India news

Hawk-Eye needs a leap of faith - Srinivasan

ESPNcricinfo staff

January 31, 2012

Comments: 67 | Text size: A | A

N Srinivasan, the BCCI president, has said that the Indian board does not have any reservations against technology as such, but reiterated its scepticism of the Decision Review System. Speaking to NDTV, Srinivasan said the BCCI's opposition of the DRS was based on the lack of evidence supporting the accuracy of Hawk-Eye, and the unreliability of Hot Spot.

"The BCCI is not against technology at all," Srinivasan said. "I am an engineer myself. Technology that is not perfect will not add to decision making, it will take away from it. We have explained our position at ICC meetings that the ball-tracking technology is faulty. Even the inventor [agrees] there's an uncertainty about it. The problem of Hot Spot was very evident in the England tour [where it presented a number of ambiguous verdicts, though the technology has improved markedly since then]. These are the two main elements that make up the DRS, and both do not stand up to the test of perfection."

Srinivasan said that during one of his meetings with the technology providers he had been told that a "leap of faith" was required to believe in the ball-tracking technology being used in the DRS.

"I had a presentation made to me by the Hawk-Eye people. Without going into all the details when I finally said, 'How can one be certain that the track showed by the computers was the actual path taken by the ball,' I was told, 'That is a leap of faith you have to take'. I was not prepared to take that leap of faith."

Srinivasan, who juggles the responsibilities of being an IPL governing council member and the owner of the Chennai Super Kings franchise in addition to being the BCCI president, stressed that his multiple roles did not involve any conflict of interest. Srinivasan is the managing director of India Cements, the company that owns the Super Kings franchise.

"I don't agree there is any conflict since no decision has been taken for the sake of one particular franchise," Srinivasan said. "India Cements is a public company that owns the bid for a team after securing permission from the BCCI. This was a declared situation, that I was the MD of the company.

"All decisions [pertaining to the IPL] are taken by the general body of the BCCI - 30 members are there. The governing council has 13 eminent people. There is no decision made exclusively for one franchise. Decisions are made by all these people, for all franchises."

Srinivasan also shot down suggestions that Indian selection panel head Kris Srikkanth's involvement with the Super Kings - he was a brand ambassador of the franchise in its first season - may have led to the inclusion of a large number of players from the state of Tamil Nadu in the Indian team. Chennai is the capital of Tamil Nadu.

"I will not talk about that," Srinivasan said. "There are five selectors, and I have no role in selection. I was the board secretary, and I convened those meetings, but I am not a selector. If there was an impression that someone who should not have been in the team [was picked] ... the entire cricketing press was there, but not a word, not even a squeak was there."

When the interviewer hinted that the press wasn't in a position to speak up since the BCCI controlled their access to cricket in India, Srinivasan said: "What access, nothing of that kind."

Former India captains Ravi Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar arrive at the BCCI headquarters for a meeting to find reasons for India's World Cup debacle
N Srinivasan: "We don't give any directions to them, neither do we pull them up for anything" Sajjad Hussain / © AFP

Srinivasan explained the cases of M Vijay and Abhinav Mukund - Tamil Nadu openers who have been in and out of the India side in the recent past - to reinforce his point. "M Vijay was chosen and he performed well; when he did not he was dropped. When he went outside, Zimbabwe and other things, his scores were not there and he automatically got the boot. The only other player was Abhinav Mukund who went to West Indies [and England] but he was not picked [later]. Instead, Ajinkya Rahane has gone to Australia."

Another contentious issue pertaining to the BCCI that gained currency during the England tour, was the potential conflict of interest involving two commentators. Ravi Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar, both contracted employees of the BCCI, were perceived to be toeing the board's line on issues such as the DRS and the influence of the IPL on India's Test performances. Srinivasan, however, said the BCCI had never sought to control what they said on air.

"They [Shastri and Gavaskar] are not 'hired guns'; saying so is not fair to the two of them. They have a contract with the BCCI, which was decided by the board at that time. I have read criticism on this. I have read people saying that the board gags the commentators or instructs them. I can assure you only one thing: we do not tell the commentator a single word. Suggesting that 'we don't have to' is unfair to the two of them.

