Understanding BCCI's reluctance to DRS

[PokerAce]

I am not a big fan of the BCCI and I feel that in IPL it has launched the biggest scam that the game of Cricket has ever seen, simply to fill its coffers. I also feel that that BCCI has pushed around its weight too much in Cricket. I am infact so anti-BCCI that I almost invaribly become pro anything it opposes, in this instance the DRS, and vice versa. However when I look at the DRS in isolation to my views on the BCCI, I am forced to admit that the DRS doesn't really work, as well as we would like to believe.

I mean for a system that was brought in to change the way Umpiring works, and eliminate errors, the DRS has directly led to some of the worst decisions ever made in the history of cricket. These wrong decisions are well documented and if you are follower of cricket you know exactly the ones I am talking about. Usman Khwaja is perhaps the most famous incident of all, with the Australian Prime Minister labelling it the worst umpiring decision in history. Ashes Cricket - YouTube This is link of a news clip to Khwaja incident, and includes reactions.

There were numerous dismissals with the use of DRS in the two Ashes series that defied all logic. Jonathan Trott was another ridiculous decision. Trott was given not out to an LBW appeal, which Australia reviewed. Even though there was nothing on hot spot, TV replays, showed that he was LBW ... BUT FOR THE FACT that they also showed a deflection as the ball passed the bat, to clearly show that there was an inside edge, and so he was rightly given not out. However for reasons best known to him the 3rd Umpire, overturned the original decision and ruled Trott out LBW. No one has since been able to make any sense of that decision. ICC even went to the extent of apologising for Trott's dismissal, for what was a 'human error'. I couldn't find a video of the dismissal but here is a link documenting the incident. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...land-query-Jonathan-Trotts-lbw-dismissal.html I would say it was worse than the Khwaja dismissal.

What is the point of having a system, that is supposed to reduce howlers, when it itself leads to the biggest howlers in the history of cricket. The Ashes series was riddled with howler after howler each more glaring than the last. The truth is that the Ashes being a high profile series these failures got highlighted, or else as happens in low profile series' these howlers of DRS have continued going unnoticed and have been lost in mostly pedestrian decisions it does get right. The system clearly doesn't work as well as it should, i.e., its not foolproof. So really can the BCCI be faulted for refusing to use a system that is not foolproof. Foolproof, both in terms of technology and its implementation. For instance what is with the limit of 2 reviews per innings. Is the ICC saying they would only eliminate 2 howlers per innings, and if there is a third then that will stand.

This is a problem of the way the technology is being implemented. First of all there really is no skill to using DRS. The whole point of DRS is to review decisions that a captain feels are wrong, and that doesn't involve any skill. Its not a Wasim Akram toe crushing inswinging Yorker that must be dug out with great skill precision, DRS review is just a thing of instinct. So more often than not, towards the end of most inning,s reviews would be used up (rightly or wrongly) and so any howler at the late end of an innings despite all the technology in the world cannot be changed. A perfect example is the infamous Broad non walking incident. Why Didn't Broad Walk? - YouTube. I know blame doesn't lie at the door of Broad, and while a lot of people would criticise Clarke for using up his replays the truth is that DRS system is inadequate as it says only 2 howlers per innings shall be corrected, any more after that be damned. I know there are easy ways of fixing this, but that this has still not been fixed is what even more frustrating. Its like the ICC has just blindly picked up the concept of limited reviews from Tennis and are sticking with it. Long story short the system is not foolproof, and so as much as I would hate it, the BCCI that I so love to hate, and I are in the same boat on this one.

Top level is not where half baked experiments are made. Careers are finished in a matter of matches and in one wrong dismissal. Just ask Usman Khwaja, where is he today? Not playing international cricket for sure. Further because the Ashes is a high profile series the DRS got attention. However the DRS has been regularly failing in low profile series as well and its failures have long gone unnoticed. A foolproof system should be implemented and right now the DRS and its implementation is anything but foolproof. There are too many gaps that exist and no one knows how to fill those gaps. Like for instance, this muck "Umpire's Call" creates. DRS is a joke - YouTube. In this clip, the common sense just has to be for the on field umpire to correct himself and overrule himself and give that out, for it is out. However the gap with Umpire's Call verdict exists and no one quite knows how to fill it, and thus we have another decision which, thanks to the way DRS is implemented, and despite all the tools available to rightly give that out, will go down as one of the worst decisions in the history of cricket !! The DRS is laughable.

