Ian Chappell
Ian Chappell Ian ChappellRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Former Australia captain, now a cricket commentator and columnist

Why the DRS must not attempt to get it right all the time

Michael Clarke being let off in Chennai could cost India in the series. The administrators must reach a consensus on the review system

Ian Chappell

February 24, 2013

Comments: 116 | Text size: A | A

Michael Clarke shouts instructions to the non-striker, India v Australia, 1st Test, Chennai, 2nd day, February 23, 2013
Michael Clarke, incorrectly given not out on 39, went on to make 130 and rescue Australia from a sticky position in Chennai © BCCI
Related Links
Players/Officials: Michael Clarke
Series/Tournaments: Australia tour of India
Teams: Australia | India

Cricket administrators obviously don't mind embarrassing themselves. How else do you explain two Test matches running concurrently being played under different sets of laws? South Africa and Pakistan are trying to win the same world championship title as India and Australia, but one series is using the DRS and the other isn't. How do you justify that and retain credibility?

There'll be plenty of people eager to wag their finger at the BCCI and say: "Be careful what you wish for." After all, it was their refusal to use the DRS that cost the team dearly in the first innings, when Michael Clarke was erroneously adjudged not out on 39, and he went on to amass a century.

I'm no great fan of the DRS for a number of reasons but isn't the Clarke case what the ICC told us it was there to eradicate - the howler? The Clarke non-decision was a howler if ever I've seen one. A workable DRS would have achieved another stated aim of the ICC in implementing the technology - to get the right decision.

The big problem with the DRS is an unstated desire to get the right decision all the time. Cricket isn't that sort of game; there will always be 50-50 decisions as long as there's an lbw law, and that's part of the charm of the sport.

Stop aiming to produce a 100% record and concentrate on getting rid of the howler and then the DRS will be a useful tool in the game. This can only happen when the players have no part in the DRS and it's left in the hands of the third umpire to overrule on-field decisions that are palpably wrong.

It's easy to blame the BCCI entirely for the current mess but that's letting the other ICC Test nations off the hook. They are equally to blame for not standing up to the BCCI and presenting a case for all sitting down around the table and reaching a common-sense agreement, instead of the current situation, which is an embarrassment to the game.

Clarke is a good enough batsman - as he showed in the first innings - to capitalise on an umpiring error. The concern for India is, he's also an aggressive captain who can take advantage of any opposition weakness, just as he did in completing a whitewash win over MS Dhoni's hapless charges in Australia.

Indian selectors tend to be ultra-sentimental, and on the evidence of Harbhajan Singh's lacklustre performance, it was the lure of his 100th Test match that earned him a place in the side. And the sight of Ishant Sharma's inconsistent bowling rarely troubling batsmen only served to confirm what a wise decision it was to produce a pitch to help the spinners. If the Indian selectors maintain that form throughout the series, they'll more than likely play into Clarke's hands.

While Australia's ploy of playing a strong pace attack was based on a genuine belief they are their best bowlers and therefore present the most likely chance of victory, India look to have over-theorised. Relying heavily on offspin because there is a preponderance of left-handers in the opposition line-up is fine as long as they all bowl like the much-improved R Ashwin. Surely Pragyan Ohja is one of India's three best tweakers? Not playing him seemed to be a mistake. Anyway, isn't the left-armer spinning into the left-hander out of the rough? And doesn't that increase the likelihood of bowled and lbw dismissals, one of which doesn't require the umpire's intervention?

Clarke has established a solid base camp for Australia - they desperately needed a good first innings against the Indian spinners - thanks to two bits of good fortune, winning the toss and getting a favourable decision. Let's hope that if he does conjure up a victory it's because of shrewd captaincy rather than maladministration.

Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator for Channel 9, and a columnist

RSS Feeds: Ian Chappell

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (February 26, 2013, 17:53 GMT)

I guess Chappel is marketing the DRS. When he mentions test match series using two different set of laws, he forgot to mention that both these series have its own DRS howlers. While it was Clarke's incident in India, it was Kallis incident is SA. Why does Chappel not mention the Kallis howler, where DRS failed miserably. If he says DRS is also a 50 - 50 chance, they why waste so much time and money on it by keeping away from it ? Technology should just be an aid, not replace decision making. Errors are there in DRS and umpires as well. Afterall, DRS is a product of humans, and umpires are human too.

Posted by   on (February 26, 2013, 13:56 GMT)

Its pathetic to read what Ian Chappel writes, because he contradicts himself by saying that DRS need not be right all the time and still wants to use DRS ? If 50-50 is good with DRS what is wrong about 50-50 without DRS ? I bet he does not have an answer. It seems he is trying to force India into using DRS siting Clarke's instance, but we have seen ghastlier mistakes than that of Clarke's with DRS and the 3rd. umpire rulings together! So sometimes its the 3rd Umpire making the mistake or the DRS making the mistake, which compounds the complicity of the result and proves that DRS is not the solution unless and until it is 100 % accurate and till such time BCCI is absolutely right not favoring the Faulty Technology.

Posted by Meety on (February 26, 2013, 3:50 GMT)

@ jmcilhinney on (February 25, 2013, 11:59 GMT) "The third umpire should be able to view slow motion replays at least to look for edges on bat/pad and LBW appeals" - the problem is slo-mo replays do not prove bat on ball in most cases. The reason why hot spot is compelling, is that in the moments after the ball makes contact, the Hotspot shows that something made contact. I certain that IF, the ICC could of, they would of just used slo-mo replays. The fact is though, that slo-mo cameras use high speed frames higher than most networks who cover cricket can provide. Also - in respect of the availability of the product, it is expensive currently, however, due to the failure to implement the technology, the usual economies of scale & technology investment has not taken place which retards the cost cycle. IF, Hotspot was mandatory, it would become rapidly more affordable within a couple of years.

Posted by WandererMatt on (February 26, 2013, 3:45 GMT)

IMO I think that the DRS should stay with the players. However when a decision is referred to the 3rd umpire then the 3rd umpire has a set amount of time to decide on whether to over turn the decision or not. Not like has happened where they will scrounge for any evidence to prove that the player is out. If there is no decision able to be made within the first few replays then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the batsman - as is the old way. Unlike the recent series in Australia where there were multiple occasions where there was no obvious reason to give a batsman out, but they were given out nonetheless (even where it over turned the on field umpires decision).

Posted by Meety on (February 26, 2013, 3:43 GMT)

@Harmony111 on (February 24, 2013, 18:03 GMT) - "I am surprised that the pro-DRS lobby fails to understand this simple point." - the problem is that slow motion replays do not always PROVE anything. This is due to the fact that the speed of the frames (whilst faster than previously), are not always in sync with WHEN the action occurred. IF, you follow cricket you would see that even simple run out reviews can often take numerous replays & still not be conclusive as one frame will show the bat outside the crease, the next over the crease but now the bails are off, at what point did the bails come off? The FACT is slo-mo does not offer anymore credible proof of snicks. The only time slo-mo would be close to HELPING an umpire is, whether the batsmens pad is struck in line with the stumps. I find it amazing that someone who can get on their high horse can so appallingly misunderstand the basics. It is very rare any type of replay (minus hot spot/snicko) proves a caught behind appeal!

Posted by GoelVipin on (February 26, 2013, 3:29 GMT)

Chappell made a very good point here. Everyone who saw the match knew that Clarke was out. Only Dharmasena didn't know it. The original decision should have been overturned, especially knowing that it was a howler, no matter whether it was challenged or not. It's OK that the umpire made an error in judgment, good umpires don't do it quite often, but it was the duty of the third umpire to remind him that he wasn't right. There wouldn't have been any embarrassment for the umpire had he been told about his mistake. Anyway he would have come to know about it before the next over was bowled. That's even more embarrassing, watching the batsman standing his ground after you deemed him not out in the previous over and knowing that you made a flagrant error. Though unknowingly, Dharmasena robbed Ashwin to pay Clarke.

