BCCI Annual General Meeting 2011 September 19, 2011

BCCI opposed to DRS once again

ESPNcricinfo staff
72

The BCCI has reverted to its stance against the use of the Decision Review System, with the new board president N Srinivasan saying the current technology was simply not good enough after Hot Spot, which was made mandatory at the last ICC meeting on the urging of the BCCI, proved inconclusive on a few occasions during India's tour of England.

"We did not believe in the ball-tracking technology at all. But the BCCI is not averse to technology," Srinivasan said after the annual general meeting in Mumbai. "So therefore, at the last meeting of the ICC in Hong Kong, we agreed to a minimum usage of DRS including Hot Spot.

"At the time, we were under the impression that Hot Spot was very good. It is not necessary for me to dwell on the accuracy of Hot Spot, it was there for everybody to see. The BCCI will, at the next ICC meeting, raise the issue. We want to revisit it because we feel that Hot Spot is insufficient. We do not wish to use the DRS in its present form, even in its minimum standard."

During the tour of England, India's captain MS Dhoni again voiced his displeasure at the handling of the DRS on more than one occasion, with Rahul Dravid in particular falling victim to three controversial dismissals. The last dismissal took place during the first ODI, with Dravid initially being given not out by umpire Billy Doctrove.

Stuart Broad was so sure of the edge he immediately signalled for a review before consulting his captain, Alastair Cook. However, the evidence reviewed by Marais Erasmus, the third umpire, appeared inconclusive. Neither of the two Hot Spot cameras picked up any edge, and there was no clear deviation on the slow-motion replay. Yet the decision was overturned and Dravid was given out apparently because there was a sound as ball passed bat.

During the ICC annual conference in Hong Kong in July, the BCCI, along with other member boards, had agreed to a compromise wherein Hot Spot was made mandatory for DRS while the use of ball-tracking technology was made optional.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on September 21, 2011, 14:47 GMT

    @haasan yasin - we have always opposed drs we won wc benifitted from ot still we oppose till the rng tour i had faith in system not now

  • on September 21, 2011, 14:36 GMT

    No one is against technology if it improves the decision making. The concern should be on how much the boards spend for the technology per match. The argument on the percentage of bad decisions overruled using DRS can be stressed, however why spend insane amount of money if the technology is not foolproof??? Test the technology to the fullest before making it mandatory. People complaining about BCCI clout need to understand that boards like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe cant afford to use this technology during their home matches. So will ICC pay for all matches hosted in those countries...???

  • OliverWebber on September 21, 2011, 10:07 GMT

    I think most people accept there are problems with the DRS as it stands, but I would argue it's mostly to do with how it is used and how the evidence is interpreted. I think what annoys people about BCCI is that it is bullying ICC into accepting their terms for their series - surely the rules should be the same for everyone? So of course it's fair enough for BCCI or anyone else to raise concerns - in England we all saw problems with the system (both against India and England, incidentally) - but then these should be considered by ICC and then a decision made that applies to ALL countries/series. I would suggest that it should be kept, but hotspot excluded for now until it can be shown to be more accurate, and that really clear rules are given to 3rd umpires about overruling - including giving benefit of any remaining doubt to the batsman.

  • hakapuu on September 20, 2011, 23:20 GMT

    Wow the comments here blow me away. Talk about people changing colors just when BCCI opposes it. Some weeks back even australians had doubt about hotspot..i remember all the comments on that article supporting the australian view. Its been proven recently in mutliple episodes that hotspot can be wrong (not detecting nicks when everyone heard it) and also ball tracking (one episode where the tracking predicted it going left when the ball actually went right!). These are not minor errors but big blunders and in these scenarios if the batsmen appeals using drs (even when the umpire has given out and everybody knws its out)....the drs ruling would be upheld and batsmen goes scott free! Let me give you guys an analogy....Would a company use a buggy hiring CRM software to replace their hiring HR team however slow and inefficient they might be! To err is human but i am sorry that doesnt apply to technology!

  • CricFan78 on September 20, 2011, 18:09 GMT

    bobmartin who are you fooling mate? Who has independently verified accuracy of hawkeye except for hawkeye themselves? Why do English fans come here and spread lies just because they hate anything to do with Indian cricket

  • on September 20, 2011, 16:40 GMT

    Since the umpires are not perfect either, why not scrap them as well? Batsmen get finger injury despite wearing gloves - why not stop wearing gloves? BCCI is already isolated in the cricketing world for its obduracy, bull-headedness and arrogance. Their stand on DRS is ridiculous - you cannot have a technology that is 100% perfect. That doesn't mean that you don't use technology. Technology may have flaws, but it helps reduce errors. Cricket should be decided on players' abilities and not on umpires' incompetence.

  • zavahir on September 20, 2011, 16:28 GMT

    Defeat with DRS & Victory without DRS then why DRS? Yes BCCI is correct :-)

  • kumarcoolbuddy on September 20, 2011, 14:49 GMT

    Hhmm looks like there is some communication gap. let me ask one question India clearly had many wrong decisions (by DRS and umpires) in ENG series. How many people accept this? I see so many people are coming forward to criticize BCCI/India but how many times your country had suffered from wrong decisions? Even if BCCI is using it's financial power it is only to save itself from being victims. @landl47, it is not the point of error rate but in general any one team is suffering because of inconsistent technology. Recently AUS also voiced it's opinion on inconsistent technology. Next some other country. It is always easy to criticize but tough to understand the pain.