"You have to understand the type of person that I am. The last thing that I would do would be to talk to a commentator to give a feeling, should we not give this flavour … I would find it demeaning to do. We don't give any directions to them, neither do we pull them up for anything."

Srinivasan also spoke about the BCCI's opposition to interference from the Indian government through a planned sports bill that seeks to bring the board under the Right to Information Act (RTI).

"The RTI doesn't apply to the board. It doesn't take one rupee from the government. There's nothing secret about the board. Except for the selection committee, what they discuss, that is not discussed in public which is fair enough. Otherwise, in every other aspect we are transparent, we answer to the people. It is on principle. Why should the Sports Law apply to the BCCI? Without any government fingerprint - ok, we may have had the odd bad series - but over a long period of time, we have seen Indian cricket come of age."

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by jcdale on (February 2, 2012, 8:28 GMT)

Mr. Srinivasan can wait for perfection until Kingdom Come. Inventions are perfected only when they are used (not sure if he has heard Feedback Mechanism or not). Of course a certain level of usability should be there before anything new can be used and I believe the DRS technologies are well above that level these days. I think BCCI is simply putting a roadblock to ensure that it is seen as the 'other one' in the Cricketing world.

Posted by simpleguy2008 on (February 1, 2012, 14:07 GMT)

Mr Srinivasan please dont about ur business and and ur engineering just see how to improve the team performance abroad and please go for the full UDRS system now or please resign from the post and start do ur business.

Posted by   on (February 1, 2012, 13:57 GMT)

I thought the first thing the teach you in empirical physics is measurement uncertainty! Just as your regular meter rule will not measure anything at the fraction of a millimeter (smallest calibration being one millimeter), every instrument has an uncertainty. So will predictive technology, and understandably, this uncertainty increases with the range of distance through which the prediction is valid.

I just don't get why ICC doesn't impose these rules upon the nations! I mean, it's not as if BCCI is too poor to implement the DRS!

Posted by Drew12 on (February 1, 2012, 13:08 GMT)

@satish619chandar does it have to be blatently obvious. Digimont said 'influenced' which is quite different to, as you say, 'Indians bullying umpires'. It can happen when anyone is on 99 so why can't it happen when a man batting has the full support of the BCCI behind him. After all, haven't 2 umpires been sent into early retirement on the basis of 'Indians bullying umpires'. @melwinat the 3rd umpire is just that. There is no DRS referral to use the 3rd umpire because they are distinct umpiring bodies. BTW, have you forgotten Sachin's part in 'monkeygate'? Recall that despicable act before criticising Ponting. Even without DRS India lost the last two away series 8-0. Does the team and admistrators actually believe they could do worse with DRS. It seems this issue is more to front of their minds than actual performance on the pitch anyway.

Posted by stormy16 on (February 1, 2012, 12:41 GMT)

As an engineer surely he would know better than most that using machines or technology is a long way better than relying on humans!! I agree there is some doubt about the tragectory of the ball ECT but at least it would be consistent. One of the greatest issues we have with umpires is inconsistency. I also agree that technology is far from 100% but it surely adds better value than not having it. The BCCI by being the biggest player in cricket is only twarting the development of the technology. I also fail to understand why the ICC cant take the stance that each team should be allowed to make the decision on DRS independently and if the BCCI doesnt want to use it, the opponent should be free to use it. After all just as much as the BCCI can choose not to use DRS surely the oppoenent can choose to use it. This would settle the debate once and for all.

Posted by melwinat on (February 1, 2012, 10:14 GMT)

@ one the above posts.. If indians were to receive the hoem advantage.. What should be said for the Ind - Aus series.. in 1999 and 2008.. wat were the umpires thinking when they gave so many wrong decisions against sachin and when the umpire consulted the Dishonest Aus captian-Ricky ponting instead of calling for the 3rd umpire. DONT TALK RUBBISH... Even with the DRS indians got few wrong decisions going against even after consulting the 3rd umpire... justice denied ... We'l have to ask GOD himself to judge for the indian team..