Posted by TRAM on (February 26, 2013, 3:24 GMT)

Ian, dont bother. Justice prevails as we see. Clarke didn't walk off when he was out in the 1st innings. The pitch spit its venom against him in the second... DRS or no DRS, justice prevails :-)

Posted by Meety on (February 26, 2013, 3:20 GMT)

My only problem with taking reviews away from the players is in time wasting. Eventually Umpires will start to refer any contentious decision upstairs. Take a look at run outs, Umpires refer upstairs just about every run out decision, as they rightly want to double-check. So what happens if a team has bowlers & fielders who are APPEAL everything even remotely close. You could have umpires (in the extreme end of the spectrum), reviewing every ball of the over. Even if that doesn't happen, you will get bowlers who will dawdle to bowl their next ball HOPING the video umpire sees something that could uphold an appeal. Theoretically IC is spot on - the players should not have the right to review, they are proven to be LESS right then the umpires, (it also could diminish respect for umpires in the sense that their decision is not so much final anymore). The technology MUST be used, but at what point COULD the review process smother the charm of cricket, choking it under endless reviews?

Posted by Meety on (February 26, 2013, 3:12 GMT)

@ Johnny_Rook on (February 23, 2013, 9:57 GMT) - its only semantics. A lot of batsmen have walked once or twice, all I was saying is, that the only genuine walkers, a batsmen who walks when he is thinks he is out before the umpire makes a decision were Lara & Gilly. @getsetgopk on (February 24, 2013, 16:54 GMT) - I believe there is protocols, but I don't think the umpires are trained enuff on the interpretation. IMO, as a rule of thumb, if a batsmen gets benefit of the doubt from the on-field umpire, the on-field umpire should get benefit of the doubt from the 3rd umpire/UDRS. IF, this was to happen, then most of the weird rulings that have happenned of late would be removed. The worst decision under UDRS occur when a decision is overturned with no STRONG evidence.

Posted by balajik1968 on (February 26, 2013, 1:17 GMT)

Chappell still does not address the big question. Who will pay for this? Other than India, England, Australia and South Africa, none of the other federations is financially sound. Sri Lanka is unable to pay player salaries, that is why they play India often enough to a point where fans of both teams are sick of each other. Pakistan has'nt played a home series in 4 years. From what I read about New Zealand cricket it seems to be in deep trouble. West Indies just about seems to be coming back from its deep tailspin, but it is always one step forward, two steps back. Bangladesh is just finding its feet. I don't even want to talk about Zimbabwe. So where is the money?

Posted by jmcilhinney on (February 26, 2013, 0:20 GMT)

@sportsfan007 on (February 25, 2013, 20:21 GMT), I can't speak for everyone but I have been in favour of DRS since before I even knew that the BCCI had issue with it. I do agree that we should have a consistent set of DRS technologies and rules though so, as you say, if HotSpot cannot be used everywhere then I consider it to be quite reasonable to exclude it from DRS entirely, even though it is excellent at proving that an edge occurred in situations where there is doubt.

Posted by 5_day_tragic on (February 26, 2013, 0:20 GMT)

I'd like to see the third umpire have the potential to overturn anything OBVIOUS in terms of edges when it comes to LBW and bat pad decisions. Also getting the line the ball pitches and strikes the player in LBW can be quickly and simply overturned. That would eliminate 90% of the howlers...there's no need as Chappeli said, to try to get everything 100%.

Posted by   on (February 25, 2013, 23:11 GMT)

sportsfan007, surely you do not honestly think that people are supporting DRS just to be opposed to BCCI? Or is it not the other way round? We couldn't care less about who it is that opposes DRS, we just want better decisions to be made.

Posted by sportsfan007 on (February 25, 2013, 20:21 GMT)

While I'm a big supporter of technology, I'd like to see consistency and better technology. Half baked technology isn't going to do much good. People need to stop supporting it just because BCCI is opposing it. For example, technology that works like hotspot (Stuart Broad seem to have found a waxing work around for it though) will not be used in all countries due to government issues. If the reliable part of technology can be used consistently, it makes sense else it just seems a lame attempt to stick it to BCCI.

Posted by GRVJPR on (February 25, 2013, 16:09 GMT)

DRS apart, I think Ian chappel could have waited couple of days as to whether Michael Clarke can take advantage of howler and that he is a positive captain. What I saw of his captaincy when MS Dhoi went after his bowlers was absolute "NEGATIVE CAPTAINCY".

Posted by   on (February 25, 2013, 14:47 GMT)

Apart from Clarke the best batsman in Australian squad who plays spin well is Usman Khawaja and I dnt know why he is not playing in this match. He was the only player who was comfortable against spin during Australia's tour of Sri Lanks last year. Even Pointing and Clarke praised him. I hope he gets a chance to play which will increase the Australi's chances to have a huge first inning score.

Posted by ashlatchem on (February 25, 2013, 12:15 GMT)

@mngc - vsrriaj317's description is wrong. I am yet to hear anyone claim the Hawkeye camera's take 400 FPS. What the Hawkeye camera's do is take snaps at 100-150 FPS and it then layer the picture's on top of each other and then form's a predictive track based on the red or white (ODI/T20) blur's in the photo's. (The ball is traveling too fast for the ball in the picture to be anything but a blur) I would claim that a human umpire is at least as accurate when it is necessary. We could argue about this forever but I don't think it can realistically tested. 1 point I hope will stick with you though is the mind and body are complex things, It isn't as simple an analogy as this is the brain's hawk-eye. Also I think the major con (huge cost) outweigh's the pro's. A slo-mo replay with a pitch map is all the help umpire's need. If you want to find more info I would advise you to type Hawkeye into google and have a look at independent studies of the tech - I found 1. Very enlightening

Posted by   on (February 25, 2013, 12:13 GMT)

@Romanticstud: The Kallis decision was no howler, I say this as an ardent SA and Kallis supporter. Apart from DRS that would've been considered a 50/50 decision. If you go watch old replays, you would see that in the days of on-field umpiring this decision would not have been mentioned twice, and would've gone down as a close call at best.

It's a testament to the extent to which DRS has improved the accuracy of umpiring that decisions that were previously considered 50/50 are now considered howlers.

Posted by ignoranceisbliss on (February 25, 2013, 12:08 GMT)

On Chapelli's second point, let us assume that for every appeal (successful or otherwise) the DRS tools are available to the third umpire. Now there is a very high possibility that for most decisions, the third umpire will know after the first replay itself whether there is still doubt or not. If there isn't, then the third umpire doesn't intervene at all. However if there is doubt in the third umpire's mind after the first replay then he either asks the batsman to not leave or the bowler to stop from resuming whichever the case maybe. Assuming that to see a replay (which is already shown after every appeal even now!) the third umpire won't take more time than the bowler takes to reach his mark, the only reason for delay would be the delay caused by batsmen/bowler hanging around/wasting time. IMHO, don't think there is too much negative in that compared to getting howlers!

Posted by ignoranceisbliss on (February 25, 2013, 12:07 GMT)

I somehow don't see the ruckus behind using DRS in its present form, 3rd umpire involvement etc. Let's take a completely logical approach. On the question of whether DRS in its current form is useful or not, also there isn't too much doubt. Well in my mind, for any random decision, the ONLY question is whether it's possible that the on field umpire during live play can make a correct decision which the DRS gets wrong. IMHO, that's an infinitely small probability. If the umpire gets it wrong, then either the DRS corrects it or at worst says it can't decide. If the umpire gets it right well then DRS doesn't come in. Both ways there is no negative for using the DRS except cost and time delay. Guess the latter is a smaller issue compared to getting wrong decisions or even howlers.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (February 25, 2013, 11:59 GMT)

I believe that DRS should be implemented. I believe that the ICC should simply mandate DRS and the BCCI can live with it. I believe that the BCCI threatening to boycott any series played with DRS to be disgusting. If the BCCI has issues with technology like HotSpot and HawkEye and the ICC is not prepared to force the BCCI to accept them then the ICC should just forget about them and introduce a simpler version of DRS that many have suggested. The third umpire should be able to view slow motion replays at least to look for edges on bat/pad and LBW appeals. They should also use a pitch map to determine whether the ball pitched outside leg stump and the batsman was hit in line for LBW appeals. Even that would be much better than the current situation.