While we can all agree that DRS is not being implemented properly, the BCCI has questioned the technology itself too. Initially being fans of Hot Spot, the BCCI did away with all forms of review, except Hot Spot, in a tour to England, BCCI came to the conclusion that Hot Spot doesn't work either. They were the first to say it and bashed for it. Yet today Hot Spot is no longer part of DRS, and BCCI has been vindicated. Aleem Dar and Billy Doctrove won but Technology Failed. 3rd Npower Test (Sri vs Eng) 16 June 2011 - YouTube. This clip is just one of the many instances of Hot Spot failures over the years, and ashes which have been well documented. Today BCCI says they have an issue with Hawk Eye, well only the part that predicts the movement of the ball after impact on the pads. Most of us disagree, but remember when BCCI said Hot Spot didn't work, I though the BCCI had officially gone Bonkers, and yet today Hot Spot is not part of DRS any more. Who is to say the BCCI is not right about Hawk Eye too.

Worst DRS Decision Ever in Cricket - Pak VS SL 2014 - YouTube. Would the ball really bounce that high after impact. I mean till the point of impact the batsman is plumb LBW, till Hawk Eye steps in. There is no way that Ball was bouncing so high, maybe it was. It does however, raise some questions.

Regardless of whether BCCI is right, or not, I do see some of the points its been making about the DRS. DRS is not a fool proof system, but for us its become part of the circus now. DRS is a thing of excitement, everytime a decision is reviewed everyone is on the edge of their seats, but it takes a lot away from the viewing too. At times its like watching CSI - Cricket. The worst aspect of the whole thing is that the system doesn't give any room for an Umpire to consult technology. Suppose you are an umpire in an India Pakistan match, with 70000 people in the stands shouting at the top of their voices, and there is a caught behind appeal. You as the umpire think that the batsman has nicked it, but because of the crowd noise, didn't hear the edge. Now all you have to do is speak to third umpire and ask him to review the tape and tell you. Only oooops, you cannot. All the technology is for the benefit of everyone in the world except the person who is supposed to make the decision !! Within minutes millions of people at home will have the benefit of replays but not the umpire in the middle. So reluctantly, since you didn't hear the edge you give the batsman not out. The fielding team reviews and naturally you have to over turn your decision for the replays and sniko show an edge. 70000 people are booing you, and in all this fiasco you are made to look like an idiot. All this technology and for everyone to use, expect the person who is supposed to make the decisions.

I think a very serious overview of DRS is required and I for one, as much as I hate it, do understand the Indian Board's point of view. If DRS blunders were put together, they would constitute, no doubt, the most comprehensive compendium of the worst decisions in the history of the game. The system has given more notable wrong decisions than right, and a system meant to reduce howlers, has given us some of the worst howlers in the history of the game !! I know DRS gets a lot right as well, but really what is the legacy it is leaving behind. Bad DRS decisions from nearly a year ago is fresh in the memory, while one struggles to recall the last good review.

 

[playkid12]

The problem isn't the DRS. The problem is how it's used. They're letting papers and formalities decide rather than logic. That first decision with the gap between bat and ball should never be given.

It should simply not be used for LBW prediction. You can use it's technology to find an edge or something.

 

[puddleduck]

As you've said at the start. Human error. I just use cold hard numbers, and the amount of correct decisions made since DRS has increased.

By constantly refusing to use it the BCCI actually hold back its advancement.

You talk about DRS giving us the worst howlers the game has seen which is a frankly ridiculous statement. Almost implies you've only actually watched cricket since it came into effect.

Take Broad in the most recent ODI v West Indies. Ducked a short ball, nowhere near it with anything and given out caught behind. Instant review and the correct decision made. The initial decision can only possibly have been given on a guess, as how can an umpire have been sure he hit it when he wasn't anywhere near it?

Certainly there is room to improve the system, but the reality lies with the statistics. More decisions are right since DRS then before it.

 

[PokerAce]

Again that is exactly my point. DRS goes get a lot of pedestrian decisions right, for which the whole circus of the system is not even required. I don't know the Broad dismissal you are talking about, but you don't need the whole DRS routine to correct 95% of the ones DRS gets right anyway. There is no need for such an extensive system which doesn't work.

For instance, BCCI has always opposed Hot Spot after its trail in an England series and they have been proved right. Hot Spot owners too admitted that it is not 100 % accurate and so Hot Spot is no longer part of the DRS. In between there have been so many dismissals affected (like in the one I have linked), because hot spot didn't show anything, even when there was an edge. So when you point 1 Broad dismissal to show DRS was good, what about all the decisions that got botched up over the years (like the one in the link in the OP) because hot spot failed to show the edge, and everyone thought, there actually was no edge, when there was one. This is for both caught behind and LBW (Trott LBW in the Ashes), where failed hot spot was wrongly interpreted to mean no edge.

DRS does get a lot of pedestrian decisions right, I have said that in the post, but the ones it gets wrong, despite so many clear cut replays showing otherwise, which are considered while making the decision, are undoubtedly the worst the game has ever seen. Its beyond ridiculous that the 2 deliveries can be hitting the stumps in the same place but after the use of Hawk Eye one can be out and the other not out depending on the field umpires original decision.

