June 1, 2011

It's India v the rest of the world

Most Test nations and their players are in favour of using the DRS in international cricket. But will the BCCI succeed in influencing the ICC to decide against it?
113

As edges go, it was the wafer-thin mintest. Audible to cordon if not umpire and viewer - or perhaps even striker (you never know) - yet detected by an almighty burp and a teeny speck on the side of the bat, courtesy those brothers in charms, Snicko and HotSpot. No alternative explanation (bat hitting ground, ball kissing shirt/thigh/pad/passing fly) proffered itself. Sure, when Aleem Dar crossed his forearms and reversed the original not-guilty verdict, Kumar Sangakkara could hardly be described as the jolliest bunny in the warren, yet according to his captain, Tillakaratne Dilshan, not only did the dressing room survive unscathed but the victim had "no complaints" after seeing the evidence for his own eyes.

Wales may have been witnessing it for the first time, but here was merely the latest episode in the soap opera otherwise known as the Decision Review System. If 90% of the Test nations had their way, the umpires' friendliest foe would be as imperative as the stumps. Beyond India, and perhaps Kevin Pietersen, precious few shareholders would argue that it should be terminated with extreme prejudice, yet the challenge, for a sport run by committees representing a towering Babel of diverse tongues, remains stiff.

Ah, committees. Fred Allen, the American comedian, once defined them as "a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary" - and he wasn't far off. Nevertheless, cricket currently has two that warrant plaudits rather than pisstakes: the MCC World Cricket Committee and the ICC Cricket Committee. Both are establishing a robust reputation for refusing to put tradition before innovation, and for acknowledging that the game, if it is to continue to withstand all the myriad obstacles thrown up by 21st century life, must be receptive, above all, to the wants and needs of players and spectators. Both, needless to say, firmly support the DRS and have contributed to its evolution.

Let's consider the members of these august bodies. The 19-strong MCC committee boasts 15 ex-captains from nine Test nations, including Mikes Atherton and Brearley, Rahul Dravid, Majid Khan, Courtney Walsh and Steve Waugh, an umpire with more than 100 Tests on his CV in Steve Bucknor, and Dave Richardson, the ICC general manager, whose versatile backside also sits on the Laws sub-committee. Their remit, critically, includes ensuring "that governing body decisions never put cash or country interests before the good of the game". You don't get much worthier than that.

Not the least of the MCC's causes has been the World Test Championship, now just years from belated reality. Another hobby horse is the scarcity of former players in key administrative roles (in contrast with UEFA, say, whose head honcho is that most resplendent of Gallic muddied oafs, Michel Platini), hence the members' palpable delight at Anil Kumble's recent election as president of the Karnataka State Cricket Association. If we ever see a pink new ball taken at 10pm in a Test, these blokes will be smiling.

"Given the power and influence of BCCI on ICC decision-making, it is more than likely that ICC outcomes will be once again a decision based on what is best for the BCCI rather than the greater interests of the sport"
Tim May, the FICA chief executive, isn't optimistic about a favourable decision being taken on the DRS

While the ICC panel has more vested interests - witness a brace of ICC bigwigs in Sharad Pawar and Haroon Lorgat - it represents a vastly broader range of perspectives. Two of the most astute captains any sport has known (Clive Lloyd, Mark Taylor), one of the sharpest minds in the contemporary game (Sangakkara), the most successful coach India have ever had (Gary Kirsten), a top-class umpire (Steve Davis), a highly respected match referee (Ranjan Madugalle), a prominent chief executive (Justin Vaughan), the principal advocate for players' rights (Tim May), leading lights from women's (Clare Connor) and Irish (Trent Johnston) cricket, a couple of renowned players-turned-commentators (Ian Bishop, Ravi Shastri), and a top-notch number-cruncher (David Kendix). Anglophobes and connoisseurs of cricket's body politic alike will note that the only English voices - Connor and Kendix - are probably (and this is not meant to be in any way patronising or disrespectful) the least influential.

Assuredly no shirkers, Lloyd and Co unveiled a host of imaginative proposals last month (Powerplays for overs 16-40 in ODIs, suspending captains for a game if found guilty of two minor over-rate offences in the same format in a 12-month period), even radical ones (dispense with runners, allow bowlers to legitimately "Mankad" any batsman backing up too far without being obliged to warn the cheating bustard). Most newsworthily, they unanimously recommended that the DRS be mandatory in Tests and also used in ODIs and Twenty20 internationals (the proposal to halve the number of reviews per innings, which could curb the tactical abuses but make the process more of a lottery, was less deserving of celebration). However, that unanimity, illuminatingly, did not encompass the absent Pawar.

What, though, of another, rather larger committee? Tuesday saw the publication of the latest wide-ranging FICA members survey, showing, among other things, that players are not generally in favour of the DRS, nor largely in favour, but overwhelmingly so: 82% of the 45 respondents said it "assisted in better decision-making" at the World Cup; 85% support its adoption for all ODIs; 72% advocate deploying it in the World Twenty20 (an apt note of caution, given the time constraints); and a whopping 91% feel it should continue to be used in Tests. Of that 91%, furthermore, 97% think it should be compulsory. Which is where India begs, nay demands, to differ.

The most encouraging response to the ICC Cricket Committee's stance on the DRS came from Richardson, who finally broke with his previous insistence that the governing body would not sanction any financial contribution to the sometimes prohibitive costs currently borne by the broadcasters. "I think if we get to a stage where all Full Members are happy to adopt the system for all Test series," he conceded, "there would be the increased possibility that ICC could help fund the technology." Unfortunately, the chances of the BCCI performing a u-turn seem, at present, to be negligible at best. It is hard not to suspect that Pawar missed the meeting concerned in order to avoid embarrassment, or worse.

One wonders whether the BCCI fully appreciates the benefits of all this hardware. Shortly before he was promoted to the Elite Panel last month, Richard Kettleborough told the Cricketer that the DRS takes the pressure off umpires: "It takes the aggression out of situations. If they want to refer it, let them refer it. The umpire is proved to be right a high percentage of the time."

Hawk-Eye, meanwhile, has sparked a sorely needed correction in the imbalance between bat and ball. In the spring issue of the Cricket Statistician, produced by the endlessly inquisitive Association of Cricket Statisticians, Douglas Miller reveals that 22.1% of all dismissals in county cricket last summer were lbw - not just double the proportion in the 1950s and 60s (prior to the law change removing the need for the ball to pitch in line) but the highest in a century and a half of inter-shire competition. The pattern has continued apace: in the first six weeks of the current season the record for the most leg-befores in a Championship match (18) was equalled three times. In Providence, 20 Pakistanis and West Indians fell lbw, smithereen-ing the extant Test record of 17.

For Miller, tracking technology is the cause: "Umpires have acquired a better understanding of the likely path of a ball after striking a pad." Robert Croft, the former England offspinner, still twirling for Glamorgan at 41, is a more passionate if predictable supporter, reinforcing Graeme Swann's recent estimate that the DRS had doubled his prospects of gleaning leg-befores: "Umpires are prepared to give more lbws on the front foot, especially to spinners. I think Hawk-Eye has shown them how many balls are going to hit the stumps." The DRS has also exposed umpiring deficiencies and cost some their jobs - Daryl Harper and Asoka de Silva were both ditched from the Elite Panel after a poor World Cup. And that was without any input from HotSpot.

The main objection, as raised for the umpteenth time by MS Dhoni after Ian Bell was controversially reprieved during the World Cup, is that the system is imperfect; as a rationale, this is some way short of perfection itself. With correct decisions demonstrably on the rise, the evidence of a marked improvement in justice, surely the aim of this particular game is incontrovertible. Besides, the aim is not to attain perfection but merely, by minimising "howlers", to reduce imperfection.

The ICC mandarins will convene in Hong Kong this month to decide, among other weighty issues, whether to enforce the DRS. Unsurprisingly, May, the chief executive of the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations, is by no means optimistic. "Given that the BCCI only holds one vote at the ICC table, and with the knowledge that all other countries want to use the DRS for Test matches, you would expect the outcome to be a no-brainer," he reasons, not unreasonably. "However, given the power and influence of BCCI on ICC decision-making, makes it more than likely that ICC outcomes will be once again a decision based on what is best for the BCCI rather than the greater interests of the sport." The refrain is horribly familiar.

The DRS is the first issue to polarise the ICC quite so starkly. For once, race and Old World v New are utterly irrelevant: this is India v The Rest. If it wants to win the war for hearts and minds as well as peckers and pockets, this is one battle the BCCI should be prepared to lose, and gracefully. Besides, what better way to leave a legacy than to facilitate cricketkind's most important advance since Kerry Packer started paying the players what they were worth?

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on June 4, 2011, 7:27 GMT

    sorry mate,u got it wrong,its bcci v/s world

  • Looch on June 4, 2011, 6:13 GMT

    I'm sorry Jim1207 but to suggest that the umpires were biased in that way is an insult to those neutral umpires and a homage to the way it was reported in the media. Unfortunately, your well thought arguments have lost their crediblity, much like the BCCI. The BCCI have been running the ICC for at least a decade so to suggest the ICC acted dumb during that time doesn't make any sense and if you are proud of that, well then there is no more to be said.

  • maddy20 on June 3, 2011, 23:32 GMT

    @Realitycheck Sachin was not out and we did not pay your players to drop catches! Get over it already. Pakistan can NEVER beat India in a worldcup match!