Posted by Selassie-I on (February 25, 2013, 11:48 GMT)

Oh Chapelli... how wrong most of these predictions have proved now. This seems to be a running theme throughout your analysis - being wrong.

Although I do agree with the sentiment that DRS is there to get rid of the howlers, not get 100% right - teams should have just the one review, this would stop the 'speculative review' tactic. Or they should have the option of as many as they want, but if they're wron then the other team gets say 20 runs added to their score in test, 10 in ODI in the form of extras? Then teams will never go for a review for the sake of it, or on the off chance as they know if they can't overturn then they stand to lose some runs.

I think we all know if the Clarke wicket had been given then the match would probably be over by now.

Posted by   on (February 25, 2013, 11:27 GMT)

The other option:

Like the NFL, whereby every touch down and turnover is reviewed upstairs, how about every decision of out is automatically reviewed, assuming it's a caught behind, inside edge or LBW, let's not review every catch at cover or bowled decision, that's too much time. This way, we can be certain before the unreversable has taken place. You then leave two reviews in the hands of the bowling team, which they can use to dispute not out decisions, and giving the batsmen 0 appeals, seeing as every close decision will be sent upstairs.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 25, 2013, 8:09 GMT)

@wc1992: Man you are a great comic act. I loved reading your comments. You said that at the moment only 3 teams are playing test cricket --- India, Eng, Aus, SA. I was never too good at maths but even I can tell you something is wrong with that comment of yours.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 25, 2013, 8:00 GMT)

@getsetgopk: That is why I talked of using Common Sense with slo-mo replays for such cases. Slo-mo replays can take care of a very large no of cases and if the umpires can get 90-93% lbw decisions right after a quick short single look then surely the slo-mo replay can take it to a very high level of accuracy. I am a fan of technology myself and have no problems with Hawk Eye or Hot Spot but I find them a bit too expensive and even then they fail to satisfy me. ICC has not helped its cause either by having some foolish laws and neither by giving flawed interpretations of the existing laws regarding DRS.

As for your suggestion that BCCI should take the matter of toned down DRS with ICC and other members, why should BCCI get into dialog with those who refuse to talk in terms of reason with BCCI about DRS? They say BCCI is scared of DRS, BCCI is too dumb to grasp DRS, Ind can't win with DRS, BCCI is selfish etc. It takes two to tango.

Posted by Romanticstud on (February 25, 2013, 6:12 GMT)

The DRS has been a point of concern as far as its own howlers are concerned ... The Kallis dismissal is a case in point ... but for the most part it is on the button with what the decision should be ... my only concern is that the team that gets a review and has the decision overturned to their favor has too much leeway as far as each correct decision does not diminish the reviews available ... I say each team can have 2 reviews per innings and a maximum of 3 if one decision is overturned ... Also the point by @nellaiseemai about the favor of the batsman ... there should not be restrictions in tests regarding bouncers at top batsmen ... and also the lbw rule should allow a leg pitched delivery where a shot has not been played that may hit the wickets ... a batsman may pad a leg pitched delivery all day ... there should be a deterrent to that ... as it makes for boring cricket ...

Posted by Yaksha on (February 25, 2013, 4:16 GMT)

@ getsetgopk, I believe BCCI's opposition to DRS is that ICC wants the boards to put these costly systems in place at all the stadiums. The problem is that there are issues with the technology. What I have never heard is, why doesn't ICC hold public trial of this technology or make the results public? If the technology is good, it will stand the test. I am on fence though on this issue. I don't believe that the technology is proved and ICC isn't going a great job of coming up with a proper guideline.

Posted by wc1992 on (February 25, 2013, 3:07 GMT)

at the moment every tom and harry indian coming up on these form and trying to tell the world and educate how intelegent bcci stance is against DRS ... let me tell you it improve at least 60% of the decisions.... bcci is trying to show the world there power and that is natural when u never had any power in the world not even in ur own land ... but once this slow's down watchout ... ie once Sa AUS and end revive there regular tours or setup a try nation championship then india will be playing with SL .... because they are sick of u and all other sports tri nation comptetaion are very successfull between SA AUS AND ENG

Posted by wc1992 on (February 25, 2013, 3:01 GMT)

test cricket will dye soon anyway as there will be only 3 team playing it .... india Aus SA and Eng ... then they can sort out and play test championship every year ...the only place where people are showing up for test cricket are india and that because of number of people in india and they nothing else to do ... once they loose few series away then home that will be the end of that ... it was Pak & india that would have keept test alive in asia but though evil planing cricket is taken away from Pak...that will in long run kill the cricket in Pak if not then test is already dead ... only time a conrty like test when there team is wining and despite winning around the world stadium are empty ..ie look a SA great summer but not even half stadium ......20/20 and ODI ... ODI will become new test for most of the teams

Posted by kharidra on (February 25, 2013, 2:45 GMT)

A performance evaluation system is the need of the hour. Be it tool aided like DRS or even manual as provided in this article. Firstly how has the sportsman performed in keeping the sporting spirit high? Followed by how has the umpire performed? Followed by how the administrators have performed by providing DRS in the series where it was used and by not providing DRS in the series where it is not in use? Firstly in sport the onus lies on the sportsman concerned not to vitiate a sporting spirit and rewards for fair play should be put in place. The rewards should far out weigh any other benefits in the form of win. Further for vitiating sporting spirit there should be heavy penalties. Like, a captain is suspended for tardiness in completing overs in time, similar punitive measures for violating the sporting spirit. That should take care of the player. Similar measures of award and reward for all the other personnel that matter can be put in place. Use DRS for accountability alone.

Posted by nellaiseemai on (February 25, 2013, 2:42 GMT)

My question is very simple. When a fielder field a ball at boundary line or makes a dive to save the boundary now a days everytime third umpire is having a look whether that is a four or not. Why not this importance is given to the bowler in terms of howlers. Since batsman is already having everything going their way I think bowlers should benefit from this. Why not for a non decision for eg., like Clarke's non decision where he clearly edged the ball and caught why not the third umpire interfere and call that out??? How much time it will take for the third umpire to pass this message to the filed umpire. Considering how much favor the batsmen are getting - helmet, pads, inner pads, field restriction, covered pitches, one bouncer rule, no leg side balls, anything pitched outside is not given lbw - these type of third umpire intervention should help bowlers. The emphasis is to get good decision even if there is no DRS. If there are bad decisions dont blame the absence of DRS.

Posted by Umbra on (February 25, 2013, 2:41 GMT)

That's cute, Chappell. Thinking that a reprieve in one innings of a Test match for Clarke could somehow win the Aussies the entire series, or at least take it away from India. I'd understand that being said if it was a two match series... but it's not.

Posted by salil247 on (February 25, 2013, 1:54 GMT)

Ian Chappell has spoken the truth. So let it be written. So let it be done. For the first time ever, someone has given a wonderfully lucid assessment of the DRS, in my opinion.

Posted by MEHATELK on (February 25, 2013, 1:45 GMT)

IF ICC want to push BCCI to accept DRS, one they can do is appoint srilankan umpires for all indian matches,so oneday they will accept.

Posted by Rowayton on (February 25, 2013, 1:35 GMT)

sams2cents suggests batsmen should be fined, or maybe suspended, if they don't walk. Good, now let's extend that to players appealing when the batsman hasn't hit it. If that was the case some Indian players such as former batsman Srikkanth would have been suspended for about the next 800 years. Same for walking - why would you walk unless you knew the other side would only appeal for certainties?

I accept the arguments about predictive paths being problematic - from my point of view, I don't see why we can't have DRS only answering the question "What did happen?" and not trying to answer the question "What might happen after that?"

