IPL news January 29, 2016

BCCI mulling scaled down version of DRS for IPL


BCCI's decision appears to have been prompted by the recent softening of stance by the Indian team towards the system © PTI

In what is a significant departure from its stubborn resistance to the Decision Review System, the BCCI has initiated discussions about the use of the system in IPL 2016. Rajeev Shukla, the chairman of the IPL governing council, said there has been a proposal to adopt the system minus the referrals for lbw decisions.

A member of the IPL governing council, who present at the meeting in Mumbai on Friday, said the discussions were still at a preliminary stage. "This [discussion on introducing DRS] came up a few years ago as well, when the ICC insisted that we try it. But it met with a lot of opposition," he said. "Now, we are looking at the option of using it again, without the lbw element. Of course, there needs to be a lot of technical discussion on this before we go forward. This will continued to be discussed in subsequent meetings."

The BCCI's change of heart - it has come a long way since the time former president N Srinivasan labelled it a "faulty" system - appears to have been prompted by the recent softening of stance by the Indian team towards the system. While Test captain Virat Kohli said during the Bangladesh tour last year that he was open to discussing the matter with his team, R Ashwin said he wouldn't mind a DRS without an umpire's call.

"Personally speaking, I don't agree with the concept of umpire's call," Ashwin had told ESPNcricinfo. "Cricketers are not rocket scientists. Let's keep it that simple. Do you think in 15 seconds the captain standing at mid-off will be able to say it is not umpire's call? If you want to make the game a better place, either trust the technology completely or don't."

MS Dhoni, the limited-overs captain, had briefly suggested during the Brisbane Test in late 2014 at a kinder view towards the DRS if it wasn't used to justify the decision of the umpires. But, during the recent ODI series against Australia, India could have overturned the decision - had DRS been in place - to reprieve George Bailey, who went on to score a match-winning hundred in Perth.

Dhoni reiterated his general mistrust of the DRS rule. "It could have [changed the course of the match] but at the same time we need to push the umpires to make the right decisions," he had said. "You have to see how many 50-50 decisions don't go in our favour. It always happens, then you have to take it. But I am still not convinced about DRS."

Dhoni also felt there were too many variables involved for the teams to factor in while using the system. "There are quite a few deviations," he had observed. "Even the makers agree that can happen. Now you have to also take into account whether it was given not out or out. If it was given out it needs to touch the stump [for the decision to remain out]; if it was not out it needs to hit half the stump [to be given out]. That itself makes the variable too big. In cricket every inch, every millimetre, matters."

Dave Richardson, the ICC chief executive, had said in June last year that he was confident of getting the BCCI on board, with the technology being perfected over time.

"Ideally we want to be uniform but we are not there yet. What Geoff [Allardice, ICC general manager] is arranging is the testing of the technology so that everyone believes and trusts what the technology is supposed to be delivering is accurate and reliable," he said. "Once we get over that hurdle, the confidence in the DRS will grow and eventually we will end up with everybody accepting it.

India have used DRS only twice in a bilateral series. The first of those was on the tour of Sri Lanka in 2008, where the team felt most of the 50-50 decisions went against them. Three years later, in England, the system was partially adopted with only the hot spot and audio technology being used.

Arun Venugopal is a correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Sri on January 30, 2016, 18:06 GMT

    1. Everyone accepts that DRS technology is Broadcaster sponsored and driven for it to be accepted across all the boards, whether cash-strapped or lush with funds. 2. Indian viewership and market is the largest and the more the decisions in favor of Indians, more the advertising and revenue. 3. If it is seen that Indian players are getting even marginal decisions in their favor once DRS is accepted by BCCI, then again there will be a chorus of people shouting from the rooftops that the Indians are deliberately biasing the game to their benefit. The same way Indians used to see blatantly biased umpires like Bucknor. 4. So, BCCI always has this catch-20 situation : blamed if-you-accept and cursed if-you-reject conundrum when it comes to any new changes in the game. So it is better that it takes its own time to come to a decision and as it stands the decision to finally review an acceptable form of DRS is good.

  • Anwar uz on January 30, 2016, 16:17 GMT

    Guess the BCCI should make a new IFDRS. Indian favoured DRS and make it compulsory for all teams they play against, specially outside India.

  • Sunny on January 30, 2016, 16:01 GMT

    @KHURRAM-S-CHAUDHRY DRS is for major howlers. not just for marginal lbws. You people actually support such decisions given for marginal calls. Why do you need hawkeye for plumb lbws? It is normally very obvious when the batsman is plumb out.

  • Kendal on January 30, 2016, 9:54 GMT

    @Driftturnandbounce - I was speaking of the specific occassions when he has blamed the umpires for the loss, which were recently. No matter how justified his complaint, no captain should ever do that. He never used to do that. Maybe it was pressure, which I can understand is enormous when you captain India, and he has borne it heroically for so long. I think he generally has good sportsmanship, but this tendency has crept in lately. So yes what I said in the context of his whole career was harsh.

  •   Bkv Murthy on January 30, 2016, 9:05 GMT

    The new system will be known as DDRS to indicate it is a Deviated version of Decision Review System .. !

  • Jose on January 30, 2016, 4:08 GMT

    This is a welcome move.

    1. DRS is not perfect, but minimises howlers.

    2. Even for LBW it can be used, till the point of impact on the pad /body /bat. Projection beyond, is fraught with errors arising from the position / angle of the cameras. The umpire standing behind the bowlers arm has the most "accurate" view, Rely on that.

    3. Th biggest problem is the conflict of interest. As long as the broadcaster (any broad caster, for that matter) owns any part of the technology and make money from it's use) there IS a conflict of interest. ICC is on a big drive to weed out potential conflicts. On this, they had cast a blind eye, so far.

    4. The 'conflict' gets worse when the technology owners' own staff operate it, instead of ICC staff sitting in referee's chamber. A number of times the clip/s shown after the first had differed, creating unwanted doubts, even when it was accidental.

    5. Review system should not become "justification" system. That is what happens in "umpire's call".

  • Ant on January 30, 2016, 3:53 GMT

    Yes, 'ball tracking' can still be used to decide if the ball has pitched outside leg

  • Amit on January 30, 2016, 2:33 GMT

    Better mate than never! Well done BCCI to think in those lines, if you don't like the review system for LBWs, fair enough. Let's atleast go forward with other modes of dismissals which can be checked via Hot Spot and Snicko. Step in the right direction I say !

  • Drew on January 29, 2016, 23:41 GMT

    Apart from the BCCI somehow being unable to understand the concept of 'umpires call' and how the incorporation of a degree of error into the system actually improves it, the funniest thing here is that they are considering the implementation of DRS into the one form of cricket the rest of the world decided it was better to not be used. Why does the BCCI and India go so far out of the way and try so hard to be different?

  • TR on January 29, 2016, 23:32 GMT

    What has changed in the technology or the precision of the devices+software that has resulted in this "significant departure"? Or is it just the result of BCCI's change in leadership?

  • No featured comments at the moment.