England in Sri Lanka 2011-12 March 13, 2012

DRS to be used for Sri Lanka-England Tests

49

The Decision Review System (DRS) will be used for the upcoming two-Test series between Sri Lanka and England but the Hot Spot technology will not be available, leaving the Snickometer as the only tool to aid decisions on catches. The ball-tracking technology will be provided by Hawk-Eye, Sri Lanka Cricket secretary Nishantha Ranatunga has said.

The version of the DRS used in the series will be the same as the one used in Sri Lanka's previous home series, against Australia in August-September last year. There had been doubts before that series over whether SLC would be able to afford the technology required for the system, given their financial crunch, but the DRS was used then, though without the expensive Hot Spot, and will be used again for the series against England. The ICC, in October last year, removed the mandatory requirements for the DRS, leaving the decision of what technology to use to the participating boards in a series.

The last time the DRS was used in Sri Lanka, Hawk-Eye admitted there had been a tracking mistake that led to Phil Hughes being adjudged lbw during the first Test, in Galle. There was a visible discrepancy between Hawk-Eye's graphic and television replays for Hughes' dismissal, the umpires referred the incident to the ICC, and Hawk-Eye admitted there had been a mistake, mainly due to the small distance between where the ball pitched and the point of contact with the pad.

The absence of Hot Spot also became an issue during that series when, in the second Test, wicketkeeper Brad Haddin was convinced Tharanaga Paranavitana had gloved a ball down the leg side to him, but was denied due to a lack of evidence. "It's pretty hard with those ones in general for umpires where it comes off the glove or the hip or the bat. It's pretty hard with no Hot Spot as well; it's hard to make a decision. I was pretty confident then that we got some glove," Haddin had said of the incident.

England, though, have had issues with the Hot Spot technology. During their home series against India last summer, Stuart Broad suggested Hot Spot does not show faint edges, after England were convinced VVS Laxman had edged a ball but survived a referral, at Trent Bridge.

There were also a couple of flashpoints surrounding the DRS during England's recent Test series in Pakistan in the UAE. In the second Test, a not-out lbw decision against Mohammad Hafeez was overturned despite the fact that Hot Spot appeared to show a faint inside edge, and an lbw against Stuart Broad in the third Test, when he had got his front foot well down the pitch, raised the question of whether the DRS had swung things too much in favour of the bowlers.

While Hawk-Eye will be used in Sri Lanka, its rival ball-tracking provider Virtual Eye was called into question by South Africa's Jacques Kallis and New Zealand's Doug Bracewell after the Dunedin Test. Virtual Eye threatened to pull out of the series due to the criticism but were persuaded to stay on by the ICC.

Edited by Dustin Silgardo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • JG2704 on March 15, 2012, 22:04 GMT

    @zenboomerang on (March 15 2012, 15:06 PM GMT) - Great Grandchildren - seriously? Fair play to you if so. I just always have the image of most people being between 20 and 45 on these forums- don't know why. Anyway , agree with your comms. I remember India when they toured Eng did not want Hot Spot and got their way. Then I remember H Singh getting out to Broad to an LBW which he clearly got an inside edge on. From a neutral perspective could they not have a review system in place where a side can review such decisions without hot spot? IE for a bowling side appealing for a caught behind or a batsman saying he got an inside edge on an LBW and just go to the 3rd umpire who has slowed down replays to go on.Then if there is no clear evidence to suggest that the umpire made a blunder it stays with the umpires decision? If hot spot is controversial surely you could still use technology of the 3rd umpire with slowed down replays etc?

  • zenboomerang on March 15, 2012, 15:06 GMT

    @JG2704... I am totally confused by the power of 1 nation over 2 other nations in sport... I guess money truely runs the modern world - I guess there never was a truely balanced playing field.... Luckily my great grandchildren quickly bring me back to reality... lol...

  • JG2704 on March 15, 2012, 10:11 GMT

    @ zenboomerang on (March 14 2012, 13:56 PM GMT) Must admit it seems a bit unfair that Oz and SL wanted DRS and India didn't and India got their way - esp as they weren't even the host country.