And for my two bobs' worth, everybody says Dhramasena made a howler after watching the incident ten times in slow motion. Watch it once at full speed and see what you think. It was a wrong read, not a particularly bad decision.

Posted by Marcus74 on (February 24, 2013, 23:48 GMT)

sams2cents: Based on your belief that batsman who doesn't walk should be fined for unsportsmanlike conduct, should then the same apply to bowlers and fielders who appeal when they know it's not out? I imagine a fielding team would be fined a lot more than batsman.

Umpires are there to do a job and make a decision, not the players, they aren't perfect, but that's the beauty of the game. Currently the rules aren't balanced, we have a near perfect system for run outs and stumping's, where it's in the control of the umpires and they can all as many times as they like and an imperfect system where each team can have 2 referrals for every other mode of dismissal, that's insane. They all should be put in the hands of the umpires with no limit on it. Ideally there would only be 10 referrals per innings, because the umpires are getting it right, but if there's 30 because the umpires are getting it wrong, than that's not a bad thing.

Posted by McGorium on (February 24, 2013, 20:54 GMT)

@mngc: A prima facie compelling argument, except when you dig a bit deeper. Hawkeye will produce the correct result, *if* and only if it is set up precisely, consistently, and accurately. A few centimeters of camera misalignment might be the difference between the ball missing/hitting the stumps (parallax error). The broadcaster, not the ICC is in charge of this setup. A software bug might give you erroneous results; or worse, a deliberate backdoor to help bookies manipulate decions without anyone knowing. The ICC has no clue/review of the code-quality of hawkeye. Hawkeye has serious issues with inconsistent lighting, and occasionally loses the ball when it moves from light to shadow and back such as late evening shadows on the pitch. There's no *public* (3rd party, double-blind study) of hawkeye's accuracy;An idea that has the appearance of scientific method doesn't necessarily work. Part of this can be fixed if the ICC took complete control of DRS instead of relying on the broadcaste

Posted by sams2cents on (February 24, 2013, 20:53 GMT)

I think ere should be some onus on the batsman walking on their own. I Michael Clare's instance or otherwise if the batsman is clearly out and hasn't walked then it should be treated as an offence and they should be fined later for unsportsmanlike conduct At least the shame would bring some gentleman like element to the game and thereby reduce howlers

Posted by hhillbumper on (February 24, 2013, 20:30 GMT)

Drs should be compulsory for all series. Hope India keep suffering for not having it as that seems like natural justice. as for people saying Clark should have walked i suppose this also counts for the Indian players who were out and never walked?

Posted by getsetgopk on (February 24, 2013, 19:47 GMT)

Harmony111: As for the DRS your suggesting, that is, the one with only slo mo replays, I have never heard any of BCCI officials ever stating that they would be interested in a scaled down DRS. All im aware of is the technology is not 100% and hence its doing to the dust bin period. If BCCI are interested in such an arrangement, they should discuss it with opposition teams and I believe all of them would be open to the suggestion. But BCCI has never offered such a suggestion neither voiced it and hence non of the oppositions has never rejected BCCI's proposal for wanting such a DRS in bilateral series so I have to assume that BCCI dont want to do anything with any kind of DRS and are happy doing what they've been doing.

Posted by getsetgopk on (February 24, 2013, 19:32 GMT)

Harmony111: I do understand your point but that kind of a DRS would be under utilizing the technology. I believe we can do better than that with the technology at hand. What your suggesting is a DRS that's only effective for inside edges and thats that. What about plumb LBW's? I beleive the ball tracking technology is 99% correct and choosing not to use it would be robbing the game. Hot spot is shoddy no doubt but most times it picks the faint edges so I say use it. The recent debacle with hot spot was not the technologys fault but rather its faulty interpretation. On field umpires decisions should only be overturned IF there is conclusive evidence to support it otherwise the onfield decision stands. sometimes hot spot works sometimes it doesn't, but its the same for both sides. on average lets say it picks 7 out of 10 nicks, the 3 times it fails is shared by both teams isn't it. We need to take decision making to limits where humanly possible, cheers!

Posted by   on (February 24, 2013, 19:27 GMT)

If I remember BCCI's comments correctly, BCCI was not against DRS, it was against inconsistent application of rules governing DRS - background - 2 different calls taken under identical situations during the World Cup in opposing circumstances....The consistency in the decisions was not related to any fact other than that India was the suffering party in both cases. In one case the 3.5 meter rule was used to allow a possibly incorrect LBW decision to hold against an Indian batsman. In another, under identical circumstances - an Indian appeal against a non-Indian batsman was over-ridden, ignoring the 3.5 meter rule.

Posted by Alexk400 on (February 24, 2013, 19:26 GMT)

This is like 1000th article. People in charge of ICC do not care about DRS. I blame CA for agreeing to BCCI arm twisting. Cricket is badly managed by ICC. Yes there is lot of money but growth wise...its like someone stealing people money and do it quick before people woke up to nonsense

Posted by Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on (February 24, 2013, 18:08 GMT)

DRS as a concept is excellent. However, technology used has been the problem. Hawkeye and hotspot have been worthless. When you have super slow motion you can easily sort out howlers. super slow motion may not give you the answer for difficult one's , but the goal is to get rid of howlers and not the 50-50 decisions.

The way DRS is being used ( challenge by batsman) is pretty good. Umpires don't know when they make an error , how are they expected to refer ? Bringing in third umpire for every decision will put unnecessary pressure on third umpire and add to delays.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 24, 2013, 18:03 GMT)

@getsetgopk: No one is saying that DRS is is useless. No one is saying that DRS does not help. Ofc it does. DRS does help in eliminating howlers. This is something no one can deny. What ppl like me or Johnny_Rook are saying is that the benefits of using DRS do not seem to be in proportion to the complexity of the system or the costs of the system. Just because something incorporates a no of advanced technologies it does not mean it has to be used. We are trying to use a sword where a knife would have sufficed. The simplest question is, if we want to avoid the howler then can we not use freely available slo-mo replays for referral an see if there was an edge for a lbw appeal or not? You only need to to see a slo-mo replay and use Common Sense with it. That's it. Problem solved. And not a penny extra spent cos slo-mo replays are anyways available with the production company.

I am surprised that the pro-DRS lobby fails to understand this simple point.

Posted by Vivekrgi on (February 24, 2013, 17:34 GMT)

ICC should work on improving the DRS system and also the decision for using the DRS should be decided by ICC instead of giving a chance to the home team. In Clarke's case, as a batsman he knows that he has nicked the ball, though umpire gave Notout, he should have walked out if he is having a sportsman spirit just like SRT, Gilli etc..

Posted by getsetgopk on (February 24, 2013, 16:54 GMT)

Meety: Your spot on with the interpretation issue of DRS. ICC really has done a shoddy work there. I think the ICC needs to sit down and prepare proper protocols on how to interpret DRS in given situations. I beleive most of it is well documented but some of their umpires are not properly trained and in most cases dont really know the correct procedures to follow in certain scenarios. Other than that I dont see any issue with DRS. Johnny_Rook: Aren't you guys tired of defending the BCCI's old inferior ways of playing this great game? Howlers are happening in this day and age and you guys are out here in numbers letting the whole world know that how much you love that to continue is something i'll never understand. Generally speaking, people who think that DRS is not an effective tool in making correct decisions are not worth talking to in my book but i make an exception for you here, aren't you lucky LOL

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (February 24, 2013, 16:52 GMT)

@TommytuckerSaffa: Completely agree with you. DRS adds excitement whilst nullifying anger from cricket watchers who see batsmen like Clarke given not out at a crucial point in the game, and go on to play an innings which is tainted. Australia would've been all out for 200 if DRS had been used, and the game would never be at the position it is. The other point is that it ruins the reputation of the batsman at the centre of the incident - a faint edge is one thing; middling it to the fielder and pretending you didn't is something else entirely.