Its a failed system, hiding behind the basic ones it gets right. The Khwaja dismissal, definitely among the worst in the game, the Trott LBW, given out LBW even after taking into account footage that clearly showed an inside edge (but nothing appeared on hot spot cos it doesn't work), one of the worst in the game. I don't see how you can argue your point.

The Trott one is especially laughable because, a technology that doesn't work (Hot Spot) was given preference despite the naked eye telling us there was a clear inside edge. That is just plain stupid however way you look at it, and one of the worst decisions ever thanks to DRS. Had the system not been 'DRS' but something else, one look at the reply, clear inside edge and so not LBW, no fuss, lets get on with it.

DRS unnecessarily complicates things. No once is saying let bad ones stand, the point is DRS a system that doesn't work, and makes an ever bigger mess at times, as it did with Khwaja and Trott dismissals. Remove DRS, have a simpler system, just look at a simple replay will get most of them right anyway, without the need to have a overly bloated and complicated DRS system, with all its confusion, and failed tech.

Also even you admit, DRS needs work, so let work be done on it at the domestic level and once its gotten right then implement it at the top level. Till then just use simple replays, which will be enough to get most ones right anyway. This 'make it up as you go along' attitude is not fit for the top level. There is no need for the DRS to be the circus it presently is, which makes it Umpires vs DRS, by not even giving the umpire the option to consult technology. The foolishness of the system in letting everyone have access to the technology, meant to make decision making easier, except the person who is actually supposed to make the decisions, the Umpires, cannot be emphasised enough. Instead the option to use technology must rest with the Umpire and then it truly makes it Umpires empowered with DRS and not, as it presently is, Umpires vs DRS.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I kinda agree with you but wouldn't go as far as saying it's meaning more bad decisions, it is definitely increasing confusion though.

I don't think the ICC really thought out out the implemention of the system as fully as they needed to, either that or they didn't make it very clear to fans and players how that implementation was to work.

for one, it's not clear whether reviewing a decision merely means re-appealling for an out/not out to the TV umpire or whether it means reviewing the conditions that lead/didn't lead to an out.

it's a pedantic distinction but it has lead to confusion. for one do we know what would happen if a bowler appealled for a catch of at silly point which then showed an LBW, or what about a caught that revealed a double hit? on the face of it you might say "well obviously that would still be out." but if LBW appeals suggest a bowler is challenging the conditions the umpire gave him not out on, going as far as to uphold the onfield perception of those conditions if they don't adequately contrast the umpires original decision.

another problem is that when it was introduced we were all very excited about the prospect that we might not get any more howlers. obvious edges given not out and the like. The problem has been though that the players being extremely competitive, their performances under intense scrutiny and fighting for their careers in some cases have naturally wanted to use it for minor decisions, which, given the inaccuracy of technology like hot spot and hawkeye (at making predictions), DRS wasn't designed to do.

there also seemed to be the attitude that cricket fans tolerated these minor errors as understandable. as humans we can see shades of grey however sport, in which their are binary definitions of right and wrong, doesn't really reflect shades of grey in the rules. a player doesn't take the faintest of edges and doesn't just get out, he's out full stop, to a binary interpretation a thin edge or quarter ball LBW is the same as Steyn smashing the stumps in half.

so the LBW and rules about certainty were introduced to reflect this acceptance of human error, essentially asking technology that doesn't recognise human error to account for human error. furthermore we accept that the review system may actually be prone to it's own errors and then weirdly choose to fall back on trying to use human error to cover is. as if human error is acceptable but technological error isn't.

I mean, some of these problems do seem really very pedantic and more jumping through theoretical logical hoops than practical issues, but given enough time and enough sample material these will add up making the system increasingly weird and unreliable feeling.

 

[used2bcool]

If the ultimate aim is to move towards an error-free game, then the DRS must be the way forward. I agree that the DRS adds drama to the game, and added drama is hardly ever a bad thing. For the most part, spectators have embraced that drama (except when horrible handling of the system and utter lack of common sense have led to massive confusion).

I think the statistics will tell you that the DRS has done more good than harm in terms of getting actual decisions right. As far as remembering the howlers is concerned, that is human nature. We remember awful decisions from decades ago but forget great decisions made in the last match, because we take those for granted. It's not just cricket, it's ever sport. Google it and you'll find countless lists of "worst baseball/football/cricket/basketball calls ever," but no list of "greatest referee performances." It's part of the job of the umpire. There's a reason they say that the best an umpire can do is not be noticed at all.

Moreover, repeated usage is the only way to test and improve the system. Clearly no technology/software/hardware is perfect and must be tested in diverse conditions, all of which cannot be simulated in labs. The more bugs they will find, the more bug-free the system will be. A proper training and perhaps even a set manifesto in the handling of the system should be a must for all umpires (and I'm sure they go through such training, but it would be great if they could share a cliffnotes version of that manifesto with the public, so there's less confusion).