  • Mr_Anonymous on June 3, 2011, 23:13 GMT

    Rob,

    The tone of this article is unfortunate. The real question needs to be: "What is the correct set of technologies/rules to make UDRS be MOST successful and can they be consistently applied?". Let's have the right debate. I am all for UDRS if being for UDRS implies the following: 1. Hot Spot is required technology for all UDRS decisions. 2. Snickometer would be a real nice to have but I have heard that it takes too long to make a decision with it. Should it be a required technology? 3. The final decision for all non-LBW decisions needs to be with the 3rd umpire and not the field umpire. The 3rd umpire can consult the on-field umpire but needs to be authority to make the decision. 4. I am still not sure about the best way to resolve LBW referrals. My current thinking is that the on-field umpire is best placed to make the LBW call and can consult with the 3rd umpire as needed (especially with double-checking for a no-ball, nick before hitting pad etc) in case of a referral.

  • praghunathan on June 3, 2011, 18:48 GMT

    DRS is a lot less controversial than the DL system. India's opposition with regards to Bell was actually funny. If the DRS wasn't there, Bell would have been held not out, so what was the big deal? If an Indian had been in Bell's position, then India's opposition would have been valid.

    That said, why don't we just use the DRS and get rid of umpires? If the DRS can do everything, why do we need umpires?

  • DaGameChanger on June 3, 2011, 17:49 GMT

    @realitycheck..knowing Pakistan batting abilities especially batting second 200 would have been enough.

  • DaGameChanger on June 3, 2011, 17:44 GMT

    @reality_check: so whats your point. You like DRS and in WC semi-final it was used, DRS says Sachin was not-out. Then you should be happy and end of the story. You are contraindicating yourself here. You can't have both ways where you want DRS but bring out DRS imperfections where it suits your need.

    BTW, I suport DRS. But BCCI has questions about its imperfections and more financial bearings.

  • SalimLangda on June 3, 2011, 13:45 GMT

    A lot of eminent cricketing personalities, sure, but there are no engineers to validate and verify that the technology used is accurate.

  • UNIVERSAL_CRICKETER on June 3, 2011, 11:49 GMT

    THE QUESTION IS WHO WILL BE CONTROLLING THESE UDRS EQUIPMENTS....IS IT ICC... OR THE HOST BOARD, WHO CAN MANIPULATE THEM.....LIKE UMPIRES, THESE EQUIPMENTS SHOULD BE THE PROPERTY OF ICC & PROPERLY CALIBRATED & TESTED BY REPUTED ORGANIZATIONS....ULTIMATELY THE FINAL DECISION MUST REST WITH THE FIELD UMPIRES AFTER TAKING HELP FROM THESE TECHNOLOGIES...

  • Jim1207 on June 3, 2011, 11:22 GMT

    Looch, We need to understand one thing well. BCCI threatened to pull out of the tour not because umpires did not make correct decisions. These two umpires acted like puppets to Ricky Ponting. Ever seen any umpire asking a fielding captain to make a decision when technology is available while the catch was clearly not taken well (I wonder why technology-supporters are behind Ricky for not using technology then!)? Umpires know for past three days, they are making wrong decision, still on final day they made more wrong decisions and still gave another wicket just because the fielding captain "decided" that it was out. If the catch was correct and fielding captain is correct, then BCCI should be blamed. It was like taking away ice cream from a child and battering his head with a baseball bat. ICC acted dumb to all the chaos (that's what happened when Aussies ruled the world) and it reached a tipping point. BCCI threatened to quit, if you don't like it or not, we are proud of what BCCI did.

  • on June 4, 2011, 7:27 GMT

    sorry mate,u got it wrong,its bcci v/s world

  • Looch on June 4, 2011, 6:13 GMT

    I'm sorry Jim1207 but to suggest that the umpires were biased in that way is an insult to those neutral umpires and a homage to the way it was reported in the media. Unfortunately, your well thought arguments have lost their crediblity, much like the BCCI. The BCCI have been running the ICC for at least a decade so to suggest the ICC acted dumb during that time doesn't make any sense and if you are proud of that, well then there is no more to be said.

  • maddy20 on June 3, 2011, 23:32 GMT

    @Realitycheck Sachin was not out and we did not pay your players to drop catches! Get over it already. Pakistan can NEVER beat India in a worldcup match!

  • Mr_Anonymous on June 3, 2011, 23:13 GMT

    Rob,

    The tone of this article is unfortunate. The real question needs to be: "What is the correct set of technologies/rules to make UDRS be MOST successful and can they be consistently applied?". Let's have the right debate. I am all for UDRS if being for UDRS implies the following: 1. Hot Spot is required technology for all UDRS decisions. 2. Snickometer would be a real nice to have but I have heard that it takes too long to make a decision with it. Should it be a required technology? 3. The final decision for all non-LBW decisions needs to be with the 3rd umpire and not the field umpire. The 3rd umpire can consult the on-field umpire but needs to be authority to make the decision. 4. I am still not sure about the best way to resolve LBW referrals. My current thinking is that the on-field umpire is best placed to make the LBW call and can consult with the 3rd umpire as needed (especially with double-checking for a no-ball, nick before hitting pad etc) in case of a referral.

  • praghunathan on June 3, 2011, 18:48 GMT

    DRS is a lot less controversial than the DL system. India's opposition with regards to Bell was actually funny. If the DRS wasn't there, Bell would have been held not out, so what was the big deal? If an Indian had been in Bell's position, then India's opposition would have been valid.

    That said, why don't we just use the DRS and get rid of umpires? If the DRS can do everything, why do we need umpires?

  • DaGameChanger on June 3, 2011, 17:49 GMT

    @realitycheck..knowing Pakistan batting abilities especially batting second 200 would have been enough.

  • DaGameChanger on June 3, 2011, 17:44 GMT

    @reality_check: so whats your point. You like DRS and in WC semi-final it was used, DRS says Sachin was not-out. Then you should be happy and end of the story. You are contraindicating yourself here. You can't have both ways where you want DRS but bring out DRS imperfections where it suits your need.

    BTW, I suport DRS. But BCCI has questions about its imperfections and more financial bearings.

  • SalimLangda on June 3, 2011, 13:45 GMT

    A lot of eminent cricketing personalities, sure, but there are no engineers to validate and verify that the technology used is accurate.

  • UNIVERSAL_CRICKETER on June 3, 2011, 11:49 GMT

    THE QUESTION IS WHO WILL BE CONTROLLING THESE UDRS EQUIPMENTS....IS IT ICC... OR THE HOST BOARD, WHO CAN MANIPULATE THEM.....LIKE UMPIRES, THESE EQUIPMENTS SHOULD BE THE PROPERTY OF ICC & PROPERLY CALIBRATED & TESTED BY REPUTED ORGANIZATIONS....ULTIMATELY THE FINAL DECISION MUST REST WITH THE FIELD UMPIRES AFTER TAKING HELP FROM THESE TECHNOLOGIES...

  • Jim1207 on June 3, 2011, 11:22 GMT

    Looch, We need to understand one thing well. BCCI threatened to pull out of the tour not because umpires did not make correct decisions. These two umpires acted like puppets to Ricky Ponting. Ever seen any umpire asking a fielding captain to make a decision when technology is available while the catch was clearly not taken well (I wonder why technology-supporters are behind Ricky for not using technology then!)? Umpires know for past three days, they are making wrong decision, still on final day they made more wrong decisions and still gave another wicket just because the fielding captain "decided" that it was out. If the catch was correct and fielding captain is correct, then BCCI should be blamed. It was like taking away ice cream from a child and battering his head with a baseball bat. ICC acted dumb to all the chaos (that's what happened when Aussies ruled the world) and it reached a tipping point. BCCI threatened to quit, if you don't like it or not, we are proud of what BCCI did.

  • Jim1207 on June 3, 2011, 11:10 GMT

    Looch, I am not saying DRS should not be used. As I said, there are still flaws and confusions. If only it is opposed, it would be corrected. Correct the flaws, make the system uniform and try to make the system's handling perfect (like in the case of same ball trajectory resulting in two different decisions for two different batsmen which for me is totally not juidicial). One good thing in BCCI opposing is we can look at the flaws and make the system perfect. What BCCI does wrong is it is not giving an agenda of why it is opposing and tell the DRS makers to correct the flaws, if they see any as I see it. Let the reasons be known and let the ICC work towards bringing a good system in place. BCCI and Indian players should also agree to that or bring on the system now and correct the flaws going forward. Problem with ICC is if the system has some flaw, it would not take any step in correcting that unless someone criticize like in world cup. For me, make the system uniform for decisions.

  • reality_check on June 3, 2011, 10:13 GMT

    @InsideHedge: The WC semi between India and Pakistan. Issue is not that IF Pakistan would have won or not in the absence of DRS had SRT been given out. The issue is that what impact it would have had on Pak players had SRT been given out and what impact it did have on Indian players that SRT was not given out? Imagine the boost it would have given Pak bowlers if SRT was dismissed cheaply. You can't predict if India would have made 300+ or would have folded for 180 from that point onwards. If the decision would have gone in Pak's favour, things could have turned out differently. Team confidence generally directly translates to how well a team fields or bats. They may have dropped fewer catches and fielding could have been much better restricting Indians to a very chaseable target.