  • yorkshire-86 on March 14, 2012, 17:27 GMT

    The odd slight howler by DRS is nothing compared to the repeated howlers umpires have made over the last 100 years in letting batsmen off with lbw because they were 'well forward', somehow forgetting that if the ball is straight (and low enough) it WILL hit the stumps and therefore should be OUT - whether the leg wearing the pad is practically on top of the stumps or half way down the pitch does not change that. This ugly monstrosity that the 'batsmen gets the benefit of the doubt' is the reason cricket is a Stone Age sport when all other sports are in the Digital Age and anything that helps eliminate doubt, even if it (DRS) makes the odd error, should be welcomed with open arms and made mandatory. The pad is there to protect your shins, not your stumps.

  • zenboomerang on March 14, 2012, 13:57 GMT

    @FreddyForPrimeMinister... Agree that border line decisions should not affect the number of appeals i.e. 60% of the ball missing the stumps... Still, while there isn't consensus nothing will progress to make the decision making processes better while India stalls on this issue... No debate = no improvements to the system of governance...

  • zenboomerang on March 14, 2012, 13:56 GMT

    @Nutcutlet :- "neither side has the right to shout 'We waz done!' later in the piece"... It doesn't work that way - Oz & SL wanted DRS but India refused in the tri-nations series... 2 for & 1 against yet India told Oz & SL bad luck you have to play the way we want to play... Well as it turned out India was the loser both in the series & there for lost appeals that could have changed games & got them into the finals...

  • 2.14istherunrate on March 14, 2012, 13:14 GMT

    Not having hotspot is a bit mad...I do not think that one or two mistakes with it rule out it's overall usefulness such as in regard to the ball brushing various things. If using vaseline is a fear, then all the umpires have to do is feel the surface of the bats every now and again. There will always be a few who will try to bend the rules but mostly i think Test players have a sense of honour and fair play and are above trying to seek minor advantages through sleight of hand. Overall i think that the whole appeal process needs speeding up so that the interruptions in play are kept short. The last NZ/SA test was an example of how not to let appeals stretch out.If 15 secs is the max then please ENFORCE, umps. Overall the wo5rk of the third umpire needs to speed up in general and some referalls for run outs are just ridiculous. Technology does not mean the on field umpires stop working things out for themselves.

  • bonaku on March 14, 2012, 13:09 GMT

    Why are we still persisting with these faulty technologies ? It makes so sense to use them, when we know that it is flawed.

  • zenboomerang on March 14, 2012, 12:53 GMT

    @satish619chandar... Thanks & agree in return :) ... The DRS howlers have left me hollow... Governance is a major stumbling block to which we need to address before we move on...

  • satish619chandar on March 14, 2012, 11:53 GMT

    @zenboomerang : Perfectly agree.. But still, a umpire howler is now turned into a DRS howler.. I think for marginal decisions, we have a UMPIRE DECISION stay in case of LBW.. Is there anything called UMPIRE DECISION STAY for hotspot or other decision making tech? Then we dont need a umpire decision stay for LBW too.. DRS do need to be reliable mate.. No use in spending 5000$ per day for camera's which ll be blocked by closein fielders or out of range.. Can't the minimum technology in replay and pitch map eradicate the howlers? I guess the 100% correct decision by DRS can be easily done by a replay with pitch map..

  • JG2704 on March 15, 2012, 22:04 GMT

    @zenboomerang on (March 15 2012, 15:06 PM GMT) - Great Grandchildren - seriously? Fair play to you if so. I just always have the image of most people being between 20 and 45 on these forums- don't know why. Anyway , agree with your comms. I remember India when they toured Eng did not want Hot Spot and got their way. Then I remember H Singh getting out to Broad to an LBW which he clearly got an inside edge on. From a neutral perspective could they not have a review system in place where a side can review such decisions without hot spot? IE for a bowling side appealing for a caught behind or a batsman saying he got an inside edge on an LBW and just go to the 3rd umpire who has slowed down replays to go on.Then if there is no clear evidence to suggest that the umpire made a blunder it stays with the umpires decision? If hot spot is controversial surely you could still use technology of the 3rd umpire with slowed down replays etc?

  • zenboomerang on March 15, 2012, 15:06 GMT

    @JG2704... I am totally confused by the power of 1 nation over 2 other nations in sport... I guess money truely runs the modern world - I guess there never was a truely balanced playing field.... Luckily my great grandchildren quickly bring me back to reality... lol...

  • JG2704 on March 15, 2012, 10:11 GMT

    @ zenboomerang on (March 14 2012, 13:56 PM GMT) Must admit it seems a bit unfair that Oz and SL wanted DRS and India didn't and India got their way - esp as they weren't even the host country.