The BCCI's argument of "DRS is not flawless" is utter rubbish, because it almost implies that umpires are flawless (or close enough, which is not the case). It's a typical BCCI argument, which they know will brook no further discussion, which is what it's meant to do. I suspect they know as well as we do that it is rubbish and makes no sense, but it's the party line. It seems solely designed to block DRS progress, a sentiment which I believe spawns from the embarrassing misuse and misunderstanding of the system first displayed by Kumble, Sehwag, Tendulkar etc. in Sri Lanka. Now the BCCI have dug in their heels and even though current players may be in favor of using the system, that involves the BCCI admitting they were wrong to start with, something that is about as likely as hell freezing over.

 

[grkrama]

^The main dig i have against DRS is it puts itself in the hands of the on-field players, The players on-field should be bothered only about playing, not counting about reviews still left, whether the LBW is consequential or not, should i save the review for my captain etc. If the whole system was only about getting Right decisions(Stop howlers) then the control to review must be either given to the respective teams support squad also in the restroom. They should make the call for review. As they have a better hang of the proceedings than players in the middle or there should be squad of third umpires who will ping back immediately incase of umpiring error.I prefer the former as it improves the system while giving some amount of hold over wrong decisions to respective teams. I honestly hate seeing the added dimension of drama with DRS given to players onfield as it unbalances the game from its natural flow, while statistically it may show umpiring error is reduced it does so by favoring the one team or other depending on their usage of review, making it no less than a gamble(we already have toss for that no need to add another Luck factor).An umpire in bad form is going to keep making mistakes that balance itself out evenly most of the times, DRS doesnot until changes are made to make it more than some sort of Magic lamp Genie wish.Until then i prefer the crooked finger of billy bowden going up.

 

[PokerAce]

there also seemed to be the attitude that cricket fans tolerated these minor errors as understandable. as humans we can see shades of grey however sport, in which their are binary definitions of right and wrong, doesn't really reflect shades of grey in the rules. a player doesn't take the faintest of edges and doesn't just get out, he's out full stop, to a binary interpretation a thin edge or quarter ball LBW is the same as Steyn smashing the stumps in half.

Agree. That is why I dont understand the Umpire's call part at all. As I wrote somewhere above Two deliveries can be hitting the stumps at the same place, and yet one be out and another not out, depending on the on field umpire's original decision. This is riduculous. It really only happens, because the DRS tries to account for human error, and say something is only 'just' out so the umpire not giving it out is fine. A system meant to eliminate errors cannot work like that.

The BCCI's argument of "DRS is not flawless" is utter rubbish, because it almost implies that umpires are flawless (or close enough, which is not the case).

Not really. I think everyone agrees that Umpries are not flawless, and I don't think the BCCI can be blind to that, especially as high profile Indian players have had some horror decisions against them. I remember once Ganguly was given out LBW by Asoka Da Silva for a perfect forward defence, ball no where near the pads and bang in the middle of the bat. Tendulkar has over the years been Umpire's fav bunny or one of the favs.

The point I tihnk BCCI is making is the DRS is not the alternative, and I agree with them.

When I say DRS is not the alternative, I don't mean there shouldn't be reviews, but not in the way DRS does it. Like for instance only 2 reviews per side, (what abt the 3rd howler in the innings, does it not matter ?), or that Umpires, the ones who will make the decision have no access AT ALL to the technology meant to make decision making easier. Everyone can use it and see it, expect for the Umpire. There are some things about the DRS that just don't make sense and make it harder.

Ideally there should be an auto review of every appeal every dismissal, where by the 3rd Umpire automatically checks for edges, and LBW and the NO Balls, or if the Umpire wants to review replays to make a decision, he can do so. In a start Stop game like cricket, where there is a 'pause' in between deliveries, there is ample time for a quick review, as replays are available almost instantly, before the next delivery is to be bowled. Its not like there is an appeal/dismissal every delivery, so not so much time will be wasted. I think this is a much simpler system, and will be way more adequate in removing the howlers.

f the whole system was only about getting Right decisions(Stop howlers) then the control to review must be either given to the respective teams support squad also in the restroom.

While I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I stress that first and foremost, the on field Umpires MUST have the power to consult the 3rd Umpire before making a decision. That in the present system, the on field Umpire cannot even consult reviews, which is available to everyone, except the Umpires who make the decisions, is beyond stupid. I think if the Umpires could consult technology when adjudicating a close call, then I think the howlers would be 90% eliminated anyway. The Umpires are not stupid and they must realise that something is a close call, a thing of inches, and ideally they would want to consult replays before they make the decisions, but under the present DRS system, they cannot. Just letting them have access would be a great start.

there should be squad of third umpires who will ping back immediately incase of umpiring error.

