG/ZW for next 8 yrs 4 Ind). He seems to b awesome'ly intelligent businessman as he said the price shud b around $1k n not 60k for such a technology. hope they(hawk eye) are listening and if they have any shame, they would donate the technology for free for BCCI which is the poorest of the cricketing boards: "If a team exhausts its options in the very first over, what happens then?" - Man, u r smart. it never comes to my thought when i buy a ticket to watch the game - wat if the match is over in 20 overs, wat if the team batting second would not get a ball to bat? wat if sachin is out for a duck or india loses n my days gets bad:(. This makes me understand y can't i do any business n the only thing i can is regular job! Finally he is very true that 97% accuracy is very unacceptable as 3% error is too big

  • on June 26, 2011, 1:45 GMT

    Fair enough. As he said, ICC only recommends it but doesn't provide any financial support. If I belong to an organization where org says, you have to do this, but with ur money, so that Org members will get benefited and organization in whole will get better integrity. I would simply say get last. How can we question BCCI on this. THey are not asking others to stop, but saying they cant do it.

  • Alexk400 on June 26, 2011, 1:43 GMT

    BCCI comes out with different excuses every day.

  • kentjones on June 26, 2011, 1:09 GMT

    I fully agree with Mr. Shah's CostBenefit Analysis here. The cost certainly outweighs its benefits. As he said we need some more options other HawkEye And VirtualEye.

  • on June 26, 2011, 1:08 GMT

    Ball traker tracks the ball after it has pitched based on laws of dynamics so pitch plays no role in its manipulation. So there is no error . ...............................Umpiring is only 70 % accurate. people only object those lbw decisions that were wrongly given .................people forget those lbw decisions that were not given. they r also wrong decisions

  • IndiaGoats on June 26, 2011, 1:01 GMT

    One other point to note. Many boards are alive because of money coming from BCCI. Would they as readily support DRS if BCCI stops paying them?

  • on June 25, 2011, 23:36 GMT

    As much as the BCCI actt in an arcane manner, Shah makes sense... if it really is $60,000 per match.. then good luck.. Bell (wc lbw decision) will always be on the minds of the officials.

    Would like to see split of the equipment cost (purchase outright or lease scenario) and the operational cost. Not sure if the other boards took time to do the math.. ECB, ABC - r u guys listening ??

  • bharath74 on June 25, 2011, 23:31 GMT

    Only the test matches played in Aus,Eng,Ind, SA and NZ draw big crowds and can afford DRS, but SL,Pak,WI & BD wud struggle to get that kind of money. If SL,Pak WI & BD agree to pay the costs for DRS, then I think DRS should be made mandatory.

  • on June 25, 2011, 23:27 GMT

    I agree with Niranjan Shah. However, it is the accuracy of the technology that matters. I would want to remind ICC of the Ian Bell's decision in the world cup game against India and Dhoni's intentions during the post match press meet. It is clear that the technology is not giving its 100% and there is HUMAN INTERVENTION undoubtedly. Either the technology or the umpire should be trusted. When both of them can be wrong in their imaginations and interpretations what is the point is using the technology? Might as well go with the Human Brain. Spending thousands of rupees to just use it for 4 decisions in one game out of which any one can be intervened by the umpire to negate it; I see there is no use of technology.Make it 100% accurate as every square centimeter on the pitch matters or just rely on the human brain instead of spending on a incomplete technology.

  • gdalvi on June 25, 2011, 23:15 GMT

    I still don't understand why we need any additional expensive technologies than what we always have - ACTION REPLAYS. If on-field umpires can simply see the action replays on their $500 I-Pads or Tablet PC, wouldn't they be able to correct howlers right away? They can even consult in real-time with 3rd umpire to validate their decision - 2 heads better than one. This itself will get rid of almost all 'howlers'. Only thing that remains will be extremely fine snicks/bat-pads and marginal LBW. I don't know if spending even $10K on these is really justified. BTW, just because BCCI is rich, does not mean that they should simply waste money. They would rather spend it on improving the game at grass-root level in India and abroad. Also, I think it makes sense to have all OUT decisions reviewed as extension of the philosophy that benefit of doubt must go to batsmen. For bowlers, possibly 4 reviews or 1 review per batsman should be fine.