  • yorkshire-86 on March 14, 2012, 17:27 GMT

    The odd slight howler by DRS is nothing compared to the repeated howlers umpires have made over the last 100 years in letting batsmen off with lbw because they were 'well forward', somehow forgetting that if the ball is straight (and low enough) it WILL hit the stumps and therefore should be OUT - whether the leg wearing the pad is practically on top of the stumps or half way down the pitch does not change that. This ugly monstrosity that the 'batsmen gets the benefit of the doubt' is the reason cricket is a Stone Age sport when all other sports are in the Digital Age and anything that helps eliminate doubt, even if it (DRS) makes the odd error, should be welcomed with open arms and made mandatory. The pad is there to protect your shins, not your stumps.

  • zenboomerang on March 14, 2012, 13:57 GMT

    @FreddyForPrimeMinister... Agree that border line decisions should not affect the number of appeals i.e. 60% of the ball missing the stumps... Still, while there isn't consensus nothing will progress to make the decision making processes better while India stalls on this issue... No debate = no improvements to the system of governance...

  • zenboomerang on March 14, 2012, 13:56 GMT

    @Nutcutlet :- "neither side has the right to shout 'We waz done!' later in the piece"... It doesn't work that way - Oz & SL wanted DRS but India refused in the tri-nations series... 2 for & 1 against yet India told Oz & SL bad luck you have to play the way we want to play... Well as it turned out India was the loser both in the series & there for lost appeals that could have changed games & got them into the finals...

  • 2.14istherunrate on March 14, 2012, 13:14 GMT

    Not having hotspot is a bit mad...I do not think that one or two mistakes with it rule out it's overall usefulness such as in regard to the ball brushing various things. If using vaseline is a fear, then all the umpires have to do is feel the surface of the bats every now and again. There will always be a few who will try to bend the rules but mostly i think Test players have a sense of honour and fair play and are above trying to seek minor advantages through sleight of hand. Overall i think that the whole appeal process needs speeding up so that the interruptions in play are kept short. The last NZ/SA test was an example of how not to let appeals stretch out.If 15 secs is the max then please ENFORCE, umps. Overall the wo5rk of the third umpire needs to speed up in general and some referalls for run outs are just ridiculous. Technology does not mean the on field umpires stop working things out for themselves.

  • bonaku on March 14, 2012, 13:09 GMT

    Why are we still persisting with these faulty technologies ? It makes so sense to use them, when we know that it is flawed.

  • zenboomerang on March 14, 2012, 12:53 GMT

    @satish619chandar... Thanks & agree in return :) ... The DRS howlers have left me hollow... Governance is a major stumbling block to which we need to address before we move on...

  • satish619chandar on March 14, 2012, 11:53 GMT

    @zenboomerang : Perfectly agree.. But still, a umpire howler is now turned into a DRS howler.. I think for marginal decisions, we have a UMPIRE DECISION stay in case of LBW.. Is there anything called UMPIRE DECISION STAY for hotspot or other decision making tech? Then we dont need a umpire decision stay for LBW too.. DRS do need to be reliable mate.. No use in spending 5000$ per day for camera's which ll be blocked by closein fielders or out of range.. Can't the minimum technology in replay and pitch map eradicate the howlers? I guess the 100% correct decision by DRS can be easily done by a replay with pitch map..

  • JG2704 on March 14, 2012, 10:21 GMT

    @Meety on (March 14 2012, 00:00 AM GMT) You mention about a side losing a review when the ball is marginally hitting the stumps on an umpires call. You're talking about a bowling side right - because if the batsmen reviews a decision which is marginally hitting the stumps then the decision stays. If you're saying that you think the bowling side reviewing a dec which is marginally hitting the stumps means that they should not have the dec reversed but at the same time not lose a review then I 100% agree. To be honest re your hypothetical scenario , Steyn would either bag wickets which he deserved or would lose the the reviews meaning that he could not use the reviews later - unless of course all those balls are marginally hitting and they go with your theory of not losing reviews for balls which are marginally hitting

  • Yevghenny on March 14, 2012, 9:57 GMT

    I really do not understand the problem with the inaccuracy when this is accounted for by more than half of the ball having to hit the stumps for it to be given out!!

  • satish619chandar on March 14, 2012, 9:43 GMT

    I guess ICC can continue to have two wrong reviews with penalty for the reviews above two.. May be, 10 run penalty for wrong review after the first two.. This will make the player to be very careful and review only when they are 100% sure that the decision is wrong.. We have seen some teams suffering due to lack of review after the two wrong reviews.. May be, this will give the players one more lifeline if it is a pure howler..