100 % agree. Every appeal and dismissal immediately reviewed and gotten back to the umpire. Best Review System ever !!

 

[used2bcool]

I think the system where the control is in the hands of the on-field umpires has been tried out before and found wanting, mainly because the umpires reviewed almost every single remotely questionable decision, which ended up taking too much time and breaking the flow of the game. While I agree that in principle this is probably the best way of getting the most number of correct decisions, there must be a way to balance that with the flow of the game. Most sports that use technology to address refereeing/umpiring struggle with this aspect and have settled on some form of selective review system.

The DRS, flawed as it may be in its current format, I think does this job. Sure, there are niggles - I have a problem with teams losing reviews on Umpire's Call reviews, since the concept of Umpire's Call inherently gives the benefit of the doubt to the umpire - but on the whole, I think the system works in the current iteration. I think when the technology exists where reviewing every decision takes significantly less time, maybe we can do that.

I know I'm in the minority with this one, but I for one absolutely love the strategic aspect of reviewing decisions. This is probably because the first use of decision reviewing I ever watched was in American sports, and there the strategic aspect (the value of the lost review vs. the chance and value of an overturned decision) of it was highlighted and I was hooked.

 

[PokerAce]

This is probably because the first use of decision reviewing I ever watched was in American sports, and there the strategic aspect (the value of the lost review vs. the chance and value of an overturned decision) of it was highlighted and I was hooked.

Something about this reminds me of another area where I have another of my issues with DRS, and why I think DRS needs to rest with the Umpires rather than the players. That area is that players 'take a chance' with some reviews when it involves a key player, even when they know its probably out (or not out), just in hope that the one inch in the replay will make all the difference.

Like for instance, if an Important batsman is give out LBW, invaribly they will review it, merely in hope that DRS will throw them a rope somehow. Similarly if the decision goes against the fielding team, and the important batsman survives, then the fielding team will invaribly review it. The Batsman will hope DRS throws him a rope - that the ball may have been found to have pitched that one inch outside the stumps or the impact will be shown to be that one inch outside the stumps or that DRS will somehow show that ball to be missing the stumps.

DRS is meant to remove Howlers and not meant to take a gamble on decisions. I find it really annoying when teams do this and even more so when they are proved right.

To illustrate, take look at the clip which I have linked.. The uploader of this vid, is probably a Pakistani fan not too pleased with India beating Pak, has his own conspiracy theory ongoing in the vid, which lets ignore for the purposes of this argument, and assume the review was above board. indian cheat in cricket world cup semi final 2011 sachin tendulkar lbw out watch closely - YouTube

Now if you saw the clip, then India reviewed the decision purely because it was Tendulkar involved. There is no way to the naked eye they could have thought the ball of going down leg. If they did then they would review sooner and no need for the conference in the middle. They said what the hell lets take a chance, its Tendulkar afterall. On review they are proved right, and it annoys the hell out of me. That is not what DRS is meant for, and taking such gambles is against the spirit of the review rule. All teams do it. DRS cannot be misused like that.

On a side note, if the uploader is right, and Hawk Eye can indeed be manipulated like that, and that too in a high profile match like the WC Semi-Final, where presumably the ICC Technicians/Director would have control over all video feeds and replays and DRS, then what is even the point of having a Hawk Eye Review. Just imagine the way it is probably being misused in lower profile series.

However again I don't buy the uploader's conspiracy theory, and I am totally ignoring it. I merely used the clip to illustrate how teams 'gamble' with DRS when they have no real conviction that there is enough ground for the decision to be reviewed let alone overturned. Its not in the right spirit of things. Such misuse can be stopped only when DRS is with the Umpires and not with the players.

I remember there was a time when an experiment was done and if I remember right Tendulkar was the first batsman to be given out LBW, with the use of video replay for an incident apart from Run out or stumping. I don't know why it was stopped, but I still think it is the right way to go. If the only downside is that players have to stay out a while longer then so be it.

 

[War]

Sambit Bal: How about demanding honesty from the players? | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

This article written by espn cricinfo editor sambit bal about 6 months ago is main problems with DRS. Otherwise as it stands, the BCCI opposition to it, as everyone knows is just because they cant due to them being the real boss of the world cricket - and the ICC being unable to stand up to them as the supposed governing body.

And what we have these days is cricket statistics being messed up in the last few years, because series with India are being played to a different set of rules to others.

 

[PokerAce]

Otherwise as it stands, the BCCI opposition to it, as everyone knows is just because they cant due to them being the real boss of the world cricket - and the ICC being unable to stand up to them as the supposed governing body.

And what we have these days is cricket statistics being messed up in the last few years, because series with India are being played to a different set of rules to others.