Posted by sparth on (February 24, 2013, 16:39 GMT)

Shame Chappell didn't wait untill the end of the next day before writing the title of this article. Quite clearly Clarke's century won't be winning the series here

Posted by kabe_ag7 on (February 24, 2013, 16:21 GMT)

@landl47 - Well I wouldn't like to think this in terms of 'right' and 'wrong'. I am speaking from a subjective view of the kind of cricket watching experience I'd enjoy. Firstly, such a thing has been tried on a limited scale and wasting of time was distinctly observed among other things. It may not lead to so much delay as to result in match bans, but it's likely to severely affect the watching experience. Secondly, time wasting would happen not due to players alone, but because of 3rd umpire's continuous mandate to confirm there are no wrong decisions without any trigger from the players themselves. Imagine after every close appeal turned down, players shifting their focus to the 3rd umpire waiting (hoping) expectantly for a reversal. Currently a delay of 10 secs occurs in which the captain counsels and makes a decision. But here, they would just be pretending to prepare for the next ball (since there is no appeal to be made) while wondering about what the 3rd umpire is doing. Silly.

Posted by TommytuckerSaffa on (February 24, 2013, 16:20 GMT)

Personally i find DRS adds excitement and anticipation to the game. Great addition. I agree with calls to have it simplified and using the 3rd umpire more instead. But not using DRS at all is just plain stupid. Modernisation of the game is key to its survival.

Posted by   on (February 24, 2013, 15:03 GMT)

@srriaj317.............dont argue with people commenting here as they don't know lbw rule.............. lbw rule is "for lbw decisions umpire will extrapolate the path at impact (which is scientifically defined as the velocity vector) straight upto the stumps" i.e. umpire is not entitled to incorporate wind or swings past impact point....velocity vector is defined as dx/dt. We get accurate velocity vector as dt approaches 0. For human eye dt=0.1 sec for professional cameras have 1000 frames per sec i.e. dt=0.001 sec hence they calculate velocity vector 100 times more accurately.... What hawkeye does is it extrapolates the vertical projection of velocity vector upto stumps & obtains the height of impact on stumps using projectile equation with given initial velocity. This equation is scientifically proved to be 100 percent accurate. .....only limitation with hawkeye is when ball pitches too close to pads i.e. dt<0.001 sec rhen it cannot calculate vel vector.

Posted by   on (February 24, 2013, 14:36 GMT)

@mngc u r spot on...............We adopt technology only for betterment not bcz technology is perfect. Y u purchase core i3 & give up 486 ..Do u think core i3 is perfect, no we have core i5 coming now & so on. U do this only bcz core i3 is significantly better than 486 ......................... simple.....................nothing is perfect there is always room for improvement. Betterment is the only reason of opting for sth ..................U go to Doctor. r u sure u will be cured ..NO..u visit Dr bcz it gives u more chance of cure...............Similarly all DRS technologies only improve decision making & that should be sufficient reason for adopting it

Posted by JohnnyRook on (February 24, 2013, 14:11 GMT)

@getsetgopk. Oh really. Then how come only ECB was ready for a vote on DRS being the sole choice of host nation in the most recent ICC meet....Please answer...Don't chicken away from this question.

Posted by _myk on (February 24, 2013, 13:55 GMT)

@Chris_Howard " I find it ridiculous that the DRS is allowed to make decisions based on centimetres" If the decision is in those margins, it stays with the on-field umpire - the same result as if there was no DRS. The biggest problem with DRS is players attempting to get marginal decisions (LBWs especially) rather than using it to avoid proper howlers.

Posted by KapilJoshi on (February 24, 2013, 13:46 GMT)

If the aim is only to avoid howlers, then that can be done using routine slow motion replays as well. There is no need of expensive DRS, especially when majority of cricket boards are struggling for finances. The same money could be put to better use like helping non test playing nations and development of cricket around the world. Perhaps invest it on improving the DL system as well.

Posted by   on (February 24, 2013, 13:45 GMT)

I agree with Ian Chappel that India cannot cry over the wrong decision on Clarke's catch since they have refused the DRS. The argument that DRS may not be 100% correct is fallacious as even field umpires are not infallible. Bat pad catches are really diffcult to adjudge. The only difference is that the umpires on the field do not make any mistake willfully. And the spirit of cricket should make everyone on the field accept their decisions. But it can be disappointing for a bowler who bowls his heart out and when the umpire turns down a LBW decision which was perhaps wrongly adjudged NOT OUT.

Posted by rkannancrown on (February 24, 2013, 13:34 GMT)

In reality, DRS makes TV watching more entertaining and offers possibility of higher revenues. Since BCCi gets plenty of revenues, it sees no reason to kowtow to the demands of broadcasters. Other boards succumb because it improves their revenues. The current debate revolves around reliability of DRS specifically with reference to ball tracking, edges and low catches. In these three areas, DRS has often been exposed as unreliable. DRS supporters would find support if they restricted the demand for a mechanism to avoid howlers rather than making false claims about the efficacy of the current system.

Posted by   on (February 24, 2013, 13:32 GMT)

DRS should use for all INDIAN series. BCCI need to change their wrong decision on DRS

Posted by Kapil_Choudhary on (February 24, 2013, 13:26 GMT)

Lets look at the Clarke decision itself. If it was solely in the hands of the 3rd umpire to overrule the decision, what is then Ashwin supposed to do after Dharmasena turned down the appeal?? Is he supposed to waste time hoping the 3rd umpire will over-rule (and there is no way for him to know for sure if the 3rd umpire has watched the replay) or is he supposed to bowl the next ball? Also, what happens if he bowls the next ball before the 3rd umpire contacts the on field umpire. Or does the on-field umpire confer with the 3rd umpire after every decision and thus hold up play? The solution is just not practical...

Posted by Greybob on (February 24, 2013, 13:16 GMT)

Cricket administrators have brought the game into disrepute by sanctioning two test matches running concurrently being played under different sets of laws for the same championship? DRS has over the years proved to be an interesting addition to the spectacle of all forms of cricket and in my view should be continued to be used. Establishing when it should be used is the issue that the administrators need to decide on. The third umpire should be used more often as they are in direct communication with the on field umpires and should interject promptly when required. They could adjudicated on no balls as there are still a large amount not being spotted by the standing umpire. It may well be worth considering using only one review but if it is unsuccessful by means of Umpires Call the team in question do not lose the review.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 24, 2013, 12:58 GMT)

Ppl need to understand that using DRS as it is right now to take care of ONLY howlers is like using a mobile phone to make a call to your neighbor to tell him that you are standing outside his door. Using the doorbell or a simple knock would be the easier and much cheaper option.

The original problem was: "How to eliminate/minimize Howlers". But slowly the question has become "Should DRS be used or not". This is a false dichotomy cos we don't need DRS (in its current form) to solve the original problem. This is just like the NASA's space pen anecdote. Focusing on solutions instead of problems. If the desire is to get rid of howlers then a simpler, FREE tool called slo-mo replay can be used to take care of howlers like Clarke's reprieve. It can also be used to see if the ball pitched in line with stumps or not. Pls don't say that the ball kissing the glove or sniffing the bottom edge may make a howler. They don't. They are marginal ones.

Posted by raj_12345 on (February 24, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

Very much agree with Chappell. But I would think that instead of leaving it to the umpire, how about having just one DRS review available to the team. That way, the teams will ensure that they take it only when there is a howler.

Posted by MEHATELK on (February 24, 2013, 12:48 GMT)

MR.IAN howlers dont need very high technology to change decision,as cricket is socalled gentlemen game batsman should walk if he sure he nicked.opposition always cries about DRS when a frontline batsman gets wrong decisions.as howlers can be detected by simple TV reply which can be affordable to all test playing nations batsmen should be punished like not allowed to play for coming two test matches,if he doesnt walk even though TV reply showed he clearly nicked the ball.s in lbw cases we should leave to umpire in all case of delivery line, if umpire not sure about the height of the delivery he should discus to tv umpire and come to the decision in no time.in LBW inside edge cases batsman should allow unlimited reviews if he sure he got an iside edge that should be detected by simple tv reply.if batsman review unnecessarily again he should be banned for another two matches.