  • on September 20, 2011, 14:42 GMT

    People here are missing the point. The question is not whether DRS is good or bad. The question is whether we know how to use it best in its current form. Everyone including the English commentators agreed that the DRS use cases in the recent series was totally flawed. It was meant to rid of the howler, but for some reason the howlers stayed (Harbhajan's lbw and Broad's fake hat-trick) while correct edge decisions were overturned by the the whims of some incompetent umpires. I am all for DRS, but using it in a way that makes sense, and the way it was handled recently, didn't.

  • on September 20, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    Dilution of technology with human thinking is the issue. I think the DRS should have strict guidelines. If more than half of the ball is predicted to hit the stumps or bail, the decision should be OUT with no decision being left to the on-field or third umpire's call. This way all decisions will be UNIFORM. The third umpire could be replaced by technicians who will be responsible for showing the justification of decision at the time of decision. Instead of overworking elite umpires, a larger panel of umpires could be used.

  • on September 21, 2011, 14:47 GMT

    @haasan yasin - we have always opposed drs we won wc benifitted from ot still we oppose till the rng tour i had faith in system not now

  • on September 21, 2011, 14:36 GMT

    No one is against technology if it improves the decision making. The concern should be on how much the boards spend for the technology per match. The argument on the percentage of bad decisions overruled using DRS can be stressed, however why spend insane amount of money if the technology is not foolproof??? Test the technology to the fullest before making it mandatory. People complaining about BCCI clout need to understand that boards like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe cant afford to use this technology during their home matches. So will ICC pay for all matches hosted in those countries...???

  • OliverWebber on September 21, 2011, 10:07 GMT

    I think most people accept there are problems with the DRS as it stands, but I would argue it's mostly to do with how it is used and how the evidence is interpreted. I think what annoys people about BCCI is that it is bullying ICC into accepting their terms for their series - surely the rules should be the same for everyone? So of course it's fair enough for BCCI or anyone else to raise concerns - in England we all saw problems with the system (both against India and England, incidentally) - but then these should be considered by ICC and then a decision made that applies to ALL countries/series. I would suggest that it should be kept, but hotspot excluded for now until it can be shown to be more accurate, and that really clear rules are given to 3rd umpires about overruling - including giving benefit of any remaining doubt to the batsman.

  • hakapuu on September 20, 2011, 23:20 GMT

    Wow the comments here blow me away. Talk about people changing colors just when BCCI opposes it. Some weeks back even australians had doubt about hotspot..i remember all the comments on that article supporting the australian view. Its been proven recently in mutliple episodes that hotspot can be wrong (not detecting nicks when everyone heard it) and also ball tracking (one episode where the tracking predicted it going left when the ball actually went right!). These are not minor errors but big blunders and in these scenarios if the batsmen appeals using drs (even when the umpire has given out and everybody knws its out)....the drs ruling would be upheld and batsmen goes scott free! Let me give you guys an analogy....Would a company use a buggy hiring CRM software to replace their hiring HR team however slow and inefficient they might be! To err is human but i am sorry that doesnt apply to technology!

  • CricFan78 on September 20, 2011, 18:09 GMT

    bobmartin who are you fooling mate? Who has independently verified accuracy of hawkeye except for hawkeye themselves? Why do English fans come here and spread lies just because they hate anything to do with Indian cricket

  • on September 20, 2011, 16:40 GMT

    Since the umpires are not perfect either, why not scrap them as well? Batsmen get finger injury despite wearing gloves - why not stop wearing gloves? BCCI is already isolated in the cricketing world for its obduracy, bull-headedness and arrogance. Their stand on DRS is ridiculous - you cannot have a technology that is 100% perfect. That doesn't mean that you don't use technology. Technology may have flaws, but it helps reduce errors. Cricket should be decided on players' abilities and not on umpires' incompetence.

  • zavahir on September 20, 2011, 16:28 GMT

    Defeat with DRS & Victory without DRS then why DRS? Yes BCCI is correct :-)

  • kumarcoolbuddy on September 20, 2011, 14:49 GMT

    Hhmm looks like there is some communication gap. let me ask one question India clearly had many wrong decisions (by DRS and umpires) in ENG series. How many people accept this? I see so many people are coming forward to criticize BCCI/India but how many times your country had suffered from wrong decisions? Even if BCCI is using it's financial power it is only to save itself from being victims. @landl47, it is not the point of error rate but in general any one team is suffering because of inconsistent technology. Recently AUS also voiced it's opinion on inconsistent technology. Next some other country. It is always easy to criticize but tough to understand the pain.

  • on September 20, 2011, 14:42 GMT

    People here are missing the point. The question is not whether DRS is good or bad. The question is whether we know how to use it best in its current form. Everyone including the English commentators agreed that the DRS use cases in the recent series was totally flawed. It was meant to rid of the howler, but for some reason the howlers stayed (Harbhajan's lbw and Broad's fake hat-trick) while correct edge decisions were overturned by the the whims of some incompetent umpires. I am all for DRS, but using it in a way that makes sense, and the way it was handled recently, didn't.

  • on September 20, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    Dilution of technology with human thinking is the issue. I think the DRS should have strict guidelines. If more than half of the ball is predicted to hit the stumps or bail, the decision should be OUT with no decision being left to the on-field or third umpire's call. This way all decisions will be UNIFORM. The third umpire could be replaced by technicians who will be responsible for showing the justification of decision at the time of decision. Instead of overworking elite umpires, a larger panel of umpires could be used.