  • rickywanting on June 3, 2011, 8:39 GMT

    Tarun Sonkhya: Yes, sure Premier League is interesting, though I prefer to watch Spanish and Italian football. As for the flamboyance of sport, I find it more exciting, and there's a greater sense of involvement of people in the stadium, when a decision goes to the third umpire. With a normal umpiring decision, it's over in a few seconds, but DRS brings in suspense. NEUTRAL_Fan: Yes, that rule was introduced to hinder the WI pacemen - though I must say we Indians too heaved a sigh of relief at that! We had no scary pacer, and our batsmen got battered a lot of times. And let's face it, the WI pacemen went overboard on occasion. Meety: Right, but I've to say that Eng and Oz boards are greedy - for money, they are accepting BCCI's dominance. For money, England created T20, and see where it's got us now - overdose of T20, threat to skills, conflicts. Eng didn't monetise it fully because they COULD not. BCCI can. Eng-Oz fear losing money, so they jump into bed with BCCI. No ethics.

  • yoohoo on June 3, 2011, 6:48 GMT

    Frankly, I am just thankful to BCCI that this monster is not already the de-facto. The system is a disaster (I don't necessarily mean the technology here), esp the interaction between the umpires. Also, the technology of Hotspot is 1) very questionable in sub-continent conditions (it depends on infrared technology which gives non-optimal results in the hot and humid conditions), and 2) proprietary to australian government and cannot be used elsewhere. I think a lot of people here just need to get out of their bias against the BCCI, and look at DRS with an unbiased eye. The system needs some serious repair to make sense. In trying to get some marginal decisions right, we are making a mess of the decision system.

  • jay57870 on June 3, 2011, 5:00 GMT

    5) Entrust DRS firmly in off-field umpires' hands: Why let the on-field umpire make final decision, when his initial call is being challenged in the first place? Case in point: Billy Bowden in the disputed Ian Bell review. The problem? No, not his crooked finger, but his crooked ego! Catch wily Billy reversing his own call! Only the off-field crew (3rd umpire/match referee), given all relevant information, is best placed to make an objective/final ruling; 6) Hold umpires accountable: Those who don't meet high standards, especially the obvious flunkies, should be fired promptly - What's Steve Bucknor doing in MCC Panel? How did Darrell Hair overstay his tenure? Finally, it's high time umpires strictly enforced rules they're paid to impose - as they do in soccer, basketball, baseball - with ejections, suspensions & bans: When will they discipline Ricky Ponting, the serial offender? Justice delayed is justice denied. DRS is just a tool and not a substitute for human judgment & justice.

  • mathewjohn2176 on June 3, 2011, 4:42 GMT

    @meety,The UDRS hotspot was not available due to melbourne BBG sports where those camers has to be licensed by aus defence dept when they take out of aus.And it was difficult to carry in subcontinent where the matches happened in srilanka ,india and bangladesh. ICC were unaware of all this as and carrying all around is costly and the equipments are sensitive,due to this hotspot was not available.i guess blaming BCCI for each and everything is something we got to change.by the way i am srilankan.

  • Looch on June 3, 2011, 4:37 GMT

    @Jim1207 ok you think DRS should not be used because it not 100% accurate. In that case we better not use umpires, or match referees or, let's face it, humans! I would love us all to accept the umpire decision but that will never happen again after the BCCI threatened to pull out of a tour because an umpiring decision! It's the hypocritical stance of the BCCI that is the problem, not the technology.

  • jay57870 on June 3, 2011, 4:35 GMT

    Rob, I agree DRS is a useful technology that helps to make better informed decisions. However, let's ensure DRS does not usurp the Umpire's roles & responsibilities. Before the Committees get too obsessed with more technology, there are a few basic things they can do to improve the Quality of Umpiring: 1) Encourage more consultations between on-field umpires - Two heads are better than one and double-checking calls makes for better decisions; 2) Institute robust umpire training year-round, especially in-season - just like players spend hours in practice - so that umpires are mentally & physically on top of the game; 3) Evaluate umpire performance regularly - by providing prompt post-game feedback (video replays) - for corrective action & continuous improvement; 4) Enforce regulations uniformly and fairly - especially code of conduct (player behaviour, intimidation) which is woefully lacking in consistency of action (compared to easy stuff like over-rates, bat logos, etc). More later.

  • CricketOle on June 3, 2011, 4:03 GMT

    Let me try to argue for the accused (MSD/SRT/BCCI, referred to as "they" from now on). (Note: I understand the technology behind DRS rather well and will try to support it in another comment. But this comment is not on technology, but on the logic of why it is not acceptable to them, in spite of it being very accurate.

    1. Here is a patented technology which is controlled by a private entity with unsure alliances. A set of technicians from that company will control what we see (harder to manipulate snicko), and these technicians are under no control of ICC or subjected to any review process, and we are supposed to trust the results.

    2. The technology is under export control and they are at the mercy of a foreign government who decides if and when they get it. This means any IND/PAK/ZIM player may see this first in the battlefield (international game), while say the Englishmen will have all the time to learn it well in domestic cricket.

    .. to be continued...

  • Jim1207 on June 3, 2011, 3:29 GMT

    @YorkshirePudding and to others who say DRS is more than 90% correct: Let me give an example: Umpire gives out LBW to a ball that just grazes off-stump, it goes to DRS and it will be OUT because umpire gave out. Same scenario when umpire does not give out, it goes to DRS and it gives not-out because umpire did not give it out. So for same delivery, one batsman survives while another batsman would not. Is it correct after using DRS and spending all money to use technology? ICC says umpiring decisions improved by more than 90% while considering that both these scenarios are correct. But they are debatable. DRS is not improving the decision making by more than 90% as people are believing. People have to forget the fact that BCCI opposes and clearly sees what DRS does wrong and does right. Make the usage of technology perfect, that's enough. We can never make 100% decisions all time, but at least use the technology uniformly 100% every time. This is another reason why DRS is to be opposed.

  • Jim1207 on June 3, 2011, 2:04 GMT

    Meety, It is like these comments made by some people like you that some people get arrogant. How can you say that BCCI did something not to make full use of UDRS in world cup? It was not used because it was costly and the hardware were too brittle to be carried out throughout world cup as there are matches going on every day. So Insurance coverage became too costly to handle for ICC and also thought the hardware would not be safe with such travel. This is the truth, please go figure yourself and then shoot out of the mouth. So, DRS technology is not a light-weight technology right now and cannot be used all times even if all countries agree to use, which is another fact, proved in the world cup even as BCCI accepted implementing the same. First, get the technology usable, portable and easily available and then come and blame BCCI.

  • Jim1207 on June 3, 2011, 1:57 GMT

    I just want only one thing to be assured if we are going to use DRS: It must be used to make sure that we do not end up having no reviews in hand and a bad decision made by an umpire. Millions of dollars spent on the hardware and we have a restriction that if the team wastes two reviews unwisely (true its their mistake), a wrong decision still could go wrong (which seems to tell that DRS is ineffective at that time). Why should we put players under pressure to decide to go for review? Let the hardware review a decision in a matter of seconds internally without showing in TV, and let the correct decision be allowed to make instantly if the on-field decision is wrong. Is that so difficult to do after spending so much dollars every game? Then show the TV viewers replay of how the decision is made, no waste of time, game can continue without delays and we can even try to attain 100% of correct decisions in most games. Even BCCI and Indian players would accept if it DRS is such fool-proof.

  • Meety on June 2, 2011, 23:52 GMT

    @ Homer2007 - re: 4 cameras. If the ICC was ABLE to make UDRS mandatory - more cameras would become available. That's pretty obvious & irrelevant to the debate. @rickywanting - i'll 2nd that motion. I'm from Oz & I wonder WHAT Oz & Pommie administartors did that was so bad in cricketing terms!!! I've always suspected the gripes are more about non-cricket issues (with justification). I think that if something is repeated often enough whther its true or not - it becomes accepted as true. Happy to be better informed.

  • Meety on June 2, 2011, 23:36 GMT

    @Homer2007 - hold on a mo, some of the operational issues at the WC involving the UDRS - was that the implementation of the FULL UDRS technology was stiffled partly by the BCCI & economics. UDRS works a hell of a lot better then what was seen at the WC.

  • Amarjitmadan on June 2, 2011, 23:22 GMT

    The idea has positives but the third umpire must be provided with prerequisites i.e in addition to Hawke's eye at least snickometer to start with followed by hot spot.It surely holds promise when one of the team feels that they have been screwed. As regards some suggestions of punishing umpires,it is not justified,cricket fans would like to see the game played in a fair way and not making it a Military event.

  • _NEUTRAL_Fan_ on June 2, 2011, 23:18 GMT

    @rickywanting. The 2 bouncers an over rule in order to hinder the W.I. pace attack comes to mind but hey that didn't stop W.I. from dominating. That is why I truly rate the past W.I. team. Seems like Eng,Aus and Ind need to be in charge off the field to dominate it on the field. I can't admire that.

  • SRT_GENIUS on June 2, 2011, 21:25 GMT

    People... relax. Try to understand the pros and cons before commenting here. Also, try to turn off caps lock -it's equivalent of shouting on the web. Please avoid making comparisons to other sports to justify your point. Also, BCCI is not India or Indians - it's OK to criticize them.

  • NewYorkCricket on June 2, 2011, 20:31 GMT

    DRS is the way to go. It reduces howlers no Doubt. The BCCI of course has Doubts but will unDoubtedly influence the unDoubting members of the nations. I have much doubt over this getting approved.

  • on June 2, 2011, 20:23 GMT

    rickywanting: First, EPL (soccer) is one of the most entertaining sports leagues in the world (you may disagree). I am in no way trying to compare the quality of play or administration of the two sports. All I am trying to imply is that to keep the flamboyance of the game (either cricket or soccer or any other sport), you have to sacrifice a bit of accuracy. I agree that football is a fast paced sport and the comparison, is not of speed, but of the thrill of seeing an umpire under pressure make good and bad decisions. In my opinion, a system like DRS takes the thrill away from the game. But again, thats just my opinion.

