May 13, 2011

Universal DRS is good, but it needs fine-tuning

And the ICC cricket committee's other recommendations are just as welcome. But how about curbing frivolous appealing?
52

Until Chris Gayle came storming in, the IPL was in danger of being remembered as a tournament where a battle-scarred captain was unhappy with the pitches given to him, franchise owners were unhappy with the cities they were in, and cheergirls were unhappy with the advances made towards them. Gayle reminded us that cricket needs to take centre stage. By hitting a cricket ball out of the ground, he also made the sidelights less important than the headlines.

It has been fascinating watching him dismiss a cricket ball - even though his supporters in the Caribbean must wonder why he is wearing red and gold rather than maroon. In the World Cup, Gayle looked burdened, the joie de vivre missing from his game, like a comedian with a tragedy befallen him. Now he does a jig when he takes a wicket, smiles broadly, and I have little doubt that bat is meeting ball in that decisive way because his mind is unburdened. Even the most seemingly laidback are fashioned out of pride and competitiveness sometimes. In the hard world of sport, a gentle word spoken can create wonders. The problem with West Indies is more off the field than on it.

With Gayle leading the way, the Royal Challengers Bangalore have won six out of six. Few of those, though, have been close, and it is something that merits discussion within the IPL. You cannot manufacture close games - I certainly hope not - but they are a measure of competitiveness. The IPL is a first-rate cricket tournament, and as you debate shortcomings on a balance sheet, so must you debate the hopefully temporary absence of close finishes. I suspect the discussion will lead towards talk of the shallowness in the pool of home-bred cricketers, but that is as yet a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

Meanwhile the ICC has been doing some brainstorming and I am glad to see that the brain has won over the storm. The proposal to extend use of the DRS is good in theory but it must remain free of the complex 2.5-metre clause that confounds everyone. The equipment has to be uniform; that means budgets must be found, and those cannot come from the television rights-holder. And the integrity of the men and women manning the technology must, at all times, be above board, because in essence the judge is now the technician rather than the umpire.

The suggestion to do away with the runner was probably inevitable, but it takes away a little bit of the gentlemanliness that once marked cricket. There was honour in winning fair and square rather than against an injured opponent, but it was always going to be up against the deeds of sly cricketers who misused the law. You can no longer have a quaint thatched-roof dwelling in a steel-and-glass township. If the runner does go, the players have to grin and bear it because they were the cause.

And now maybe we need legislation against frivolous appealing. Till such time as it exists, nobody can ask for a player's word to be taken.

The original purpose of the Powerplays, to drill some enthusiasm into the middle overs, was not being achieved, and hence the suggestion that Powerplays be used only between overs 16 and 40. I will be interested to know what captains think of it, though there are already some eminent ones on the panel that made the recommendation. It might seem that the playing conditions are intruding too much into the flow of a game, but even the mandatory time-outs in a 20-over game are slowly being accepted. It will mean that captains and cricketers have to be even more versatile and quick on their feet, and that cannot be bad.

And the game is being asked to take another look at a concept that existed 20 years ago. Two white balls, one from each end, were then used in 50-over games in Australia. Eventually it was felt that the seamer had too much of an advantage and that the spinner too little to play with. By the time a ball was 20 overs old, you were in the 40th over. But much has happened since. In this World Cup fast bowlers often got a ball that the spinners had already used, and in the IPL we are seeing slow bowlers quite adept at using the new ball. Using two balls might lead to peculiar situations, though, where the ball might reverse more at one end than the other, and certainly not do so as much as it now does. But at least the umpires will now be obliged to take a look at it every over when they take custody of it.

I hope the cricket committee's recommendations are accepted, because that is the reason the committee has been constituted - to get the players' views. It is the best way forward for the game: the players work the playing side, the administrators the commercial side. It rarely works when those roles are interchanged.

Harsha Bhogle is a commentator, television presenter and writer. His Twitter feed is here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • InnocentGuy on May 16, 2011, 21:31 GMT

    Btw? umpires making bad decisions is part of the game. Either have umpires make all the calls on the field or replace the umpires altogether and have technology and tv-replays be the umpires. Don't keep the umpires on the field just to determine whether the ball needs replacement.