Posted by satish619chandar on (February 1, 2012, 9:38 GMT)

@Digimont : Have you ever saw Indians bullying umpires? Whenever they have even a small arguement, the umpires tjust shut the door on them.. Imagine a Dhoni arguing with a umpire of Aleem Dar for 5 minutes for a decision which was taken by the third umpire for a DRS review.. Never had it happened.. Bad decision by umpire happens always.. To say Indian influence umpires is as bad as anything.. What wrong with u guys? As if no umpire gave Sachin LBW previously.. In fact, Sachin should be the guy who had got most unfair decisions ever in cricket..

Posted by satish619chandar on (February 1, 2012, 9:33 GMT)

@Posted by on (February 01 2012, 08:31 AM GMT) : Any player ll be smart enough to retire on a high.. Inspite of huge experience and playing so many matches in Australia, the big guns in the batting lineup fared poorly in the Australian tour and no one took the blame and retired.. Why should Dhoni retire before them all?

Posted by FieryFerg on (February 1, 2012, 9:18 GMT)

If he's an engineer he should know that the system is not faulty! It has an increasing uncertainty with the distance it has to predict, as would be expected. However, the uncertainty is still considerably less than the diameter of the ball, so you could just change the leeway allowed for 'umpire's call' for those decisions. There is also video footage around to show the predicted path compared to true path - it certainly isn't a leap of faith.

Posted by   on (February 1, 2012, 8:31 GMT)

Mr. N Srinivasan only cares about his business which is Chennai Super Kings & Kings XI Punjab. Can somebody ask him that how would he react if his very own franchise be in the same form as current Indian Test Team?? He is not in spot of bother because he is doing well as far as his business is concerned. If he is an engineer and knows more than anybody else about technology so that means all other English, Aussies, SA and other boards are being fooled to believe it. And he is using same language as MSD like " losing two odd series here and there". MSD is also clever not to retire now as he knows England tour of India in this year and India has good chance of winning that series at home and then he can retire on high note. And not only him, but he is also keeping all big players with him to play until that series and he can be sure of winning that series. Because he was riding on those player's success before. That is obvious that Politics has won over sport in this case.

Posted by satish619chandar on (February 1, 2012, 7:27 GMT)

@ x-squire-x: The truth is, the correct overturns byt the DRS can be found simply by using the replays and pitch map it could have been turned out.. Close decisions are always 50-50.. Anyone who is lucky on the day ll get away with it.. I would rather have umpire making that decision than the unreliable and overexpensive technology.. @Kavindeven : I am not sure on what grounds you say that.. He just speaks what they feel about the tech available.. And, what he says is also a fact.. @ LillianThomson : It is the money of BCCI which the ICC pays to the broadcasters and they do need to prove them in order to use their money.. @billy_bilal : They have clearly given the tech guys a presentation on the reasons why they dont accept hawkeye and the hotspot baffles are available for the whole world to see.. @annonimus : ICC being headed by England will ban spin bowling itself.. BCCI are far far better than them..

Posted by Digimont on (February 1, 2012, 7:21 GMT)

India doesn't want DRS simply because then it would lose the biggest advantage it has - the hometown decision. You can't tell me that an umpire, no matter how good they are, won't be influenced by the thought of not getting out of the ground in one piece if he dares give Sachin LBW. With DRS, he can say not out with impunity, but the opposition captain can get a review and Sachin is again out short of his 100th hundred.

To agree to DRS when overseas would open them to using it at home, so no matter how accurate it is proven to be, nothing short off the ICC re-taking control of the game of cricket and making its use compulsory will get it into Indian matches.

Posted by satish619chandar on (February 1, 2012, 7:20 GMT)

@hes_a_victorian : Well said on first and second point.. Third point really baffles.. Hotspot is really inconsistent man.. What is wrong with the tech is, the lucky team can get away with it.. How about Ajmal wicket last test? Out of frame decisions need to kbe given another look to check for replays alone.. Mere replay can avoid pure howlers.. Strauss could have got away with the hotspot alone but gladly, th eumpire used common sense going with the huge sound at the point.. But not sure whether all umpires ll follow the same yardstick though.. This is where we need to have one person accountable.. Who sets these rules and consulting whom?

Posted by satish619chandar on (February 1, 2012, 7:14 GMT)

@ ammad_ansari : None can be sure india could have lost had Sachin been out without DRS.. Overall DRS efficiency shouldnot be seen with only one decision.. We have seen enough howlers with the DRS to say that it is very much inconsistent.. BTW, Sachin got out early in finals too and India did win it comfortably..