  • Herath-UK on June 25, 2011, 22:47 GMT

    Lame excuses from Shah.Intergrity of the game is paramount than the cost;the cost automatically will come down with time.Sri Lanka was the first country to use it (with India) and Indians made silly mistakes and against it since they lost there.Same pathetic excuses of cost given when neutral umpires were considered. Ranil Herath -Kent

  • dracarys on June 25, 2011, 21:42 GMT

    Unless hot spot is used in the UDRS it is currently unviable but the Aussie say that that has security implications since it is being used by the military so is generally unaviable. Unless that changes which i think it eventually will the whole decision of UDRS is ultimately moot as most Indian cricketers and as do a lot of spinners consider Hawk Eye to be fundamentally incorrect as per drift , bounce and turn that each individual spinner generates.

  • satyagorthy on June 25, 2011, 21:23 GMT

    Hello All How many of us know that - 1. Some of the test playing teams dont use DRS for economic reasons. eg., Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and WI. 2. Do we know who is behing DRS technologies? and the lobbying done to get the backing of "some" of the countries? Just research and you will find lots of things which we never know unless we seek the truth. Regards to all

  • on June 25, 2011, 20:36 GMT

    It was designed to get rid of howler decisions..............not as a tactical tool......i think it works in that context........the elite umpires do not get things wrong often and the captains realise this and tend to use it sparingly ,that is why you only have 2 reviews to stop this tactical abuse,top level sport has evolved that so much is a stake that this has to be the way forward,next will be goal mouth technology for football.

    I think DRS is a good thing but another issue is hotspot and the use of vaseline on the bat edges ...........

  • FlashAsh on June 25, 2011, 20:23 GMT

    Why doesn't ICC actually piblish the full costs of using the system each day? Whatever the match and using each for of technology? i.e DRS then + snicko then + hotspot? Then we will all know and boards cannot hide behind the "Costs"!!

    I'm sure almost all media contracts would love to have the full use of DRS as they can then re-run and analyse almost every shot/ball!! So costs can be borne by the media if necessary as fans would love it and more advertisments can be fitted in!!

    No brainer!! BCCI just worried about losing some advantage and have now picked an arguement so they can flex muscles in ICC!!

    Get a life!! BCCI!!

  • on June 25, 2011, 20:17 GMT

    Since it's expensive ,the decision to use DRS should be left to the hosting country - simple.

  • on June 25, 2011, 20:01 GMT

    India would have benefited by the use of the DRS system in the recently concluded test in Jamaica. According to the Indian team, Daryll Harper made six incorrect decisions which went against India

  • MMHossain on June 25, 2011, 19:23 GMT

    I agree BCCI should have come up with something more than economic feasibility. I am sure even cricket board of Zimbabwe would not give such a poor excuse.At least other cricket board would have the decency of not using this excuse given that they do not want to play West Indies, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh citing economical reasons. It is true everything comes down to money, but I think ICC may be better off if it thinks about cricket rather than a particular Board for a change.

  • NaniIndCri on June 25, 2011, 19:23 GMT

    BCCI has a valid point, $14 mill is necessary to accommodate the UDRS with current price for all the matches. If the richest board feels its expensive, then what about other boards. If you see the crowd for matches b/w WI and India, you can easily say that UDRS is expensive for those matches. So its better to leave the decision to the respective boards.

