Sharda Ugra
Sharda Ugra Sharda UgraRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

The ridiculous resistance to the DRS

The BCCI's opposition to the review system is inexcusable; and the ICC isn't blameless either

Sharda Ugra

June 18, 2011

Comments: 93 | Text size: A | A

Hot Track: a combination of Hot Spot and Virtual Eye tracker, June 16, 2011
Hot Track, the marriage of Hot Spot and Virtual Eye. A decade down the line with various technologies working together to deliver sound decisions, we'll wonder what the fuss over the DRS was about © Virtual Eye
Enlarge

A series of phone calls and emails to investigate whether Sachin Tendulkar was indeed the Great Satan in the DRS debate, the leader of the Indian resistance to the referral system, led to a startling discovery. That the world's most seasoned international cricketer and one of the leading sports graphics technology providers agreed with each other. Tendulkar and Virtual Eye actually see, well, eye to eye.

Tendulkar believes the DRS will be more effective and consistent if the best technologies available can be used together: Hot Spot and Snicko supporting the ball tracker, for instance. Virtual Eye CEO Ian Taylor told ESPNcricinfo in an email yesterday: "We have always argued that the DRS is not solely about ball tracking, and that every tool available should be used. More importantly, we should be looking at tools that work together."

This is two ends of a spectrum: the techies who get vector graphics and point the 230-frames-per-second cameras towards the pitch, and the cricketer who's waiting for the third umpire to respond to the man on the field want the same thing. The best available technology converging millimetre by millimetre to provide an accurate depiction of what just happened inside six or so milliseconds.

Why, then, is there so much trouble in between the two ends?

The absence of the DRS has this week become the central point of interest in what is a drool-worthy series regardless. Should the DRS be used for England v India? Of course, absolutely yes. Isn't the BCCI's refusal somewhat Dark Ages? Yes, but on to them later (patience, guv'nor, patience).

Will the absence of the DRS be the single dominant factor that will bring in the crowds or empty seats of bums? No. Will it decide the eventual outcome of the series? Over jelly beans, you mean? How can that be possible?

Does all this mean cricket's one-man multimedia entertainment industry, aka Graeme Swann, wuz robbed before a ball has been bowled? His Mirthfulness will snigger at such kidology. Is VVS Laxman heaving a sigh of relief about leg-befores now? Twenty-one lbws in his 198 Test innings - does he care? If Chris Tremlett and Jimmy Anderson are annoyed, you think Zaheer Khan's not glowering somewhere too?

The England players are completely entitled their bewilderment at the BCCI's refusal to accept the DRS. Tendulkar's measured response on Thursday certainly contained none of the two pet phrases floated into discussions to do with DRS and SRT: there was neither "apprehension" nor "vehement opposition". MS Dhoni's is the more forceful opposition to the DRS, and in England he will get many a chance to expand his metaphors beyond life jackets and adulteration, in the cause of dissing the DRS. Unless he's changed his mind.

The strife that exists in the space between the technology providers and the cricketers is shared between two lots of governors. The BCCI's inflexibility is nothing other than more of their customary unsavoury muscle-flexing. Tendulkar's comments have certainly taken away one excuse. The one about the expense involved is laughable: the BCCI could be the global sponsors of DRS technologies, their logo popping up on TV screens around the world during a referral.

Muted grumbling about monopoly technologies do not apply to the ball-tracker they so despise: Hawk-Eye is not the only predictor path available on the market. But travelling to Australia to see how the rival worked during the Ashes was just too hoi polloi. The most revealing is the BCCI's reluctance to speak to the senior core of players about their views on the current system. It is what autocrats do before claiming they act in the interests of the masses.

Then there's the ICC, whose venerable cricket committee has strongly recommended pushing the DRS across all international cricket. They have been unable to follow through due to political constraints and economic self-interest.

When Snicko, Hawk-Eye / Virtual Eye and Hot Spot were introduced, they were part of the entertainment, not the rules. Like manhattans and wagon wheels, they were targeted at TV viewers, not cricketers or umpires. Today these enhancements find themselves in the playing conditions. It is only fair the ICC invests in some of the R&D that will eventually help in the enforcement of the rules these technologies now serve. Else, it is only fair to let them remain part of the entertainment, paid for by broadcasters. The current hands-on, expenses-off approach to the DRS reflects poorly on an otherwise well-meaning governing body.

Their gently-gently bilateral approach makes little sense today; it exists only to make room for the BCCI's objections to the DRS. The ICC executive board, made up of representatives of every full member board, meets later this month in Hong Kong. If they are unable to make referrals mandatory, from piecemeal, the blame will be on world cricket as much as it will on the BCCI.

In the DRS' twilight zone, where the ICC dithers, the BCCI bullies, and there is politicking all-round, the techies remain diligent, the broadcasters supportive, and most of the world's cricketers - Dhoni among the exceptions, as of today - eager to see how the system can work for them.

 
 
Ten years down the line there's a damn good chance folks will wonder why it took so long to get the DRS going everywhere, and what the hell the BCCI was thinking
 

The BCCI's favourite whipping boy, Hawk-Eye, made it through a World Cup without cricket being torn asunder. The Hot Spot guys have now bought two new, faster cameras. Their total of six means that two concurrent series can both offer Hot Spot, one with the higher-end four-cam version and the other with two square cameras.

During the Ashes there were pictures of the merging of Hot Spot with the Virtual Eye tracker under a new name, Hot Track. Virtual Eye's Taylor says the system was able to "bring another level of certainty for the umpires and the players". The BCCI could have seen the system at work in Australia but chose not to. Tendulkar and Co. would be interested.

The best DRS geeks accept that their technology is not 100% accurate, and keep pushing it as close as possible to perfect. The best umpires admit to having bad games occasionally, accept that technology sometimes rescues them, and walk out wanting to have their most flawless day every day. The best cricketers in the world understand that the DRS will have a few iffy moments, and that replays of close catches can be hellish, but anything's better than seeing dismissals off no-ball bat-pads, or lbws given to balls pitching outside leg.

Ten years down the line, with a range of technologies working seamlessly through replays, there's a damn good chance folks will wonder why it took so long to get the DRS going everywhere, and what the hell the BCCI was thinking.

Cricket's been through such obduracy in various forms, covering the full range of mankind's pig-headedness. Boycotting apartheid South Africa was stridently resisted. Day-night cricket was sacrilege, wearing helmets was considered wimpy, neutral umpiring was blasphemy, and reverse swing an unspeakable crime. The resistance to DRS belongs to that category of ridiculous.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Sharda Ugra

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by sonofchennai on (June 21, 2011, 15:15 GMT)

After the Sydney fiasco BCCI needed DRS badly..after the SL tour, where there were some poor judgements, they oppose badly...wat d heck...