Posted by Fast_Track_Bully on (February 1, 2012, 7:12 GMT)

On the other side, BCCI's resistance on DRS make the company to fix the issues and produce a better tracking system which is good for cricket. The bashers forgot that and just blame BCCI until they got some bad decisions against them! We saw it in few series recently!

Posted by FatBoysCanBat on (February 1, 2012, 7:10 GMT)

@satish619chandar: Your opinion is a biased one to support your National board [BCCI]. Please provide proof of your claim that the UDRS is only 50% accurate. My statement is actually a factual one mate: The UDRS has improved the ratio of correct umpire decisions from 91% to 98% - meaning before UDRS the correct decision was made 91% and in games where UDRS has been employed the correct decision has been made 98%. This doesn't seem like much but it is just over 7 decisions corrected out of every 100 decisions made which will make a huge difference.

Posted by Fast_Track_Bully on (February 1, 2012, 7:08 GMT)

@ammad_ansari . A team who cannot hold 4 chances given by a batsman do not deserve to win. If sachin went early, some others will perform..Raina was ther in that case...So do not blame DRS to hide your inability!

Posted by   on (February 1, 2012, 6:50 GMT)

Why DRS (Decision Review System), It should be something like UDOS (Umpire Decision Overrule System) where the third umpire over-rules the onfield umpire's deicision if he thinks that the wrong decision is made. There should not be any review's for the batting or bowling side but entirely upto to the 3rd umpire and match referee. In tennis the umpire reserves the right to overrule a linesman, if he feels that the lines man has made a wrong decision, something similar to tennis rule would be a better idea. the question of using up the 2 reviews if unsuccessful would then not arise and a lot more correct decisions could be made.

Posted by RasCric on (February 1, 2012, 5:49 GMT)

I don't understand BCC'sI agument. DRS is not just hawkeye or hotspot. Even normal camera shows inside edges on to the pads. Why oppose it completely?

Posted by Sakthiivel on (February 1, 2012, 5:39 GMT)

Srinivasan is correct if DRS not going to give 100 % then why do we go for that better we leave it to Umpires. Bad decision by DRS is more worst than umpires error.

Posted by ajayrcs on (February 1, 2012, 5:35 GMT)

I am not able to understand If BCCI don't want to use DRS fine, In DRS every team gets two review option let India not have that option but opposition team shall be allowed to use it. Problem Solved!

Posted by   on (February 1, 2012, 5:23 GMT)

Well said @alfredmynn. Even if you use freakin quantum technology you wouldn't get something 100% perfect. DRS is designed to avoid real blunders of decision, not the 50-50 ones that can go either side. But BCCI and Indian cricket in general is stubborn and self righteous. Their attitude after 8-0 overseas beating proves it.

Posted by ammad_ansari on (February 1, 2012, 5:02 GMT)

I still remember that india won the World Cup due to this DRS. in world cup semi final Saeed Ajmal has got Sachin LBW and umpire has given him out. He used DRS and saved. Had sachin been out at that time india would have definitely lost that match.

Posted by unbiasedfan on (February 1, 2012, 5:00 GMT)

Continue playing ostrich. All those who play ostrich inevitably end up as dinosaurs.

Posted by satish619chandar on (February 1, 2012, 4:56 GMT)

DRS is only 50% correct if u exclude the DRS howlers which are there for almost every match and the "Umpire decision stays" which is a joke.. If it hits stump, it is OUT.. Just as simple as that.. Why do u ve the umpire decision stay in DRS? How ll it work for Hotspot? A minor scratch is enough in hot spot but more than half ball need to hit the stump? Too much of silly rules in implementing the DRS.. We do have a comittee in ICC for setting changes in the formats of the game but who is the one accountable for the rules in implementing the DRS? I haven't come across any specific name yet.. Technology is some 75% correct but the usage of it is 50% correct only.. Overall i would rate DRS as around 40% correct one..

Posted by satish619chandar on (February 1, 2012, 4:52 GMT)

No way BCCI should accept DRS.. It is just a blalant usage of useless expensive technology.. For people wondering why BCCI sets the guidelines, it is them who are keepng the sport of cricket alive.. Otherwise, it will be like 1930's where England and Australia will be the teams who play cricket..