  • InnocentGuy on May 16, 2011, 21:27 GMT

    Here's a suggestion. Invent a new technology like BodyScanner, which the on-field umpire (read once-an-important-person-now-reduced-to-a-useless-guy-standing-in-the-middle) can call on, which will then scan a player to determine if he is genuinely injured and needs a runner. As with all new technology, there are some caveats. BodyScanner will only work if the difference between the player's outer body temperature and the ambient temperature is 5.3 deg. celsius or more. If it's less than 5.3C, then both the batsmen and the runner get a free hit each! Conclusion: I don't know what I'm saying and neither do the people who run cricket these days. So everyone, just go watch soccer.

  • wc1992 on May 15, 2011, 6:16 GMT

    ashwin ia a bowler ?????????????

  • Anneeq on May 14, 2011, 18:47 GMT

    Iv been against the excessive use UDRS for a long time! It takes the umpire away from the game, u might as well not have an umpire, u might as well have 13 men out on the pitch by themselves with the big screen telling then whether theyv bowled a no ball and when the over has finished. UDRS should only be used for lbw's and runouts in my view,umpires should see no balls. Seeing literally every single decision being referred takes a lot of excitement from the game. It kills the mood and slows the game right down. I mean whats the point in the umpire if he's going to literally ask the 3rd umpire for every single decision?

  • on May 14, 2011, 14:21 GMT

    @Ks Raghu, Baseball (atleast the MLB) has designated runners or pinch runners!!

  • fastlane on May 14, 2011, 7:54 GMT

    coolguyrocks, you got it all wrong. Great technology is available for Video replays. But as of now TV cameras are used which are not meant to be used for slow motion decisions. All that is needed is installing proper cameras. What is lacking are funds for such cameras. So ICC and Cricket associations need to work out funding for proper cameras. They can use a small number of relocatable cameras for international matches. So it is not a lot of money for those guys. But they don't want to do it.

  • on May 14, 2011, 6:24 GMT

    YorkshirePudding, I have not referred to the abuse aspect of runner/substitute fielder. In fact I haven't touched the issue of sub. fielders. My comments concerned only the concept of runner for a batsman. Running between the wickets is part of batting and only the batsman has to perform. If he is not fit enough to run, but only fit enough to play strokes I consider that he is not fit enough to "bat".

    I recollect an episode in the sixties when India toured Australia. The Aussie skipper Bill Lawry did not permit Abid Ali as runner for Chandu Borde. The explantion: "Abid runs twice as fast as Borde". Lawry's act was described as unsporting by many. I feel Lawry was right.

  • YorkshirePudding on May 14, 2011, 5:35 GMT

    @ks Raghu, I disagree with regard to sub-fielders and runners, and FYI, England isnt the only one to 'abuse' the ability to use sub fielders, the abuse started back in the 70's and 80's when Lillie and Thompson would regularlly depart after a bowling spell to put thier feet up and a have a couple of cold ones, only to return for the next spell fully refreshed. The point about runners is misguided, if a player gets injured in the course of the game he should be allowed a runner, Ian Bell suffered a broken foot during the ODI @ edgbaston in 2010, should england have been penalised by not being allowed a sub fielder, or runner for bell when he came out to bat? I personally thing you should be able to fully substitute a player in this instance, however that would get abused by teams 'faking' injury to get a better bowler on.

  • on May 14, 2011, 2:07 GMT

    This discussion has been dominated by UDRS related comments. An important recommendation of the ICC committee has gone unnoticed. That concerns "doing away with runner". AT lat sense prevails. The provision of runner for an injured batter defies all logic. The implication is that running between the wickets as not a part of batting. Hope this recommendation will soon be implemented.

    I feel that the provision of runner dates back to very origins of cricket. Cricket was a game enjoyed by the English Lords and Nobles as after-lunch fun. Those aristocrats would only hit the ball, but would be too lazy, or too heavy to run. They would employ lesser mortals to do the job.

    Is there any conceptual parallel to "runner in cricket" in any other game or sport?

  • Stark62 on May 13, 2011, 21:57 GMT

    Umm..........

    It's better to use it rather then have ump's make a horrible decision!

  • InnocentGuy on May 16, 2011, 21:31 GMT

    Btw? umpires making bad decisions is part of the game. Either have umpires make all the calls on the field or replace the umpires altogether and have technology and tv-replays be the umpires. Don't keep the umpires on the field just to determine whether the ball needs replacement.