I will definitely look into the article , but I didn't understand this part. What does BCCI being the real boss of world cricket have to do with their opposition to DRS? Could you please re explain.

Also DRS or no DRS the rules are the same. A boundary is still 4 and a hit out of the ground is still 6. I cannot agree with this part. While I feel the BCCI should allow DRS and if it wants not use it, and let the second team use it, but even with that being said, I disagree that 'rules' of the BCCI series are different than in any other.

If anything the ruleswere altered in the Ashes, where (Trott being on example), Batsmen where being out LBW even after consulting replays which clearly showed inside edges, thx to a faulty hot spot.

I am not saying that BCCI should be followed, but dismissive, sweeping statements that link BCCI's opposition to DRS to BCCI's clout are the reason why DRS will never be reviewed seriously. Everyone agrees, howsoever mutely, that DRS is not perfect, but merely because BCCI is opposing it and its clearly very hated the world over, no one wants to take its reservations seriously, and take a second look at DRS. Why can't teams stop and say, okay BCCI is saying something, lets listen.

BCCI has always opposed Hot Spot for years, after a trial in a series in England and said it was faulty and unreliable. They refused to use it. No one listened and the English media bashed the BCCI. Where did that lead everyone - to the two Ashes series where Hot Spot failed so spectacularly that it was series of fiascos and Hot Spot was Kicked out as part of DRS. Instead of hating on BCCI had someone listened to BCCI after the England series and done extensive testing, the Ashes mess would not have happened.

Even is BCCI was wrong about Hot Spot, extensive testing would have showed BCCI that its fine and then BCCI would have had to shut and accept it.

BCCI now says the 'path predicting' path of Hawk Eye, which predicts where the ball was going after hitting the pads, doesn't work. Yet like Hot Spot, no one wants to do any testing. Everyone is merely saying, look we all use it so BCCI should follow suit. Everyone blindly used Hot Spot too, how did that end up. What if BCCI is right, like it was with Hot Spot.

The whole point of the post is to look at DRS dispassionately and not through the I Hate BCCI eyes. Had it been the ACB, or ECB opposed to Hawk Eye, tests would have been done. Just because BCCI is hated, doesn't mean its reservations are automatically bullsh!t.

 

[War]

I will definitely look into the article , but I didn't understand this part. What does BCCI being the real boss of world cricket have to do with their opposition to DRS? Could you please re explain.

Also DRS or no DRS the rules are the same. A boundary is still 4 and a hit out of the ground is still 6. I cannot agree with this part. While I feel the BCCI should allow DRS and if it wants not use it, and let the second team use it, but even with that being said, I disagree that 'rules' of the BCCI series are different than in any other.

If anything the ruleswere altered in the Ashes, where (Trott being on example), Batsmen where being out LBW even after consulting replays which clearly showed inside edges, thx to a faulty hot spot.

Uhh my friend, if one series is played with DRS and series with India are played without DRS - that is via two different sets of rules.

In one series batsmen/bowlers who get bad decisions, have a chance to review it & in IND series their is no reviews & we all know how in over 125+ years of test cricket how bad decisions have ruined careers.

Series with reviews also help spin bowlers a lot with regards to LBWs & the vybe & flow of the game is totally different.

I'm surprised I had to explain this, since I thought this was common knowledge.

I am not saying that BCCI should be followed, but dismissive, sweeping statements that link BCCI's opposition to DRS to BCCI's clout are the reason why DRS will never be reviewed seriously. Everyone agrees, howsoever mutely, that DRS is not perfect, but merely because BCCI is opposing it and its clearly very hated the world over, no one wants to take its reservations seriously, and take a second look at DRS. Why can't teams stop and say, okay BCCI is saying something, lets listen.

BCCI has always opposed Hot Spot for years, after a trial in a series in England and said it was faulty and unreliable. They refused to use it. No one listened and the English media bashed the BCCI. Where did that lead everyone - to the two Ashes series where Hot Spot failed so spectacularly that it was series of fiascos and Hot Spot was Kicked out as part of DRS. Instead of hating on BCCI had someone listened to BCCI after the England series and done extensive testing, the Ashes mess would not have happened.

Even is BCCI was wrong about Hot Spot, extensive testing would have showed BCCI that its fine and then BCCI would have had to shut and accept it.

BCCI now says the 'path predicting' path of Hawk Eye, which predicts where the ball was going after hitting the pads, doesn't work. Yet like Hot Spot, no one wants to do any testing. Everyone is merely saying, look we all use it so BCCI should follow suit. Everyone blindly used Hot Spot too, how did that end up. What if BCCI is right, like it was with Hot Spot.

The whole point of the post is to look at DRS dispassionately and not through the I Hate BCCI eyes. Had it been the ACB, or ECB opposed to Hawk Eye, tests would have been done. Just because BCCI is hated, doesn't mean its reservations are automatically bullsh!t.