  • mohsin9975 on September 20, 2011, 13:57 GMT

    For marginal decisions, i dont any team shd b whining over it. Bcci is going overboard wid this issue. It was a case of wrong interpretation by 3rd umpires than inaccurate hotspot technology. Of course, hotspot hasnt been at its best nd has its margin of error which it has already made clear. Donno why bcci thought hotspot to b more accurate than hawkeye. Hawkeye when used at >110 fps gives acceptable results nd not the 50 fps used in cwc 2011 in india nd now in lanka. Bcci did consider whole facts while accepting partial drs nd nt challenging lbws was the most comical.

  • bobmartin on September 20, 2011, 13:24 GMT

    @PSKI .. There has been independent verification of Hawkeye. The tracking of the ball up until its point of interception (given the correct setting up of the cameras) has been proven to be accurate, since it is photographic evidence of the actual flight of the ball. Therefore most of not all of the criteria used in the judgement of an LBW decision is actuality that can be viewed and reviewed as many times as necessary. Without UDRS umpires have a one shot split second view with which to make this decision. It stands to reason therefore that the correct decsion is more likely to result from the UDRS in this instance, even if in no other.

  • YorkshirePudding on September 20, 2011, 12:11 GMT

    @bobmartin, quite correct. It was the BCCI that insisted LBW's couldnt be refered and so decisions like Harbi's in the Hat-trick had to stand. Dravid could have refered the 'shoe-lace' incident but decided not to. In the end the DRS is there as an aid to ensure that howlers are not made (ala Sydney 2008) and if they are the correct decision is made as a result, its not there to buy a wicket as some teams/fans seem to belief.

  • PSKI on September 20, 2011, 11:41 GMT

    I am rather surprised by the number of comments that say that UDRS has resulted in more correct decisions. What is the basis of saying that - the UDRS technology itself ? Unless there is independent verification of the accuracy of HawkEye and other technology, we cannot claim that decisiuon making has improved.

  • bobmartin on September 20, 2011, 10:57 GMT

    I think some people are getting confused between the technology used in the UDRS and some of the interpretations of that technology made by a few third umpires in a handful of incidents. The two are entirely separate issues. You cannot blame the technology for human error. When it is used as intended, UDRS has overturned many incorrect decisions which would otherwise have resulted in a batsman being given out or the fielding side being denied a wicket. Those facts are indisputable. All the errors have come from the apparent misinterpretations by the third umpire and in a couple of isolated incidents. the players misuse of the system. That is human error and not a fault of the UDRS. But in any case, the upshot is that use of the UDRS has resulted in more correct decisions than would otherwise have been the case. That fact alone should justify the universal implementation of the UDRS, regardless of it's perceived limitations.

  • vaidyar on September 20, 2011, 9:54 GMT

    Agree that Hot-spot left a lot to be desired and there were issues with hawk eye in the current Aus-SL series. But the fact that the hot-spot decisions or lack of them have been blown up is because of inconsistent interpretation of rules. Like Taufel said in an interview, to overturn the on-field decision there needs to be conclusive evidence. That interpretation was evident in the decisions made in SL where you could say how the 3rd ump is going to go based on the inputs given to him and how much they helped him. In the case of the Rahul Dravid decisions, that wasn't the case. It was just about whether you could see some edge or hear something, even if other inputs suggested nothing. It was hard to understand how the umpire was overturning the on-field decision based on the inputs he was getting. This was similar to the Sangakkara decision against SL, again in England. Forget different technologies, why are there different interpretations of the inputs?

  • on September 20, 2011, 9:35 GMT

    This was pretty much expected after their humiliating defeat in both the test and the one day series...In Australia back in 2008 they blamed the umpires for their series defeat and continue to do so to this day...Now they want to put the blame on DRS...this is just ridiculous...they're happy as long as everything goes in their favor for instance the SA series where many of the SA batsmen were ruled out wrongly and a number of Indian batsmen benefited from poor decisions...Dhoni and all the Indian fans certainly didn't have a problem with that...The DRS is not there to make the decision for the umpire its there to help the umpire make a fair decision...it is the umpires call in the end...this is what people forget...and don't blame Dravid's stupidity on DRS...he thought he edged it and didnt go for a review...how can anyone blame the DRS for that

  • on September 20, 2011, 9:32 GMT

    Why can't ICC works like FIFA, why countries board has so much power to go against of the federation? This ridiculous !!! Shame on you ICC.

  • mohsin9975 on September 20, 2011, 9:15 GMT

    Icc needs to set its priorities right as simon taufel said. Udrs for marginal decisions or for howlers. If they want to use drs for marginal decisions, umpires shd b empowerd wid whole nd uniform udrs nd not like it was used now in england(bccis fault) nd srilanka.Nd if udrs wants to eliminate only howlers i think they need to define howlers(for cricket-illiterate bcci officials) which shd b-lbws off bats edges, lbws when ball pitches outside leg stump or impact outside off, huge edges missed by onfield umps, wicket off a no-ball. These howlers can b eliminated by a mere slo-mo replay. So no need of any hotspot or hawkeye. In my view, bccis version of drs is useless becoz it leaves out lbws altogthr wich r most contentious decisions in cricket

  • on September 20, 2011, 8:39 GMT

    This would be the same BCCI who were vehemently opposed to T20, would it? And didn't want to play? And stomped their feet and threw a paddy?

    Bets down now for a multi billion dollar DRS tournament, where various franchises compete to review the most decisions and the BCCI hail their "invention" as the future of all cricket.