Posted by hes_a_victorian on (February 1, 2012, 4:37 GMT)

It seems to me the BCCI runs the ICC. Regardless of how clsoe to 100% the ball tracking technology is, some things are not in dispute regarding the use of the technology, and there is no reason why the following cannot be checked:

1/ No balls - should be clarified for every dismissal where the foot is even in the vicinity of the line or the umpire is unsighted (can't properly see the foot land).

2/ LBWs - where has it pitched, where has it hits the batsmen and whether there's bat before pad can all be accurately judged without the use of ball tracking technology. This would already eliminate a substantial element of incorrect LBW decisions without even using ball tracking. I don't understand why DRS is used when there is dispute over really just one element, the projected path of the ball.

3/ Snicko and hot spot should always be available to check for edges (or no edge) to at least eliminate the blatantly incorrect decisions.

Posted by McGorium on (February 1, 2012, 4:29 GMT)

@golgo_85: There are 10 members in the ICC; if the other 9 wish to, they can make UDRS compulsory and there is nothing BCCI can do. It's not like the BCCI will quit playing cricket. Don't blame this on the BCCI; they have a right to object, and they do have a point. There has not been a neutral third-party evaluation of these toys. They are great viewing aids, but if you want them to be used as scientific measurement instruments, they need to be put to the test like any measuring instrument. And the ICC has to do this. We know that ball tracking fails in poor light, or variable lighting on the pitch. Hotspot had significant issues. Just because a snake-oil salesman promises you that it will cure you of cancer doesn't mean you buy it by the gallon. There's no shortage of poorly manufactured and tested products in this world, that work only under certain conditions. Let the ICC run the tests, and it will be hard to deny the results if UDRS improves accuracy without *systematic* error.

Posted by McGorium on (February 1, 2012, 4:23 GMT)

@bobmartin: "Doesn't have off days, doesn't blink... etc". Think again. The ball tracking technology has significant issues in fading light, or when the pitch is partially in the shade (so the ball trajectory is partially illuminated, and partially not). There have been failures with hotspot in the past. The question that hasn't been addressed, (and was partially addressed by the Virtual Eye inventor in this article: is, who evaluates the technology for accuracy? It can't be the manufacturer or broadcaster, who have a vested interest. You can have 98% average accuracy with Hawkeye if it was extremely accurate most of the day and has 50% accuracy in the evening. How is that acceptable? (i.e. high standard deviation). It's the ICC's job to do this and if the 9 other members of the ICC wanted to, they could take control of the process and force the BCCI to relent. The fact is, you have no data to back this tech. and you can't make a case

Posted by SamRoy on (February 1, 2012, 3:19 GMT)

DRS should be in the hands of the umpires. Not cricket captains. The third umpire should intervene and overrule a decision if it is a "howler". No need on intervening in 50-50 decisions. But the technology must be encouraged only then can it improve. Refusal to use it will lead to the technology's stagnation.

Posted by golax on (February 1, 2012, 0:45 GMT)

The argument against DRS would be correct only if the umpires could track the trajectory of the ball accurately. It doesn't require much to know that they are far from doing so. So to get geeky here, what the Hawk eye teams needs to do is test the hypothesis that "Hawk eye tracks the ball better than the best umpires". I think it's an easy hypothesis to verify. You take videos of balls bowled by different bowlers under different conditions. Show only part of the videos to the umpires on the ICC panel and ask them to mark where the ball is to hit the stumps. You get the predictions from Hawk eye too and compare the errors in both predictions. I would be surprised if Hawk eye weren't significantly better than the umpires. More over, I'd be surprised if Hawk eye didn't think of this as the correct counter argument.

Posted by whyowhy on (January 31, 2012, 23:26 GMT)

I say this guy Srinivasan is a saint No ? He is the most perfect human being in the world...........Stop asking him stupid questions.