  • rajithwijepura on June 25, 2011, 19:15 GMT

    "A $1000 a day should be fine. Not $60,000 a day. That kind of money should go into the development of the game among the Associate members." Someone speaks about development of associate members while he (or his cricket board) disagreed to give a Test or One day match to even full member untill 2020. JUST PATHETIC how these people make excuses. JUST PATHETIC

  • Jags930 on June 25, 2011, 19:03 GMT

    The real issue regarding technology in cricket is who it should be used by; all other aspects like cost and who may or may not want it are secondary. As the game has always been governed by the umpires it is they, and only they, who should have recourse to it. The elite panel already get 90-95% of their decisions correct and with technological help they may well get close to 100%. A serious and major error was made when players were allowed to ask for referrals. This is contrary to the most fundamental principle of the sport which is that the umpire is right and that players abide by the umpire's decision. Therefore, however much technology we may want, afford and choose to have, it must only be available to the umpires and not to the players. Furthermore, the umpires on the ground should have the freedom to discuss any aspect of a dismissal with the 3rd umpire.

  • on June 25, 2011, 18:48 GMT

    I still dont understand what's the deal with this hot spot cameras...why is it so costly to use it? is it because of its rent or some kind of element is used which is rare or does it consume more electricity?? why cant BCCI dont buy it if it cant pay the rent cost...? I have googled a lot but still I am confused

  • Makkered on June 25, 2011, 18:40 GMT

    Let ICC sweat on the cost, we are ready to have it as ICC says.

  • nvpar on June 25, 2011, 18:39 GMT

    @ Tendulkars_Tennis_Elbow, what Niranjan Shah saying is Gould is cheaper than DRS.

  • on June 25, 2011, 18:33 GMT

    Really? The richest cricket board is opposing the DRS on economic viability, Big surprise!!!

  • ravindias on June 25, 2011, 18:32 GMT

    Some major sponsorship revenues for BCCI: global media rights - $612 million/ 4yr Official kit - $43 million / 5yr Official team sponsor - $70 million/4yr

    media rights for 25 neutral venues matches - $ 219 million and (travel+hotel+ground) rights - $450 million

    With all these income( just major sponsors) he is complainning about the expense on DRS system.Which is a very important aspect of the game and the best thing that hapend to cricket for a while.It was justified in the first test (IND vs WI ).

    He said the money spent on DRS should be given to Associate members,thats funny because if they are so concerned about associates BCCI should atleast give one test in 9 big years to Ban or Zim. It is given that BCCI has done a great job since 2005.But cricket is not just a business.It's more about the game.That is why there should be more cricketers in the BCCI not businessmen.If it's just about money everyone should ply 20-20 and make money, omit test matches

  • on June 25, 2011, 18:25 GMT

    Finally BCCI has admitted why they do not want DRS!!

  • Makkered on June 25, 2011, 18:18 GMT

    Lolz, most of the boards are negative how in the earth they think they can afford it. Well BCCI should allow UDRS, and let them shoot their own legs after a year they would come running on the operational cost. Then we will shoot their legs for their dumb decisions. hahaha.. good jokers batting for UDRS. Imagine a match between ZIM vs KEN would generate a max of $60K+ how would they pay for UDRS and the players. very funny. Let ICC bear the % of cost for implementing it. Then they will feel the punch.

  • on June 25, 2011, 18:18 GMT

    A few facts about DRS: It is more than 90 percent efficient and at least helps in sorting out umpiring howlers. It costs $10,000 per ODI (or per day in test match). All of the boards, players, writers, fans and even the umpires, want this system for better decisions . Only BCCI with their players (except Tendulkar) hate this system. I used word HATE because otherwise they will accept it for the majority. Only a DRS hater can behave like BCCI.

    And now look at the lame excuses by BCCI against DRS:

    Our senior players dont want it (Why??? no reason, no logic, just they dont want, so BCCI dont want, Oh well...!!!)

    This system is not 100 percent efficient, We will accept it if it is 100 efficient (Until then, we will continue with horrid decisions of various umpires, LOL).

    This system is too costly as it costs $60,000 per day. Oh well, but for your kind info it costs $10,000 per day. & if the poorest boards are willing then why the richest is crying?