Posted by inswing on (February 24, 2013, 12:43 GMT)

I have always maintained that the best strategy is the following: for all 'out' decisions, there is an automatic review by the third umpire. If clear evidence is found to the contrary, the decision is overturned. If the review is not clear (can't tell whether it was out or not out), the decision on the field stands, which was 'out'. This will not waste much time because most 'out's are pretty clear and there is no controversy. Now, in the case of 'not out' decisions, it is up to the fielding captain to appeal. You cannot have the third umpire reviewing everything, otherwise they would be reviewing something or the other every over and players waiting and waiting in hope. The rule again is the same: on an appeal, if clear evidence is found to the contrary, decision is overturned. When things are not clear, ruling on the field stands, which was 'not out'. This way, umpires on-fied decision takes precedence. It is overturned only when found to be clearly wrong.

Posted by T1N_R3DBuLL on (February 24, 2013, 12:34 GMT)

well..ian has tried to make the case for DRS but the result at the end of the 3rd day doesnt quite vindiacate his points..

Posted by landl47 on (February 24, 2013, 12:27 GMT)

kabe_ag7: you make a good case, but you're wrong and Ian Chappell is right on this one. The object must surely be to get the best decision (I accept that occasionally there will still be arguments over whether that decision was right) every time. This can only be achieved if the game is taken away from the players and given back to the umpires, using whatever technology is available to them. The BCCI's objection can easily be met if that is done; as the host country they decide what technology is available to the umpires. As a visiting country they must accept what the host country provides for the umpires. In the case of some of the less wealthy countries that might not be much.

The time-wasting argument has no merit. There aren't that many decisions which require lengthy scrutiny and there are sanctions, including fines and suspension, for captains who do not maintain a satisfactory over rate. Is Australia, say, going to risk losing Clarke because of time-wasting? I think not.

Posted by   on (February 24, 2013, 12:00 GMT)

Welcome, Ian Chappell. We Indians love you, sometimes you berate us, our BCCI, our selection policy but always seem to have a soft corner for India. You would genuinely appreciate Saurav, Dravid and Sachin in the way any Indian fan likes.

Personally I always felt that you tend to have that typical Aussie arrogance (no fault of you and nothing wrong in that) and sometime, sometimes just shoot of your mouth.

I remember in the 2001 series, how you went hammer and tongs against Saurav Ganguly on his "attitude" after the first test loss and how you went quiet after the next two amazing tests.

Now, in the same way you have mentioned that Clarke' reprieve means series loss for India. Serious?? Too much too soon. I wish you could have waited for one more day, waited after the Indian innings is over. Waited after seeing today's Dhoni's innings .....

Well, you words somehow have the desired effect on the Indian Cricket team ....way to go Ian ...

Posted by king78787 on (February 24, 2013, 11:50 GMT)

let the 3rd umpire do the reviewing. If he thinks there is a umpiring howler he should ask for a review. Same with the second on field umpire. This way the descisions are checked

Posted by kabe_ag7 on (February 24, 2013, 11:50 GMT)

@sarangsrk - The rule of fielding team losing their review due to umpire missing the no-ball can be changed (if this rule is already not in place) so that the team doesn't lose review.

@Johnny_Rook - Clarke's case was a howler for everyone to see. I have come across some who have led to debates. Anyway, it's just one of the many factors that are problematic with handing DRS to the 3rd umpire.

Posted by alarky on (February 24, 2013, 11:34 GMT)

Ian, an excellent article as usual! However, the BCCI would not accept the use of the DRS while Tendulkar is still playing. You see the reason in the India first innings. He was plumb LBW to offspinner Nathan Lyons, but Umpire Erasmus did what most umpires have been doing for Tendulkar's throughout his career - that is, give him the benefit of the doubt - suspiciously so, I don't know. However, Umpire Erasmus and the other umpires need to remember that Tendulkar has already built a massive fortune out of cricket; and he is unfairly playing on borrowed time. Nathan Lyons on the other hand is a young professional cricketer who depends on what "the books" show at the end of the day to hold his job. Hence, they should not allow Sachin Tendulkar of all persons, whom the Indian selectors say is "undroppable" to cost him his job unfairly; because, the Australian selectors are not that stupid to offer any player, even the Gt Sir Donald Bradman a place in the Australian team for life!

Posted by   on (February 24, 2013, 11:04 GMT)

To be quite frank, Indian cricket is in a right old mess. Disgraceful selection, attitude towards DRS, sentimentality, inflexibility, not putting nearly enough money into the women's` team, appalling hosting of the women's` world cup, anything else? Good luck Australia, I'm rooting for you!

Posted by getsetgopk on (February 24, 2013, 10:47 GMT)

Two boards that silently standing by BCCI are CSA and CA, ECB has always stood up to everyone for the sake of the game. This partnership BCCI have with CSA and CA in champions league and IPL is what is the root cause of it all. We in Pakistan have nothing to do with BCCI and have hardly ever supported them on various issues especially the DRS. We dont play the Indians except for an odd ODI or a T20 here and there so all the blame goes straight on to CSA and CA.

Posted by Ropsh on (February 24, 2013, 10:00 GMT)

Chappell is only partially correct. Until HawkEye publish the confidence intervals around its predicted path, the technology will be nothing more than a laughing stock amongst those who are intelligent enough to realise that HawkEye is a fraud.

Posted by Chris_Howard on (February 24, 2013, 9:34 GMT)

Agreed, Ian. I find it ridiculous that the DRS is allowed to make decisions based on centimetres. (Oh, and millimetres for front-foot no balls).

Keep it simple - if it's not clear cut, then the umpires decision stands. E.g. for LBWs, the ball tracker would have to show all of the ball hitting the stumps to overrule the umpire. For front foot no balls the 3rd umpire should only get one or two looks at it. For edges, if he has to take more than a minute, and several reviews, then back to the umpire's decision.

It's not hard, we're just making it hard by trying to make it perfect.

Posted by anuajm on (February 24, 2013, 8:53 GMT)

Time is of paramount importance in sports and you cannot play forever. Giving DRS in the hands of 3rd umpires will lead a lot of reviews and misuse of this opportunity. Therefore the choice is with the players if whether they believe that the decision is wrong, they can then get it rechecked which is the best way forward. Marginal decisions will always be 50-50 but the umpires should demonstrate consistency in interpreting rules (refer Kallis latest dismissal). An ever improving DRS, provided with a set of rules on usage built on common sense is the need of the hour. Also the no. of chances to 3 in tests and 2 ODI's might balance out and give fair number of opportunities to players to correctly utilize it. As Chappell rightly said, reviewing every decision will lead to cricket lose it charm. India also need to set their team selection right with Jadeja, Ishant, Bhajji and Vijay all out of depth and not suited for test cricket.

Posted by JohnnyRook on (February 24, 2013, 8:19 GMT)

@kabe_ag7. No. A blatant howler is a blatent howler for everybody. Australians and Indians both agree that Clarke's was a howler. Even DharmaSena and Clarke would agree when they view it again...

Posted by srriaj317 on (February 24, 2013, 8:15 GMT)

To all the people questioning HawkEye (the predictive path), what do you think the umpires are doing? Are you telling me they are NOT predicting a path inside their head? Or do they have a god-sent enlightenment which tells them exactly where the ball is going to go within an accuracy within 1mm? Or do they have sensory cells on their skin which can measure the speed of the wind more accurately than a computer? Or do they have extra-sensory knowledge which tells them how the pitch is behaving differently for every ball?

Wow, we must be having some real-life X-men umpiring for us! Get over it, the HawkEye is clearly much better than humans in path prediction because it uses the same decision process as an umpire - the advantage is simply that it can measure variables with a higher accuracy. Stop saying that the HawkEye cannot take factors like wind and pitch into account because it just highlights the fact that you haven't thought about it!