  • maddy20 on March 14, 2012, 9:16 GMT

    @yorkslanka Did BCCI ever ask a single penny from any other cricket board so that they can run it. We have risen to the place we are through hard work and determination. If you can't play your players' match fees, if you can't afford technology, you might as well stop playing cricket ! You have not won any trophy at home or overseas in a longtime anyways!

  • MrBrightside92 on March 14, 2012, 9:13 GMT

    Hurrah...I agree with RandyOz again..yes there are walking wickets against spin in the England team (especially Bell)..not sure about embarrassment to World cricket...certainly to English cricket...I'm sure fans of other nations thoroughly enjoyed it...3-0 was definitely one sided but you'll notice the absence of any innings defeats...England were outplayed but at least they put up a little bit of a fight...the issue about the BCCI is not about DRS, it's about all the other test playing nations wanting it and their refusal in going with the majority...they can hold the 'I told you so' card if they wish but these sort of things need consistency. If the ECB have made similar unilateral decisions then they need criticising too. Saying that, the English batmen (especially Bell, if he makes it) will be happier if DRS is not used during the tour to India...

  • zenboomerang on March 14, 2012, 9:06 GMT

    @satish619chandar... Accuracy isn't the issue as the technology has been proven time & again to be much better than the umpires & the umpires almost univerally agree with this & prefer to be able to use the technology to improve their own accuracy... For me the only issues are governance & time wasting - which is excessive given the audience regularly knows the decision well before the umpire gives it... I don't know why they don't use the same system that tennis uses for wide balls on bowlers feet for "no ball" decisions & is basically instantaneous...

  • zenboomerang on March 14, 2012, 9:04 GMT

    @kitten... Oz has never run cricket internationally - it used to be up to the MCC to control all aspects of cricketing laws until more recent times... Nor do I remember Oz voting for law changes just to suit Oz only... If India wants to control international cricket then they had better try & do a better job than the Pom's did - which at present looks very unlikely...

  • AJ_Tiger86 on March 14, 2012, 7:51 GMT

    Sensible decision. We English cricket fans have never trusted the HotSpot. It's too easy to fool the HotSpot using Vaseline or similar materials. But HawkEye and Snicko are great technologies and should eliminate 99% of the wrong decisions.

  • satish619chandar on March 14, 2012, 6:55 GMT

    @Meety : More than cost, ICC need to look into the accuracy of the available technology and frame clear rules for usage of it.. I dont see any purpose if the manufacturers are going to say 90 % accurate but none knows which 10% is going to be inaccurate! Let them come up in which cases they will face challenges and ICC can frame a rule how to act on those cases.. Unless they get into the mode of minimizing the technical error, the controversies will come up again and again..

  • lankanlioncric on March 14, 2012, 1:20 GMT

    good we decide to use it, good move SLC

  • Meety on March 14, 2012, 0:00 GMT

    @Nutcutlet - personally I don't like Boards picking & choosing the technology. I think the ICC should subsidise costs, then the more Hot Spot is used, market forces would suggest the cheaper it will become. That being said I understand why SL chose not to have Hot Spot, but I thought that would be cheaper than Hawk-Eye??? @FreddyForPrimeMinister - I agree, for Umpire's call where the ball is marginally hitting the stumps - but not enough to be given out etc - the side who loses the review should not be derprived of a review. @landl47 - I do have a preference that the players do not have the review power, my only concern is that we MAY get to a hypothetical scenario where Umpires suffer from "analysis paralysis". Imagine Steyn bowling in helpful conditions to a new batsmen say (KP) - every ball of the over is appealled & the umpires refer everything. The over could take 15 minutes (or more) to complete. I know that is extreme, but not impossible!

  • Clive_Dunn on March 13, 2012, 22:57 GMT

    A hot spot is definitely not a good spot.

  • Dilmah82 on March 13, 2012, 22:27 GMT

    Shame ICC doesn't make for FULL use of all available technology for every international series!

  • yorkslanka on March 13, 2012, 22:15 GMT

    its clear that SLC would have liked to have hotspot but cant afford it..I suppose something is better than nothing..really the icc should be paying for this to be used consitently in all series, whether the bcci like it or not..if they dont, then their opposition should be allowed to use it..