  • on September 20, 2011, 6:46 GMT

    Better still, appoint Aleem Dar as umpire in every match. The man did not get a single decision overturned via DRS at the world cup. 100% success rate!

  • asdtech153 on September 20, 2011, 6:09 GMT

    One thing that everyone must understand is, YOU CANNOT HAVE A PERFECT SYSTEM. This technology is ball PREDICTION software, not ball tracking software. It tracks the ball up until it hits the pad, THEN, PREDICTS where the ball will most likely go. Thus Hawkeye will never be perfect. Also I do believe that the UDRS should be implemented, but with clear rules, such as in the NFLl. In the NFL a decision cannot be overturned "unless conclusive, undeniable evidence" shows the decision is incorrect. This means that Hawkeye needs to say "out", or both sniko and hotspot show a edge, and thus the decision is reversed. The issue with Dravid's wicket is that only sniko was used, and it correctly identified the ball coming into contact with something hard. The umpire was wrong in that there was no CONCLUSIVE evidence saying Dravid was out. Also while the BCCI may have all the money, they certainly need to quit the moaning. You lost, were humiliated, get over it, and let your cricket do the talking.

  • bobmartin on September 20, 2011, 5:31 GMT

    @S.N.Singh [Quote]I THINK INDIA SHOULD GO FOR THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM. THEY HAVE MORE TO GAIN THAN TO LOOSE. THESE UMPIRES ARE TAKING SIDES AND WILL ALWAYS GIVE DECISIONS INDIA. SO I THINK THEY MUST GO FOR THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM. I HAVE SEEN UMPIRES GIVE BAD DECISIONS AGAINST INDIA TIME AGIAN AND AGAIN. LET THE DRS HAVE NO LIMIT OF APPEAL.[Unquote] I have never read so much nonsense in all my life. It is an insult to all the excellent umpires around the world. Quite clearly you either watch no internetional cricket at all, or if you do, you must only notice those aspects of the game which you want to see. And what flawed logic you do employ. If all these umpires are so biased, what makes you think the third umpires would be any less biased ? I guess you'd l only be happy if alll umpires were appointed by the BCCI.

  • keshabn on September 20, 2011, 5:12 GMT

    i think it is almost impossible to track the ball by Hawk Eye in near future also. I don't know how it deals with different kind of pitches (low subcontinent, bouncy australian, seaming english) and different conditions (cloudy, windy, sunny). How it adjusts with the pace of 1st day pitch and 5th day pitch. i think it is perfect till it hits the pad.(therefore it is working fine with other sports like tennis and golf). After hitting the pad its purely the imagination of the programmer, and i think the umpire imagine/predict better then the programmer. Hotspot and snickometer can be improved.

  • rohanbala on September 20, 2011, 4:12 GMT

    What else can be expected from the New President of BCCI on the issue of UDRS? There is no doubt that he would follow his Team captain in this regard.

  • S.N.Singh on September 20, 2011, 1:05 GMT

    I THINK INDIA SHOULD GO FOR THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM. THEY HAVE MORE TO GAIN THAN TO LOOSE. THESE UMPIRES ARE TAKING SIDES AND WILL ALWAYS GIVE DECISIONS INDIA. SO I THINK THEY MUST GO FOR THE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM. I HAVE SEEN UMPIRES GIVE BAD DECISIONS AGAINST INDIA TIME AGIAN AND AGAIN. LET THE DRS HAVE NO LIMIT OF APPEAL.

  • OliverWebber on September 19, 2011, 22:08 GMT

    @Nampally: yes, consistency is the key. The 3rd umpire needs absolutely unambiguous rules about how to use the DRS evidence; the principle of benefit of doubt to the batsman should stay; and all countries and series need to use the same system. So we can't have, for example, 3rd umpires ruling against batsmen when hotspot is inconclusive; we also can't have one country (be it India, SA, England, whoever) insisting on their series being treated differently from everyone else. Absolutely fair enough to raise objections with the ICC - then it's the ICC's job to take these into consideration and make a decision which applies to everyone. Of course there will be debates and disagreements, that's inevitable with change. But we have to have a level playing field, with all teams treated the same - so either India's objections to hotspot are upheld, in which case no-one uses it until it's improved, or they are not, in which everyone uses it including India, whether they like it or not.

  • on September 19, 2011, 20:45 GMT

    India just want to be so called number 1 team on the basis of wrong decisions and not by beating teams. All the indian commentators were very proudly saying and even fighting with others claiming they are number 1 test team but there game showed opposite. they were like England were playing with Zimbabwe in a test match.

  • Nampally on September 19, 2011, 19:31 GMT

    @garibaldi; I am an Indian fan who endorses DRS but with reservations. There should be clear understanding of either adapting DRS in full or not at all. For example, if the DRS shows the guy is Out, it should be followed with no over ruling by the Umpire. At the same time if the DRS is inconclusive, the benefit of doubt must go to the batsman. Secondly, if the DRS rules one way, third umpire should not misinterpret the ruling. All these have occured in the recent India Vs. England series. Example of 3 decisions against Dravid - either DRS showed Dravid was Not out or DRS was inconclusive.Yet the Umpires gave him OUT once after declaring him N.O.. This is what is troubling. Why is the Umpire allowed to over rule the DRS - which most fans say is better than Umpire's decisions. If DRS is to be followed by all countries,let its verdict stand- with inconclusive going in favour of batsmen.This should be followed uniformly - if it cannot, drop DRS till it is improved further.