Posted by xylo on (February 24, 2013, 8:03 GMT)

I am not for or against the DRS, but in scenarios like this, if we wanted to avoid a howler, why is the responsibility on the fielding captain to correct the wrong? Shouldn't it be the umpire's responsibility - field umpire if unsure, or third umpire if the field umpires do not catch it? Today's captains already have plenty on their hand, and leaving this to the umpires makes sense.

Posted by   on (February 24, 2013, 7:28 GMT)

I think 3 or 4 ICC officials should make decision together about difficult decision. that would be best and benefit of doubt thing should be there.

Posted by RednWhiteArmy on (February 24, 2013, 6:51 GMT)

Chappell - "This can only happen when the players have no part in the DRS and it's left in the hands of the third umpire to overrule on-field decisions that are palpably wrong". So what would the point of the 2 onfield umpires be & at what point does something go from being slightly wrong to palpably wrong? You either have to review everything, review nothing or give the captain a set amount of reviews.

There is nothing wrong with UDRS as it is. Since its introduction ive never once blamed the umpires if England lose. Thats UDRS.

Posted by BradmanBestEver on (February 24, 2013, 5:53 GMT)

aavalentine - I agree with you. Very subtle.

Posted by   on (February 24, 2013, 5:39 GMT)

I am up for DRS, most of the time it helps making the game fair. Technology has its limitations it cannot be 100 percent accurate but it can certainly increase the accuracy of umpiring decisions

Posted by Humdingers on (February 24, 2013, 5:18 GMT)

Good in theory but in practice cricket may go down the path of the NFL where in the 2 hours of "game time", only 10-15minutes are actually spent playing the game. Put that in perspective over 5 days and it gets a bit out of hand. But Chappel is right in saying a middle ground has to be reached.

Posted by sarangsrk on (February 24, 2013, 4:53 GMT)

@kabe_ag7...A howler should not require multiple reviews which is why its howler. Ex:Clarke's non-dismissal. The main issue with DRS, though multiple issues, is inconsistency with technologies like Hot Spot and predictive path tracking. As a bowling team, you can never be sure that you will get 100% accurate decision from these tech and then you would risk losing both your reviews. Other issue with DRS is that umpiring errors like foot overstepping no-ball are also counted against the bowling team. If the bowler knew that he overstepped, he would not ask for review and hence, it is umpire's mistake and hence, the bowling team should not be penalised by deducting their reviews if the bowler has overstepped.

Posted by   on (February 24, 2013, 4:00 GMT)

@Posted by Vinay Kolhatkar totaly agree with you and mixters if you are not out and the finger goes up you have to leave. If you are out and the ump says not out well thats up to you, I think anyone ever given out when they are not out will never walk again. As for gentelmens code and all that garbage there is not a player including all the so called heros above that have not gotten away with one or two let he without gilt cast the first stone. Not alot of stones on the cricket grounds of the world I think

Posted by subbass on (February 24, 2013, 3:41 GMT)

Well said mr Chappell. Fully agree. You are pretty clever for an Aussie :p

Posted by Punters_Mate on (February 24, 2013, 2:48 GMT)

The suggestion that some players walk in the spirit of the game is disengenuous at best and clearly wrong. Recent instances of batsmen departing early is more to do with not wanting to be embarrassed by the technology DRS or not if they hang around for the umpires decision. On one Australian tour SRT broke his bat on a caught behind and refused to walk. Selective walkers are the real cheats and a blight on the game who try to influence umpires who may be confused by the batsmans optional application of the spirit of the game

Posted by DocBindra on (February 23, 2013, 23:42 GMT)

DRS or no DRS but Dharmasena should not have missed that bat and pad off Pup. Warney almost mocked the decision by commenting that it might not have been an edge but actually come off the middle of the bat. Furthermore, is it really that difficult to follow the predictive path of the ball when it clearly pitches outside of the three stumps? Sorry but DRS is not supposed to be a substitute for incompetence.

Posted by vijayvenkatram on (February 23, 2013, 18:51 GMT)

DRS or no DRS, why can't the third umpire get involved when there are such howlers. Probably that makes the situation simple.

Posted by iluvtest on (February 23, 2013, 14:01 GMT)

@aavalentine even DRS doesn't pronounce a decision. It is up to the third umpire to interpret the replay and give a decision. Then it can be assumed safely HE can be influenced. Where that leaves us?

In the recently concluded second test between SA and Pakisthan why ICC accepted that a wrong decision made in giving out to Kallis with DRS in place?

Like Mr Chappel pointed out rightly DRS need not be 100 % perfect.So is an umpire.It is normal to err and that certainly adds charm to the game.So what is the need of DRS which is not perfect instead of conventional system?

As for Clarke's decision it is not a big issue at all. such things happened earlier and happen in the future.It can happen in favor of either team.Why make such a controversy?

A decision by umpire can not be questioned at all and DRS is aiming to do the same.If at all DRS is to be implemented the technology is to be acquired by ICC .No question of getting the services from a private firm.

Posted by kabe_ag7 on (February 23, 2013, 12:39 GMT)

Also, players have limited opportunity to halt the game due to a limit on the number of reviews. The 3rd umpire would have the responsibility to get the right decision. He will be less worried about time wasting and more conservative in his approach. Will the 3rd umpire be allowed to stop the game if he wants extra seconds to review a decision? It will start depending upon the 3rd umpire's personality too much. It'll start depending upon his ability to quickly identify what's a howler and communicate it to the ground. It'll start depending on what order he chooses to use technology. For an lbw shout, does he go for hotspot first, or pitch map or hawk-eye or front-foot line? All this will start mattering if the 3rd umpire is required to check all this on his own without severely disturbing the flow of the game.

Posted by Simoc on (February 23, 2013, 11:37 GMT)

DRS works great and would be better if left to the third umpire. The reason India won't have it is because they would use up their allocation of appeals in the first over when bowling and before three wickets down when batting. Their inane appealing is mindless.

Posted by   on (February 23, 2013, 11:23 GMT)

The main issue with DRS is the LBW decision. Predictive Path is problematic. That said, biggest LBW howlers are when umpires make a big mistake on the ball pitching outside the line of leg. You don't need predictive path for that!

Posted by balajeev on (February 23, 2013, 10:58 GMT)

As an India fan, there are at least two reasons to be frustrated. One, with DRS there are fewer bad decisions that affect the course of a game than without DRS. I don't know if not implementing DRS is due to BCCI's intransigence or if there is more to it than meets the eye. Secondly, the two passengers in Indian bowling Ishant and Harbhajan continue to be picked.

Posted by aavalentine on (February 23, 2013, 10:48 GMT)

I think the elephant in the room - that NOBODY has mentioned anywhere - is the fact that umpires are only human, and 'could' somehow be influenced (on the field or otherwise). Technology, however, cannot.

So it's interesting to see the stance of various boards in endorsing or denouncing the DRS.

Posted by nypd on (February 23, 2013, 10:33 GMT)

Here Here Ian Chappell, Never a more truthful statement

Posted by   on (February 23, 2013, 10:30 GMT)

Yes, mixters, we still remember that 3rd test which Australia supposedly won. Juston Langer was out thrice to Akram, two of them absolute howlers and he carried on. Even Ponting's first century agianst India was a false one. Ajit Agarkar had 4 wickets and then Ponting so obviously edged him to a slip fielder while on 0 or 3 or 4. No one should walk. Sometimes you get given out when you are not out so why walk? It will all even out in the end.

Posted by goldrusher on (February 23, 2013, 10:05 GMT)

What people seem to forget is that we are talking about two completely different things here - technology and the DRS. DRS is a rule that can easily work WITHOUT hotspot or any other 'contentious' technology. Most decisions in the short history of the DRS have been through the use of TV replays which comes well within the 'accepted' technology' boundaries. If the BCCI is not happy with hotspot, keep it out. Accept DRS with the third umpire using only available technology to arrive at a decision.