  • on March 13, 2012, 20:46 GMT

    Should have hot spot what a mistake!!!!

  • PACERONE on March 13, 2012, 20:19 GMT

    I agree with Land47.They hold up the game to see is a fielder was touching the ropes while making a save on the boundary and to check if a bowler has bowled a no ball when the batsman is clearly out.Batsmen will start walking if they know that they are out.All players will have a review instead of 2.

  • on March 13, 2012, 19:49 GMT

    is snicko going to be implemented??? doesn't it take time?????

  • kitten on March 13, 2012, 19:46 GMT

    It is surprising how Stuart Broad remembers one incident regarding VVS, and the blatant two or three times that Dravid was wrongly given out by the third umpire(one time the ball hit his shoelaces, and he was adjudged having snicked the ball, when his bat was nowhere near!!), are conveniently ignored. These terrible decisions were the reason why BCCI had hardened it's attitude to DRS, and rightly so, until things get rectified, and India being the powerful cricket nation now, after England and Australia had their day in the sun, can stick to their guns until they feel things are working OK, and there will be no bad decisions in the future. One mistake can be excused, but when one batsman get two or three bad ones, it is awful, and even though I am a neutral supporter, I feel the game needs good decisions(at least 98% of the time), because one bad one can turn a match, and two can be a disaster.

  • Lovetesh on March 13, 2012, 19:18 GMT

    O yes, Lankans can only vote for Hot spot but they don't have the money to use it. Going by the trend, by the time India-England series arrives both the teams will be against DRS and there will be harmony all around. Cheers!!

  • on March 13, 2012, 18:43 GMT

    India should use udrs always because it is effecting other teams also

  • on March 13, 2012, 18:37 GMT

    DRS should be absolutely compulsory for the every match and for the every series specially for every test series because it can change the match on its head and ultimately it will decide the best team of the world and the test championship as well. it is unfair that some teams like India are not using it.

  • johnathonjosephs on March 13, 2012, 17:57 GMT

    Thank God for the UDRS. May good decisions finally come

  • Srini_Indian on March 13, 2012, 17:36 GMT

    If the other countries want consistency in terms of use of DRS, why there isn't consistency of use of hot spot? Even if DRS is implemented throughout, countries like SL, Pak, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, WI can't afford hot spot and therefore DRS becomes an absolute joke. Add to that, accuracy of hot spot is questionable.

  • landl47 on March 13, 2012, 17:00 GMT

    The main issue with DRS is nothing to do with the system, it's the appeal process. ALL decisions should be taken by the three umpires, using technology where they think it is necessary. That's what happens now on stumpings and run outs; just extend that to everything else. Once the three umpires have made their decision, that's it. No appeals, no overrules and the game controlled by the umpires as it was meant to be. A lot of these problems would simply go away.

  • FreddyForPrimeMinister on March 13, 2012, 16:51 GMT

    @ranga_s... exactly!! The DRS may not be 100% accurate but most of the times it hasn't been is due to errors on the part of the 3rd umpire (Broad's as above, Bell's in the World Cup etc) and these mistakes were especially made in the early times with DRS (esp when the 3rd umpire was Darryl Harper!) Those mistakes are slowly being minimised although umpires are all human - including 3rd umpires!! As far as ball-tracking technology is concerned, again this may also not be 100% accurate, but as the umpire's call deals with those borderline cases, Hawkeye actually only needs to be accurate to within say 2-3 centimetres - i.e. half the width of a cricket ball... :) Jem

  • screamingeagle on March 13, 2012, 16:00 GMT

    Use the technology by giving the umps some leeway, let them decide to refer close ones to the technology and make a call based on evidence. Now it is a flawed technology with teams making a call on good faith and hope resulting in the whole thing being a circus.

  • sachin_vvsfan on March 13, 2012, 15:59 GMT

    @please keep BCCI/INDIA/Sachin out of this discussion. Enjoy your own tour against SL

  • the_wallster on March 13, 2012, 15:19 GMT

    Snicko is being used?!?! It takes 10-15 minutes for the technology to determine and analyse the sounds in conjunction with the images! Farcical!

  • ranga_s on March 13, 2012, 14:15 GMT

    @FreddyForPrimeMinister: I also agree with you...If the DRS system goes up to an extent where it says it's umpire call the players should not be penalised by taking off the review as it would be like you are letting the man you challenged to make the ultimate verdict...MOre often than not it was human errors caused DRS appear faulty hence it's important the people how to use it rather than them criticizing the system....If ICC could address the above mentioned issue with penalty against the fielding unit, I personally feel that DRS could be much more effective. It may not be flawless and India wants but it would take down the number of bad decisions drastically...