  • on June 25, 2011, 18:09 GMT

    Cricinfo shd organise an open debate like the US Presidential candidates debate or the Economist's debate. Let all the aspects be covered in full and then a decision taken. ICC wont do it bcz of so many reasons but Cricinfo can do it in teh interest of informing teh public. We now have selective arguments coming from each side and that does not give us a complete perspective. It is like the old story of 5 blind men and the elephant.

  • sachin_vvsfan on June 25, 2011, 17:53 GMT

    @ They used hawkeye not hotspot and snicko which are expensive

  • on June 25, 2011, 17:51 GMT

    Totally valid points, BCCI's opposition to UDRS is not totally unjustifiable

  • on June 25, 2011, 17:48 GMT

    Welll, He is totaly wrong in saying that it costs $60,000 per day/match. In fact it costs $10,000 per day which is not that too costly. And look who is saying this cost-borne problem? The richest board in the world... What a joke!!! All other boards with less revenue, are happy to apply DRS and the richest board says no it is too costly... Hailarious. If you check BCCI statements regarding DRS, you will laugh all over, sometimes they say, our players dont like it, then they say it is not efficient, now they say it's too costly...!!! What they will say if the poorest of the boards like BD, Zim etc will say its not too costly and we want it???? The fact is, they dont want it without any logic... FULL STOP

  • Philip_Gnana on June 25, 2011, 17:45 GMT

    So the umpires are perfect and error free, is it? Or may be technology must withrdrawn from run outs. So, Rugby both league and Union, Tennis, American Football, Swimming, Athletics etc etc.... we should stick to human judgement? Get a life for goodness sake. Just say that it does not favour India and that is that. We all know that India will be at a disadvantage using DRS playing at home as they get to gain with the current system. It is always advantages to have a astute captain to make the call. Dhoni may be a good captain to handle the team but not handle the UDRS. Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • bleedingice on June 25, 2011, 17:44 GMT

    it all comes down to money. i have always been a strong supporter of using technology. but if its gonna be this expensive . i dont want it. the man of the series Rohit sharma got paid $ 5,000. i mean i would rather have the players get paid . we have relied on umpires for a long time. i guess we dont have too many options but to go back to the old ways .

  • on June 25, 2011, 17:42 GMT

    Richest board - poorest excuse. DRS must be economically viable. Have they factored in people getting frustrated with poor cricket decisions and losing support for the game? The fact is THE FANS want DRS. THE FANS pay for the game. Anything that is good for the game, makes better decisions and is backed by the fans of the sport - should be adopted with the minimum of fuss. Please the fans.. it's not doing it that is not economically viable, the fans pay your wages one way or another Mr Shah. Think on!

  • Trickstar on June 25, 2011, 17:36 GMT

    @mogan707 You may want to get your facts right before typing, Hawkeye was owned by Wisden but has since been sold to Sony, they own it as of 7th March 2011. It pays to do a bit more research, rather than reading the first few lines of wikipedia.

  • svinodmenon on June 25, 2011, 17:21 GMT

    BCCI has a valid point, lol

    For all the chaps here barking in the post also few x cricketers can you justify the above questions asked by an indian. He missed out lot of points, however this is enough.

    1. What would you do when opening batsman use the two referrals within 10 overs remaining overs are wasted. For that the cricket board has to spend $60, 000. lol even multimillionere would not do that. all chaps

    2. No hotspot and sniko is mandatory, then what DRS is going to do with edges.

    3. Too much and costly, SL, Pak, Bang, S.A NZ boards are silent since they are not going to provide you hotspot in any of their matches....lol

    Simple suggestion - let the Umpire review his decision before making an conclusion, so that the TV umpire would have a work. & batsman should be allowed to appeal for this wicket. not in the case of lbw. also bring hotspot and sniko mandatory. unlessDRS is not going to be useful for 90%.