  • InnocentGuy on May 16, 2011, 21:27 GMT

    Here's a suggestion. Invent a new technology like BodyScanner, which the on-field umpire (read once-an-important-person-now-reduced-to-a-useless-guy-standing-in-the-middle) can call on, which will then scan a player to determine if he is genuinely injured and needs a runner. As with all new technology, there are some caveats. BodyScanner will only work if the difference between the player's outer body temperature and the ambient temperature is 5.3 deg. celsius or more. If it's less than 5.3C, then both the batsmen and the runner get a free hit each! Conclusion: I don't know what I'm saying and neither do the people who run cricket these days. So everyone, just go watch soccer.

  • wc1992 on May 15, 2011, 6:16 GMT

    ashwin ia a bowler ?????????????

  • Anneeq on May 14, 2011, 18:47 GMT

    Iv been against the excessive use UDRS for a long time! It takes the umpire away from the game, u might as well not have an umpire, u might as well have 13 men out on the pitch by themselves with the big screen telling then whether theyv bowled a no ball and when the over has finished. UDRS should only be used for lbw's and runouts in my view,umpires should see no balls. Seeing literally every single decision being referred takes a lot of excitement from the game. It kills the mood and slows the game right down. I mean whats the point in the umpire if he's going to literally ask the 3rd umpire for every single decision?

  • on May 14, 2011, 14:21 GMT

    @Ks Raghu, Baseball (atleast the MLB) has designated runners or pinch runners!!

  • fastlane on May 14, 2011, 7:54 GMT

    coolguyrocks, you got it all wrong. Great technology is available for Video replays. But as of now TV cameras are used which are not meant to be used for slow motion decisions. All that is needed is installing proper cameras. What is lacking are funds for such cameras. So ICC and Cricket associations need to work out funding for proper cameras. They can use a small number of relocatable cameras for international matches. So it is not a lot of money for those guys. But they don't want to do it.

  • on May 14, 2011, 6:24 GMT

    YorkshirePudding, I have not referred to the abuse aspect of runner/substitute fielder. In fact I haven't touched the issue of sub. fielders. My comments concerned only the concept of runner for a batsman. Running between the wickets is part of batting and only the batsman has to perform. If he is not fit enough to run, but only fit enough to play strokes I consider that he is not fit enough to "bat".

    I recollect an episode in the sixties when India toured Australia. The Aussie skipper Bill Lawry did not permit Abid Ali as runner for Chandu Borde. The explantion: "Abid runs twice as fast as Borde". Lawry's act was described as unsporting by many. I feel Lawry was right.

  • YorkshirePudding on May 14, 2011, 5:35 GMT

    @ks Raghu, I disagree with regard to sub-fielders and runners, and FYI, England isnt the only one to 'abuse' the ability to use sub fielders, the abuse started back in the 70's and 80's when Lillie and Thompson would regularlly depart after a bowling spell to put thier feet up and a have a couple of cold ones, only to return for the next spell fully refreshed. The point about runners is misguided, if a player gets injured in the course of the game he should be allowed a runner, Ian Bell suffered a broken foot during the ODI @ edgbaston in 2010, should england have been penalised by not being allowed a sub fielder, or runner for bell when he came out to bat? I personally thing you should be able to fully substitute a player in this instance, however that would get abused by teams 'faking' injury to get a better bowler on.

  • on May 14, 2011, 2:07 GMT

    This discussion has been dominated by UDRS related comments. An important recommendation of the ICC committee has gone unnoticed. That concerns "doing away with runner". AT lat sense prevails. The provision of runner for an injured batter defies all logic. The implication is that running between the wickets as not a part of batting. Hope this recommendation will soon be implemented.

    I feel that the provision of runner dates back to very origins of cricket. Cricket was a game enjoyed by the English Lords and Nobles as after-lunch fun. Those aristocrats would only hit the ball, but would be too lazy, or too heavy to run. They would employ lesser mortals to do the job.

    Is there any conceptual parallel to "runner in cricket" in any other game or sport?

  • Stark62 on May 13, 2011, 21:57 GMT

    Umm..........

    It's better to use it rather then have ump's make a horrible decision!