  • Gupta.Ankur on March 13, 2012, 14:04 GMT

    It seems people are seeing the faults with DRS and Hotspot now and in every series there are new issues with it.

    BCCI and the great Tendulkar had been against it from the beginning and many 1st world countries who were ridiculing us then are seeing the same 1 year hence.

  • RandyOZ on March 13, 2012, 13:44 GMT

    England are going to need more than the DRS to save them if they are going to avoid another complete whitewash against a team from the subcontinent. The performance against Pakistan was an embarassment to world cricket. Bell, Pietersen and Strauss are walking wickets against spin.

  • FreddyForPrimeMinister on March 13, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    DRS is not infallible but it improves overall decisions and takes away the howlers, so why oppose it?? The Broad incident mentioned in the article was NOT a fault of Hotspot, it was an umpiring error - the third umpire failed to notice the mark - so don't blame the equipment, blame human error, which is what you potentially get from all decisions without DRS!! The "umpire's call" means that the benefit of the umpire's doubt still goes to the batsman - if the umpire has any doubt, he calls not out and the fielding side needs to ensure that MORE THAN HALF the ball is hitting the stumps. The only problem I have with the DRS in such instances as that, and the technology suggests the appeal is valid but not by enough to overturn an umpire's original decision; then the appellant (fielding or batting side) should not lose their appeal, as technically the equipment agrees with them! Thoughts on this anyone? Jem

  • northumbriannomad on March 13, 2012, 12:50 GMT

    Good that something is being used, but I thought they couldn't use Snicko because it took too long? Why is this different for every single series? Can the ICC please just lay down the rules and stick to them.

  • satish619chandar on March 13, 2012, 12:14 GMT

    How about misjudgement by umpire? Giving Not out thinking that ball pitched outside leg but it actually didn't.. It need to be changed right? The best option would be is to use only replays and using pitch map.. If the ball pitches even a inch on the pitch map, it should be treated as pitched in line.. Make rules global and all umpires should follow same yardstick.. Even if its a mistake, it need to be consistent.. Inconsistency is what that is causing the main issue..

  • SDHM on March 13, 2012, 11:24 GMT

    I thought the reason Snicko wasn't used was because it took so much time out of the game? I'm all for getting as many decisions right as possible, but if it's taking five minutes or more to reach it, it'll start getting ridiculous!

  • Nutcutlet on March 13, 2012, 11:06 GMT

    One day, in the not-too-distant future, the use of technology will be universally acceptable and all controversy will have evaporated. Quite what that technology will comprise is another question entirely, but the cricket world is beginning to become more sophisticated in its critique on the various competing methods. As it stands, there is too much heat and not enough light as the whole issue has turned into a political football; it's fair enough that, for the time being, the ICC should allow two boards to agree between themselves what they will/will not use for a specific series, because this is a time of transition and what is perceived as good in March 2012 may not be so 6 months later. A mutual agreement means that neither side has the right to shout 'We waz done!' later in the piece. Only one thing is certain: technology is here & it's not going away - and that is a very good thing. Cricket spectators generally like the growing objectivity it affords. What a sport we have!

  • dudex16 on March 13, 2012, 10:54 GMT

    Good decision.....i cannot understand the problem india has against udrs

  • ReverseSweepIndia on March 13, 2012, 10:34 GMT

    I have said i in other posts too. If umpire has given not-out to a batsman, do not let fielding side challenge that decision. That will take out that controversial predictive path element out of equation. Just use it for howlers like edged but given notout, not edged but given out, edged but given lbw, pitched outside leg but given lbw. This will let the game free of howlers and do not let it become another tactical tool to captains of when to use Review. I think BCCI probably will agree on this. When they used first it in Srilanka, they were clueless how to use it, because predictive path make it more like mental game. Then they used it in Eng, where they completely ruled out LBW decisions out of DRS. So we had that Bhajji issue in that Broad hat-trick and few others.

