DRS technology expensive, unreliable - Niranjan Shah

[J P K]

BCCI vice-president Niranjan Shah has criticised the Decision Review System (DRS) in its present form, saying it offers marginal gains for a technology that is exorbitant and not error-free. The Indian board's stand so far has centred on the perceived unreliability of the ball-tracking technology, but Shah has also questioned the economic feasibility of the system and the lack of competing technologies. Shah's statements come ahead of the ICC's annual conference in Hong Kong, at which the cricket committee's recommendation that DRS be used in all Tests - a stand the BCCI disagrees with - will be considered. "You have to look at the economics. Every board is not making money out of Test matches and ODIs. The system requires about $60,000 per match," Shah told DNA. "Last year, about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply those numbers with $60,000. It would be a staggering amount for one or two decisions in a match. "The ICC can come up with such technology because the money is not going from its coffers. The member boards have to pay for it. There might be some matches in the world where the money coming in from the ticket collection will be less than the amount spent on DRS." There are two companies that presently offer competing ball-tracking technologies, Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye. Shah said more options were needed so that the technology could become affordable before it could be universally used. "I see some vested interests working here. Unless there are 10 different technologies and they become competitive and cheaper, we cannot adopt [the system]. A $1000 a day should be fine. Not $60,000 a day. That kind of money should go into the development of the game among the Associate members." Shah also was not in favour of the manner in which the DRS is currently used, with teams allowed a maximum of two unsuccessful reviews per innings of a Test. "The DRS cannot be used for the whole game. If a team exhausts its options in the very first over, what happens then? For the rest of the innings, the team has to live without the system. If you can't have the system for the whole match, what is the use? "If you want to use the technology throughout the match, then the game will never finish because the batsmen and bowlers will go on appealing. If there is a restriction, it won't justify the cost. Only the first few batsmen get the advantage. The others don't. Where is the fairness?" Shah reiterated the BCCI's opposition to the ball-tracking technology, saying that it was the imagination of technology versus the imagination of the umpire. "They have to prove on what basis the tracking is going on, because every square centimetre of the pitch is different. If there is a human error, take the umpire to task. "Even the accuracy level of the system is suspect. I'm told that the accuracy has gone up to 97% from 92%. It is not 100% still. I cannot fathom so much money spent for so little returns." http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/520736.html

[EnterTheVoid]

Apart from the bit about 100 percent accuracy, the guy makes a very good point about the cost.

[Roshanrocks]

i would really like to know how much profit the BCCI make per match

[hitman1980]

Some of the points he made are very valid .. DRS should never be used by players in first place ..Only umpires should use it whenever they have some doubt ..

[nballa]

60,000$ per match? where the hell is he getting the figures? hawk eye is regularly used every match by the commentators to analyze the decision. snickos are used every match by the commentators. plus 90% of the decisions don't need any technology just slo mo.

[urbestfriend]

I have never watched an international match recently without Hawkeye, what is he BSing about? Snickos are common place these days , only hotspot is not so common. Also why would it cost 60000$ per match? Will the broadcaster charge the board for using the technology for review? Why not make it as part of contract agreement itself?

[EnterTheVoid]

The crux of the matter is that the exorbitant costs don't justify the accuracy gains.

[nballa]

yes must really cost an exorbitant amount of money to take a look at a replay.

[gult]

HotSpot is very expensive. ICC has to pay for it if they make UDRS mandatory

[nikred]

HotSpot is very expensive. ICC has to pay for it if they make UDRS mandatory

But hotspot is allowed to be used only in Australia and England.

[gult]

But hotspot is allowed to be used only in Australia and England.

All the more reason for BCCI to reject this inconsistent UDRS.

[deepak_sach]

Have seen Star Cricket showing hotspot for every ball?Want to make full use...

[rkt.india]

60,000$ per match? where the hell is he getting the figures? hawk eye is regularly used every match by the commentators to analyze the decision. snickos are used every match by the commentators. plus 90% of the decisions don't need any technology just slo mo.

its hotspot which is not available everywhere...according to me...third umpire should come in to play more...drs is not complete without hotspot..but it is still better than no use like we saw in 1st test

[jairamesh]

"Even the accuracy level of the system is suspect. I'm told that the accuracy has gone up to 97% from 92%.

It's still better then the idiotic decisions taken by Daryly Harper, whose doesn't even a concept of accuracy.

[jairamesh]

Last year, about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply those numbers with $60,000. It would be a staggering amount for one or two decisions in a match.

I believe much of the cost is attributed to hiring the 6 hi-speed cameras every match. Hence, ICC should make it mandatory to that any Cricket Stadium wanting "International Status" must have these 6 hi-speed cameras installed. If some countries can't afford it, then ICC should loan them the money to get them installed.

[phaedrus]

It just sounds extremely stupid when the only board that has a problem with the cost of the techonology, is the richest board in the world. If other boards are ready to bear the cost then BCCI has no leg to stand on. This is also about giving the public, who ultimately pay for the whole ecosystem, a fair match. The boards have to do anything at their disposal to make sure the games are as error free as possible. The chances for the correct decision being made are greatly increased when the decision review system is used. Even if its not a 100%, 'just' 97% is still good enough for it to be implemented. That said, UDRS still does not make bad umpiring better. We need the best umpires to be in the system and people like Harper are harmful for the game.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Apart from the bit about 100 percent accuracy' date=' the guy makes a very good point about the cost.[/quote'] Ditto. Really valid points.

[desi pride 1234]

when other countries are accepting to use it without hotspot, y cant india accept it? its pathetic from bcci. its like govt not accepting a strong lokpal bill.

[saneindian]

So WI can afford to have UDRS for their series vs Pakistan, SL will use UDRS despite being in heavy losses but the richest board has a problem with the cost. There is more to it than the public stand BCCI is taking. First they talked about seniors being against it, then about its accuracy and now the cost. Probably the biggest issue is the ego of BCCI. The day hawkeye or virtual eye get into an agreement with BCCI, they will say yes to UDRS.

[Sidhoni]

Have seen Star Cricket showing hotspot for every ball?Want to make full use...

Yep, "Paisa Vasool"