  • on May 13, 2011, 21:51 GMT

    Being a bowler i would like bowl to bounce and cut. I would like to see how some body like Razzaq hits succesive blows of chin breaking new ball rising deliveries. ........The challenge must be same for all batsmen. openers have to face new ball and field restrictions, that force them score in boundaries but we have seen that when semi new ball comes in 34th over and batting team takes power play then middle over batsmen get out like pegs in similar circumstances............... Modern day middle order batsmen are very poor compared to openers. All they can do is nudge singles when field is deep or they can hit full toses which even Geoferry's mom can hit for four. They dont have capability to strike safe boundaries of good balls at all. in order to bring the balance b/w middle order batsmen & openers............... mendatory new ball must be taken at 30 over mark and there should be mendatory field restriction of 5 men within incircle until 45th over.

  • Test_Cricket_Best_Cricket on May 13, 2011, 19:02 GMT

    2 New balls !! Pls no.. After a long long time we are seeing emergence of genuine spin bowlers like Ashwin, Bishoo, Tahir and reverse swing exponents like Umar Gul, Zaheer, Malinga.. Why make it a batsman's game again by giving him two hard balls and shorter boundries and decrease the impact of spin and reverse swing??

  • coolguyrocks on May 13, 2011, 18:44 GMT

    Accepting a technology with miscues isn't the right step in a classic game like cricket. Untill and unless the technology can be made fool-proof, you can't force it. While BCCI and Indian cricketers have made their stand in this matter, they have followed the ICC's rules to use it for the World Cup. Hence, hats off to them and let's hope that technology gets finer results than what we see now. My Wish is that cricket becomes a Gentlemen's game...

  • candyfloss on May 13, 2011, 18:39 GMT

    @Biggus I can see where you are coming from,but even if that does happen harsha wont be spewing expletives publicy in an uncouth manner.

  • Foggy_Idea on May 13, 2011, 18:11 GMT

    Re DRS, I think putting a limit of 2 reviews per innings can lead to inane situations when a team is certain that the review would go their way, but has used up its reviews. Why not allow more at the cost of runs? You can ask for a third (or fourth or fifth) review, but if it fails, you lose five runs. This would still keep the number of needless reviews down, but also minimize the number of wrong decisions.

  • Hasso29 on May 13, 2011, 17:08 GMT

    udrs is helping the umpires and making the game more interesting all the teams except india feel comfortable when udrs is placed!

  • Bollo on May 13, 2011, 16:01 GMT

    I completely agree with Sun25 re. runners and substitute fielders. They should remain an essential part of the game. However, some teams (England re. fielding subs a blatant example) show no respect for the spirit of the law. Clamp down on it.

    UDRS - complex 2.5m rule? Pretty straightforward really. Too far forward, not out.

    BCCI - UDRS not 100% accurate so ditch it. Sorry, that was last week`s argument.

  • on May 13, 2011, 15:50 GMT

    It's understandable that Harsha has to tow the company line- better to not have your own opinion than lose your job.

  • mrgupta on May 13, 2011, 15:21 GMT

    @candyfloss: Thats really funny, Aus and Eng refusing to play India!! Where will their boards get the money from? Given the current status of Cricket in India most of the big Cricket Boards are waiting to get India play in their home grounds. Though i agree the stance taken by BCCI is quite irritating and this looks more of a childishly stubborn behavior than an intelligent one.

  • on May 13, 2011, 14:50 GMT

    Can anybody forget the Sydney test. If UDRS was deployed in that test the outcome could have been different. At the same time the extent to which the Indian team, the board and the media highlighted the umpiring errors is perhaps unparalleled. It is the same Indians who are opposing UDRS. Why does India think one up on the other teams?

    Looks like it is only India which will oppose the scheme. It should be there in all the matches or nowhere.

  • Gerontius on May 13, 2011, 14:21 GMT

    @harshalb: I agree to a certain extent, but the problem is that Hawkeye is not accurate at 2.4m and suddenly useless at 2.5m. There needs to be a probability factor that takes into account the line, length and distance to travel. If the calculated probability is more than say 75%, the batsman is out. 25-75%, umpires decision remains and <25% not out, or some such system.

  • kumarcoolbuddy on May 13, 2011, 13:25 GMT

    When played without UDRS Indian got many bad decisions and when played with UDRS Indians got got less number of bad decisions. But still BCCI is rejecting UDRS. So I don't see any politics or domination here. May be BCCI is trying to put pressure to get UDRS fine-tuned with additional technology.