Posted by devibala on (February 23, 2013, 10:03 GMT)

will the Austrailan and England cricketers play with the right spirit of the game? No never, they play that they should only win at any cost. So no surprise that |Clarke did not left the ground though he know that he was out. They are habituated for that and keep on commenting on other teams.

Posted by   on (February 23, 2013, 10:03 GMT)

We don't UDRS bcoz Indians are genuine when they were dismissed.Eg.Sachin Tendulkar,MSD,and other great players.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (February 23, 2013, 10:01 GMT)

@kvsrkt- I get the logic in your post -re. the spirit of the game and such , but it ain't as easy as that!! Eg - by your logic Dhoni should have called back those batsmen in the recent test and ODIs series in Ind who were dished out howlers to the wrongful benefit of home team -India.... It sure was obvious to all watching on TV and in the ground ...bar the umps !!.... that a huge error had been made... All I mean to say is it is imp. to look at both sides of the coin for the argument to hold reasonable merit.

Posted by   on (February 23, 2013, 9:59 GMT)

Decisions should be made with the technology and must be final. Umpires should then be penalised for making howlers and rewarded for making the correct decision, especially more so if those decisions are made without the use of technology. This is similar to the Umpire reviews we have for run outs. Otherwise, include the reviews of run outs for the DRS.

Posted by ChinmayD on (February 23, 2013, 9:58 GMT)

Why are howlers bad but marginally incorrect decisions good? Shouldn't we try to eliminate *all* wrong decisions from the game? Whereas, the UDRS is specifically designed to NOT correct marginally wrong decisions. If the Umpires can make howlers, then they can certainly get marginal calls wrong as well. This is where UDRS really fails.

We have played Test cricket for 130 years without DRS. We can play it for a few more years. When we do implement a DRS system, it is important that we get it correct -- not the halfbaked version that currently exists.

Posted by JohnnyRook on (February 23, 2013, 9:57 GMT)

@Meety. SRT and Kallis have walked as well as not walked in the past; depends on the situation of the game I guess. Of modern cricketers so far, I have never seen Dhoni and Sangakkara staying on after nicking it. But again there is no guarantee they will do so if the team is in real strife.

@kvsrkt. In Sydney 2007-08, Clarke nicked to slips and still waited for Umpire's decision but no one can accuse Clarke of being unfair for not walking. Umpire din't raise his finger. Thats all what matters. After all he has to start walking even if he is actually not out but the umpire raises his finger.

Posted by mixters on (February 23, 2013, 9:47 GMT)

They are only howlers when they happen to Indian batsman Ian. If its anyone else its just part of the game. I must wonder how many more wickets Akram would have with the DRS. So many times that in swinger to the right hander hit them so full and plumb and the umps missed it as much as the batsman did.

Posted by T-800 on (February 23, 2013, 9:37 GMT)

I believe the BCCI will resist the use of DRS as long as they can because of the following reason. The Indian cricket team just like the country is a unit that is strung up together by a delicate (but efficient) thread. Small things tend to cause big rifts in Indian teams. Not just Dhoni, any Indian captain will have a hard time with the DRS because the decision of when to use DRS and when not to use it might end up compromising team unity.

Posted by Meety on (February 23, 2013, 9:26 GMT)

@kvsrkt on (February 23, 2013, 9:02 GMT)- Kallis & SRT are not walkers. The only two genuine walkers in the last 30 yrs were Gilchrest & Lara. == == == My biggest gripe with UDRS is the interpretation. Under the assumption batsmen get the benefit of the doubt, IMO the 3rd Umpire should give benefit of the doubt to the on-field umpire. We get in a world of hurt when decisions get overruled on flimsy evidence. It seem to be happenning more often too. So in a way I am agreeing with IC, IF the onfield umpire has given benefit of the doubt to the batsmen, the 3rd umpire should only put his 5 cents in if the decision is OBVIOUSLY wrong!

Posted by avi_maverick on (February 23, 2013, 9:25 GMT)

@kvsrkt hmm...do remember sachin did not walk in an odi in australia

Posted by JohnnyRook on (February 23, 2013, 9:06 GMT)

I am disappointed with this article. Ian Chappell also is taking a diplomatic stance and asking everybody to fix the issue without actually suggesting how to do it. Neither BCCI nor ICC are going forward with DRS without expensive and contentious, to be used only for howlers, independently untested technology. But then cricket commentators and writers are not doing that either. Clarke's decision was a howler and just like every other howler, it could have been corrected with a simple TV replay. So I don't understand why is this particular completely free of cost option not considered at all by anybody other than a negligibly few bloggers.

Posted by Silverbails on (February 23, 2013, 9:04 GMT)

Well said, Ian! Perhaps the BCCI could take note here: DRS - and in fact any other form of technology that may be used in cricket, such as snicko, hotspot and hawk eye, for example - comes at the simple price of it by it's very definition NOT being 100% foolproof!! But, SURELY it's better to be 70% - 80%+ right the vast majority of the time and to eradicate the howlers than to be 100% of the time right all the time (which is probably NEVER going to be the case with LBW decisions in any case!!)?? And, as for choosing the best team - there are quite a few spinners around, apart from Ohja (such as Vassol, for example) who simply NEED their chance on the international stage, after performing SO WELL on the domestic set-up, IF India is to start performing well overseas, in particular!!

Posted by kvsrkt on (February 23, 2013, 9:02 GMT)

Michael Clark should have left when he knew he was out at 39. Many senior players viz. Sachin Tendulkar, Jacques Kallis have done that earlier when they knew they were out. They have done it in the "Spirit of the Game".

Also, If the BCCI selectors are being sentimental about Harbhajan's 100th test, I don't see why he shouldn't be dropped for the next test owing to his single wicket in the first innings and making place for Pragyan Ojha and If Australia is playing the best bowlers in their side then India should better drop anyone of their openers for the in form Shikhar Dhawan. Then at least it would not be playing directly into Clark's hands

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Ian ChappellClose
Ian Chappell Widely regarded as the best Australian captain of the last 50 years, Ian Chappell moulded a team in his image: tough, positive, and fearless. Even though Chappell sometimes risked defeat playing for a win, Australia did not lose a Test series under him between 1971 and 1975. He was an aggressive batsman himself, always ready to hook a bouncer and unafraid to use his feet against the spinners. In 1977 he played a lead role in the defection of a number of Australian players to Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket, which did not endear him to the administrators, who he regarded with contempt in any case. After retirement, he made an easy switch to television, where he has come to be known as a trenchant and fiercely independent voice.

    Last ball, last wicket, and Northants' parched spell

Ask Steven: Also, Vijay Manjrekar's nickname, Abid Ali's no-ball, oldest double-centurions, and this decade's leading players

    'I ensured there was no regionalism in selection'

Couch Talk: Former India batsman Chandu Borde reflects on his career as a player, mentor, manager and selector

    The man who pulled New Zealand from the precipice

Brendon McCullum's runs and leadership have rescued New Zealand cricket from its lowest ebb. By Andrew Alderson

'In front or behind the stumps, he was out there for a battle'

Modern Masters: Rahul Dravid and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss Adam Gilchrist's temperament

Flirtations with Jesse

Beige Brigade: The boys discuss if Ryder can stay good for the summer, the West Indies pullout, and the Alternative Cricket Commentary's return

News | Features Last 7 days

How India weeds out its suspect actions

The BCCI set up a three-man committee to tackle the problem of chucking at age-group and domestic cricket, and it has produced significant results in five years

The insecure kid who never grew up

Kevin Pietersen missed the point of life in the second half of his career, failed to show maturity, and has regressed to being the bitter youngster who left Natal years ago

India's other keeper stumped again

Throughout his career, Wriddhiman Saha has suffered from being in the same generation as MS Dhoni. However, those close to the player believe that Saha has never been one to take rejection personally

A rock, a hard place and the WICB

The board's latest standoff with its players has had embarrassing consequences internationally, so any resolution now needs to be approached thoughtfully

Kohli back to old habits

Stats highlights from the fourth ODI between India and West Indies in Dharamsala

News | Features Last 7 days