Posted by HAVANA on (June 21, 2011, 13:09 GMT)

there is only one man in Indian cricket who has the final say on any matter. yes, its Sachin Tendulkar. he is now advocating the UDRS as he realises he may end up on the wrong side of history if he does not amend his stand. his only concern is himself, and i look forward to umpires giving him a few bad decisions on the trot to to teach him a lesson.

Posted by Jim1207 on (June 21, 2011, 0:30 GMT)

Eskay_Raut, The same line shows the ignorance of the article. No one is opposing DRS here, it is all about making sure that the system is uniform and is always available with all the technologies that needs to be used mandatory. The article hides the fact that the technology is not available easily for all tournaments, not portable, not affordable for all tournaments and not consistent in its decisions. And, people ridicule BCCI for standing by that to "improve" the technology.

Posted by Eskay_Raut on (June 20, 2011, 14:46 GMT)

Really like your conclusion, "Day-night cricket was sacrilege, wearing helmets was considered wimpy, neutral umpiring was blasphemy, and reverse swing an unspeakable crime. The resistance to DRS belongs to that category of ridiculous". Can't stop laughing!!

Posted by IndianMigrant on (June 19, 2011, 22:31 GMT)

Why HAWK-Eye technology is plain adulteration and BCCI is right on money to oppose it by any means. Here is a peer-review of the technology. Hope cricinfo will publish this or stop any comments against DRS and in support of BCCI

In 2008, an article in a peer-reviewed journalconsolidated many of these doubts. The authors acknowledged the value of the system, but noted that it was probably fallible, and that its failure to depict a margin of error gave a spuriously accurate depiction of events. The authors also argued that the probable limits to its accuracy were not acknowledged by players, officials, commentators or spectators, who treated it as depicting unchallengeable truth. For instance, they argued that Hawk-Eye may struggle with predicting the curved trajectory of a cricket ball after bouncing: the time between a ball bouncing and striking the batsman may be too short to generate the three frames (at least) needed to plot a curve accurately.

Posted by mogan707 on (June 19, 2011, 15:09 GMT)

Cricinfo is not interested in the comments supporting the BCCI or the comments against the DRS.Then may I think that moderating comments is a biased one which favors the article. If it is so,and if he does not take negative comments about their website or on the authors who publish it,then BCCI is right in being adamant about not supporting DRS with the Hawk-Eye technology.The article here also discusses about the future developments of Hawk-Eye and which is not used in England-SL series for the television viewers for a trial.By using the DRS you are challenging the umpires job. If the umpires are just sitting ducks in the park,then why pay them for the job; Make a technology minded TV replays for every dismissal with only match referee controlling all the affairs from the inside doors.If You want DRS to be implemented you might give the suggestion of removing the Umpires panel.If the technology is useful in aiding the umpires it is ok.But DRS is not designed like that

Posted by DaGameChanger on (June 19, 2011, 15:03 GMT)

@jonathanjoseph..Indians another view..Ian Bell should been given out, they would topped the group and still won the WC either way.

Posted by Nampally on (June 19, 2011, 13:08 GMT)

Sharda, You are dead right - What the hell the BCCI is thinking? Hiding behind Tendulkar till the little Master himself came out endorsing the DRS. Now will BCCI accept DRS? Dhoni's comments in the World cup regarding Bell's LBW appeal not being given came out of not understanding the Rule.But when you compare it to what happened in Sydney tests against the Aussies where India lost the test from a winning position due to rank bad umpiring, the DRS implementation should never be an issue. Dhoni needs to think again & learn about DRS before making wild judgement. Hawk eye technology is being used in professional Tennis, baseball and many other sports at a very high level. India is the only country opposing it amongst cricketing nations, no thanks to BCCI & Dhoni.While India is the toast of the world in Computer technology, BCCI's stubborn stand is doing more damage to India. For goodness sake get rid of the old fashioned guard from BCCI and put some computer literate guys in there.

Posted by VisBal on (June 19, 2011, 12:48 GMT)

@rajpan: If you offer unlimited referrals, the bowling side would refer EVERY appeal.

Posted by johnathonjosephs on (June 19, 2011, 7:52 GMT)

I hope India gets multiple Howler decisions against them like they did against Aus that costs them the series. Maybe then they can learn

Posted by stornjo on (June 19, 2011, 7:52 GMT)

A bit snide to compare being soft on apartheid to being anti-DRS ? Anyway, I don't know what BCCI's real motivation is here, but I'm glad there's no DRS for this series. Umpires are improving; partly due to what technology is showing them when they watch back after a days play, but please keep cricket a human game. Let us admire the amazing decsions they make. Let us enjoy again the immediate excitement of an LBW decision, or nick to the keeper. Give the umpires back the run-outs too. They were pretty good at that too ! The yanks don't need/use this technology for baseball , so why does cricket NEED it ?

Posted by johnathonjosephs on (June 19, 2011, 7:52 GMT)

You know, if India doesn't like the UDRS system, they shouldn't of used it in the World Cup. Then Tendulkar would of been out in the Pakistan match and India would not even have won the World Cup. Hypocrites

Posted by johnathonjosephs on (June 19, 2011, 7:50 GMT)

You know, if India doesn't like the UDRS system, they shouldn't of used it in the World Cup. Then Tendulkar would of been out in the Pakistan match and India would not even have won the World Cup. Hypocrites

Posted by henchart on (June 19, 2011, 7:27 GMT)

Indians are either going to get beaten in UK next month or just about manage to scrap through for a draw in the test series like they have been doing against SA and SLK since early last year.Few howlers should and would come in the way of famed Indian batsmen and lo we would have a mound of moaning posts of Indian fans ruing UDRS or rather lack of it. If the whole world looks one way Indians have to see the other way !

Posted by sjitendran on (June 19, 2011, 5:15 GMT)

This is utterly follish stand taken by BCCI. They should realise that only by using technology more often it can be made more reliable. There is no system inthe world that is perfect or error-free. These same people were crying wolf when they played in Australia last about human errors of umpires. Ironically they are the ones who are standing against use of DRS technology. It is interseting to note that some are saying that we can not comment against SRT/Dhoni as we have not played as many balls like them, If that is the criteria none of us would be able to comment as we are not professionals. If SRT/Dhoni were so much against DRS they should have refused to use it in World Cup instead of conveniently using it when SRT was out to the naked eye of umpire in Pakistan match. It is basically Sour grapes as they did not get favourable decision some occasions. I am disgusted by this bull-headed obstinacy of BCCI in DRS system. Jitu

Posted by kriskingle on (June 19, 2011, 4:35 GMT)

Sharda Ugra has managed a very intricate piece of chicanery here. Her brief was to follow Cricinfo's favorite theme of BCCI-bashing, while at the same time putting Sachin's image in the clear, regarding the resistance to DRS, and not antagonizing her major patron, the BCCI. So what if Dhoni is made the scapegoat for the DRS fiasco? So what if he is only trotting out his masters' handed-down opinion on the subject, like Srinivasan so amply demonstrated during Duncan Fletcher's first press conference? His public image is no bigger than Sachin's which must be unsullied, pristine, even!!!! The bonus is that she got to take potshots at the supposedly weak target and everbody's favorite punching bag, the ICC.