I never said that the DRS is perfect so hold your horses. If you read the previous article, this one also from a few years ago about some flaws in the DRS that still have not been fixed - Decision Review System: Why there is a need to discuss DRS in its present form | Cricket Features | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

One of the big problems with DRS is that most the boards cant afford it, its a mistake by the ICC right now. to have all boards fit the full bit for it given the financial realities of many nations. They are a good few series where WI/NZ/SRI/PAK/BANG are host countries where DRS or parts of it are not used.

I've always felt unless ICC gets a title sponsor for the DRS - it should 50/50 thing between the boards & the ICC.

But the fact is whether hotspot is allowed or not & whatever recent findings about it that have been discovered, if the ICC wants to use it - no member boards dislike towards it should matter. Thats how it should work in a proper governing body.

FIFA is finally deciding to introduce technology to football possibly & im sure not all countries will want to have technology in football. If FIFA decides they want everyone has to fall in line. Again that how things work in a properly structured sporting governing body.

DRS isn't perfect, but BCCI opposition taken the potential sane discussion of the future of DRS 10 steps back-wards. And the BCCI shouldn't really be surprised if most people don't take their concerns legitimately, since they have a proven track record of trying to do things to their benefit.

 

[PokerAce]

if one series is played with DRS and series with India are played without DRS - that is via two different sets of rules.

What different set of rules ... Is it that in a DRS series you get only 6 runs for hitting the ball over the fence, and in a non DRS series you get 7 runs for hitting the balls over the fence. In a DRS series a Batsman bats using the face of the bat, and a in a non DRS series, the batsman has to hit the ball with the Bat's handle. Is it that in a DRS series each side fields 11 players, and in a non DRS series, each side fields 15 players.

I don't know what kind of hair splitting you are into, but everyone can see that the rules of cricket are exactly the same, and the same rules are applied. The only difference is in a non DRS series, an Umpire is the final authority in applying those rules, and in a DRS series, a set of Technology, which doesn't work all the time, may become the final authority in applying the rules. However the rules themselves, whether applied by a Human Umpire or Over-bloated Technology, are exactly the same.

In one series batsmen/bowlers who get bad decisions, have a chance to review it & in IND series their is no reviews & we all know how in over 125+ years of test cricket how bad decisions have ruined careers.

Errr ... friend !!(?), You say bad umpiring ruins careers, how true. However for some reason you think that only bad decisions by Umpries will end careers, but the botched up decisions by DRS will not. That Usman Khwaja howler even after DRS review, was a career ender for him. So what is even your point here. Bad decisions end careers, do Umpries give bad decisions, yes, has DRS at times given ever worse decisions than the onfield umpries - YES !! Refer to the OP that has about 5 DRS blunders listed therein. Period.

More than you I am surprised that I have to explain this. I thought this was common knowledge after the Ashes series too.

Series with reviews also help spin bowlers a lot with regards to LBWs & the vybe & flow of the game is totally different.

As in how, are there more lbws, less LBWs, erm what exactly. Oh and are they a lot like the Trott LBW in the first test of the Ashes which was given out, after the use of DRS, despite a simple replay clearly showing a big inside edge off the bat. Yeah I did not mistype that. Go Figure, that is how great this mess of a system DRS is. The evidence of Hot Spot which, for the millionth time doesn't work, was used which failed to show any mark on the bat despite the replay to the naked eye showing a big inside edge. So despite a clear inside edge, thanx the use of this rainbowy DRS system meant to save humanity from all errors in decision making, Trott was given out. If that is what you mean by 'help' 'with regards to LBWs' then cricket is beyond saving.

I never said that the DRS is perfect so hold your horses.

OH YES !!, I know you didn't say its not perfect, but only reflects your sanity. I can and will go further to say NO ONE in his right mind, can ever say that DRS as it stands is perfect and works all the time. Hell if there is ONE thing we could say with 100% confidence about the DRS, then it is this fact that DRS doesn't work 100%, that this system made out of sugar and spice and drops of the rainbow, meant to save humanity from all umpiring errors ... wait for it ... ITSELF LEADS TO ERRORS !!

If you read the previous article, this one also from a few years ago about some flaws in the DRS that still have not been fixed

Urm ... again why haven't they been fixed. Also, who is taking the more rational position here? BCCI which says, I know it has faults, you know it has faults and it can lead to disaster when those faults manifest themselves, and so fix the faults and then we will implement it or the rest of the nations that say - Ah faults you say, ah yes, yes, how wonderful, don't worry we will make it up as we go along.

One of the big problems with DRS is that most the boards cant afford it, its a mistake by the ICC right now. to have all boards fit the full bit for it given the financial realities of many nations. They are a good few series where WI/NZ/SRI/PAK/BANG are host countries where DRS or parts of it are not used.