  • rickywanting on June 2, 2011, 19:33 GMT

    bigwonder, what exactly were the "one-sided decisions that were made when England and Australia were in total control"? Could you provide a list of unpalatable decisions forced down upon Indians or Asians in general? I'm from Delhi, and I have doubts about whether ICC match referees are entirely fair and, ironically, this hasn't changed despite India being so powerful for at least 15 years now. But I really want to know about the decisions taken by the ICC at the behest of England and Australia that were bad for the game or against the interests of some nations. Thanks.

  • rickywanting on June 2, 2011, 19:26 GMT

    Tarun Sonkhya: You are talking about Premier League football? What's the relevance, mate? Football is a fast-paced sport that can't be stopped for reviews, whereas pauses are inbuilt in cricket. And also, Premier League is hardly the top sports leage in the world (in terms of quality of play or administration) and cricket doesn't need to aspire to its level.

  • S.N.Singh on June 2, 2011, 19:19 GMT

    IF THE "DRS'" SHOULD BE LAW, THE UMIPRES SHOULD BE GIVEN PENALTY. CHARGE MONEYTARY WISE, FOR MAKING WRONG DECISIONS ALSO THEY THE UMPIRES SHOULD BE GIVEN AN INCENTIVE FOR RIGHT DECISIONS. IF NOT WHY DO WE NEED UMPIRES IN A GAME TO DO WHAT. LBW. STUMPING, CAUGHT, RUN-OUT, NO-BAL ETC ALL ARE REFFERED TO THE THIRD UMPIRE. LET US PLAY WITH THE THIRD UMPIRE AND EXTEND THE TIME OF PLAYING. S. N. SINGH FLORIDA

  • Kaushal_b on June 2, 2011, 19:18 GMT

    Who in their right mind made Sharad Pawar president of the BCCI and ICC? But I don't think this corporatization of the game is ever going to stop. People who have no idea about cricket are making way too much money for anyone to care. I think it'll take a deep recession of cricket interest for the ICC to step up. This will only happen once the "sponsors" start losing money on cricket.......but then again, will that ever happen? None of these people even care if stadiums are packed, all they care about is what they make at the end of the day.

  • on June 2, 2011, 18:52 GMT

    For me, the whole DRS thing just dilutes the game. There is an inherent thrill to on field decision making and in the end everything just averages out. To any Englishman ardently supporting DRS because they think that it will add to the game; there is a reason why English Premier League does not have a review system and the reason is precisely what the first sentence of this comment points out to.

  • azzaman333 on June 2, 2011, 18:35 GMT

    Opposition to the DRS on the basis that it isn't perfect is ridiculous. Nothing is perfect. The best we can do is to minimize errors, which is exactly what the DRS does. It should be mandatory.

  • bigwonder on June 2, 2011, 18:11 GMT

    I wish we had FICA back when England and Australia were the powerhouse. I wish we had ESPN Cricinfo, where I could write my comments. Are these participants of FICA forgetting the monopoly and one-sided decisions that were made when England and Australia were in total control. Whats wrong with payback? Deal with it and focus on your cricket and stop taking a shot at BCCI for every possible thing that goes on in Cricket.

  • on June 2, 2011, 17:39 GMT

    I like DRS and i also believe its not faultless!! But its definitely the way forward! But to dub India's objections as Sachin's and Dhoni's insecurity is just not funny at all!! Both of them have proved themselves to be as fair as they come and surely there are not too many shining Aus or English examples for fair play or generosity! Oh yeah sure neither English nor the Aus control ICC now and browbeat other boards and that is surely a very bitter pill to swallow!! So go ahead and whine as much as possible!!

  • on June 2, 2011, 17:30 GMT

    Well my question is if DRS is so good then why limit it to only 3 un-successful appeals ? Does the ICC or DRS- supporters mean to say that after a captain has used up 3 appeals(unsuccessfully) then after that we don't want to know whether the on-field umpires decision was correct or not ? Sounds funny to me.....either it should be valid for all decisions and not restricted to 3 or not there at all ....

  • Homer2007 on June 2, 2011, 17:22 GMT

    Exhibit C - http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/428400.html

    None of Peter Willey's reservations have been adequately addressed by the ICC. And lest it be forgotten, Peter Willey was in the Elite Panel of Umpires.

    Cheers,

  • HOTCHA on June 2, 2011, 17:21 GMT

    DRS is the way to go. There will always be that rare inconclusive decision wrongly given, but on the whole, I see nothing wrong in getting things right, almost every time. Sharad Pawar needs to get back to basics of cricket. Being at the helm of affairs doesn't make him a Mr. Know It All.

  • EVH316 on June 2, 2011, 17:18 GMT

    If there is one sad thing about these comment pages, it is that they portray Indian cricket fans as an astonishingly contentious people. I happen to not really think it so, but what is unusual, to an Englishman, is that whilst we take almost every chance to mock and ridicule our august ruling bodies, there is hardly a comment from an Indian fan that doesn`t support the BCCI`s every move!

  • RaoMeister on June 2, 2011, 17:13 GMT

    It is not India Vs The Rest of the World, its BCCI Vs The Rest of them. I am completely for UDRS. Cricket, I feel, will be much better off when we get rid off politicians' involvement in its administration. People like Sharad Pawar must be kept as far away as possible from BCCI let alone the ICC.

  • Smithie on June 2, 2011, 17:02 GMT

    With UDRS not being used for India West Indies - inspite of it being the perogative of the home side under ICC regulations- the bully boy writing is on the wall.

    Will the ECB stand up to the BCCI and insist on UDRS for the forthcoming series in England. This is a fight for the top spot in Test rankings and needs the highest % of correct umpiring calls - not pandering to the insecurities of Dhoni and Sachin.

  • on June 2, 2011, 16:59 GMT

    Hello guyz, i m not here to make any comments on which side i am right now because i just know the points from the people who are in favor of DRS.. no idea why BCCI is in oppose of it. can anyone tell me the points which BCCI has in mind to oppose it?

  • Bang_La on June 2, 2011, 16:47 GMT

    Stop whinning when things are against the interest of England and Australia. Go and do anything you really can against BCCI!

  • on June 2, 2011, 16:29 GMT

    Fully agree with ram5160. This article is relevant, there is a strong case to make DRS compulsory. ....but as usual Tim May's comments give me a sense of deja vu, that feeling that he speaks with a BIG chip on his shoulder...

  • on June 2, 2011, 16:23 GMT

    What is the use of umpires in the ground ?? All the decisions should be made by the TV umpires only.... ;) What do you think guys... It would be 100% perfect game f cricket.. :)

  • on June 2, 2011, 16:21 GMT

    DRS should be implemented. The only reason India doesn't want DRS as it would hurt their betting system. Yes,it is not perfect, but thats again mostly due to human error. Plus there was no hotspot. Everyone should be talking about how many wrong decisions were reversed due to umpire errors.

  • couchpundit on June 2, 2011, 15:21 GMT

    Dear rob,

    IF YOU CAN Please rubbish Dhonis logic for rejecting DRS, what is the point in having DRS when the umpire who prefers to turn down DRS decision when he doesnt like DRS decision.

    And our Friends who are trying to sell DRS worked on 2.5m theory and some error correction rules to justify such decisions.

    Hell whats the point in whole chirade of going up and then our dude down here doesnt agree with DRS...case in point IAN BELL decision in world cup

  • on June 2, 2011, 15:20 GMT

    IT IS NOT AT ALL AN ISSUE, WHETHER BCCI ACCEPT IT OR NOT, THE ICC SHOULD TAKE DECISION ON MAJORITY OF MEMBERS VIEWS AND IMPLEMENT UDRS BUT IF IT HAS TECHNICAL PROBLEM, APPOINT A COMMITTEE TO DECIDE ON IT,FINALLY IMPLEMENT THE UDRS RULE. DURING THE WORLD CUP THERE WAS ARGUMENTS ON UDRS DECISION. MY REQUEST TO ICC DISCUSS THE ISSUE ELABORATELY, DISCUSS PRO AND CONS BEFORE TAKING FINAL DECISION

  • Sandeep.Jain on June 2, 2011, 15:18 GMT

    Why is that "English" Media & Players rarely publishes genuine concerns from BCCI?

    Stop bashing BCCI on every issue. Suck Up and Move On. The deficiency of UDRS was up for public display. Unless the underlying support structure is implemented, there will be huge gap in its capabilities and applicability.

    BCCI's concerns are about support structure and rules behind it.

    To me it looks like FICA is jealous on success of IPL and World Cup and the leverage it has on BCCI. Hence the ranting from Tim May

    Grow Up Rob Seen and Tim May. Be a man as opposed to Wimpy Kids.

  • couchpundit on June 2, 2011, 15:13 GMT

    Dear Rob, Cricinfo Blogger and DRS supporters, Why do you concede nothing is perfect, We bring in Technology to acheive perfection and not improve the ration of bette descisions. You whole premise is wrong.

    UNLESS laws or clear (to avoid infamous incedent like IAN BELL) which it is not as you yourself would agree... why push for it....

    I would like to know which corporate interest is pushing this near perfect or near imperfect technology...i would love to know the lobbying group behind this.

    And it baffles me so called Cricket Purists who hate T20 love to see DRS...just because a non-white/Sub-continent nation is questioning its Integrity?

    Get a life!!