  • garibaldi on September 19, 2011, 18:42 GMT

    @Felcin Raja: I agree that there are problems with DRS, but the point is the same rules need to apply to all countries. We can't have one country having separate rules- that's unfair. You mention the bad lbw decision in Broad's hattrick- but ironically, if India had agreed to full use of DRS, Harbajan could have reviewed the decision and would have been reprieved! So in that case India would have been better to have full DRS in place.

  • landl47 on September 19, 2011, 18:39 GMT

    The BCCI and many of the fans on here just don't understand simple logic. Is the technology infallible? No. Does it result in more decisions being correct than if it wasn't used? Yes. So the what BCCI are asking for is that either technology must be perfect or the WORST system, the unaided decision of the onfield umpires, should be used. It's the kind of logic a child uses- if I can't have exactly what I want, then instead of the next best thing, I'd rather have nothing at all. Most of us, when we grow up, realize that in this world perfection is almost non-existent. What we do is to strive to get perfection all the time, but take advantage of the best available in the meantime. I would understand if the BCCI was saying that using the current technology must not mean that better technology is put on the back burner, but that's not its position. It's perfection or nothing for the BCCI. The ICC must put its foot down and say that those who can't understand logic can't run the show.

  • Toon-Harmy on September 19, 2011, 18:38 GMT

    DRS may not be perfect but it has increased the number of correct decisions being given and that has to be good for the game surely? If the ICC and the majority of Test playing nations are happy to employ DRS then why should the tail be allowed to wag the dog? It's about time the ICC showed some backbone, made DRS mandatory and told the BCCI to deal with it. It should have happened before this summer's series - what on earth gives the BCCI the right to dictate the rules? Thankfully it didn't affect the outcome, although two-bob conspiracy theories posted on here that the current use of DRS somehow aids England and Australia are, frankly, insulting to some fine umpires standing around the world.

  • ExplicitPlatinum on September 19, 2011, 18:34 GMT

    Opposing the DRS eh BCCI? Then how come you used it against Pakistan in desperation to keep Tendulkar in in the world cup? I assure you that they will use it to save the batsmens in their own backyard.

  • zico123 on September 19, 2011, 17:57 GMT

    for once i agree with BCCI. current form of DRS is not good enough, until hawk eye or hot spot can be made error free, until then it is better to leave it on on-field umpires to run the show

  • InsideHedge on September 19, 2011, 17:50 GMT

    Here we go again, the usual BCCI-hating, and by extension India-hating. As Indian fans, we've been BCCI's biggest critics, but they've been consistent and proven to be correct on this issue. It's not a case of WAITING for better technology, it's already present, and unless we see a greater number of frames per second to aid ball-tracking, we will continue to see incorrect results.

    All the anti-India folks here made their bed when they ridiculed BCCI a few months ago, they lack the courage to admit they've been proven wrong. The current DRS does NOT benefit the game, and therefore the BCCI are correct to oppose it.

  • balajik1968 on September 19, 2011, 17:47 GMT

    The one thing I get to understand from this whole ruckus is that technology, which is supposed to eliminate human error, is not exactly doing it. The next thing is the inconsistent implementation of the review system by the umpires. Personally I thought Tendulkar was out to Ajmal in 2011 WC, and so was Bell. In one case Hawkeye was used to reverse the decision and in the second it was used to uphold the decision. Anyway, I personally feel that the predictive part will never be foolproof. We can keep debating on this till the end of time. My personal feeling about LBW's is leave the decision to the umpire. Just use technology to check for the bat pad edge. For other decisions use technology. One final word about Hawkeye. Hawkeye is used in tennis to find where the ball has pitched, not where it will go. To use this to predict the trajectory of the ball without taking into account the spin imparted, use of wrist, fingers, number of revolutions, pitch, air conditions is a little daft.

  • on September 19, 2011, 17:45 GMT

    Hello All my friends... How can u all blame BCCI for its stance against DRS. Can you please explain the rules of DRS which even the teams also doesnt know clearly. Here the thing is, the player who appeal against the umpire's decision as his lucky dip coupon. The thing why i called it as a luckydip... Even u dont have any hot spot in the screen and no deflection from the ball after crossing the bat.. u can get a wicket. The weird thing of DRS starts from the Hat-Trick wicket of Mr.Broad ( Eventhough the bat pad clear visual given out but not can be reviewd). Who knows even harbajan may played the Broad's role on that match. So when the DRS is been as a lucky dip then it shouldnt be introduced in a game like cricket where a single ball/run/wicket can twist the match. Here I dont support India for its Lack of selection of bowlers which cost the whole tour but DRS... If u want to make decision believe either Umpire or Technology... Dont Mix both of them to make India in the loser end.

  • on September 19, 2011, 16:49 GMT

    I agree with BCCI about this DRS system which is not at all reliable and there is a lot of human alteration to be involved. I dont consider this technology at all and I believe ICC has to consider BCCI point of view after what happend in England tour and they need to find out the some experts to certified this technology. It seems the monopoly of the some countries for this technology and DRS is giving them favour or used in their favour which is wrong. First this technology provider should be available commonly for each country and there would be lots of testing and audit required to verify this technology and no one can accept this DRS technology in their current form. This DRS is making Upmire, player and everybody confused and the way it is being handled which seems to me more bias towards England and Australis. I agree with BCCI and all borads needs to cross check the DRS in the current form and the way it is being handled by many countries and umpires which is confusing everyone

  • mensan on September 19, 2011, 16:35 GMT

    Full DRS should be implemented by majority vote in ICC. BCCI must stop bullying ICC.