  • sanath007 on May 13, 2011, 13:18 GMT

    UDRS in every match...very good decision

  • YorkshirePudding on May 13, 2011, 12:59 GMT

    Harsha, I dont think you understand the DRS at all, as its not the technician that makes the call it is the 3rd umpire, who reviews the footage and makes a judgement call based on the evidence he sees often in slow motion in the case of feint edges, for LBW's he has Hawkeye to help and if its a 50/50 decision then the call stays with the onfield umpire. As for the 2.5m rule, no umpire in thier right mind would give a player out if he was that far down the pitch anyway as there are too many variables to make a decision.

  • Zuhaira on May 13, 2011, 12:52 GMT

    Who is Harsha? A commentator who has never played the sport and pretends that he knows every bit about the game. He goes a distance in proving IPL the best thing on the planet. Cricket needs to get rid of such people.

  • drinks.break on May 13, 2011, 12:16 GMT

    Harsha, the problem with legislating against frivolous appealing is, who determines what is a frivolous appeal, and on what basis? That is, how does the umpire know what a bowler or wicket keeper might have thought they heard? In the rare cases where appeals are obviously without grounds (eg, Prior's clumsy attempt to fake a stumping against Aus in an ODI this year) the match referee can apply sanctions after the event, so there's no need for more legislation.

  • drinks.break on May 13, 2011, 12:09 GMT

    @Sun25, the answer to the problem of injuries to batsmen over a 5 day test already exists: the batsman can retire hurt and can return later if he is fit enough. That's exactly what a bowler has to do if he's injured during the 5 days - you can't get the 12th man in to bowl for him. This is also consistent with fielding substitutions, because the most important fielder (the wicket keeper) is not allowed to be replaced by the 12th man. Another member of the 11 has to replace him if he's injured.

  • SUNDOS on May 13, 2011, 11:54 GMT

    Maybe there should be a limit to the modifications that are coming inio cricket.A uinform UDRS system should have all the technology available and either totally do away with the 'human error' or a return to the days when Umpires were the sole arbiters.Fallibility is a human trait,technology will evolve but spare a thought for the the "misdeeds of the past" .Thought we'd get a little more form the venerable Mr Bhogle an the unseemly spat over the cricket pitch in Jaipur.or has Harsha realized that a critique of "the highest and mightiest" in cricketdom isn't worth the aggro?

  • itismenithin on May 13, 2011, 11:41 GMT

    I think umpire referal's should be removed and umpires should be forced to give out a decision. if the players are not happy they could use DRS. This would make umpires concentrate more instead of shying away from responsibility. DRS has helped to reduce frivolous appealing to a good extend since players understand there is little benefit in putting pressure on the umpires. Using 2 balls instead of a mandatory ball change after 35 overs is a better option however it give very less opportunity for the ball to reverse. However there are chances that the balls won't of similar wear and tear and bowlers would be interested in bowling with one particular ball.

  • Bharath_the_Indian on May 13, 2011, 10:53 GMT

    The absence of Hot Spot and Snicko meter in the world cop made UDRS look very untidy.. that is the reason why BCCI neglects it.. If UDRS is well equipped then it would make a big difference

  • SamikDG on May 13, 2011, 10:49 GMT

    Come on Harsha, don't try to fool yourself as well as others! Everyone knows IPL is more of entertainment than cricket and the quality of cricket as little as I have seen is quite low. Can't wait for this tamasha to end and real cricket to start, especially India's tour to England, that should be a good contest.

  • on May 13, 2011, 10:27 GMT

    Yes, the UDRS is great for the game.. but 1. The ICC has to bear the cost 2. It has to be ensured that all the technologies - Hot Spot, Snicko & Trajectory - are consistent & consistently available. 3. If an appeal is struck down award runs to opponent - this will minimize frivolous / tactical usage of these systems.

    Why are runners being done away with? Wouldn't it be better to be more stringent on when they can or cannot be taken?

  • sanjeevve on May 13, 2011, 10:25 GMT

    Yet again, extremely glib approach to cricket analysis. Gayle reminded is that cricket needed to take centrestage? Meaningless statement. Paul Valthaty played a brilliant hand early. Lasith Malinga in every match has taken centrestage and how. Ishant Sharma has shown the fire one thought was going, going, gone...

    Harsha Bhogle is becoming increasingly talkative and has decided to turn his commentating into joke sessions. Most of his jokes fall flat and his banter with the likes of Danny Morrison and Brad Hogg and utterly insufferable. His writing was never great. It is now turning increasingly laboured and lacking real insights.