  • hris on June 25, 2011, 17:09 GMT

    this is just stupid argument from shah. every other board wants to use the drs system, they havent raised any issues about cost but here comes bcci, by far the richest board in the world calling it unfeasible. and people need to understand that its impossible to get 100% accurate results. the question that need to be asked is -> is drs system better than not having it? and the answer is surely yes. in an ideal world where the hawkeye calculations would be instantaneous we would have unlimited reviews. but thats surely not possible,so for time constraits we have to limit the reviews. anybody with half a brain would understand that. and shah's statement about every inch of the pitch being different just goes to show he has no clue whatsoever how the tech works. hawkeye uses position of the ball from frame to frame basis to predict the path. so the pitch conditions dont matter. to increase the accuracy they could use more cameras and each with a higher frame rate.

  • gandabhai on June 25, 2011, 17:06 GMT

    Some of the cricket boards around the world are in the red . When someone like BCCI believe something ain't viable . I personaly would LISTEN ! They have a great financial track record .

  • on June 25, 2011, 17:05 GMT

    Whatever others say BCCI has got a strong point here.First people don't even attend test or some ODI with lesser ranked sides.But they want DRS in those games too. What about having DRS in better games like a final or a series decider.

  • palla.avinash on June 25, 2011, 17:03 GMT

    bcci getting all the points to appose drs system.better explanation this time but one bad decision is good enough to loose a tournament,what if sachin tendulkar has not drs when he was given out in world cup semifinal. what would have been the result do india would have one the semi final.drs is essential at least with minimum requirements to take shockers away from the game please post it cricinfo .

  • themightyfenoughtys on June 25, 2011, 16:56 GMT

    all very reasonable Mr Shah, except the technology is a fraction of that - unless of course that's the figure that the Indian board is paying for Hawkeye to a middleman in a Commonwealth Games style deal...

  • vishwanath.sreeraman on June 25, 2011, 16:55 GMT

    i am one of BCCI's biggest bashers...but this seems a very fair point...$60k for a single day is not justified (or is it a single match ?) . hopefully niranjan shah is not bloating up those numbers to justify BCCI's stand. if niranjan shah is right about those costs, then such a high-cost system is justified only for high-stakes tournaments like the WC; the trade-offs are definitely not worth it for every meaningless ODI/T20, and some test series; BCCI is right in that if ICC can somehow make it economically viable, then the system must be introduced...otherwise the board or the broadcaster is just losing a lot of money...and we TV viewers will be forced to see way too many more advertisements to cover those costs....

  • on June 25, 2011, 16:48 GMT

    The UDRS should be mandatory. However, if both sides choose to not implement it in a match, then it won't be used. thus, smaller nations who play official ODI's but can't match the financial side of DRS, can choose to mutually ignore it.

    There's your problem solved Mr. Niranjan Shah. Now try and convince us that the BCCI can't afford $60,000 a game...

  • on June 25, 2011, 16:45 GMT

    Some very valid points. If in fact is $ 60,000 per match as he says he has point. Who will invest that kind of money when they play in Bangladesh or West Indies or Zimbabwe? Or when Pakistan play "home" games in Dubai or some other place? Do we abandon DRS for test/ODI matches played in these countries? Isn't that unfair treatment.

    With 15 people sitting in the crowd, a board in heavy loses, investing heaps of money into technology doesn't make sense. Clearly, boards have to come up with some plan to at least cut even some of the times to make resources available. Otherwise this will only kill test cricket at a faster rate.

  • CRam on June 25, 2011, 16:44 GMT

    I guess we are living in a perfect world - so we expect everything to be 100% right. And that includes the BCCI as well Mr Shah!!

  • simpleguy2008 on June 25, 2011, 16:42 GMT

    Who is this guy Niranjan Shah has he ever played cricket.