Posted by amvm on (June 19, 2011, 3:51 GMT)

Betting Syndicates can buy some umpires for some decisions but not Technology could that be the reason I am not sure? One can not visualize problems with what exists , which will be the same for both the teams and keep bringing about improvements.

Posted by the_evil_weevil on (June 19, 2011, 1:57 GMT)

Can BCCI accept that DRS is not out to get them? There will be errors made, whether human or mechanical. But it will correct the obvious mistakes, which is the reason it was introduced. Maybe it won't conclusively prove the faintest edge, or that a ball on an LBW appeal will clip the bails. But that's not its point. My hope is BCCI will embrace the face that DRS works for them as well as against them in this sense.

Posted by markzandi on (June 19, 2011, 0:57 GMT)

Mr SRT should also remember that he has also taken the benefit of hawk-eye technology in the world cup semi final against Pakistan where he was given out as per the umpire decision. If he was really against the technology then he should have accepted the umpire decision and should not have asked for the review. It was actually hawk-eye who saved him and India in that game so technically he should be thankful to ICC who introduced / implemented URDS in the world cup and stop criticizing about it. If things goes in your favour then its fine but when it goes against you (because of your own poor judgement) then you start crying.

Posted by indiaworldchamps2011 on (June 19, 2011, 0:52 GMT)

i agree with neel_123 and pateldaku on their views.. how can it be made mandatory if the system itself is not uniform around the world... also if the if a system cud be developed where we can see the ball tracking everything else within 2 or 3 seconds of the bowl being delivered then we dont need player reviews and the third umpire can inform the onfield umpires in case a wrong decision has been made.. then i think it wud be more fair and let the players jus play rather than do strategic planning for a review...

Posted by Praxis on (June 18, 2011, 21:29 GMT)

@Neel_123, well the first part of your comment I agree on. The major concern is using hotspot & snickometer in every series. But about hawk-eye's accuracy, how and why is it relevant with Sachin playing the game for more than 2 decades? Is he a professional on developing this tool or proposed any algorithm earlier in his life that's been used there? How is his view more credible than a team of professionals? Talking about the rule of DRS is one thing, but this is another.

Posted by NBRADEE on (June 18, 2011, 18:51 GMT)

My father and I have had an ongoing battle for years about the use of technology in the game - he actually thinks that it should enable us to remove the umpire from the field completely! But in my view, more technology does not necessarily make the game less likely to have uncertainty! Why??? If the umpire off the field does not get it right, then NO ONE gets it right! It has happened already when bad decisions off the field have affected games. I would much rather that the officials were trained to some benchmark that offers a standard in decisions wrto the game. Perhaps it could be called the Tauffel Benchmark - that guy is good, and has had no real peers since the retirement of David Shepherd and Steve Bucknor! Let's learn how he has honed his skills to ensure his high percentage of correct decisions, so that teams could benefit from the use of the DRS, e.g. how many teams under pressure to use a limited number of reviews will question such an umpire???

Posted by Pateldaku on (June 18, 2011, 18:37 GMT)

Will BCCI agree if the Umpires asked for review? I personally don't see why the Player's decide to review an Umpire's decision. To me that is desent and should be punished.

Technology should be used to improve the decision making, but the choice of review should be with the Umpires and not the Players.

Posted by Neel_123 on (June 18, 2011, 18:03 GMT)

DRS in present form is utter useless. Hot-spot company won't send their equipments (military grade) to the India, Pakistan, Sri-Lanka or Bangladesh, in fact, can be (will be) used only in Aus, UK and SA. As long DRS is not uniform and not 'standardized', BCCI and Indian players should not back it. Not only in bilateral series but also in world cup etc.

Full respect to BCCI for backing their senior players. There is a guy (SRT) who has spent almost all his life on cricket grounds (all over the world) and if thinks hawk-eye is faulty, there have to some merit in it. People who are criticizing SRT, how many balls have you faced in your whole life?

Posted by sportsfan on (June 18, 2011, 18:02 GMT)

it is absured, shameful and everything dirty and nasty for BCCI to resist DRS. i beleive even dhoni, who seems to claim he doesn't have it in him to learn how to use DRS, can actually learn it if he put a little effort in it. when india did badly in srilanka with drs, we had a coach who was interested only in getting good name among indian players and neglected to coach the team on how to use DRS. he didn't even coach the players how to bat in batting powerplay overs! as Boycott would put it, even his grandmother could have coached the indian team better as there is so much talent and kirsten couldn't get the team to number 1 spot in ODI's. if BCCI thinks DRS is not perfect, it is better than the on field umpires making so many mistakes and DRS is the same for both teams. please BCCI, do the right thing. Be a man and accept you made a mistake in resisting DRS.

Posted by Praxis on (June 18, 2011, 17:53 GMT)

When every other board has confidence in this system then why ICC can't make it mandatory for every series?

Posted by CricketFreud on (June 18, 2011, 17:09 GMT)

sharda... this looks like a hate article.. an insult to a player of dhoni's calibre... i wonder if u h've had a chance to lift a ball or bat in ur life.. anyway.. i myself am pro-technology.. but the main problem with DRS is the no. of referrals per team.. just one or two means the players are under enormous pressure to use it rightly.. it becomes a strategic decision for the team.. rather than a fair-decision making system which its supposed to be.. give the right for every batsman to review if he thinks he is not out.. or let the umpire use it when he is in doubt (just like runouts/stumpings..)

Posted by CricketChat on (June 18, 2011, 16:56 GMT)

Since the same rules apply to both teams equally, I don't see any reason for fuss. I am assuming that money isn't the issue for BCCI. In terms of enforcing rules and standards, ICC is the who should be deciding, not BCCI. If this type of scenario is played out regularly, ICC will indeed become a toothless tiger.

Posted by jigish.patel on (June 18, 2011, 16:55 GMT)

SRT and MSD's point is simple - if you'll use all available technologies as "DRS", then they have nothing against it. And I agree. We've seen again & again that using just hawk-eye or snicko or hotspot by themselves just leads to more mess - not more accurate umpiring. I think that's what Dhoni meant by adulteration. Also, if DRS is going to be implemented, implement it everywhere - but then who's going to foot the bill for WI vs Zimbabwe test match? Sure BCCI could sponsor it but why should it do that?