  • Spelele on May 13, 2011, 10:17 GMT

    And so the UDRS question continues, its become so tiring to listen to the debate. Anyways, let me also add in my two-cents worth. Why would any prudent person oppose something which has clearly led to an improvement in umpire's decisions? Because Tendulkar doesn't want it? Oh plz, don't tell me even BCCI believes this "Tendulkar is god" nonsense. And where is the controversy in the Ian Bell decision? On the day, it was Billy Bowden's decision that prevailed, so why blame UDRS. Even without UDRS, Ian Bell would have still been not out. This again outlines the fact that UDRS is not there to change close decisions where the batsman has always been given the benefit of the doubt. A close decision remains the umpire's decision all the time which means that UDRS has not changed existing precedent in that regard. BCCI should just grow up and show that Asia is out of the Dark Ages and living in the 21st century. I doubt that this is likely to happen while this Tendulkar hasn't retired though:)

  • northcity on May 13, 2011, 9:59 GMT

    A simple solution to the problem with frivolous appealling would be for teams to be deducted runs (say 25) every time they appealled to the URDS and were unsuccessful. That way, teams would only appeal when they were sure it was out, and the system would do what it is supposed to do (remove the howler decisions).

  • SaudSami on May 13, 2011, 9:55 GMT

    There were no Pakistanis on the committee. The recommendations of this committee therefore cannot be taken as a consensus of all stake-holders and are therefore rightly subject to the approval by the executive board where all countries are fairly represented.

  • on May 13, 2011, 9:53 GMT

    My only problem with the udrs is that there is nothing called "benefit of the batsman" anymore.umpires are starting to give lbws even when the ball seems to be hitting the top corner of the leg stump and their decision is upheld by the replay invariably .Although it seems good in Indian tracks where any rule that benefits the bowler should be welcomed, it could be a serious disadvantage to the batsman in seaming or spinning tracks.

  • on May 13, 2011, 9:48 GMT

    Gayle reminded us that cricket needs to take centre stage....gud one :)... i believe in this advancing world we should go with advancements such as UDRS, BCCI is bunch of politicians and Indian selectors are selfish creatures...do not support them.

  • on May 13, 2011, 9:37 GMT

    getting the the required technology is not hard. its a question of money so make it mandatory that the tv companies have to provide the necessary equipment or they dont get the contract. after all they r the ones who make the most profit out of cricket.

  • Smithie on May 13, 2011, 8:49 GMT

    Harsha, you raise an interesting point about the integrity of the people setting up and operating the the UDRS system. If it is subject to "technological fiddling" perhaps that is a clue to the BCCI stance - ie do they assume the whole world has the same DNA as them and will therefore bend/break rules for advantage if they can get away with it? The vote in the ICC Executive will be fascinating. Will current ICC Chairman Pawar support the position of the ICC Cricket Committee of which he is a member (plus Ravi Shastri and Gary Kirsten ) or the rejectionist bullyboy Srinivasan? How much financial incentive (and back room pressure ) will be waved under the nose of buyable delegates to support the Indian position? This vital cricketing issue could be decided by the vote of that pillar of moral standing Peter Chingoka from Zimbabwe! It is time for all cricketing nations to act in the best long term interests of the game and implement UDRS for all international fixtures.

  • Biggus on May 13, 2011, 8:45 GMT

    @venkatesh018-He can't afford to say anything of substance mate, or the BCCI will send out a 'journalist inspector' who will inspect him and instruct that he be changed to one more agreeable to them.

  • sanjeevmukherjee2006 on May 13, 2011, 8:28 GMT

    take the UDRS I mean sachin was ruled not out in WC semi final that shows how important UDRS is, come on Dhoni and BCCI dont be a spoil sport accept it otherwise dont complain about the umpiring errors

  • on May 13, 2011, 8:15 GMT

    Confounding is a riight word,there is still lot to be thought bout dr before using it

  • venkatesh018 on May 13, 2011, 7:49 GMT

    C'mon Harhsa ! Just don't restrict yourself to what the BCCI would like to hear with regards to the UDRS. Come out openly with the truth that UDRS is great for the game and India needs to accept it whole heartedly. The opinions of well known cricket pundits like you is much needed to get this through.

  • spprashant on May 13, 2011, 6:20 GMT

    A 25 over old ball will hardly reverse. Reverse swing, with a very few exponents present in the current world scene, will slowly fade away.