  • simpleguy2008 on June 25, 2011, 16:38 GMT

    Poor BCCI doesnt have much money for the technology but they have plenty of money for this sick IPL ICC should implement this technology now and if BCCI reject again then the no matches should be playing against india.

  • ElPhenomeno on June 25, 2011, 16:35 GMT

    I am not an indian and these are some very valid points. When you implement a costly system, cost vs benefit has to be justified. Its not just in cricket, its done everywhere. If what he is saying is true I don't see the benefit (for the cost) of such a system, specially when ICC is not ready to foot the bill. I also agree that 2 appeals per match is ludicrous. This is not tennis where individual players are playing. Cricket is a team game of 11. If players early on exhaust the appeals where does that leave the others?

  • dwblurb on June 25, 2011, 16:33 GMT

    Btw, an appropriate quote below the photo above: "You have to look at the economics."

    One wonders if the BCCI does anything else?

  • dwblurb on June 25, 2011, 16:31 GMT

    One wonders why he even bothers to present such a fanciful explanation for the BCCI's opposition. Clearly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, he has never watched it work, and work well, in series not involving India. Everyone else wants it. We shall soon see who is more powerful, Tendulkar and Dhoni backed by the BCCI, or the rest of the Test playing nations.

  • Sarangarajan on June 25, 2011, 16:20 GMT

    For the first time we come to hear about the staggering cost involved in the DRS system.If it is not 100%, then obviously it is a costly excericse.The point about two unsuccessful reviews is very correct. At the most it can be used to decide on r balls pitching outside the leg stump in deciding LBWs. Hot spot with snickometer will be more or less perfect. Hawk eye prediction is not perfect.

  • on June 25, 2011, 16:15 GMT

    @Tendulkars_Tennis_Elbow, Darrel Harper doesn't cost $60,000 a day though!

  • on June 25, 2011, 16:11 GMT

    I agree with Shah points on... Spending this money on Associates... 2 per innings... Some times ticket sale is less than DRS expense... IPL team spends 10 million every year on players to run their entire show... DRS @ 14 million (64.12 crore) is an expensive proposition.

  • pvwadekar on June 25, 2011, 16:09 GMT

    If what Niranjan Shah is really true then DRS is a very expensive technology a white elephant. Based on his stats, if one plays 170 ODI and 65 Tests (5 days per test) amounts to 29.7 Million USD. That's pretty steep price and in these tough times it is difficult to justify spending that much money for a couple of decisions per match. From a pure business point of view, if every board spends a 10% of that money 2.97 M USD, then how much profit can they generate. Just wondering how the ECB and ACB manage to use it ? It would be better if the money was spent in helping some of the associate nations such as Afghanistan, or Netherlands. Even the other cricket boards such as NZCB, PCB, SLCB, BCB, WICB are not financially strong so the game and the players suffer. If ICC really want to impose this technology then they should really pay out of their pockets for each and every test match. They would have made some money by marketing the cricket events.

  • anoopshameed on June 25, 2011, 16:09 GMT

    Now that is definitely a point-that's a lot of money by any stretch of imagination! But people will find it strange coming from the richest Cricket Board in the world! Personally I have my doubts how much money BCCI will spend on the associates, but if someone don't want to spend such huge sums of money, I don't think they should be forced. If ICC wants it in all matches they should take care of the expenses and the third umpire should be enpowered to revise all onfield errors-just get rid of the appeals!

  • Tendulkars_Tennis_Elbow on June 25, 2011, 15:44 GMT

    valid points indeed. but mr.shah,isnt the DRS better than daryl harper? :)

  • krazzyking on June 25, 2011, 15:25 GMT

    This is so nearly like Delhi University asking prospective students to score 100% in their 12th grade :D...

  • on June 25, 2011, 15:24 GMT

    Strange , the only board that is opposing the DRS on economic feasibility is the richest cricket board in the world.

  • r.r.madhav on June 25, 2011, 15:21 GMT

    BCCI has good points, if we really try to understand it instead of just vilifying it for the sake of it.