  • Smithie on March 13, 2012, 10:32 GMT

    Great effort Sri Lanka! There are fewer controversial decisions with DRS than without it. That is the bottom line - cricket is improved. When Srinivasan sees spinners getting more LBWs on slow, low tracks self interest will cause him to opt for it before England arrives in India for the Test series. Especially since SRT's authority to resist is now firmly diminished - along with his form.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Smithie on March 13, 2012, 10:32 GMT

    Great effort Sri Lanka! There are fewer controversial decisions with DRS than without it. That is the bottom line - cricket is improved. When Srinivasan sees spinners getting more LBWs on slow, low tracks self interest will cause him to opt for it before England arrives in India for the Test series. Especially since SRT's authority to resist is now firmly diminished - along with his form.

  • ReverseSweepIndia on March 13, 2012, 10:34 GMT

    I have said i in other posts too. If umpire has given not-out to a batsman, do not let fielding side challenge that decision. That will take out that controversial predictive path element out of equation. Just use it for howlers like edged but given notout, not edged but given out, edged but given lbw, pitched outside leg but given lbw. This will let the game free of howlers and do not let it become another tactical tool to captains of when to use Review. I think BCCI probably will agree on this. When they used first it in Srilanka, they were clueless how to use it, because predictive path make it more like mental game. Then they used it in Eng, where they completely ruled out LBW decisions out of DRS. So we had that Bhajji issue in that Broad hat-trick and few others.

  • dudex16 on March 13, 2012, 10:54 GMT

    Good decision.....i cannot understand the problem india has against udrs

  • Nutcutlet on March 13, 2012, 11:06 GMT

    One day, in the not-too-distant future, the use of technology will be universally acceptable and all controversy will have evaporated. Quite what that technology will comprise is another question entirely, but the cricket world is beginning to become more sophisticated in its critique on the various competing methods. As it stands, there is too much heat and not enough light as the whole issue has turned into a political football; it's fair enough that, for the time being, the ICC should allow two boards to agree between themselves what they will/will not use for a specific series, because this is a time of transition and what is perceived as good in March 2012 may not be so 6 months later. A mutual agreement means that neither side has the right to shout 'We waz done!' later in the piece. Only one thing is certain: technology is here & it's not going away - and that is a very good thing. Cricket spectators generally like the growing objectivity it affords. What a sport we have!

  • SDHM on March 13, 2012, 11:24 GMT

    I thought the reason Snicko wasn't used was because it took so much time out of the game? I'm all for getting as many decisions right as possible, but if it's taking five minutes or more to reach it, it'll start getting ridiculous!

  • satish619chandar on March 13, 2012, 12:14 GMT

    How about misjudgement by umpire? Giving Not out thinking that ball pitched outside leg but it actually didn't.. It need to be changed right? The best option would be is to use only replays and using pitch map.. If the ball pitches even a inch on the pitch map, it should be treated as pitched in line.. Make rules global and all umpires should follow same yardstick.. Even if its a mistake, it need to be consistent.. Inconsistency is what that is causing the main issue..

  • northumbriannomad on March 13, 2012, 12:50 GMT

    Good that something is being used, but I thought they couldn't use Snicko because it took too long? Why is this different for every single series? Can the ICC please just lay down the rules and stick to them.

  • FreddyForPrimeMinister on March 13, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    DRS is not infallible but it improves overall decisions and takes away the howlers, so why oppose it?? The Broad incident mentioned in the article was NOT a fault of Hotspot, it was an umpiring error - the third umpire failed to notice the mark - so don't blame the equipment, blame human error, which is what you potentially get from all decisions without DRS!! The "umpire's call" means that the benefit of the umpire's doubt still goes to the batsman - if the umpire has any doubt, he calls not out and the fielding side needs to ensure that MORE THAN HALF the ball is hitting the stumps. The only problem I have with the DRS in such instances as that, and the technology suggests the appeal is valid but not by enough to overturn an umpire's original decision; then the appellant (fielding or batting side) should not lose their appeal, as technically the equipment agrees with them! Thoughts on this anyone? Jem

  • RandyOZ on March 13, 2012, 13:44 GMT

    England are going to need more than the DRS to save them if they are going to avoid another complete whitewash against a team from the subcontinent. The performance against Pakistan was an embarassment to world cricket. Bell, Pietersen and Strauss are walking wickets against spin.

  • Gupta.Ankur on March 13, 2012, 14:04 GMT

    It seems people are seeing the faults with DRS and Hotspot now and in every series there are new issues with it.

    BCCI and the great Tendulkar had been against it from the beginning and many 1st world countries who were ridiculing us then are seeing the same 1 year hence.