  • on June 2, 2011, 15:11 GMT

    hi there i am against BCCI i wanna go with UDRS SYSTEM

  • coolangel on June 2, 2011, 14:48 GMT

    DRS will one day be universal is a given fact, acknowledged by everybody; BCCI and Indian players included. However the present system is far from perfect. As Dhoni pointed it is a sort of hybrid where 3rd Umpire makes judgement calls depending upon what he sees. With the availability of technology the definition of 'Howler' is changing too. So we need to fine tune this system before it becomes universal. DRS.2 version presently employed is at best 1 of the stepping stones before we arrive at the best system. Please take Indian criticism objectively and try to solve these issues. Even Ireland had an issue with DRS at world cup. DRS needs furhter trial before it can be applied in all situations.

  • InsideHedge on June 2, 2011, 14:43 GMT

    Rob, the Packer circus never hired a single Indian player. And don't tell me, there weren't any world-class Indians around. Packer is given far too much credit, as if he is single-handedly responsible for the existence of the game. Once the Packer circus was over, only the Oz, WI and England players began to be better paid. It's really time someone reported some facts on the before and after regards the Kerry Packer affair.

  • InsideHedge on June 2, 2011, 14:33 GMT

    @Sheikh Asfandyar: You weren't proud of your '92 win? :) As for "never would have won", that is pure speculation on your part. For all we know, India may have finished with a higher total had SRT been given out. We'll never know. And, if DRS wasn't present then we may well have seen different results in all the games. Who's to say that India and Pak would have met in the QFs? I think it's fair to say your fielders were the real reason why Tendulkar added 50 odd more runs than he should have. And that, my dear Sheikh, was literally in your hands.

  • InsideHedge on June 2, 2011, 14:29 GMT

    Rob, with all due respect, had you been writing for cricinfo when the Kerry Packer circus was first revealed, I have no doubt that you would have railed against Packer. History has been re-written where Packer is concerned. Any good that came out of Packer's flirtation with cricket was purely accidental. He never had grand visions for the game, he was a greedy businessman who only cared for his TV channel. Packer made plenty of visits to Vegas where he spent MORE money on a single bet than he ever paid out to the "impoverished" players.

  • YorkshirePudding on June 2, 2011, 14:21 GMT

    Those that say DRS shouldnt be introduced because it isnt 100% are wrong, the simple matter is that no system is ever 100% and never will be. Even Human umpires are not 100% correct. I remember the screams from the BCCI for Steve Bucknors head after the Sydney match a few years ago. If DRS had been in use then I'm sure India could have won the game. It seems that the BCCI just want to play the victim card when they dont get the results they want. Yet wont embrace tehnology that would resolve 90% of those issues. At present umpires get about 93-94% of thier decisions correct, with DRS that rises to around 99%.

  • concerned_cricketer on June 2, 2011, 13:36 GMT

    "....yet detected by an almighty burp and a teeny speck on the side of the bat, courtesy those brothers in charms, Snicko and HotSpot." Rob, that's incorrect. Snicko was not used for this decision review. The data wasn't availbale until much later (about 10 minutes, i think). So it was based purely on the hot spot and the replays from different angles. In tis case when the snicko also became available, it has become clear that the decision based on the review was a good one. But so often it has come back with ridiculous looking decisions.

    India has had the benefit of DRS most recently when Sachin was given not out against Pakistan in the world cup semis when it looked out to the naked eye. So this time, the only reason why BCCI doesn't trust it is purely because it can't be trusted to be accurate not because of any political vested interest.

  • ram5160 on June 2, 2011, 13:26 GMT

    Agree with 90% of the article except May's words.

  • shoeb_ak on June 2, 2011, 13:24 GMT

    DRS should be accepted only when it is 100% perfect. Otherwise, there is no point in using a technology that has many loopholes. Take the case of 2011 World Cup. There were many controversial decisions given with the use of DRS. I am totally with BCCI in it's stand against the technology.

  • on June 2, 2011, 12:53 GMT

    its typical hypocrasy from india ..if its not down to DRS india would never ever have won the cricket world cup they are so proud of ...who can forget sachin tendulkar was given out on 21 and he went on to make 80+ against pakistan in the semi final ..no indian came out and said this isnt fair at that time

  • Jeyganesh on June 2, 2011, 12:47 GMT

    I dont understand the concept of two referals, if any team has used it for the first two decisions, then what about the remaining decision. Is it correct, the erroneous decisions are upheld even with DRS? My suggestion is keep the DRS with the third umpire and give him the power to reverse any howlers by the on field umpire. By this way, even a no.11 batsman given a wrong decision will survive.

  • ambrishsundaram on June 2, 2011, 12:30 GMT

    A bit of a "sinister" reason why Dhoni, BCCI et al are against the DRS: It will expose the weaknesses of the Indian bowling attack. The wickets that the Indian bowlers get by pressurising the umpires, will no longer be available if the DRS is implemented. It might also show the likes of Harbhajan in very poor light - both in terms of scrutinising their actions and in terms of recording their antics (a la the Symonds affair). How's that for a conspiracy theory? :-) :-) :-)

  • on June 2, 2011, 12:20 GMT

    "It is not perfect" is one of the weirder arguments I have heard. I think Dhoni has not heard the question correctly. The question is not "is it perfect" BUT "Does the DRS make the decision making better." Better Dhoni. Not perfect. Better.

  • amit1807kuwait on June 2, 2011, 12:17 GMT

    @Rahul_78 - you need to read what Homer has mentioned about the flaws of DRS. Just because BCCI is unable to eloquently present its position on DRS, everyone seems to believe that they are the villain in the process. As an idea, DRS was the brainchild of the Indian players especially when they suffered howlers at the hands of Steve Bucknor in Sydney, but until the technology guarantees similar results in all conditions, it would be a folly to implement DRS universally.

  • Gizza on June 2, 2011, 12:04 GMT

    Charindra sums it up well. In cricket politics India may well control the world but within India, Tendulkar and Dhoni control the BCCI. So the main reason why the DRS isn't moving forward is because in the first series than Tendulkar and Dhoni encountered the DRS, they didn't use it too well. That said I still don't think the current system is perfect. As Ian Chappell says, it encourages players to rebel against the umpire's decision far too much. Also eg. in an ODI if a team has 1 review remaining in the innings and 48 or 49 overs are done, they will still use the last review just when the ball say hits the pads (but clearly not out). In those situations even the bowler knows they have 0% chance of overturning the decision but they waste time. There needs to be an incentive not to use it for 50-50s (in the end the umpire's decision then stands), only useful when the howlers are overturned.

  • Oz_Plonka on June 2, 2011, 12:02 GMT

    @Charindra, Dhoni didn't say he won't wear a life-jacket that doesn't come with a warranty, he said he'll buy one with a warranty. That, my friend, is a huge difference and doesn't make your post all that clever.

  • nair_ottappalam on June 2, 2011, 11:59 GMT

    If at all India gets through with their opposition of the UDRS, it will just be a victory of money power. I strongly support the UDRS despite being an Indian. I can't understand why the BCCI is opposing UDRS altogether. There are some grey areas in the system which needs to be addressed and rectified. Overall the UDRS makes an on-field umpire think twice before making a decision. Many a times, I have seen England at the receiving end on account of sub-standard umpiring. In the world cup 1999 a dubious decision against Thrope ensured that England were out of the tournament. Sachin has been at the receiving end at the hands of Bucknor very often. Ashoka Desilva had been so arrogant against Indian batsmen. These things can be made good through the UDRS system. Rectify the flaws and use the system effectively

  • gargi_vizag on June 2, 2011, 11:55 GMT

    The cost of all these technologies is finally borne by the paying/viewing spectator directly or indirectly. The ICC instead of introducing DRS should instead empower the match umpires to take decisions and just as in any other job, if the umpire is not good he is shown the door.Maybe DRS could still be used in cases of run outs since the umpire may not always have enough time to get into correct positions to be able to decide.The ICC needs to act on proposals like refusing runners, stiffer penalties for poor over rate, introducing 2 bouncers per over, increasing bowling limit in one dayers to 15 overs for 2 bowlers. These would make the game more balanced and real talent would only survive!!!

  • butterhandsfingers on June 2, 2011, 11:39 GMT

    Like many people I at first was against the UDRS, but it works, beyond any doubt. It may not be able to get every decision bang on, but turning over 95% of incorrect decisions, I don't know how anyone can debate it. Ali Cook, for example, was ridiculously given out on 35(?) odd in Adelaide, got the decision overturned, then justly made a massive score to help England win the match. Who can disagree with the UDRS based on instances like that, and many others? I assume we won't be using it for the India tests becuase the BCCI will refuse to tour or something if we do. At the very least it should be at the discretion of the home side, then every team other than India can use it

  • Smithie on June 2, 2011, 11:35 GMT

    Snicko cannot be used in UDRS because of the extended time it takes for the analysis ( 7 mins I think). Hotspot India likes and if it wants to use it then then what guarantees can it provide on protection of the intellectual property rights of the Aussie inventors? Given India ranks 87th for international corruption and transparency (Transparency International Berlin ) no wonder the Aussies wanted the cameras returned within 7 days of use - a request that was declined and hence no deal !

    Pawar is member of the ICC Cricket Committee and if he disagreed with their recommendation on UDRS he should have stated that publicly at the time. So will he back his committee or side with BCCI's Srinivasan who is looking more and more like the Sep Blatter of cricket over UDRS.

    Time for the rest of cricket's journalists (Roebuck, Atherton, Bogle etc ) to take a forensic look at the politicking for the Hong Kong ICC Exec meeting! Will the final decision on UDRS rest with Chingoke of Zimbabwe !!!!!?