Posted by alfredmynn on (January 31, 2012, 23:23 GMT)

Srinivasan asks "How can one be certain that the track showed by the computers was the actual path taken by the ball?" .. of course one cannot be "certain" [Heisenberg] - but one can predict it with far greater precision than the human eye can. Mr. Srinivasan is a scientifically illiterate man. Therefore, it's not surprising that hawk-eye is beyond his understanding - as must be any other aspect of modern technology. Does he know for sure that his computer won't blow up in his face? I certainly can think of many scenarios where the path of a ball over short distances can be predicted with great accuracy using nothing more than high-school physics and a high frame-rate camera to get its speed at the initial point. All that said, I'm an old-fashioned cricket fan and don't agree with the present implementation of the DRS as it encourages dissent at an umpire's decision. There must be a better way of empowering umpires with technology without undermining their authority

Posted by Aubm on (January 31, 2012, 22:51 GMT)

It seems very cute how BCCI use the word "faith" when talking about science haha!!

Posted by MWaqqar on (January 31, 2012, 22:13 GMT)

Srinivasan does not need a leap of faith. he needs a step of common sense.

Posted by SLMaster on (January 31, 2012, 21:56 GMT)

I wonder what would happen if this guys was around in England when cricket started back int 1800's or before. I am glad India wasn't playing cricket then. He will say cricket is "Leap of faith."

Posted by DRSHAH75 on (January 31, 2012, 20:08 GMT)



Posted by bobmartin on (January 31, 2012, 20:07 GMT)

He spoke of the UDRS not standing up to "the test of perfection". Of course it isn't perfect, nothing in this world ever is. The one thing it does have, which Srinivasan is at pains to ignore, is consistency. It doesn't have off-days, it doesn't blink at the crucial moment, it doesn't get tired, it's doesn't care who the batsman or bowler is nor how vociferous the appeal is. It is arbitrary, totally independent and consistent. What more could you ask for.

Posted by Mappi on (January 31, 2012, 20:07 GMT)

its a madness not to accept DRS, Indian board wants to run a system on old civilization, cant they see how many wrong decision are overturned, nothing will be 100% time will perfect it, Indian below par performance in Test series are due to lack of interest by BCCI top brass, ICC should draw aline and implement the DRS across the board

Posted by r1m2 on (January 31, 2012, 19:15 GMT)

It's very confusing. My understanding was ICC under the directions from World Sports wants to ensure the cricket boards do not have any interference from the government. But here BCCI is pushing against government influence and they are not doing the right thing?

I think there's a clear conflict of interest for Srinivasan. The MD of the company that owns a IPL team, should not be in the IPL governing council. BCCI president may be okay.

Shastri and Gavaskar are definitely doing the Board's PR under the thinly veiled disguise of the commentators. The board does not need to tell them anything, but it is understood. Do you think they will still have a job with BCCI if they say something in complete disagreement with the board?

BCCI pointing out flaws of DRS is a good thing. It seems everyone's jumping on the DRS bandwagon without taking a moment to understand what DRS gives us. From my point of view, if DRS "always" helps us make better decision only then we should use it.

Posted by annonimus on (January 31, 2012, 18:49 GMT)

Nothing is perfect in this planet. That is the problem with the sub-continent leaders. They do not know what they are talking about.ICC should implement rules and regulations about the gentlemen game of cricket but not by BCCI.

Posted by correctcall on (January 31, 2012, 18:15 GMT)

@m_lind - spot on - and why should the cricket world be held to ransom by SRT and VVS? Even Viru, Dravid and Fletcher are pro. Given the latest result surely these two have lost their moral authority to LORD it over everyone else. Time to use their bats to avoid LBW!

Posted by golgo_85 on (January 31, 2012, 18:03 GMT)

Isn't ICC in charge? If ICC decide to implement DRS for good, then, why should anyone be against it? I remember watching a Pakistan - Windies test match when I was younger and in that match Jimmy Adams stood his ground after nicking a vicious Wasim Akram, umpire Doctrove said not out and Pakistan lost the match by one wicket, there was also a clear bat-pad decision given not out. If DRS was there pakistan would've had their first ever test series win in Windies. As a neutral spectator, if DRS was absent, I would've also found the Pakistan team unlucky if some of the decisions went against them in the ongoing series against England and vice versa. Isn't it fair for all the teams to have DRS involved? The Indian board/team management seem to maintain their stubbornness for all the wrong reasons. Not making any significant change in the team after going down 2-0 in Australia says it all.