Posted by fanofteamindia on (June 18, 2011, 16:46 GMT)

I think just because something is invented it need not always be correct. UDRS has its own problems. How can you be sure that hawk-eye accurately predicts where the ball would have gone on the fifth day of a test match where the pitch would have degraded already. How can you prove that the ball tracking system shows the amount of spin and bounce accurately. We saw in the ashes that hot spot is not always accurate. Snicko can sense any vibration, it need not be edges alone. So with so many flaws in the technology, why use it by wasting money asks the BCCI. I don't find anything wrong in that. just because this is said by BCCI, it is painted the wrong way. It is not the BCCi's fault being the governing body of the most cricket mad nation.

Posted by thisgameislife on (June 18, 2011, 16:44 GMT)

icc and the member nations must invest in this technology. if drs has to be implemented, it has to be uniformly implemented. we cannot have one series with drs that includes hot spot (or some other tech) and other that does not. only a series involving india is likely to generate revenues that allow broadcasters to spend on all the tech needed for complete drs. they will not pick up rights for most other series (except eng-aus, aus-sa) across the world at high bids, if the expense on tech increases.

Posted by rajpan on (June 18, 2011, 16:35 GMT)

I have a feeling that the resistance to UDRS is mainly because it is restricted to two in an innings. The top order batsmen get a chance to use it more than the lower order batsmen. If the two chances are consummed by the top order, the batsmen to follow have no recourse to address a wrong decision. So in any case, after the two chances are consummed isn't the rest of the innings without UDRS?This is likely to create rifts in the team and resulting bad change room atmosphere. However, nobody wants to say so openly. If ICC is so interested in creating a flawless decesion making system, why not allow unlimited number of referrals? Afterall no body is likely to ask for a referal if he is clean bawled or caught in the deep. So we are talking about only the LBWs and the slight nicks or bat/pad catches. OFFER UNILIMITED REFERRALS AND SEE THE REACTION !!

Posted by DaGameChanger on (June 18, 2011, 16:23 GMT)

Is Media or Sharda assuming what Dhoni would say or has he really came out and discussed it ? We assumed till Yesterday that Sachin was against it and now we came to know, he is very much OK to use it if all possible best technologies are used instead of choosing just the cheapest one. While on other case, Dhoni was mad about Ian Bell decision and just came out with exact right reasons and words and eventually even ICC changed that rule within WC, as we all agree on that. Till Dhoni comes out and says what are his reasons are, this article is GARBAGE..GARBAGE. NOTE>>> I am supporter of DRS. But we should also listen what this great players have to say who actually going to use the product.

Posted by mm71 on (June 18, 2011, 16:14 GMT)

BCCI is only opposed to Hawkeye which is actually a joke. The tennis analogy is not right. In tennis it's use is different, it doesn't have to deal with the swing, the seam, the pitch conditions etc. Cricket is different & while the technology producer would like everyone to use the same thing without changing. However, it's people who are playing are the ones who more knowledgeable about where the ball would be headed after landing than a technician who is manually charting the path the ball would take after landing. How do we verify the neutrality of this technician? Since the technology is originating from England, no doubt the English players are very excited. Folks, Indians do understand technology & being from the software field let me assure you all the path charted for the ball can be manipulated in seconds. Wasn't Ajmal wondering how the straight ball he bowled shown to be spinning? That may not have been manipulated but it did show that the possibility exists.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (June 18, 2011, 16:11 GMT)

OK, indianpunter. It's nice to be able to grant a wish. Facebook Ian Pyne.

Posted by Farce-Follower on (June 18, 2011, 16:05 GMT)

SRT has shown himself to be obstinate and unappreciative of an experts view on technology. What if the Indian Board interferes with physios or mental reconditioning coaches because its prima donnas know better. As an Indian, I find this UDRS resistance by SRT and MSD most shameful.

Posted by Mephistopheles01 on (June 18, 2011, 15:42 GMT)

Superb article, hit the nail on the head. It is absolutely crucial that the ICC make DRS mandatory at this months meeting, otherwise they might as well dissolve the ICC and give the BCCI the job.

Posted by indianpunter on (June 18, 2011, 14:43 GMT)

@Nutcutlet. I couldnt agree more. I have read a few of your previous posts, and gosh! if we could get together and talk cricket!

Posted by Leggie on (June 18, 2011, 14:33 GMT)

There is one clipping of Hawk Eye etched in my memory which convinced me that this technology was still a work in progress. This happened during the India / Australia series. It was the last ball of an over bowled by Lee or Stuart Clarke to Sehwag.., the ball pitched on a good length and just went past Sehwag's off stump to the keeper. During the middle of the next over when "Hawk Eye" views of the previous over was being shown, the last ball was shown to be clipping the off bail. Obviously this is seriously incorrect since we all know that Sehwag missed playing the delivery and it was collected by the keeper. My question then is..., if "Hawk Eye" technology was incorrect even for the complete path of the ball, how accurate could it be to "PREDICT" the direction?? I'm sure the Computer Analysts accompanying the Indian team would have noticed many more of such anomalies which has possibly lead to this situation.It'll be grossly incorrect to shoot down the Indian cricketers/BCCI for this

Posted by Zack1 on (June 18, 2011, 14:16 GMT)

Sharda talks as if the system is fool proof, and using it has no downside. Let's instead take a look at what has been said about it, by people not in the BCCI.

`If you want an argument in favour of the review system, put Harper on the field; if you want an argument against the system, put Harper in the third umpire's booth.' Simon Barnes in the Times with an assessment of ICC elite umpire Daryl Harper's performance during the South Africa v England series

`There's nothing wrong with the system. It's the people operating the system.' Mikey Holding on Daryl Harper who controversially upheld an lbw decision against Shivnarine Chanderpaul

Let's also not forget that during the infamous Sydney test, a run out decision was sent to the third umpire, who incorrectly ruled in Australia's favor. Even for the review system to work properly, the third umpire must be competent. Given the number of tests being played and the paucity of good umpires, it's hard to find two, leave alone three.

Posted by Deuce03 on (June 18, 2011, 14:00 GMT)

The DRS is obviously not perfect, but much of the objection to it is poorly founded. No scientist is ever going to claim 100% accuracy for anything, but HawkEye/VirtualEye is sufficiently accurate within the recommended bounds that it accounts for all but the most freakish of possibilities, and is much more accurate than an umpire's judgement could be. The point at which it becomes unreliable (the 2.5 metre mark) is where it stops being used to overrule judgements. Snicko, at the moment, can't be used as part of the DRS because it takes several minutes to set up each time.

