BCCI's argument against DRS not 100%

[Cricket_Hacker]

The Indian team took a Singapore Airlines flight to come to Australia. They would have been asked, as all passengers are, to wear seat belts before the aircraft took off. They would have been informed of emergency exits and life jackets and oxygen masks because there can be untold contingencies during a flight. One of the players is so unsure of flying he started screaming uncontrollably when a Johannesburg-Durban flight went through an air pocket last year. They still took the risk even though Singapore Airlines doesn't guarantee 100% safety. The Indian team trains hard, as hard - if not harder - as any other team. It doesn't guarantee them fitness and intensity as the slagging performance of their quicks demonstrates. Their batsmen try to use their feet to get to the pitch of the ball, but sometimes they don't manage to do that. MS Dhoni always wears gloves while keeping wicket, but he still injured his thumb. Duncan Fletcher's role is not a 100% sure. The assistant coaches they hired were based on recommendations. Fletcher endorsed Trevor Penney, who in turn got Joe Dawes in. There was no guarantee how they would do; they stand fired now. The ownership structure of some of their IPL teams or role of some cricket enthusiasts is not certain. Some of them agreed to play a Champions League T20 match five years ago at a ground where explosives had been found before the match. There was no guaranteeing safety after that. Life is not a 100%. Cricket is not a 100%. Possibly the ICC is going about it the wrong way by insisting on using the tracking technology to complicate what is possibly a unique play in all sport, a dismissal where what would have happened is assessed as opposed to what has happened. Surely the ICC has to pay for DRS, as it does for the umpires, as opposed to the home broadcaster? It is perhaps unfair to be asking the players to know umpiring, too, so as to judicially utilise the reviews. A hair or three can be split with regards to some of the protocol. India don't talk about that. When the Big Three took over the ICC, the "position paper" actually quite articulately argued the BCCI's case for a larger share of revenues. Why not try that with something that more directly affects the game? India, though, parade out the lamest of reasons for their opposition to a process that, among other things, tries to ensure fairer decisions for the benefit of the paying public that feels cheated when it sees the actual replays of a howler a few seconds later. You didn't need Hawk Eye or Eagle Eye or Hot Spot to tell Shikhar Dhawan was not out when a bouncer from Mitchell Johnson hit him on the shoulder and was taken down the leg side by Brad Haddin. A normal slow-motion replay would have been enough to call back Ajinkya Rahane at a crucial stage of the Test when he was given out bat-pad while in fact the second contact had been with his stomach. You didn't need any of the fancy but suspect tools to overrule the bat-pad dismissal of Wriddhiman Saha in the first innings when there was no bat involved. As the most influential board in the world, and a major opposition to the concept, India could do better than keep repeating convoluted analogies about DRS' not being a 100%. The ICC listens to them on everything, surely they can get the world body to come around to a middle ground where you use the DRS for its original purpose: overturn the obvious howler? First agree to use the replays on what has happened: balls pitched outside leg when a batsman is given out lbw, a clear inside edge when a batsman is given out lbw. Then discuss the protocol and details if they need changing. Nothing will be perfect. The system will always be a work in progress. Motorbikes are still involved in accidents, but Dhoni enjoys riding them, sometimes without security around him when he is in Ranchi. Turning your back on a system that the whole cricketing world wants a discussion on, refusing to discuss it is because it is not 100%, is not good enough. If there is a deeper resistance to DRS - and it is not hard to imagine some - then India should let the world know. Otherwise, they should cool their heads down a little, forget all the human mistakes involved in DRS that have gone against them - and there have been a few - and revisit their stance. It is not that big a leap of faith to use replays to check what has happened and eliminate the howler. The protocols can be discussed later, we can wait for the predictive element until it is 100% or it can be shelved altogether, but we first need both India and the ICC to agree in principle that Dhawan and Rahane should have been called back on the final day even if both the parties don't agree on the use of Hawkeye and HotSpot.

Some good points Source: CI

[sensible-indian]

Brainless BCCI

[bowl_out]