  • indstatinst on June 2, 2011, 11:32 GMT

    If the use of DRS is to reduce "howlers", the only way it can be done is by using snicko and hot spot. And I dont think BCCI has any opposition to snicko and hot spot. Ball tracking is already imperfect, remove ball tracking and BCCI will accept it.

  • dinosaurus on June 2, 2011, 11:24 GMT

    "The new idea isn't perfect, therefore I oppose bringing it in." Since *nothing* *ever* designed by a human is, or can be, perfect following that plan means that *nothing* *ever* would change. Not, I think, a recipe for successful management of a sport which is after a main sport played by one of the major powerhouses of world events (India).

  • MartinAmber on June 2, 2011, 11:19 GMT

    I don't like DRS at all, but I accept we can't go back and pretend we never used it. I agree very strongly with Rahul Ramachandran (03:09 GMT) when he says that if we have a review system it should be in the hands of the umpires. This is how technology was introduced for run-outs, so why should the authority of the umpire be undermined for other decisions? I loathe how use of reviews has become a tactic in what is already a sublimely tactical sport. My other main objection is perhaps the flipside of the increase in favourable lbw decisions - players challenging what are almost certainly clean catches, because they know the third umpire is unlikely to decide against them on the evidence of a 2D image, or because they know the third umpire can't use 'Snicko'. Nathan McCullum's in the World Cup was the worst example of the former, and the reprieve of Ian Bell in Sydney the worst example of the latter. And don't use the 'to correct howlers' argument - KP's wasn't a 'howler' at all.

  • wibblewibble on June 2, 2011, 11:00 GMT

    BCCI intentionally crippled UDRS for the world cup by refusing to use hotspot, which reduces the effectiveness massively. UDRS+hotspot is not perfect - nothing is - it gets us closer to not having bad decisions. For instance, given out LBW after an inside edge no longer has the batsman fuming back into the hutch, or faint nicks not being given.

    BCCI and every Indian cricket fan love to remind us how much wealth and power they now have in the game. If the cash strapped ECB can afford hotspot cameras, I'm sure the BCCI can stump up for some.

    @chiko123: are you suggesting that the makers of HawkEye, a tiny firm in England, pay kickbacks/bribes to BCCI to get them to use it? HawkEye is only one of the approved mechanisms for UDRS, in Australia they use a competing system which is just as effective. If Indian protectionism is so important, there is nothing to stop an Indian firm developing an equivalent solution and having it certified.

  • dr.thirsty on June 2, 2011, 10:53 GMT

    It'll be interesting to see how the votes stack up on this one as it will show whether BBCI are fundamentally opposed to DRS or are having second thoughts. Assuming a simple majority is needed to pass a motion and that all boards other than BCCI are in favour of DRS, there are 2 scenarios that occur to me; 1. BCCI see the way the wind is blowing and choose to keep their powder dry for other battles. However, to back down now would involve loss of face and that cannot happen. In this case they quietly vote against whilst the other boards vote in favour. DRS becomes mandatory and BCCI can claim kudos for graciously acceding to the democratic process. 2. BCCI are deadset against DRS and are determined to maintain the status quo. In this case, they call in their chits and obtain the necessary votes. Job done and the situation remains as is. If it turns out to be scenario 2, then at the very least we will know who owns whom. As I said, it'll be interesting.

  • on June 2, 2011, 10:01 GMT

    I'm a big supporter of DR's. It's not perfect and it's detractors can easily find errors if they want to. However I feel they miss the point at times. DR's isn't there to be 100% accurate and eliminate all umpiring errors from the game. It's there to minimise the obvious errors that does the game no favours.

    If you can clearly see that a batsman has nicked it to the keeper, or has been given out when he hasn't touched it, why should that be allowed to stand? The technology will continue to improve and we shouldn't be afraid of using it to help the umpires in their role.

  • sonofchennai on June 2, 2011, 9:39 GMT

    Why are ppl not understanding DRS??? IT IS TO REDUCE IMPERFECTIONS as Rob put at it....Bell's reprieve was unaceeptabel to me as well but that doesnt mean the system is useless...i find it hard to understand how criketing brains like MSD and Sachin fail to understand the essence of the system

  • rustyryan on June 2, 2011, 9:25 GMT

    How many examples you need to prove DRS is fault? Even in the first test between Eng and SL, there were two controversial decision. Even with hot-spot you cant predict the faint nick. And reviewing LBW is the worst of al. Instead of spending money on UDRS, spend it wisely on Umpires. MAke sure Umpires are up to the standards. Jus to oppose BCCI, al nations are tryin to project UDRS as a error-prone system. UDRS is a joke.

  • rkannancrown on June 2, 2011, 9:15 GMT

    Dhoni's opposition to UDRS is based on a fundamental principle - you either accept umpire's decision or the UDRS. If the tracking technology is not perfect, why is ICC keen to force down on cricket ? There is no debate about line decisions because technology is accepted. There is another issue that is rarely discussed. If BCCI is the bully (as Cricinfo always portrays), why is it that very few Indian umpires or match refrees are around? How can somebody like Bucknor (who was famous for giving several wrong decisions & all against India in every match that he umpired where India was one of the teams) be even considered for the panels ? The fact is most of ICC panels are nothing but BCCI bashing bodies and have done little to improve the game.

  • on June 2, 2011, 9:05 GMT

    These say No to UDRS but still cries like a baby if some decision goes wrong against them and forces the umpires to step down.. Great Spirit !

  • on June 2, 2011, 8:45 GMT

    the BCCI should not hold off any more. the UDRS, with all its problems, makes the game a more fair one. also, it offers a reason for the bowlers to exist, in this day and age of cricket roads rather than pitches.

  • mirchy on June 2, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    There are just too many ambiguities in the UDRS as the Ian Bell example shows. I'm sure the BCCI would stand corrected, if the final decision was taken out of human hands. In other words, the UDRS decision should never be reversed by human hand under any circumstances. Such a ruling would have obliterated Billy Bowden's decision to counter the UDRS. The 2.5m law brings in a further ambiguity in the decision making process. I think the BCCI is right in claiming that as long as the full ambit of technical support is not available (i.e. hot-spot and snicko) to all cricket playing nations and the human hand (read tv operators) is nullified, there can be no reliance on the UDRS. Fighting the BCCI with empty pockets and no solution in the event of the money source drying up is like trying to scare a tiger with a growl and is tantamount to self-destructive stupidity.

  • kirksland on June 2, 2011, 8:33 GMT

    I am a supporter of the DRS but only if all methods are available and if it is administered by the 3rd umpire and not the players. The it is a perfect system and should be universally accepted.

  • on June 2, 2011, 8:22 GMT

    my question to Rob....... Why was this question not asked asian countries were the victim of the unfair and biased attitude from ECB and ACB... they both were misusing the powers for a long time, John Howard and other names along with lot of umpires and officials from England and Australia were involved in racism charges ......... there was always a descimination factor involved in it........ you also know this Rob, dont you?Other wise you wont be a cricket journalist. its not worth crying , as life is a cycle............. the truth has to win and the cycle comes back even after few hundred years ago,, BCCI is powerful and atleast they are not desciminating as it was done in past ........ with other boards

  • nightcrawler8426 on June 2, 2011, 8:21 GMT

    @ Homer2007: well said...I guess not few indians but MANY indians bash about BCCI...money generated by IPL has not only made many indian players rich but also international players and boards.

  • dam12641 on June 2, 2011, 8:02 GMT

    BCCI are against DRS because they don't own the software. If they don't own the software they can't make any money from it. Ergo, they are against it. Simples.

  • Srini_Indian on June 2, 2011, 7:13 GMT

    I can't understand why DRS is supported by many countries. Its effective only when there is hot spot. Even hot spot can't detect very faint nicks. If DRS is employed throughout, how many countries can afford hot spot which requires very expensive IR cameras. India, Australia, England, SA alone could afford. Then what about SL, Pak, WI, NZ, Ban, ZIM? Is this the uniformity that the others wish? The hawk-eye is a flawed technology. Guys think about this. Hawk-eye predicts the path by the length where it was pitched and the point where it strikes the pad of the batsman. If a loopy leg spin and a flatter flipper pitched in same length it predicts the same but the common sense shows loopy leg spin bounces more than a flatter trajectory. DRS is not the accurate and hence BCCI opposes it. We can leave it to the umpires since we don't have Bucknor, Benson.

  • bala-chala on June 2, 2011, 7:07 GMT

    The ICC meeting in Hong Kong will clearly show how much influence the BCCI has on the decision making of the ICC. It will also show who are the BCCI's lapdogs and which boards have the guts to do what is necessary for the growth of cricket. I'm looking forward to the results of this meeting.

  • avis_2010 on June 2, 2011, 6:49 GMT

    Just check recent poll this article and the poll survey is misleading. Who participate in the poll ? I mean which countries ? # of players etc ? Dont think India or Pakistan participated in the poll survey. Why the question itself was there on ICC vs BCCI or risks/"unfair" influence of BCCI on ICC ? It shows the whole intent of the poll itself. At the same time majority of players (who? how many? we dont know) agree upon unfair influence of BCCI over ICC but at the same time agreeing they will leave international cricket to play IPL ? what are we trying to find out here ? This shows money influence - whether its at board level (BCCI) or player's level is same. Nobody is a saint here and everybody is influenced by money including players and a gentleman called "Ranatunga" who appeared on the TV commercials during the BCCI conducted World Cup but now criticizing it ! So why blame BCCI. Lets accept it they have brought money in it, done so much commercialization missing earlier...