I do think the system could be made fairer by giving the fielding team more referrals than the batting team, and by allowing a team to retain their review if the result is "on-field call". But these are minor tweaks- the DRS works well, and I can't see a good reason not to use it wherever available.

Posted by purple-haze on (June 18, 2011, 13:33 GMT)

@ mirchy : you have a valid point. the billy bowden incident was exactly what MS Dhoni had in mind when he made that "Adulteration" comment. of course it is being laughed at now by many seemingly thoughtful columnists. But, he wasn't far from the truth. Bell was close to being given out even after the review. I t almost felt like Bowden butted in and reminded people of the 2.5 m rule to stop his decision from getting overturned. If that is not adulteration of technology, I dont know what else is. However, I still feel that it is not prudent to stay opposed to DRS. The technology is here to stay and in the long run it'll be made totally error-free and the game would benefit. @ popcorn :just a small thing. Its Sachin Tendulkar, you are talking about. the question of him not becoming greater than Roger Federer does not even arise. Sachin has already achieved greatness and his records would be unsurpassed. For all federer's mastery,we can see nadal consistently destroying him for 5 years

Posted by adith_thegod on (June 18, 2011, 13:20 GMT)

Ugra, For once, Just for once, be neutral. So all these days Mr Sachin was against the DRS and by just one statement (which is pretty much what he has been saying throughout - use hot spot, hawk eye isnt reliable), he becomes FOR DRS and BCCI, which also says the same thing, becomes against DRS? Why dont u try and find out what exactly are the BCCI's reasons instead of giving your own POV? And why exactly do you think MSD opposes DRS more than anyone else? If you don't remember, MS said - either use on field decisions or let technology handle it completely and don't adulterate both (as it clearly happened in the Ian Bell WC decision). Do not mislead people by just taking one half of the statement!

Posted by AJ_Tiger86 on (June 18, 2011, 13:03 GMT)

Hawk Eye is by far the single best innovation to have ever happened in the game of cricket. It's incredibly accurate and scientific. That's why Tennis uses it extensively. On the other hand Virtual Eye is FAR less accurate than Hawk Eye. And by the way, neither Virtual Eye nor Hot Spot are Australian technologies. Virtual Eye is from New Zealand and Hot Spot is from France.

Posted by knowledge_eater on (June 18, 2011, 12:53 GMT)

This is just ridiculous disgraceful tone of the article. Insulting Sachin and MSD. UDRS came like in 2008 or something, so players who played before this were bogus?? Wickets that have fallen were wrong!! People are acting like Sun won't rise without the UDRS!! This is not kindergarten that you whine for a toy and you get it. GROW UP. Stop insulting my players. Remind me to never read your piece AGAIN. Suddenly UDRS has become prime priority for Media but fixing FTP and Test pitches aren't. Really? Why no-one complained in WC when hot-spot wasn't available because company said it 'may be dangerous there for having sophisticated instrument there in Subcontinent' Rights reserved deals! Funding Issue! One part of the world UDRS is this this and this another only this!!! Current condition of UDRS and rules surrounding are NOT valid. Period. People can whine about all you want.

Posted by WalkingTripod on (June 18, 2011, 12:50 GMT)

The perfect solution fallacy is once again out in force. There is only one piece of information that one needs to be able to decide whethern or not DRS should be implemented for the forthcoming England-India series, given that in this case cost is not an issue. That is, are more correct decisions arrived at with umpires alone or with umpires + DRS?

The answer to that question is emphatically umpires + DRS. All the (almost exclusively Indian) bleaters can bang on all they like about flaws in the current system (and I have no doubt it can be improved) but the fact remains more correct decisions are arrived at with the system in place and absolute howlers have been virtually eliminated by it.

This issue is just one example in a lengthy list that demonstrates why India, as the games most influential power broker, is bad for cricket.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (June 18, 2011, 12:47 GMT)

The reason the BCCI rejects UDRS is for the same reason that dogs lick their balls: because they can. That aside, I am concerned that a seige mentality does not ensue - the attitude that we (the BCCI) have resisted this for so long, we don't want to look ridiculous when we change our (collective) mind. And change their mind they will because the arguments are so overwhelming - and, moreover, enjoy the confidence of 80% (see recent poll on this website) of cricket followers around the world. However, there are still people who believe that the earth is flat because they only believe what they see, and reject what science & technology can tell them, should they wish to persist in demonstrating their" because we can" attitude. Seriously, BCCI: forget your dignity, swallow your pride and join the world of cricket that the rest of us inhabit! As Bumble says: "Get on with it!"

Posted by JAT_MO on (June 18, 2011, 12:13 GMT)

Are you kidding me! The ball tracking is not 100% and why should I trust the guy sitting in front of the TV then the umpire out there. Ugra get your brains checked out! In the US they dont use it in Baseball because it takes the Human element out of it which is 100% ridiculous and why because In Cricket winning is everything while in Baseball it ain't!!! Take the DRS out of players hand completely, let the umpires use it as many as they feel needed in a match! That it the right way to go....

Posted by Sahmed99 on (June 18, 2011, 12:10 GMT)

BCCI are only interested in showing their power. BCCI should not be allowed to continue to railroad cricket - Cricket will only suffer if one board is allowed to be as powerful as BCCI is.

Posted by SDHM on (June 18, 2011, 12:07 GMT)

It does strike me as being odd to be honest. If you don't like the technology don't use it - you don't have to deny other teams that want to use it the right though. I'd actually have much more sympathy for Dhoni and Sachin if the technology was there to use in-match and they didn't out of principle. Of course it would be unfair and won't happen, but if they're truly opposed to it it would be a much stronger statement. At the moment, from the outside it just looks like they're having a bit of a hissy fit at not being able to use it well the first time they were given the chance, when the system was in its infancy. It has much improved since then. And when talking about Snicko, the reason it isn't used is that it takes too long to put the whole thing together, so if we're talking about not wanting to take too much time out of the game, that would be a step backwards! If they can speed up the process, then of course, bring it in. Until then though, Hot Spot is still better than nothing.

Posted by Herath-UK on (June 18, 2011, 11:47 GMT)

Come on guys,see the truith;all because ONE man,Tendulkar wants to heap on his records;he can easily get the benefit of doubt putting the poor umpire under stress with his and BCCI status;which umpire would like to be on the wrong side with possible repurcussions?In fact don't blame the BCCI,it is that selfish man putting his weight on BCCI becoming detrimental to the whole game of cricket. As Jayasuriya became a joke himself by trying to work himself in retirement,one day Tendulkar will be regarded as a joker by cricket fraternity over his selfishness. Tendulkar says wait till technology gets 100% right;well he knows by then he is in retirement and can someone tell can we get anything 100% right? I greatly appreciate Sharda's honest talking here. Ranil Herath - Kent

Posted by Mahesh4811 on (June 18, 2011, 10:25 GMT)

'The resistance to DRS belongs to that category of ridiculous' 100% true.