Posted by GlobalCricketLover on (January 31, 2012, 17:49 GMT)

Take away the 'India' tag from your bunch of cricketers and see how many people follow your team? How stupid of you say you got nothing to do with the govt! You may not be taking money from govt but your very source if crazy 'Indian' fans who think you are representing them! Shame on those idiots who cheer for your bunch of cricketers.

Posted by GlobalCricketLover on (January 31, 2012, 17:46 GMT)

'Doest take one rupee from Govt'? Mr, can you explain who built all the historic stadiums which you are enjoying without paying a penny? who paid for it?

Posted by bonaku on (January 31, 2012, 17:43 GMT)

It is fair to say that DRS is not good enought. It is just replacing one faulty engine with another with extra money. I completely agree with Srinivasan. He has a point. It these ppl from hotspot and treaking system have a point they should come out and defend their point.

Posted by niazmn on (January 31, 2012, 17:34 GMT)

always thinking the glass is half empty... what a shame

Posted by Alexk400 on (January 31, 2012, 17:33 GMT)

There is noting ideal or perfect in the world. It is just faith. Do you believe in God Mr. Srinivasan?. After all the scientific rational thing , you still need that extra faith to cross over. Always. The problem with DRS is not the technology , it is the rules designed by ICC. Players should not be part of the UDRS. it should be coaches. Technology should not be "main" part of UDRS but more of accessory.

Posted by   on (January 31, 2012, 17:30 GMT)

Are the umpires make the right decisions all the time? NO. Then there is no need for an umpire the indian players can make decision for themselves if they are out or not. that way atleast sachin can get his century.

Posted by   on (January 31, 2012, 17:04 GMT)

DRS is not about perfection. It is not about marginal calls. DRS should only be called for by the teams if there is an obvious mistake by the umpires, who are human and thus allowed to make mistakes. the feather of an edge, the did it hit bat or pad first, the maybe shaving the stumps by a coat of varnish LBW, these are not what it is for. it is to correct when there is a thick edge that is not given out (ala, Donald's first ball of 1992 world cup) or hitting half way up middle stump LBW not given. to that end, the technology is MORE than sufficient. DRS should only over turn on STRONG evidence that the call is wrong. This is built into the LBW hawk eye rules, and just needs to be applied better by 3rd umpires on the rest of the technology

Posted by kasyapm on (January 31, 2012, 16:57 GMT)

Rest of his comments can be believed. But, I don't agree with the RTI stance. What if they don't take any money from the government? The cricket team represents India and it's governing body has to be accountable, simple. If they are so accountable, what is the problem in coming under the RTI act?

Posted by Tigg on (January 31, 2012, 16:54 GMT)

The BCCI still don't get what the DRS is for. It isn't there to make everything perfect, it is there to remove the howler.

We've seen great examples of it's effectiveness in the Pakistan/England series in which, if the technology says 'it's close' the umpires decision is upheld.

If it's a bad call it gets changed, if it's a reasonable call it stays. That is what it is for, this 100% effective essential crtieria the BCCI have is a load of rubbish. No technology is 100%, but are they going to stop using their air con/central heating because it isn't exactly on the temperature it should be? No. Will they throw out their toasters because sometimes the toast gets a little burnt? No. So why throw out the DRS which is proven to work.

Posted by simpleguy2008 on (January 31, 2012, 16:08 GMT)

UDRS please BCCI accept this now

Posted by m_ilind on (January 31, 2012, 16:01 GMT)

Replace all the aging seniors in the Indian team, and the BCCI will accept DRS as is. The simple truth is, these seniors are against DRS, BCCI is simply towing their line.

Posted by azzaman333 on (January 31, 2012, 15:54 GMT)

Let's not use umpires either. After all, they are a lot further from passing the "test of perfection" than the technology used for the DRS.

Posted by Romenevans on (January 31, 2012, 15:26 GMT)

He is the worst thing ever happened to Indian cricket. Enough said.

Posted by SLMaster on (January 31, 2012, 14:43 GMT)

Also "..Leap fo Faith..." isn't that happening with on-field umpires. How could someone say anything without going over all the details. A good leader always go over all the details before making any comments.