    The rule will also test the spinners, it not about the turn anymore. Only spinners who can create variations at will, will prosper.

    16-40 powerplay rule is very absurd to be honest. What sets apart a ODI game is the 'building' phase of an innings. These overs are important as you go about scoring 5 rpo and setting the perfect platform for the final assault. It is a integral part of the ODI game. And high quality stroke makers will score freely with or w/o powerplays.

  • Rage468 on May 13, 2011, 5:56 GMT

    lol.. due to udrs india won the WC.. now they are opposing it ... it shows they do not accept the WC win simply lol

  • Sun25 on May 13, 2011, 5:34 GMT

    I agree with the ICC's recommendation on UDRS, and hope that boards (BCCI) who are opposed to this will instead work constructively towards improving it. However, I do not agree with the new proposals regarding powerplays. This is a matter of tactics, and unfortunately most teams have opted to play it safe - take the bowling powerplay at the earliest, and delay the batting powerplay to the end. Surely, some team will find a better way to use the powerplays, like the Sri Lankans did in 1996 with the mandatory powerplay. The innovation must come on the cricket field, and cannot be forced by tinkering with the rules. Regarding runners - they need to be banned in the shorter versions of the game. However, a 5-day Test match is played overa long time, and cricket does not allow the kind of substitutions football does for injuries during the game. Fielding substitutes and runners for batsmen are essential, unless substitution rules are drastically over-hauled. Until then, check the misuse!

  • candyfloss on May 13, 2011, 4:59 GMT

    The BCCI's stubborn stance towards UDRS is frustrating.I hoped that the world cup experience would have changed their mind.This deadlock needs to be resovled,we cannot go on ignoring it and give the same reasons.I too like most other Indian fans would be happy if we accept the UDRS.Infact I would rather hope that Aus and Eng would refuse to play us for the upcoming tests until the UDRS is accepted.

  • harshalb on May 13, 2011, 4:18 GMT

    Harsha, regarding the 2.5 M rule. What is so confounding about it? It is a fact that every machine has certain limits. Whether it be Hawk Eye, a Missile, a long range rifle or a Rocket going to space. Even our eye sight has limitations. Hawk Eye also has certain limitations when it comes to predicting the trajectory of the ball. The 2.5 M rule was made to address concerns by players that the trajectory predicted by Hawk Eye may not be 100% accurate beyond a certain distance from the point of impact. It was agreed that within 2.5 M, the Hawk Eye path is going to be very accurate. SO essentially this rule forces people to use Hawk Eye within certain parameters which would ensure that the accuracy of the result is not compromised. TO GIVE AN ANALOGY - Umpires do not give LBW to batmen who are well forward even if the ball is going to hit the stump BECAUSE it is assumed that beyond a certain distance even human judgment of the path of the ball cannot be certain. Isn't that confounding?

  • Gaurav_D on May 13, 2011, 4:10 GMT

    One change with DRS needed - There should not be an analysis of whether the umpire got it right or wrong. But irrespective only the most correct decision should be upheld. In the world cup, umpires to support their original decisions would judge even balls barely touching the stumps out in DRS reviews, just so that their accuracy percentage would be high. Without the DRS they would never give it out.

    Also Haweye should not give the LBW decision out if more than 50% or 75% of the ball is outside the frame of the stumps. Umpires with naked eyes would never give those out. Then their prediction irrespective of 2.5m rule will be accurate.

  • on May 13, 2011, 4:01 GMT

    I welcome the decision to make UDRS universal, hopefully they will have all the technology available to be used in every matches played all. Hotspot and Snicko meter should be a certainty in all matches.

    When it comes to disallowing the batsman a runner, it might lead to problems. . What if a bowler deliberately gets a batsman injured. ? . What if the batsman gets out deliberately because he can't run ? . What will happen to the stats and records of the runs scored by the runners. Will ICC reduce it ?

    Mandatory powerplays between 16-40 suggests ICC is giving the batsman more importance in the game of cricket .:(

  • hsudhindra on May 13, 2011, 3:43 GMT

    They can use a new ball and an old ball in tandem

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • hsudhindra on May 13, 2011, 3:43 GMT

    They can use a new ball and an old ball in tandem

  • on May 13, 2011, 4:01 GMT

    I welcome the decision to make UDRS universal, hopefully they will have all the technology available to be used in every matches played all. Hotspot and Snicko meter should be a certainty in all matches.