Posted by Ellis on (June 18, 2011, 10:15 GMT)

Sharda, well said! Tendulkar is a brilliant batsman, not an expert on technology. Practically every piece of technology in use today can be improved, and will be sooner or later. Therefore, do we not use technology until every application is 100% perfect, all singing, all dancing? In many aspects, India is one of the foremost users of technology in the world. So why the resistance to UDRS? It lies with the fuddy duddies in the BCCI, aided and abetted by a supine ICC. Wake up, guys!

Posted by Jim1207 on (June 18, 2011, 10:07 GMT)

Here comes the long-awaited whinging article.

Posted by abhilashreddym on (June 18, 2011, 10:07 GMT)

Even if DRS is only, say 95% accurate, it's the same consistency for all games. Can you say umpiring has the same consistency when there're so many different umpires. And also with DRS, decisions will even out over the long term. And at least there won't be steve bucknor-esque incidents here. And just wanted to remind that 230 fps is nearly 10 times more frames than normal video.

Posted by popcorn on (June 18, 2011, 10:06 GMT)

It is not BCCI who is opposed to DRS - it is these two disgustingly stubborn people - one an actor, Sachin Tendulkar, one a high flyer, Mahendra Singh Dhoni who are ruining the game of Cricket by their resiustance. First, get Sachin Tendulkar to retire fast. Second, ICC should make it mandatory. Third, these two egoistic people should learn from the great Roger Federer who does not approve of Hawkeye, but has accepted it as World Tennis wants it. Sachin Tendulkar and Mahendra Singh Dhoni won't ever reach Federer's greatness - they can do with some humility.BCCI will NEVER say yes to DRS unless these two say yes.And that is not likely to happen. So ICC MUST make it mandatory, like they did for the World Cup.Whatever be the limitations, EVERYONE agrees there are better decisions being made with DRS.

Posted by rajnish.sinha on (June 18, 2011, 9:53 GMT)

why do BCCI and players have to go through these allegations? writer herself agrees that these technologies are not accurate. ICC has let teams decide whether they want to use DRS or not and BCCI is merely exercising that right. why would Sachin and company not want the system in place? do you anything to prove that they are net beneficiaries of wrong umpiring decisions? they have a point in opposing it at the moment and they are opposing it. big deal.

Posted by mirchy on (June 18, 2011, 9:40 GMT)

Sharda's presentation lacks diligence. How about reverting to points made by the BCCI during different phases of this debate? The comparisons are purely argumentative without ever referring to the actual issues which are of concern; 1. Unavailability of Snicko and Hotspot technologies to all cricket playing nations resulting from Australian resistance to export the required know-how and instrumentation, leave alone arguing the cost factor involved. 2. The adequate documentation of Hawkeye's inaccuracy and 3. The possibility of umpires being allowed to interfere with a technologically derived decision, e.g. Billy Bowden's match-changing assertion giving Ian Bell not out in the recently concluded WC and thereby overriding a technological decision. Once these problems have been competently addressed, I'm sure there will be no further resistance from the BCCI.

Posted by gargi_vizag on (June 18, 2011, 9:35 GMT)

The DRS should be welcomed but not in the current format wherein both teams are given certain number of referals after which they can't refer. DRS should be used by the umpires wherever they have a doubt, most umpires will use technology in case of close decisions as we have seen in the case of run-outs and stumpings. But alloting number of referals to the teams per innings is ridiculous, it will than be used as a strategic tool rather than one for fair decisions, which is what DRS is meant for!!!!

Posted by heat-seeker on (June 18, 2011, 9:29 GMT)

@Charindra... I'm afraid you're distorting what Tendulkar said, and then making your own assumptions about what he meant. He has never been against technology in general, and has praised Hotspot more than once (check SMH articles from late last year) in the past. He has had doubts about Hawkeye predictions, but then so did Mickey Arthur and the South African team during the series vs England in 2009-10. Tendulkar is absolutely right in saying that the DRS will be more effective with Hotspot and Snicko... even the Virtual Eye CEO says that other tools should be used in DRS. So there is definitely a problem of consistency when 1 technology aid like Hawkeye is insisted upon, but HotSpot and others are ignored in many series (such as the WC). BCCI's current stance is unreasonable (Srinivasan talking about 100%), but Tendulkar's views are very much reasonable.

Posted by Shafi79 on (June 18, 2011, 9:25 GMT)

Dear Indian fans who are trying to justify your stance? can you take a moment to explain how come the rest of the cricketing world thinks DRS is a good thing and that almost all cricketers outside India believe in using it and back the technology??? Seem strange??? Lets stop pretending ... India (under Kumble's captaincy i believe) had no clue in that 2008 series against Sri lanka and it was a decisive factor in that series, so instead of learning how to use it effectively like most other teams / captains have they choose to use their economical might to bully everyone.

Posted by Stop_Genocide_SL on (June 18, 2011, 9:17 GMT)

Indian writers never encourage or praise indians.But when it comes to stand against they r in the forefront.

Posted by heat-seeker on (June 18, 2011, 8:50 GMT)

@GetSehwacked - the wimps are the teams lined up to play India. In their hearts, they fear losing to India, so they're cooking up excuses in advance. The UDRS was in effect during the WC. I'm sure you remember who won that competition (and which master batsman was the 2nd highest scorer in the tournament & highest scorer for India). UDRS or no UDRS...if other teams aspire to be the best, they have to beat India on the field of play (not in the media, or on cricket discussion forums).

Posted by Muruges on (June 18, 2011, 8:47 GMT)

The author is ridiculous here, please try to understand what these players are saying. You people never played cricket in your life rather than commenting or ridicule others.

Posted by samedwards on (June 18, 2011, 8:21 GMT)

@ rustyryan,snicko is not used in DRS because it takes time;5-10 min to correspond the sound to the images.You cant play to be halted that long just for a review.Personally,i think BCCI is being foolhardy & is just trying to flex its muscles to the icc & show its the boss.As regarding the consistency,i think bcci has enough money to procure 10 Hot-spot cameras of its own.....

Posted by skyeshwin on (June 18, 2011, 8:14 GMT)

To those people who cry foul about the Hawk-eye included in the DRS:- Hawk-eye came into existence much before the inception of DRS....Everyone appreciated the Hawk-eye when it was introduced and now its the opposite.....