  • somu1984 on June 2, 2011, 6:37 GMT

    I am not opposing the use of DRS but it has to be fair enough. We must use best possible technologies available such as hawkeye, hotspots, snickometer etc and a master to control these technology. This will improve transperancy in the game of cricket. It will surely negate bad umpiring. Let me rewind to recently concluded World Cup where we had witnessed lots of umpiring error which could prove a game changing moments had DRS rule not been implemented. E.g. Sachin Tendulkar dismissal versus Pakistan where initially umpire had ruled him out LBW off Saeed Ajmal. But with the help of technology, he survived a close call. In that scenario we cannot blame umpires simply because it is impossible to judge a close cases like this with naked eye. Alas! hotspot & Snickometer were not used which gives clear picture of what is happening. If we need help of technology then right (foolproof) technology has to be used and right technician has to be deployed - then we can comment on its effectivenes

  • venkatesh018 on June 2, 2011, 6:37 GMT

    Lack of funds for the UDRS is an eyewash. It should be very easy for the ICC or the BCCI to find a sponsor for the UDRS review, whose logo can be shown on the screen every time a UDRS review situation comes up on the field. C'mon BCCI man up and accept the UDRS. You will be doing a great service to the game.

  • Charindra on June 2, 2011, 6:35 GMT

    M.S. Dhoni is one of the most fascinating and incredible personalities cricket has seen in a long time. But one quote from him about DRS sums up this sorry situation for me. "It is not always correct. If I am going to buy a life jacket which does not come with a warranty, that's a bit of a hassle for me..." So Mr. Dhoni would rather jump from a plane without a life jacket than wearing one that has a 90% chance of saving his life! Now that, to me, is utterly stupid, especially coming from the captain of India. I believe Sachin shares these views and the 2 of them wield enough power to force the BCCI to oppose the system. Sehwag is actually in favour of DRS although his views don't matter in the end.

  • Rahul_78 on June 2, 2011, 6:22 GMT

    This is getting nauseating, it is like you invent a drug that prevents a mass outbreak of a epidemic but has minor side effects and unfortunately those side effects were first hand experienced by the bully who decides weather the drug should be made available to all who are willing. India has a an astute captain in MS Dhoni and it would be very interesting to listen to his views on DRS in person off the records..I dont see any reason why a sensible person like him will appose the DRS usage in international cricket. The rot set in that tour of Lanka where Anil Kumble surprisingly failed to gauge the usage of the system and then it snow balled into the ego issue of BCCI vs others. Some common sense should prevail and DRS should be implemented ASAP.

  • amit1807kuwait on June 2, 2011, 6:20 GMT

    @Homer2007 - well said, mate! No one could probably say it better! The flavor of the season is to bitch about BCCI without rhyme or reason. I suppose its a case of sour grapes.

  • chiko123 on June 2, 2011, 5:44 GMT

    Lets come to the real question - how much money will the company that came up with DRS pay to the BCCI or Indian government in case BCCI supports DRS? Are they going to create jobs in India and pay Indian taxes on each and every rupee they make? I am pretty sure this company is only going to benefit the coffers of rich north or west. I cant understand why BCCI is allowing this company to survive. And for sure why all the underdeveloped countries supporting this DRS. I think it is high time for BCCI to develop their own technology and force it on ICC - I dont think DRS is any great technology with lot of intellectual property rights and all. It just simple geometrical calculations based on images and some dubious rules e.g. 2.5 m rule which doesn't even account for the speed of ball which really determines the number of available frames - just supports fast bowlers which the countries produce and bring disadvantage to spinners which rich countries cant play.

  • santoshjohnsamuel on June 2, 2011, 5:39 GMT

    I'm for the DRS in all cases, except the LBW. The umpire should be allowed to decide on the LBW (DRS could be used to determine a bat/pad case). The umpire is best placed to decide whether or not a ball would have gone on to hit the stumps, and the other factors that need to be accounted for. Replays of LBW decisions during the last WC showed that the umpires were spot on at most times (94%). True, there could be some errors; but that is a part of the game, and players and spectators by and large accept this fact and realise that the few errors that occur eventually even out. To refer to the DRS each time the ball hits the pad diminishes the role of the umpire, who is also part of the charm. Die-hard proponents of the DRS need to answer why it should be allowed only until two wrong reviews? If the logic is to get each LBW decision 100% in tune with the TV replay, there ought to be no limit on the number of times a team should be allowed to go for the DRS?

  • skepticaloptimist on June 2, 2011, 5:20 GMT

    The day when people start start to talk too much about your power and influence, you know that you are up there. With the tag of "superpower" comes a great responsibility. I'm an Indian, and not overly convinced with the UDRS, but I still think it should be employed. It may not give the correct decision every time, but it can't do any harm. As Rob said, it reduces the bad decisions. I'm not a fan of that 2.5 meters rule, but oh well ... The system can't make everyone happy. Though, I do like the technology used in England. The UDRS becomes quite foolproof with the usage of Hotspot and Snicko.

  • Praxis on June 2, 2011, 4:40 GMT

    At last one detailed article we find in cricinfo on this important matter. I fear just the heading of this piece might through a few readers off, hope they take their time to read it thoroughly. Given all those imperfection of this DRS and few confusing rules we can still answer one simple question, is the game better with or without it.? Because given enough time DRS will improve as it has so much by now.

  • Y2SJ on June 2, 2011, 4:19 GMT

    Hold on.. BCCI is opposing the DRS in its current form. If the technical glitches highlighted by them are cleared, they would welcome it.

  • on June 2, 2011, 4:18 GMT

    @Rob Steen - I have two questions; 1. Is the issue here about the excessive power that the BCCI wields or 2. The DRS not being adopted universally? If it is the latter (as I hope) then the answer is fairly straightforward. The whole objective of the DRS is to reduce human error and to reduce howlers, however the DRS has a degree of human error itself (viz. the Murray Vs. Ljubjic match at Indian Wells) and the technologies involved are in development. Also the hawkeye images donot show the degree of error involved and no proper training or understanding has been imparted to the players or the officials (why is nobody talking about the high number of wrong appeals at the world cup). The current opinion of taking the DRS to be sacrosanct is wrong. The rationale behind BCCI's reluctance might be that if an umpire gets a decision wrong it can be considered as a part of the game, if a computer gets it wrong it cannot. A suitable compromise would be to allow players to go to the third umpire.

  • Homer2007 on June 2, 2011, 4:17 GMT

    Mr Steen mentions Hotspot but nowhere is there a mention of the fact that it is not mandatory per the ICC DRS requirements. Nor is there mention of the fact that the Hotspot technology is governed by export controls, thus making its availability limited. Nor is there mention of the fact that there are only 4 Hotspot cameras available, thus limiting its usage in concurrent tests. Nor is there mention of the fact that all 4 cameras are required for any Test/ODI/T20 given that 2 cameras do not adequately capture all of the images required to make a conclusive decision. Not to mention that once temperature get into the high 100s, Hotspot technology, as it currently stands, is at best a sketchy guide to whether the ball made contact with bat or glove. But then again, its India vs the Rest, so it surely must be India's fault.

    For a more robust discussion on technology, check this out http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/search/label/Technology

    Cheers,

  • HatsforBats on June 2, 2011, 4:07 GMT

    India really need to concede on this one. The full implementation of the DRS is inevitable, and, apparently, overwhelmingly supported by the players. The only thing I want as a fan is a fair and hard-fought contest, and that means incorrect decisions can not be allowed to detract from the result.

  • Homer2007 on June 2, 2011, 3:41 GMT

    India was outvoted 8-1 when the ICC introduced the T20 format in the form of a World Cup in 2007. And now everyone and his uncle who is not an Indian ( and a few Indians too) bitch about the IPL.

    The BCCI was the only board to oppose the oppressive regimen of the whereabouts clause laid down by WADA, leading to a more pragmatic solution devised by the ICC.

    There are enough flaws in the technology as is, coupled with the rather vague guidelines that the ICC has with regards to what constitutes the DRS. Not once has Mr Steen taken the effort to refer to these in the entire article.

    That the ICC had to alter playing conditions midway through the World Cup after the Ian Bell incident speaks volumes of the effectiveness of the DRS, in its present state.

    But since its open season, feel free to bash the BCCI for crimes real or imagined.

    Cheers,

  • Homer2007 on June 2, 2011, 3:39 GMT

    India was outvoted 8-1 when the ICC introduced the T20 format in the form of a World Cup in 2007. And now everyone and his uncle who is not an Indian ( and a few Indians too) bitch about the IPL.

    The BCCI was the only board to oppose the oppressive regimen of the whereabouts clause laid down by WADA, leading to a more pragmatic solution devised by the ICC.

    There are enough flaws in the technology as is, coupled with the rather vague guidelines that the ICC has with regards to what constitutes the DRS. Not once has Mr Steen taken the effort to refer to these in the entire article.

    That the ICC had to alter playing conditions midway through the World Cup after the Ian Bell incident speaks volumes of the effectiveness of the DRS, in its present state.

    But since its open season, feel free to bash the BCCI for crimes real or imagined.

    Cheers,

  • lffuser2128 on June 2, 2011, 3:31 GMT

    Rob, its unfortunate, but the money is with the Indians. They are running the show, so they should have the say in it. When England (ECB) has the money, they can come, and dictate terms. This is business, and money is what gets the work done.