  • Evilpengwinz on September 19, 2011, 16:29 GMT

    Here we go, the BCCI are blaming the fact that they couldn't beat us once all series on DRS >.<

  • Gupta.Ankur on September 19, 2011, 16:21 GMT

    Considering that players were still being given out in-correctly and umpires were not trained to handle it.....

    Its only fair from BCCI to oppose it.....

  • on September 19, 2011, 16:04 GMT

    Atleast give technology a chance. It will get better with the pasage of time. There is no point in not using it for the sake of its inaccuracies on some occassions. Peoples who concerned with this game need to grow up as far as their thinking level is concerned. Only use of the technology will make it better. More you use the technology more it will become better.

  • garibaldi on September 19, 2011, 15:11 GMT

    I can understand the reservations about DRS. But it isn't fair if some series use it and others don't- the rules should be the same for everyone. Indians will naturally be aggrieved about some of those questionable hotspot decisions; on the other hand, England might well be aggrieved at several lbw decisions which would have gone in favour if the DRS had been in place. So the advantages and disadvantages probably evened out in the end in that series. Certainly there are faults with the technology which need sorting out, but it doesn't seem right that individual countries can pick and choose which bits they like. I think the ICC should assess India's objections, and if they consider hotspot to be too unreliable, it should be removed for ALL matches until the problems are resolved.

  • on September 19, 2011, 15:04 GMT

    If there is a minor fault in anything, the BCCI will complain about it. They will continue to have their say as long as its their finances that are being used. The other 9 countries will use a standardised version of drs, while india will continue to be stubborn and use there own, quite frankly, uselless drs ideology

  • kumarcoolbuddy on September 19, 2011, 14:56 GMT

    @HLANGL, only experience gives answer to your question. "You will feel the pain only when you experience it". Don't use old and foolish monopoly tricks on BCCI for everything.

  • the_wallster on September 19, 2011, 14:27 GMT

    Here we go again.... What is it that the BCCI doesn't understand about DRS? We use it to eliminate very bad decisions, that ordinarily very good umpires naturally make during the course of an absorbing sport. So what if Dravid gets out to an extremely thin nick? Those decisions go either way regardless of techonology. If he's knocked the cover off it and is given not out, it is only ethical that the fielding side has a chance to ask for a review. The DRS has never been, nor claimed to be 100% perfect. That's not what it is there for. It is there to eliminate the howler. Something India were on the wrong end of on numerous occassions this summer but failed to review it due to their stubborness. End of.

  • on September 19, 2011, 14:17 GMT

    There is no such thing as 100% acurate - but DRS has been proven to be far more accurate than umpires alone. If you are going to wait for perefection in ANYTHING in life - your going to wait a long time (well - infinity I suppose) DRS is better - get on with it and stop being the luddites of the ICC

  • on September 19, 2011, 14:00 GMT

    I give up with this - let India play whatever flipping game they want with whatever rules the BCCI insist on and just leave them to it. The other nations should start their own separate governing body. Thanks to the massive power of the BCCI and the cowardice of the other national bodies the ICC is broken - let's leave it for India to run (which effectively they seem to be doing now) and move on somewhere where there isn't a bully in the room ruining the game for the rest of us.

  • KP_84 on September 19, 2011, 13:59 GMT

    Suggestion: use both Snicko and Hotspot in the DRS.

  • on September 19, 2011, 13:57 GMT

    The way DRS was used..I guess it is better to not use it..When the replays are not conclusive how can you give a decision?? Snickometer just picks sounds and a sound can be made by almost everything..you dont need to get bat on ball to produce a sound..shoe might rub against the ground and produce a sound.. It would be better if we have DRS and completely trust it...or dont have it when you dont trust it completely...!!!

  • on September 19, 2011, 13:42 GMT

    DRS is not about being 100% accurate but it is their to improve the decisions. HOT SPOT should be eliminated as snickometre is more accurate.

  • on September 19, 2011, 13:41 GMT

    i have no problems with the BCCI objecting to DRS, few occasions on the england tour indian players (dravid mainly) were given out (after being not out first) even tho the technology avaible couldnt conclusilley give them out, and yet everyones going to turn around and say oh BCCI trying to control the game, the DRS that was used in england didnt have LBWs, so it should have been a DRS that had no 50-50 calls yet, i rememebr at least 3 50-50 calls.. some even less than 50-50, if hotspot doesnt show an edge but you hear a little tickle when you put the volumne up to god knows what and you cant hear it at full speed, how can you give that out caught behind?

  • on September 19, 2011, 13:31 GMT

    Guys, I don't really understand why the hell u people oppose BCCI stand on review system! We should not support or impliment it until it shows itself as a foolproof!

    Bcci agreed to review mandating hot spot just because it had faith in it! But as you know what had happened in english tour...

    And for god sake, don't say that bcci is dictating icc... Bcci has its stand on certain theories! We're not opposing icc but the mistakes by technology which costs 5lacs a day to implement! Think about it.