Posted by venkatesh018 on (June 18, 2011, 7:54 GMT)

Thanks once again Sharda for spouting the anger and disgust, every Indian cricket fan has towards this nonsense coming out from the BCCI and the Indian senior players against the excellent system of UDRS.

Posted by moniker on (June 18, 2011, 7:44 GMT)

I don't believe them at all, both the players and the BCCI. They are just a pathetic bunch of wimps, its as simple as that. They were completely bamboozled by the DRS in the 2008 SL series, and instead of learning to use it properly, they are just following the easier way of not using it at all! Tendulkar told that he isn't comfortable with the DRS without Hotspot. Now when it is available, he is saying that he needs Snicko as well! It'll be interesting to see what he says when everything becomes available.

Posted by anranga1 on (June 18, 2011, 7:44 GMT)

Well I have not read the whole article so cannot comment on it as others have.My simple view on UDRS is that the BCCI should accept it & go along. People do watch the ball tracking replays & form opinions, most of the cricketers do not seem opposed, so then why oppose. We have accepted the Duckworth-Lewis, so why not the UDRS?

Posted by Dnyansagar on (June 18, 2011, 7:21 GMT)

To make a UDRS system at first place ICC should revise the method to use this system. at the present moment a team can use twice/thrice in an Innings, which in no way useful to the team. I personally think ICC should give one chance to each batsman in which he will use this system when he will be 100% sure that he is not out & will not waste the chance which might be useful for other batters which will provide better opportunity to every batsman to survive against bad decision which will help the team's cause. wasting the chance to use it might not help with current method as it might not help the other batsman who is 100% sure that he not out but does not have a review chance as it has been wasted by his other teammate. a bowling side should have 5 chances as most of the time bowlers cannot be 100% sure about the decision or unlike batsman's, bowlers also be given two chances each. this will help a lot & benefit Individually, which will help out the team in the end.

Posted by salil247 on (June 18, 2011, 7:00 GMT)

Even if Sharda is not a fan of MSD, she could try to make her ire a little less obvious: "mankind's pig-headedness." ? Sheesh! - MSD fan.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (June 18, 2011, 6:42 GMT)

Ms. Ugra, please !! we know how hypocritical you journalists can be. You people should be the LAST to talk about credibility. We know how the Indian media likes to get on the bad side of sports persons especially cricketers. Ever since Dhoni took over the captaincy he has given you all a raw deal and rightly so. The UDRS will be opposed by BCCI for how much ever longer it takes. There is absolutely no consistency in its implementation by the ICC. Different countries use it differently and as a super power in world cricket, India is being smart. If somebody has a problem (including Indians) with it then too bad. No matches against India means less revenue, less publicity, less excitement factor, less everything for the opposition. India are not going to lose anything.

Posted by Achettup on (June 18, 2011, 6:37 GMT)

But is it true Ms Ugra, that Dhoni is a village idiot? I can't stand him, can you imagine how many times he has embarrassed the media and put them in their place? And that rotten BCCI always supports him, and use their financial muscle to back his rural mentality and dilogical logic. We should captain India, not him, we write for the peoples. And we should run the cricket board, not them, we write for the peoples. Because we think!

Posted by Shen_Mark on (June 18, 2011, 6:28 GMT)

Great article. The system is effective in eliminating howlers in nicks for example. But i too have my reservations when it comes to LBWs. I think that it would be perfected over time if everyone is willing to work towards that...

Posted by rustyryan on (June 18, 2011, 6:21 GMT)

Absurd and immature article posted with the intention of fuming the debate of UDRS. Nowhere BCCI opposed UDRS. They jus oppose Hawk-eye and they have got every reason to oppose Hawk-Eye. Why don't Ugra write an article on ECB for not using Snicko as a part of UDRS.? How many examples you need to prove that Hawk-Eye is unreliable? Hawk-Eye's invented for attracting viewers not for decision making. Jus because you're getting it cheaply, you shouldn't stuck with Hakw-Eye. Remove Hawk-Eye and Bcci wil accept it. Get a life Ugra. You're making a mockery of yourself.

Posted by nvpar on (June 18, 2011, 6:11 GMT)

'A decade down the line with various technologies working together to deliver sound decisions, we'll wonder what the fuss over the DRS was about' If that is true, then, is it not premature to use DRS now?

Posted by Atif_ul_Islam on (June 18, 2011, 6:09 GMT)

Ahh..Once again India opposes UDRS for England Tour...Cant comprehend what makes them oppose it..!! Without it India chance of winning the World Cup would have been anything but bleak..!!

Posted by CricEshwar on (June 18, 2011, 6:09 GMT)

Well nothing in the world is perfect. Accept DRS as a method to reduce errors not the one to eliminate errors. Ridiculous decisions could be overturned for sure.

Posted by nvpar on (June 18, 2011, 6:06 GMT)

Has ICC tried to address BCCI's concerns? Or, is it just 'I believe it is good, so you must believe it too'? Has ICC done any independent review on the ball tracking technology other than what the owners of those technologies themselves had given? Why does everyone insist on the use of DRS, after saying they know the ball tracking is not 100% accurate? Why can't DRS be used only to determine nicks and bat-pad decisions till technology further improves? Do all the people who support DRS really believe in the system, or they only support it because they think it is one more way objecting to the bullying BCCI? Why is that every new big change -20 overs of power play, 12 players a side, UDRS... - is tried at the highest level?

Posted by VisBal on (June 18, 2011, 6:04 GMT)

@mvcric: Hawk-Eye uses the actual path of the ball before and after pitching to calculate the trajectory. That is why there is a minimum of 40 cm required after pitching to calculate the correct trajectory.

Posted by krazzyking on (June 18, 2011, 6:04 GMT)

true very true... they keep arguing that they need a "fool proof" system to be convinced... BCCI has always been like this... they originally opposed T20 tooth and nail.. now they are backing it. Foolish, utterly foolish

Posted by CricFan78 on (June 18, 2011, 5:52 GMT)

I will tell you what will happen 10 yrs down the line. Everyone will appreciate BCCI, Sachin and Dhoni for making UDRS a "consistent" system and Sharda will be eating some humble pie

Posted by TheGuruji on (June 18, 2011, 5:50 GMT)

The BCCI's stance is not without its merits. UDRS is yet to be standardized. In England and Australia, they use Hot Spot; whereas in India, as witnessed during the recent World Cup, it was not used, citing legal restrictions. How can you use different set of technologies in different matches and ensure consistency in all games? Those issues need to be sorted out first and then we can talk about enforcing throughout.

