It looks like the DRS (the much maligned Decision Review System) is officially here to stay. Even though the BCCI think the DRS has got all the detective prowess of Pakistan’s ISI, the ICC’s cricket committee has decided to recommend the universal use of technology in all forms of international cricket.
India are the only nation that will oppose the move at the ICCs executive board meeting in June – which obviously suggests that the rest of the world thinks the DRS is A-OK.
It will be really interesting to see what happens. India is the most influential cricketing nation on earth – and the BCCI is more used to getting its way than Veruca Salt. We wouldn’t be surprised if they kick up a real fuss. Indeed the BCCI’s secretary, N Srinivasan is already screaming blue murder:
“We will oppose it at the Executive Board because the DRS in its present form is unacceptable to us … the inadequacy of the DRS was exposed in this edition of the World Cup”
Of course, what he really means is that India’s inability to use the DRS effectively was shown up at the World Cup. Although they were on the wrong end of a stinker in the group stages when Ian Bell should have been given out lbw, India have consistently failed to use the system to their advantage.
When India were first exposed to the DRS in Sri Lanka in 2008, the home side made eleven successful referrals and the Indians just one. They went on to lose the series. Is it any surprise that they want to get rid of the blasted thing?!
Rather than crying over spilt milk, the BCCI should accept that technology has increased the number of fair and accurate dismissals in international cricket. The system isn’t perfect – nobody pretends it is – but the ICC cricket committee are correct in their assertion that the experiment with technology has been a success.
Yes, there have been teething problems. And yes, as long as Daryl Harper is around there are bound to be more cock-ups, but something tells me that the BCCI won’t be complaining so vociferously next time they tour Australia – when they’ll actually have the ability to challenge some of the on-field decisions that have gone against them in the past.
People can object to technology on the grounds that it removes some of the spontaneous elation experienced by players and spectators when a wicket falls (as everyone has to wait while the decision is checked). Similarly, there are those who believe that human error is part of the game – and the fallibility of umpires is all part of the drama. However, criticising the DRS simply because you’ve used it badly smacks of irrationality and, I hate to say it, sour grapes.
I am a huge fan of Indian cricket, and Sachin Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh and Zaheer Khan are amongst my favourite players. However, the BCCI should not be allowed to get its way over this one. If cricket has any pretence at being democratic and representative, the will of the majority should rule. The DRS needs a bit of WD40, not abandoning.
James Morgan
How come the ECB aren’t opposing it? They repeatedly did at the earlier stages of DRS’s adoption. Giles Clarke and Strauss both voiced their opposition. It’s not because we benefited from so many decisions in Australia, by any chance?
I think that the problems England experienced in the past were mostly Daryl Harper related – and therefore should have been avoided. Once the issues Eng experienced were ironed out, and the DRS started to work better, opinions about its usefulness changed. The key is using it correctly – and in the right spirit.
Personally, I hope that India will also see that they’ve just been a bit unlucky, and be reassured that the problems they’ve encountered won’t reoccur. Hopefully we can get everyone on the same page – although some people, mostly those who have always been against technology from the start (for reasons I understand but personally disagree with), will always lament its introduction.
I thought the DRS worked well in the Ashes and ultimately achieved its aim of improving the decision making process and reducing the number of errors. I really don’t understand the opposition to the concept – I am not that interested in the part umpires play in the drama of the game and if their role is diminished through DRS as the price for more correct decisions then I would be happy.
I also feel the players need to be a bit smarter in the way they manage their appeals; the configuration used will only reverse significant errors yet captains time and time again ask for a review on marginal LBW decisions. Unless the players believe that the ball was going to hit between middle and off to middle and leg and up to two thirds up the stumps then an appeal is often wasted.