  • bobmartin on September 19, 2011, 13:10 GMT

    There are mistakes without UDRS...There are less mistakes with UDRS even in it's current less than perfect form. So what more do you want ? The only way to resolve the few errors UDRS makes is to continue using it and refining it in the light of in-use experience. Stop using it and it will just take longer to refine. Taking an ostrich-like approach to the problem solves nothing. If the BCCI want 100% accuracy, i.e. not a single error, then with their stance they are in for a long long wait and incidentally, they are just reverting to a system proven to have a greater incidence of umpiring errors. Where is the sense of that ? Surely, the ICC can make the UDRS a playing regulation, just as they have done with other regulations, without the agreement of all the international boards. If they did this India would have two options, conform or leave the ICC.

  • SagirParkar on September 19, 2011, 13:08 GMT

    i think BCCI should accept technology and even in its present form there have been many success stories for the DRS.. a few negatives do not undo the multiple positives it has to offer.. therefore the BCCI should get off its high horse and make a positive difference, i.e. push for improvement in the tech and its implementation rather than just condemn it outright...

  • Anurag_India on September 19, 2011, 13:07 GMT

    I think after India's tour of England this is the only sensible stand to take. It doesn't seem any of the technology employed so far is reliable. All that DRS then does is it gives the third umpire a chance to second guess on-field umpire's decision. We've seen on enough occasions already that a number of decisions taken by the third umpire in such circumstances leave everyone including the on-field umpires baffled and probably does no good to their confidence either. Technology needs to be improved, and a meachanism needs to be put in place to employ it using the same gear universally before DRS should be made mandatory.

  • Gupta.Ankur on September 19, 2011, 12:27 GMT

    I think this decision is pretty fair enough.......ICC has brought upon a system which is poorly implemented....

    BCCI being a responsible board has taken a leadership role in this regard and if people just want to criticize just for the sake of it...........then.....

  • correctcall on September 19, 2011, 12:24 GMT

    All the more reason for Mr Lorgat and co to get the results of the Imperial College testing on predictive technology available for the next ICC meeting. Time for the ICC to show some steel and make it mandatory. The fundamental fact is that the % of correct decisions improves under DRS and that should be the only criteria used in deciding to apply it to all international matches. DRS improves the game and makes it fairer for ALL.

  • shakkw on September 19, 2011, 12:23 GMT

    I think BCCI should concentrate on finding good quality bowlers and causes of debacle in ENG then focusing on less trivial issue like DRS. We have had enough of this already. I think ICC should have great say on this then BCCI,

  • kasturi on September 19, 2011, 12:16 GMT

    DRS are supposed to be used to remove howlers and not for close decisions. If this is the stand taken by BCCI for DRS then same should hold for Run outs which are decided by Third umpires. They are not always 100% correct

  • on September 19, 2011, 12:00 GMT

    When their players cannot make it, they blame the technology!

  • Lord_Dravid on September 19, 2011, 11:59 GMT

    it didnt help india with soo many unfortunate problems leading to this england tour such as injuries, been given no opportunity for preparation, the mental fatigue and exhaustion..then comes along the dodgy DRS in which india suffered many times..im along with bcci on this! @Sirchris- your right bcci has too much power and theres nothing anyone can do unfortunately :)

  • pull2open on September 19, 2011, 11:58 GMT

    The BCCI is missing the point. Of course we'd all like UDRS to be 100% perfect, but it can still have a beneficial effect even if it is less than that. All it needs to be able to do is to enhance the number of correct umpiring decisions made out on the field, and there is little question that it achieves this. Put another way, if UDRS prevents only one howler in any one match, its worth is proved and its use justified. Specifically in the case of HotSpot: if it fails to show any contact with the bat, umpires operating without UDRS would almost certainly rule a batsman "not out" on the grounds of doubt alone, so nothing has really been lost by employing a system that doesn't pick up all of the edges. And, of course, the fact remains that HotSpot *does* detect the vast majority of them, so there is much to be gained from its use.

  • SixoverSlips on September 19, 2011, 11:50 GMT

    The article inside has the heading "BCCI opposed to DRS in its current form", whereas on the outside, the heading is "BCCI opposed to DRS once again". Sounds a bit dismissive and misleading. About the topic: What do we expect after the last series? There have been so many gaffes involving DRS that this stance from BCCI is fully expected.

  • on September 19, 2011, 11:47 GMT

    Whats wrong with you guys? You support DRS just because you hate BCCI's my way or high way policy it seems! Grow up man, there's no clear evidence in india tour that hot spot or any technology will help get howlers out! Dravid got out three times in decision review, though Hot-Spot didn't show any spots of ball touching bat! How the hell he's been given three times out? Last thing is, if the hot spot technology is good or worth using why don't you follow it?? Why the need of going for #snicko??

    And stop abusing #bcci for its stance and terse replys... We're like that only! We stand on truth!

  • sukanya_s on September 19, 2011, 11:46 GMT

    ICC must enforce DRS as a standard and not as an option..who cares what BCCI wants ? BCCI 's objection to DRS has done more damage that good to Indian Cricket team.

  • HLANGL on September 19, 2011, 11:45 GMT

    Why the heck anyone opposes DRS ?. Surely it may still have few weaknesses left, which will surely improve in the years to come with the advancement of the technology. That being said, DRS has already made its mark by reverting some clearly faulty decisions made by the on field umpires with their naked eye. Can anyone having any sort of rational brains argue against the value of DRS ? What would have been the impact on the end results if those decisions were not reverted ?. The thing is BCCI is now trying to have the monopoly over the entire Cricketing system. Unless some investment like DRS doesn't promote any direct financial gain, they will simply oppose. Anyone who has any sort of rational & logical mind would accept DRS. It may not be perfect yet, but still it's the best among the available options. When you have a chance to get 99%, you should grab it, rather than dropping it entirely by making complaints about the 1% you cannot get which only shows your stupidity & ignorance.