I've always felt unless ICC gets a title sponsor for the DRS - it should 50/50 thing between the boards & the ICC.

Why a sponsor, hell if BCCI wants more influence then it has to pay for the implementation of technology. It cannot be a one way input that BCCI makes billions and do nothing in return. BCCI must bear the cost of the technology, but first the technology has to work.

But the fact is whether hotspot is allowed or not & whatever recent findings about it that have been discovered, if the ICC wants to use it - no member boards dislike towards it should matter. Thats how it should work in a proper governing body.

FIFA is finally deciding to introduce technology to football possibly & im sure not all countries will want to have technology in football. If FIFA decides they want everyone has to fall in line. Again that how things work in a properly structured sporting governing body.

Okay now you stopped making any sense. You are saying even though recent findings about the Hot Spot have shown it to not work, ICC should have the option force it on all nations and no nation should be able to do anything about it !! Thank goodness ICC doesn't work like FIFA and is not a 'properly structured sporting governing body', whatever that means. Hell if FIFA worked anything like ICC then the Yellow Card for taking off your shirt while celebrating a goal rule would have long been done away with. Not a great example.

DRS isn't perfect,

Again so true ... and yet this discussion !!

DRS isn't perfect, but BCCI opposition taken the potential sane discussion of the future of DRS 10 steps back-wards.

Okay now you are starting to sound like a guy who has invented a face cream that, if perfected reduces wrinkles or something, but is presently not perfect, and not only does it not remove all the wrinkles, but also causes pimples from time to time upon use. The BCCI is saying oh great, perfect it with test on animals (lower division cricket), and then once perfected humans could also use it. You however are insisting that no!! first the test be done on humans and the humans be forced to use it and suffer the pimples and once it is perfected THEN we will use it on animals !!

I mean seriously how can this not be blatantly clear to you.

And the BCCI shouldn't really be surprised if most people don't take their concerns legitimately, since they have a proven track record of trying to do things to their benefit.

All boards try to do things to their benefit, that is called being sane, and if you accuse BCCI of trying to do what is best for it, then really you are accusing it of being sane and rational. I mean don't we all do what is best of us. So the idea is to let go of this socialist mindset that just because BCCI has the money, it must be pushing some hidden agenda in opposing DRS.

That is the whole point of this thread. To ignore our hatred of the BCCI and look at facts. So let me break it down real easy for you.

____________________________________
Hot Spot
1) BCCI - it doesn't work and shouldn't be part of DRS.
2) Everyone else - it works and BCCI should shut up and DRS is fine. No need to even be bothered to test Hot Spot further.

RESULT - HOT SPOT was shown to not work and was kicked out of the DRS.

Which are the correct stand to take 1) or 2) ?
_______________________________________

Hawk Eye
1) BCCI says its 'path predicting' part is unreliable and should not be part of DRS.
2) Everyone else - it works and BCCI should shut up and DRS is fine. No need to even bothered to test it further.

What Should be done -
1) No need to test anything, BCCI is an arrogant hack, so ignore it and if some errors occur then we will make things up as we go along.
2) Test things at lower level cricket, and in labs or wherever you test these things, make sure it works, and then implement it at top level cricket.

Which is the more rational route to take 1) or 2)
________________________________________

 

[abhi_jacko]

This is a very interesting thread. I think we can all agree without a doubt, that DRS is 'FAR' from perfection. And some features like Hot Spot and Ball tracking are simply useless under certain conditions - faint edges, long strides, etc. Great gimmicks !

I essentially agree with PokerAce that the mistakes made by DRS are actually worse than mistakes made by Umpires. Or at least they seem to be. This is mainly because, with a Human umpire you can eventually reason it out with the age old saying 'To err is human'. You blame the umpire. The poor guy is allowed to have a moment of brain-fart (We all do). He gets a poor post-match review. Someone is held accountable at the end of the day.

With DRS though it is a matter of putting 'blind faith' into an imperfect system. If it works then its wonderful. But in its moments of failure, the mistake will be glorified and seem much worse than it is. Moreover, who do you hold responsible for it ? Definitely Not the umpires. Not the Boards or ICC. And you cannot blame the technology or their developers, because we did accept something 'imperfect'.

So in the end, there is no accountability. This would work if the system was flawless or cheap ! Which brings us to the other core issue - COST

DRS, from what I understand, is extremely expensive to implement. Today, major cricket boards like SL and WI are struggling to pay their players competitive salaries. I think making them shell out big bucks to implement a system, that does not ascertain results is absolutely blasphemous. I know BCCI probably doesn't have issues with the cost because they are extremely well off. But still, expecting any cricket board to spend millions on a faulty system is not done.

Basically, you are saying - Give me a million dollars. I might make your life better occasionally, but I cant ensure that.
And there might be moments when things would actually get worse than they already are. Silly !