Posted by Charindra on (June 18, 2011, 5:37 GMT)

Has the author been reading a different interview to the one I read yesterday of Tendulkar?? He said clearly that the technology is not adequate to be used in matches, and that both Snicko and Hot Spot should be used if DRS is being used. In other words, what Sachin was saying, in his own diplomatic way is that he's not ready to use it just yet, in spite of all other teams ranked 1 to 12 in the ODI rankings being in favour of it. Sachin has never been as forthright or direct as Dhoni, but it's ridiculous to suggest he's in favour of it. Sachin and Dhoni are the 2 reasons that DRS is not used, and as much as I am a fan of these two wonderful cricketers, that is just ridiculous!!

Posted by rustyryan on (June 18, 2011, 5:27 GMT)

Remove Hawk-eye and BCCI wil accept it. There is no point in using Hawk-Eye as a tool in decision making. Hawk-eye is nothin but a blind eye and a complete mockery of the game. what's problem for ICC / ECB to use DRS only with Snicko and hot-spot instead of having Hawk-eye. How many examples you need to prove Hawk-eye is a joke. ? Right from its first usage, where Dravid was given out, then Ian bell and then Sachin's decision against ajmal etc etc. There is no point in blaming BCCI or Sachin which of course ppl wil not stop as they are so envious on both of them. Can't believe media is fuming against BCCI and delivering completely absurd articles with out analyzing the insight of arguments. SACHIN DOES NOT OPPOSE UDRS; HE OPPOSES ONLY HAWK-EYE.

Posted by sashank on (June 18, 2011, 5:08 GMT)

There has to be consistency in the system. whatever the technologies used, they need to be uniform throughout the world. We can't have one series with hot spot & ball tracking and another with only ball tracking and so on. This might create a scenario where a specific appeal may be out when in SL but not out in England.

Also, the purpose of the system, in ICC's words is to prevent 'howlers'. We don't need ball tracking to prevent 'howlers'. Watching a replay with the naked eye is enough to determine if there was some gross misjudgment. If it seems close/marginal, the on-field verdict stands. No need of ball-tracking. Since, ball-tracking is the contentious issue, do away with it and maybe DRS might become more acceptable.

Posted by skyeshwin on (June 18, 2011, 4:50 GMT)

A very good article which clearly exposes the senselessness of the BCCI and the Indian players who oppose it.

Posted by ejsiddiqui on (June 18, 2011, 4:44 GMT)

Very well written article Sharda, I also do believe that Ten years down the line people will wonder why it took so long to get the DRS going everywhere.

@mvcric It is not replacing umpire's imagination with someone's imagination BUT it is helping/assisting umpires to make better decision and come clean..

Now technology is very advance, it can adopt to the situation. If 230 frames per seconds can be analyzed then it is not difficult to predict the trajectory of the ball even when you also know the height from the ball was thrown, ball speed, ball bounce and its initial progress. You just need to predict further progress. Now technology is advance it can do these things. In coming years more technologies would come and be more accurate.

Remember, How interesting the game has been made with the concept of third umpire. At some stage it was also considered as unnecessary.

Posted by Percy_Fender on (June 18, 2011, 4:40 GMT)

The decision in favour of Ian Bell in the India England World Cup match really showed that the tracking system can have two views. For this reason, I feel that in many cases where the ball's line is tracked, two opinions are possible. I have seen this quite often and think that others too have. But since the third umpire is involved everyone accepts the decision, right or wrong. But the Hot Spot and snickometer combination can help overcome the said questionability of the ball tracking system. I recall the owners of the Hot Spot technique mentioning that it was not possible to provide this technology for a particular series. That was some time ago and that the situation has changed since. The thing is that many people think that India is getting isolated by refusing to accept the UDRS scheme. I wish the world would see that there is a need to fine-tune the system so that there is no rancour over a decision.

Posted by AndyZaltzmannsHair on (June 18, 2011, 4:08 GMT)

If Tendulkar is not the bad guy then who is? MS Dhoni now has the finger squarely pointed at him. We must investigate this like an episode of Scooby Doo, and see who the real villain in this whole piece is. My bet is that it's Sreesanth, and he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pesky DRS lovers.

Posted by mvcric on (June 18, 2011, 3:39 GMT)

Strangely, I find myself on BCCI's side with regard to ball tracking. Given the different surfaces on which cricket is played around the world, each with its own peculiarities and the vagaries of bounce on the same pitch when different bowlers bowl or even the same bowler, I have been puzzled how any technology can claim to accurately track the ball's path and bounce. Nowhere was this more evident than in Sachin's not out in the world cup semi-final when it looked dead plumb to the naked eye.

Isn't it then really, as the BCCI says, someone's imagination replacing the umpire's imagination?

I feel this aspect hasn't been thought through by people favouring the DRS.

Posted by anunad on (June 18, 2011, 3:07 GMT)

I agree with this fully. The BCCI has entirely screwed this up.

Posted by kp_india on (June 18, 2011, 3:00 GMT)

Spot on. The BCCI's stand does not make any sense. It is obvious that the DRS despite its flaws is more accurate than the naked eye. Nothing can be expected to be 100% accurate. The BCCI must accept its foolishness and allow the DRS to be used. Otherwise it might come to haunt us in the Eng series and there will be so many people adopting the "I told you so" attitude which will only embarress the BCCI and the Indian team.

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Sharda UgraClose

    Test cricket needs fewer teams, not more

Ian Chappell: It's clear that for the ICC votes mean more than results

    Lara's peaks

Tony Cozier: While the 375 had a sense of inevitability to it, the 400 came amid a backdrop of strikes and the threat of a whitewash

    The world record that nearly wasn't

Rewind: Twenty years ago this week, Brian Lara became Test cricket's highest scorer, but he almost didn't make it

    An archaelogical probe into the state of the game

Review: Gideon Haigh comes out with another set of essays that sound uncannily prescient about the way the game is headed

From hockey sticks to whalebone

Nicholas Hogg: Bat-making as a craft has undergone revolutionary changes and then some since the days of Hambledon

News | Features Last 7 days

UAE all set to host lavish welcoming party

The controversy surrounding the IPL has done little to deter fans in UAE from flocking the stadiums, as they gear up to watch the Indian stars in action for the first time since 2006

Attention on Yuvraj, Gambhir in IPL 2014

ESPNcricinfo picks five players for whom this IPL is of bigger significance

The watch breaker, and Malinga specials

The Plays of the day from the match between Kolkata and Mumbai, in Abu Dhabi

India: cricket's Brazil

It's difficult to beat a huge talent base exposed to good facilities, and possessed of a long history of competing as a nation

The captain's blunder

The Plays of the day from the match between Chennai and Punjab in Abu Dhabi

News | Features Last 7 days