Posted by SLMaster on (January 31, 2012, 14:39 GMT)

No common sense BCCI. BCCI knows that they made a blunder and trying to get in without admitting failure to recognize the DRS...sounds familiar with their team loss as well. Technology today never perfect in 100 years. Even Newtonian science outdated. "I am engineer..." get real " common sense engineer." Then you have to remove on-field umpires. Why did India (ST) used DRS in WC-2011 semis. what I can say is stop the debat and have the DRS as an option in all matches. BCCI can not use it because it is wrong.

Posted by annonimus on (January 31, 2012, 14:22 GMT)

Mr.Srinivasan, you said you are an Engineer. Excellent profession. Could you ever see 100% accurate technology in your academic and professional life? I can assure you that your whole generation will never be able to invent a 100 % accurate technology.

UDRS improved the quality of cricket and all agony about the umpire decisions.We all cricket fan can assure you that your board objective will never be successful by opposing the system.

Look at your country's test cricket position in the world. India will be a category B test playing nation soon. Just wait and see.

A fan from Bangladesh.

Posted by getsetgopk on (January 31, 2012, 14:18 GMT)

'odd bad series' is his way of putting 8 consecutive overseas defeats, classic business language, not of someone who knows and loves cricket, someone needs to pour a cold bucket of water over his head to WAKE HIM UP.

Posted by simpleguy2008 on (January 31, 2012, 14:18 GMT)

i am not agreed with bcci president DRS should be implemented by the icc thats it .

Posted by   on (January 31, 2012, 14:14 GMT)

mr.srinivasan if u still call these two series loss as odd bad series, then i hav to say tat the future of indian cricket is very bleak.... and u hav to remember tat u r running a sport body whr hard decisions have to be taken not some social welfare organisation..

Posted by LillianThomson on (January 31, 2012, 14:09 GMT)

Srinivasan's quite right. But he doesnt go far enough. Cars and planes and fridges should be banned like DRS, because they are not 100% foolproof and have been known to break down. There is no place for them in an evidence-based society. And Srinivasan, Shastri and Gavaskar don't have a Conflict of Interest because, er, he says so. So it must be true.

Posted by Mad_Hamish on (January 31, 2012, 13:53 GMT)

Something doesn't have to be perfect to be worth having. DRS has overturned a significant amount of clear mistakes in matches that I've seen

Posted by billy_bilal on (January 31, 2012, 13:21 GMT)

What a load of rubbish. the only reason you dont want to take leap of faith in DRS is that your batsmen are not confident that they can play spin without the benefit of doubt from umpires. they like to play with their pads and with DRS there is every chance that they will be found out as was the case in the series against Srilanka, where murali destroyed india in the presence of DRS. Atleast be man enough to admit the main reason why you dislike DRS.

Posted by x-squire-x on (January 31, 2012, 13:18 GMT)

after all has been said and done, one fact is clear, the DRS HAS improved on the amount of bad decisions made during the course of a game, and that is a good thing, it may not be perfect yet, but will certainly improve over time. my only suggestion would be to allow teams 3 referals per innings of a test.

Posted by nickhendo on (January 31, 2012, 12:48 GMT)

get on Eagle-Eye then, that destroys Hawk-Eye !!

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Country Fixtures Country Results
3rd Test: Australia v India at Melbourne - Dec 26-30
Australia 530 India 108/1
Group C: Assam v H. Pradesh at Guwahati
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group A: Bengal v Mumbai at Kolkata
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group B: Delhi v Gujarat at Delhi
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group B: Haryana v Odisha at Rohtak
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group C: Hyderabad v Services at Hyderabad
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group C: Jharkhand v Kerala at Dhanbad
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group A: M. Pradesh v Baroda at Gwalior
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group B: Rajasthan v Vidarbha at Jaipur
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group B: Saurashtra v Punjab at Rajkot
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group A: Tamil Nadu v Railways at Chennai
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group C: Tripura v Goa at Agartala
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Group A: U. Pradesh v J + K at Kanpur
Dec 28-31, 2014 (09:30 local | 04:00 GMT | 23:00 EST | 22:00 CST | 20:00 PST)
Complete fixtures » | Download Fixtures »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days