  • mogan707 on June 25, 2011, 15:17 GMT

    Fantastic justification by Niranjan Shah on behalf of BCCI. But it has also one narrow view point in this.Hawk-Eye is a technology created in England with the help of Wisden Group and the large amount of spent on technology would go to England.We may not know whether it would be spent for cricket again.I once again point out that DRS must be guiding the umpire rather than challenging the umpire.

  • randika_ayya on June 25, 2011, 15:12 GMT

    Has this chap ever played cricket? "By so little returns" does he mean the potential decision of who may win the game? Well it matters to die-hard supporters of national teams, maybe not to a businessman running cricket in India!

  • samred on June 25, 2011, 15:04 GMT

    I think we need to fair bashing BCCI and hear out every for and against argument. No one is right all the time nor wrong all the time. I guess BCCI has a point here.

  • hitesh288 on June 25, 2011, 14:59 GMT

    Thats a great point, can majority of the boards afford it? From what I recall most of the boards are in red. Then add snicko meter, hot spots, the cost can be more then $100k a day... a day.. Look at the world cup stats very few decisions were overturned. There was clear that best empires were 90% - 100% accurate, then others were still between 70% to 90%.

  • on June 25, 2011, 14:59 GMT

    I do not know his true intentions, but I do support his view about DRS that its useful to have it, but may not be economically feasible in the current context. Maybe there should be way, where umpires get to use the technology more often, or each player has got a chance to use it once per match/innings - to prevent some arrogant 'star batsmen' using up the allowed 2 per innings. And I also support the fact that the kind of money used for the system could be put into better use in associate games/poorer board games. It doesnt suffice to have 4-5 top test teams while others have to scrap up from bottom coz of lack of resources. Atleast for the time being, this money should be wisely used. Coming back to the schedules, its very biased. If someone is given a test status, then they should be allowed to compete with everyone atleast once in 4 years. 9 yrs of exclusion is just killing cricket in a way. And its not fair to have IPL window either, nternational games should take precedence.

  • on June 25, 2011, 14:56 GMT

    this is a good explanation why bcci not suporting it.

  • addiemanav on June 25, 2011, 14:56 GMT

    he maybe right on economics of DRS but niranjan shah wont mind a bit spending money on cheerleaders and other stuff during ipl and dancing in the late night parties with them!!sometimes he says its 60,000 per match,other times 60,000 per day!!what?why is he trying to fool everyone??if he has certain points then he shud address them..they shud ask icc to tweak them,maybe take out of players' hands and give it entirely to umpires.surely if they can stop the DRS usage totally,they can also make sure to tweak its implementation!!he shudnt talk about ticket sales,bcoz the money is coming from tv,and we all know what kind of coverage is given to indian public..as soon as a batsman gets out,and before a commentator calls 'OUT',u get a commercial.& only after the new batsman is in that u actually get to see the replay of the previous wkt!!'money shud go to associate'-haha,u dont even include them in WC!!forget it!!the accuracy they want is like the DU colleges,who have 100% cut-offs!freaks!!

  • on June 25, 2011, 14:52 GMT

    Why is it economically nonviable for BCCI who makes millions per match. But I agree in principle that the costs should go down. $60K per day is ridiculous for any technology.

  • on June 25, 2011, 14:50 GMT

    BCCI (Richest Cricket Board) doesnt have money?? o.O .. What a lame reason !! If Srilanka Board And West Indies can afford it why can`t us ? O.o

  • Sanjeev_Talwani on June 25, 2011, 14:45 GMT

    If the ICC doesn't pay heed to India's objection to the implementation of the UDRS system, the BCCI should just quit the ICC and then see who comes crying. With 90% of the money gone, the ICC would have no means to sustain itself and the BCCI, with all its money, can actually set up its own worldwide board to recruit cricketers from around the world to represent their countries and thereby completely dictate the cricketing schedule in the world. It would be funny to see who generates the greater revenue -- the BCCI or the ICC (if it survives at all), and by what margin :-).