    When it comes to disallowing the batsman a runner, it might lead to problems. . What if a bowler deliberately gets a batsman injured. ? . What if the batsman gets out deliberately because he can't run ? . What will happen to the stats and records of the runs scored by the runners. Will ICC reduce it ?

    Mandatory powerplays between 16-40 suggests ICC is giving the batsman more importance in the game of cricket .:(

  • Gaurav_D on May 13, 2011, 4:10 GMT

    One change with DRS needed - There should not be an analysis of whether the umpire got it right or wrong. But irrespective only the most correct decision should be upheld. In the world cup, umpires to support their original decisions would judge even balls barely touching the stumps out in DRS reviews, just so that their accuracy percentage would be high. Without the DRS they would never give it out.

    Also Haweye should not give the LBW decision out if more than 50% or 75% of the ball is outside the frame of the stumps. Umpires with naked eyes would never give those out. Then their prediction irrespective of 2.5m rule will be accurate.

  • harshalb on May 13, 2011, 4:18 GMT

    Harsha, regarding the 2.5 M rule. What is so confounding about it? It is a fact that every machine has certain limits. Whether it be Hawk Eye, a Missile, a long range rifle or a Rocket going to space. Even our eye sight has limitations. Hawk Eye also has certain limitations when it comes to predicting the trajectory of the ball. The 2.5 M rule was made to address concerns by players that the trajectory predicted by Hawk Eye may not be 100% accurate beyond a certain distance from the point of impact. It was agreed that within 2.5 M, the Hawk Eye path is going to be very accurate. SO essentially this rule forces people to use Hawk Eye within certain parameters which would ensure that the accuracy of the result is not compromised. TO GIVE AN ANALOGY - Umpires do not give LBW to batmen who are well forward even if the ball is going to hit the stump BECAUSE it is assumed that beyond a certain distance even human judgment of the path of the ball cannot be certain. Isn't that confounding?

  • candyfloss on May 13, 2011, 4:59 GMT

    The BCCI's stubborn stance towards UDRS is frustrating.I hoped that the world cup experience would have changed their mind.This deadlock needs to be resovled,we cannot go on ignoring it and give the same reasons.I too like most other Indian fans would be happy if we accept the UDRS.Infact I would rather hope that Aus and Eng would refuse to play us for the upcoming tests until the UDRS is accepted.

  • Sun25 on May 13, 2011, 5:34 GMT

    I agree with the ICC's recommendation on UDRS, and hope that boards (BCCI) who are opposed to this will instead work constructively towards improving it. However, I do not agree with the new proposals regarding powerplays. This is a matter of tactics, and unfortunately most teams have opted to play it safe - take the bowling powerplay at the earliest, and delay the batting powerplay to the end. Surely, some team will find a better way to use the powerplays, like the Sri Lankans did in 1996 with the mandatory powerplay. The innovation must come on the cricket field, and cannot be forced by tinkering with the rules. Regarding runners - they need to be banned in the shorter versions of the game. However, a 5-day Test match is played overa long time, and cricket does not allow the kind of substitutions football does for injuries during the game. Fielding substitutes and runners for batsmen are essential, unless substitution rules are drastically over-hauled. Until then, check the misuse!

  • Rage468 on May 13, 2011, 5:56 GMT

    lol.. due to udrs india won the WC.. now they are opposing it ... it shows they do not accept the WC win simply lol

  • spprashant on May 13, 2011, 6:20 GMT

    A 25 over old ball will hardly reverse. Reverse swing, with a very few exponents present in the current world scene, will slowly fade away.

    The rule will also test the spinners, it not about the turn anymore. Only spinners who can create variations at will, will prosper.

    16-40 powerplay rule is very absurd to be honest. What sets apart a ODI game is the 'building' phase of an innings. These overs are important as you go about scoring 5 rpo and setting the perfect platform for the final assault. It is a integral part of the ODI game. And high quality stroke makers will score freely with or w/o powerplays.

  • venkatesh018 on May 13, 2011, 7:49 GMT

    C'mon Harhsa ! Just don't restrict yourself to what the BCCI would like to hear with regards to the UDRS. Come out openly with the truth that UDRS is great for the game and India needs to accept it whole heartedly. The opinions of well known cricket pundits like you is much needed to get this through.

  • on May 13, 2011, 8:15 GMT

    Confounding is a riight word,there is still lot to be thought bout dr before using it