  • ansh316 on September 19, 2011, 11:39 GMT

    To be fair to BCCI, Hot Spot showed its inaccuracy many times during the Indian humiliation and almost every time India suffered.Its easily understandable if BCCI opposes it until it becomes better and be absolutely accurate.

  • Sirchris on September 19, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    This is ridiculous. What gives the BCCI the right to dictate to the ICC. Surely it should be the other way around! Maybe all othe international teams should refuse to play unless UDRS is utilised fully. What would the BCCI do then... stop playing international cricket?

    When the ruling body of the game is held to ransom by a single country, there is something seriously wrong with the system. The BCCI obviously has far too much power!

  • Shhy on September 19, 2011, 11:28 GMT

    We all saw what DRS is made up of in both Ind vs End series as well as the SL vs Aus series.. BCCI was/is correct to raise its concern once again.. why do we have to follow a process which is plagued with so much uncertainties.. Every day there is an article in cricinfo discussing DRS.. Do we have to follow technology like this??

  • pradeepbhat on September 19, 2011, 11:13 GMT

    cricinfo.. be ready to withstand the barrage of comments.. hope ur servers are sound enuf to withstand this.. :P

  • bighit14 on September 19, 2011, 11:09 GMT

    Good one... But can you please concentrate on Indian Cricket as well???

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • bighit14 on September 19, 2011, 11:09 GMT

    Good one... But can you please concentrate on Indian Cricket as well???

  • pradeepbhat on September 19, 2011, 11:13 GMT

    cricinfo.. be ready to withstand the barrage of comments.. hope ur servers are sound enuf to withstand this.. :P

  • Shhy on September 19, 2011, 11:28 GMT

    We all saw what DRS is made up of in both Ind vs End series as well as the SL vs Aus series.. BCCI was/is correct to raise its concern once again.. why do we have to follow a process which is plagued with so much uncertainties.. Every day there is an article in cricinfo discussing DRS.. Do we have to follow technology like this??

  • Sirchris on September 19, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    This is ridiculous. What gives the BCCI the right to dictate to the ICC. Surely it should be the other way around! Maybe all othe international teams should refuse to play unless UDRS is utilised fully. What would the BCCI do then... stop playing international cricket?

    When the ruling body of the game is held to ransom by a single country, there is something seriously wrong with the system. The BCCI obviously has far too much power!

  • ansh316 on September 19, 2011, 11:39 GMT

    To be fair to BCCI, Hot Spot showed its inaccuracy many times during the Indian humiliation and almost every time India suffered.Its easily understandable if BCCI opposes it until it becomes better and be absolutely accurate.

  • HLANGL on September 19, 2011, 11:45 GMT

    Why the heck anyone opposes DRS ?. Surely it may still have few weaknesses left, which will surely improve in the years to come with the advancement of the technology. That being said, DRS has already made its mark by reverting some clearly faulty decisions made by the on field umpires with their naked eye. Can anyone having any sort of rational brains argue against the value of DRS ? What would have been the impact on the end results if those decisions were not reverted ?. The thing is BCCI is now trying to have the monopoly over the entire Cricketing system. Unless some investment like DRS doesn't promote any direct financial gain, they will simply oppose. Anyone who has any sort of rational & logical mind would accept DRS. It may not be perfect yet, but still it's the best among the available options. When you have a chance to get 99%, you should grab it, rather than dropping it entirely by making complaints about the 1% you cannot get which only shows your stupidity & ignorance.

  • sukanya_s on September 19, 2011, 11:46 GMT

    ICC must enforce DRS as a standard and not as an option..who cares what BCCI wants ? BCCI 's objection to DRS has done more damage that good to Indian Cricket team.

  • on September 19, 2011, 11:47 GMT

    Whats wrong with you guys? You support DRS just because you hate BCCI's my way or high way policy it seems! Grow up man, there's no clear evidence in india tour that hot spot or any technology will help get howlers out! Dravid got out three times in decision review, though Hot-Spot didn't show any spots of ball touching bat! How the hell he's been given three times out? Last thing is, if the hot spot technology is good or worth using why don't you follow it?? Why the need of going for #snicko??

    And stop abusing #bcci for its stance and terse replys... We're like that only! We stand on truth!

  • SixoverSlips on September 19, 2011, 11:50 GMT

    The article inside has the heading "BCCI opposed to DRS in its current form", whereas on the outside, the heading is "BCCI opposed to DRS once again". Sounds a bit dismissive and misleading. About the topic: What do we expect after the last series? There have been so many gaffes involving DRS that this stance from BCCI is fully expected.

  • pull2open on September 19, 2011, 11:58 GMT

    The BCCI is missing the point. Of course we'd all like UDRS to be 100% perfect, but it can still have a beneficial effect even if it is less than that. All it needs to be able to do is to enhance the number of correct umpiring decisions made out on the field, and there is little question that it achieves this. Put another way, if UDRS prevents only one howler in any one match, its worth is proved and its use justified. Specifically in the case of HotSpot: if it fails to show any contact with the bat, umpires operating without UDRS would almost certainly rule a batsman "not out" on the grounds of doubt alone, so nothing has really been lost by employing a system that doesn't pick up all of the edges. And, of course, the fact remains that HotSpot *does* detect the vast majority of them, so there is much to be gained from its use.