  • on June 25, 2011, 14:43 GMT

    Sounds fair from BCCI Point of view...

  • wiseshah on June 25, 2011, 14:37 GMT

    if UDRS is on, india wont be able to win any match, thats his fear

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • wiseshah on June 25, 2011, 14:37 GMT

    if UDRS is on, india wont be able to win any match, thats his fear

  • on June 25, 2011, 14:43 GMT

    Sounds fair from BCCI Point of view...

  • Sanjeev_Talwani on June 25, 2011, 14:45 GMT

    If the ICC doesn't pay heed to India's objection to the implementation of the UDRS system, the BCCI should just quit the ICC and then see who comes crying. With 90% of the money gone, the ICC would have no means to sustain itself and the BCCI, with all its money, can actually set up its own worldwide board to recruit cricketers from around the world to represent their countries and thereby completely dictate the cricketing schedule in the world. It would be funny to see who generates the greater revenue -- the BCCI or the ICC (if it survives at all), and by what margin :-).

  • on June 25, 2011, 14:50 GMT

    BCCI (Richest Cricket Board) doesnt have money?? o.O .. What a lame reason !! If Srilanka Board And West Indies can afford it why can`t us ? O.o

  • on June 25, 2011, 14:52 GMT

    Why is it economically nonviable for BCCI who makes millions per match. But I agree in principle that the costs should go down. $60K per day is ridiculous for any technology.

  • addiemanav on June 25, 2011, 14:56 GMT

    he maybe right on economics of DRS but niranjan shah wont mind a bit spending money on cheerleaders and other stuff during ipl and dancing in the late night parties with them!!sometimes he says its 60,000 per match,other times 60,000 per day!!what?why is he trying to fool everyone??if he has certain points then he shud address them..they shud ask icc to tweak them,maybe take out of players' hands and give it entirely to umpires.surely if they can stop the DRS usage totally,they can also make sure to tweak its implementation!!he shudnt talk about ticket sales,bcoz the money is coming from tv,and we all know what kind of coverage is given to indian public..as soon as a batsman gets out,and before a commentator calls 'OUT',u get a commercial.& only after the new batsman is in that u actually get to see the replay of the previous wkt!!'money shud go to associate'-haha,u dont even include them in WC!!forget it!!the accuracy they want is like the DU colleges,who have 100% cut-offs!freaks!!

  • on June 25, 2011, 14:56 GMT

    this is a good explanation why bcci not suporting it.

  • on June 25, 2011, 14:59 GMT

    I do not know his true intentions, but I do support his view about DRS that its useful to have it, but may not be economically feasible in the current context. Maybe there should be way, where umpires get to use the technology more often, or each player has got a chance to use it once per match/innings - to prevent some arrogant 'star batsmen' using up the allowed 2 per innings. And I also support the fact that the kind of money used for the system could be put into better use in associate games/poorer board games. It doesnt suffice to have 4-5 top test teams while others have to scrap up from bottom coz of lack of resources. Atleast for the time being, this money should be wisely used. Coming back to the schedules, its very biased. If someone is given a test status, then they should be allowed to compete with everyone atleast once in 4 years. 9 yrs of exclusion is just killing cricket in a way. And its not fair to have IPL window either, nternational games should take precedence.

  • hitesh288 on June 25, 2011, 14:59 GMT

    Thats a great point, can majority of the boards afford it? From what I recall most of the boards are in red. Then add snicko meter, hot spots, the cost can be more then $100k a day... a day.. Look at the world cup stats very few decisions were overturned. There was clear that best empires were 90% - 100% accurate, then others were still between 70% to 90%.

  • samred on June 25, 2011, 15:04 GMT

    I think we need to fair bashing BCCI and hear out every for and against argument. No one is right all the time nor wrong all the time. I guess BCCI has a point here.