  • gsivakumar3010 on June 2, 2011, 3:15 GMT

    Interesting article. I understand that DRS is the way forward and most countries are in favor of implementing DRS. Given that ICC is run by the group of test nations and each nation has a vote each, to blame the entire DRS fiasco on BCCI alone doesn't make sense to me. Granted they are the main money spinners but isn't it the duty of the other nations to vote on issues in such a way to protect their rights? If they prefer to fall in bed with BCCI just to milk more money out of India, who is at fault? Just the BCCI or the money hungry boards of other nations or both? Not absolving the BCCI here but why don't you writers ask your home boards not to sell their soul for some Indian rupees.

  • on June 2, 2011, 3:09 GMT

    Mate, I'm with you, but let's make this specifically "BCCI vs the Rest". As far as public opinion in India goes, most are in favor of the system. One alteration of the DRS system to make more happy is that it is placed into the umpire's hands. The problem is that if you lose your two opportunities to overturn an umpire's decision as a fielding captain, and you get those wrong, you are left with no reviews. If then, the umpire makes an actual folly, you can't overturn it. Give the umpire the 4 reviews per innings that both captains have together. I think you'll get close to getting the right decisions almost always. Even if it slows play by half an hour collectively, it's totally worth it.

  • ashlatchem on June 2, 2011, 3:07 GMT

    I can see BCCI's reluctance towards DRS. (I didn't always feel this way). The DRS was introduced originally to get rid of the howler which to be honest it isn't doing. If we go back to the first ashes test and Mike Hussey being given Not out on 85 when he was struck plum in front because of 2 noises. (Ian Chappell made the point that if Aleem Dar could go back and check it he wouldv'e seen that both pads were hit). That was a game changing decision and in that spell of Anderson's even if they had 2 reviews at the beginning they probably wouldv'e been used already cause there was 3 or 4 very close LBW shouts. The problem is the BCCI has so much power that when it says yes the DRS is fine let's go with it then that is probably what's going to happen when lets face it it's not fine. Changes need to be made. The situation now is the DRS will probably still be used and the BCCI will complain until they think the system is good enough. Hopefully mutual agreement isn't too far off...

  • on June 2, 2011, 2:59 GMT

    And come to think that the genesis of DRS was in Steve Bucknor sleeping on the pitch to give Andrew Symonds not out in Sydney in 2008 to an edge that moved from Sydney to Melbourne...

  • grimmettfan on June 2, 2011, 2:57 GMT

    Excellent article as ever from Steen. A couple of factual points: 1. The rule change allowing lbw for a ball pitching outside off stump was instituted in 1937, so it was very much in place in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, "traditionalist" cricket fans at the time, including the editor of Wisden, lobbied extensively for the old rule to be brought back (unsuccessfully). However, the modification allowing the ball that hit the batsmen outside off, if he is not offering a shot, did not take place until 1970. 2. There is nothing "radical" about the Cricket Committee's Mankading suggestion, which would just revert to the rule that existed (and rightly so) for most of the history of test cricket.

  • allblue on June 2, 2011, 2:48 GMT

    I was initially opposed to the introduction, primarily because I thought it would have the effect of undermining the on-field umpire. The last thing we want in cricket is the dissent which so blights other sports. However, having seen the system in operation, and the players positive response to it, I cannot understand why anyone would object to it. The predictive element of Hawkeye is not infallible, whatever the inventor claims, so the the 'Umpire's Call' built-in margin for error is a sound development. But the horrible missed snicks, armguard deflections, balls pitched outside leg and hitting outside the line are now 99% accurate - assuming the captain doesn't abuse the system and waste referrals - so who could reasonably object to that? Two referrals is the right amount IMO. A very good development for cricket, and in years to come we'll wonder how we ever did without it, rather like the wearing of helmets.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • allblue on June 2, 2011, 2:48 GMT

    I was initially opposed to the introduction, primarily because I thought it would have the effect of undermining the on-field umpire. The last thing we want in cricket is the dissent which so blights other sports. However, having seen the system in operation, and the players positive response to it, I cannot understand why anyone would object to it. The predictive element of Hawkeye is not infallible, whatever the inventor claims, so the the 'Umpire's Call' built-in margin for error is a sound development. But the horrible missed snicks, armguard deflections, balls pitched outside leg and hitting outside the line are now 99% accurate - assuming the captain doesn't abuse the system and waste referrals - so who could reasonably object to that? Two referrals is the right amount IMO. A very good development for cricket, and in years to come we'll wonder how we ever did without it, rather like the wearing of helmets.

  • grimmettfan on June 2, 2011, 2:57 GMT

    Excellent article as ever from Steen. A couple of factual points: 1. The rule change allowing lbw for a ball pitching outside off stump was instituted in 1937, so it was very much in place in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, "traditionalist" cricket fans at the time, including the editor of Wisden, lobbied extensively for the old rule to be brought back (unsuccessfully). However, the modification allowing the ball that hit the batsmen outside off, if he is not offering a shot, did not take place until 1970. 2. There is nothing "radical" about the Cricket Committee's Mankading suggestion, which would just revert to the rule that existed (and rightly so) for most of the history of test cricket.

  • on June 2, 2011, 2:59 GMT

    And come to think that the genesis of DRS was in Steve Bucknor sleeping on the pitch to give Andrew Symonds not out in Sydney in 2008 to an edge that moved from Sydney to Melbourne...

  • ashlatchem on June 2, 2011, 3:07 GMT

    I can see BCCI's reluctance towards DRS. (I didn't always feel this way). The DRS was introduced originally to get rid of the howler which to be honest it isn't doing. If we go back to the first ashes test and Mike Hussey being given Not out on 85 when he was struck plum in front because of 2 noises. (Ian Chappell made the point that if Aleem Dar could go back and check it he wouldv'e seen that both pads were hit). That was a game changing decision and in that spell of Anderson's even if they had 2 reviews at the beginning they probably wouldv'e been used already cause there was 3 or 4 very close LBW shouts. The problem is the BCCI has so much power that when it says yes the DRS is fine let's go with it then that is probably what's going to happen when lets face it it's not fine. Changes need to be made. The situation now is the DRS will probably still be used and the BCCI will complain until they think the system is good enough. Hopefully mutual agreement isn't too far off...

  • on June 2, 2011, 3:09 GMT

    Mate, I'm with you, but let's make this specifically "BCCI vs the Rest". As far as public opinion in India goes, most are in favor of the system. One alteration of the DRS system to make more happy is that it is placed into the umpire's hands. The problem is that if you lose your two opportunities to overturn an umpire's decision as a fielding captain, and you get those wrong, you are left with no reviews. If then, the umpire makes an actual folly, you can't overturn it. Give the umpire the 4 reviews per innings that both captains have together. I think you'll get close to getting the right decisions almost always. Even if it slows play by half an hour collectively, it's totally worth it.

  • gsivakumar3010 on June 2, 2011, 3:15 GMT

    Interesting article. I understand that DRS is the way forward and most countries are in favor of implementing DRS. Given that ICC is run by the group of test nations and each nation has a vote each, to blame the entire DRS fiasco on BCCI alone doesn't make sense to me. Granted they are the main money spinners but isn't it the duty of the other nations to vote on issues in such a way to protect their rights? If they prefer to fall in bed with BCCI just to milk more money out of India, who is at fault? Just the BCCI or the money hungry boards of other nations or both? Not absolving the BCCI here but why don't you writers ask your home boards not to sell their soul for some Indian rupees.

  • lffuser2128 on June 2, 2011, 3:31 GMT

    Rob, its unfortunate, but the money is with the Indians. They are running the show, so they should have the say in it. When England (ECB) has the money, they can come, and dictate terms. This is business, and money is what gets the work done.

  • Homer2007 on June 2, 2011, 3:39 GMT

    India was outvoted 8-1 when the ICC introduced the T20 format in the form of a World Cup in 2007. And now everyone and his uncle who is not an Indian ( and a few Indians too) bitch about the IPL.

    The BCCI was the only board to oppose the oppressive regimen of the whereabouts clause laid down by WADA, leading to a more pragmatic solution devised by the ICC.

    There are enough flaws in the technology as is, coupled with the rather vague guidelines that the ICC has with regards to what constitutes the DRS. Not once has Mr Steen taken the effort to refer to these in the entire article.

    That the ICC had to alter playing conditions midway through the World Cup after the Ian Bell incident speaks volumes of the effectiveness of the DRS, in its present state.

    But since its open season, feel free to bash the BCCI for crimes real or imagined.

    Cheers,

  • Homer2007 on June 2, 2011, 3:41 GMT

    India was outvoted 8-1 when the ICC introduced the T20 format in the form of a World Cup in 2007. And now everyone and his uncle who is not an Indian ( and a few Indians too) bitch about the IPL.

    The BCCI was the only board to oppose the oppressive regimen of the whereabouts clause laid down by WADA, leading to a more pragmatic solution devised by the ICC.

    There are enough flaws in the technology as is, coupled with the rather vague guidelines that the ICC has with regards to what constitutes the DRS. Not once has Mr Steen taken the effort to refer to these in the entire article.

    That the ICC had to alter playing conditions midway through the World Cup after the Ian Bell incident speaks volumes of the effectiveness of the DRS, in its present state.

    But since its open season, feel free to bash the BCCI for crimes real or imagined.

    Cheers,

  • HatsforBats on June 2, 2011, 4:07 GMT

    India really need to concede on this one. The full implementation of the DRS is inevitable, and, apparently, overwhelmingly supported by the players. The only thing I want as a fan is a fair and hard-fought contest, and that means incorrect decisions can not be allowed to detract from the result.