Valid points... But the question is whether you are talking about howlers against the batsmen or against the bowler... It becomes very subjective at times. While the dismissals of Dhawan and Rahane were obvious howlers, the ones like Pieterson in Ashes, or Dravid in 2011 aren't as obvious... In the first case, Haddin was totally convinced that it was a Howler, but DRS went against him.... My concern lies in the implementation of DRS. When a batsman reviews a Caught behind decision, the umpire can look at : - Deviation - Sound - Hotspot - Snicko (though not allowed to use officially) ICC should decide which ones the umpires should consider more important than others and train the umpires to be consistent. Implementation of DRS should come once they have these written down as laws of the game. SOME DRS Howlers: - Dravid's dismissal in 2011 had the on-field umpire ruling it NOT OUT. No visible deflection, nothing detected on hotspot, but there was some sound after ball crossed bat... Third umpire overturned the decision to rule him OUT. Why? Nobody knows. - Khawaja in 2013, on-field umpire ruled him OUT. No visible deflection, nothing detected on hotspot, but there was some sound before ball crossed bat, probably bat hitting pad (detected by snicko).... Seemingly obvious decision of overturning the on-field call, but instead Khawaja was given OUT again. Why? Nobody knows. - Gary Wilson in World Cup 2011 against WI... Ball struck him outside the line of off when he tried to play a late cut. Ashoka De-silva gave him OUT. DRS showed that he was clearly struck off. But on-field call stayed. Reason : On-field umpire thought he wasn't offering a shot. But clearly was... So, who gets the say in that? Unclear!! This is the problem with DRS. Implementation and Inconsistency.

[kosingh]

Valid points... But the question is whether you are talking about howlers against the batsmen or against the bowler... It becomes very subjective at times. While the dismissals of Dhawan and Rahane were obvious howlers, the ones like Pieterson in Ashes, or Dravid in 2011 aren't as obvious... In the first case, Haddin was totally convinced that it was a Howler, but DRS went against him.... My concern lies in the implementation of DRS. When a batsman reviews a Caught behind decision, the umpire can look at : - Deviation - Sound - Hotspot - Snicko (though not allowed to use officially) ICC should decide which ones the umpires should consider more important than others and train the umpires to be consistent. Implementation of DRS should come once they have these written down as laws of the game. SOME DRS Howlers: - Dravid's dismissal in 2011 had the on-field umpire ruling it NOT OUT. No visible deflection, nothing detected on hotspot, but there was some sound after ball crossed bat... Third umpire overturned the decision to rule him OUT. Why? Nobody knows. - Khawaja in 2013, on-field umpire ruled him OUT. No visible deflection, nothing detected on hotspot, but there was some sound before ball crossed bat, probably bat hitting pad (detected by snicko).... Seemingly obvious decision of overturning the on-field call, but instead Khawaja was given OUT again. Why? Nobody knows. - Gary Wilson in World Cup 2011 against WI... Ball struck him outside the line of off when he tried to play a late cut. Ashoka De-silva gave him OUT. DRS showed that he was clearly struck off. But on-field call stayed. Reason : On-field umpire thought he wasn't offering a shot. But clearly was... So, who gets the say in that? Unclear!! This is the problem with DRS. Implementation and Inconsistency.

Well on field umpires aren't exactly consistent. Even more inconsistent in fact.

[bowl_out]

The other thing is benefit of doubt when it is reviewed. Does benefit of doubt go to the umpire or the batsman? In either case, Dravid's decision in 2011 was crap, as there was enough doubt.. As somebody mentioned in another thread, once a decision is referred, the third umpire has to make a call based on what he sees within a time limit, and rely on what the on field umpire decided

[bowl_out]

Well on field umpires aren't exactly consistent. Even more inconsistent in fact.

True, but at least rules are written to tell them to be consistent. Whether they are trained enough for that or not is a different thing. I am a huge proponent of DRS, but its failed implementation pisses me off. Can somebody pls answer this part? I am not here to argue. I am genuinely looking for an answer. When a batsman reviews a Caught behind decision, the umpire can look at : - Deviation - Sound - Hotspot - Snicko (though not allowed to use officially) How should this be prioritized? If one or two fail him, which should he consider more important? If some of them are inconclusive, does the benefit of go in favor of the umpire or the batsman? I don't think even ICC has a clear answer for this.

[bowl_out]

And how is Inconclusive defined for a caught behind decision? Is Hotspot conclusive enough to overrule the decision in this video? Why was it decided to stick to the on-field umpire's call? And how was it decided to overturn the umpire's decision in Dravid's 2011 dismissal? CLpxMSoEIYI

[kosingh]

The home team tends to get the benefit of the doubt from the on field umpires. If that is true-- and india odds tend to get a lot of bad decisions in away series-- the BCCI should atleast agree to DRS in away series.

[BeautifulGame]

True, but at least rules are written to tell them to be consistent. Whether they are trained enough for that or not is a different thing. I am a huge proponent of DRS, but its failed implementation pisses me off. Can somebody pls answer this part? I am not here to argue. I am genuinely looking for an answer. When a batsman reviews a Caught behind decision, the umpire can look at : - Deviation - Sound - Hotspot - Snicko (though not allowed to use officially) How should this be prioritized? If one or two fail him, which should he consider more important? If some of them are inconclusive, does the benefit of go in favor of the umpire or the batsman? I don't think even ICC has a clear answer for this.

Now we have real time snickos which are used in drs decisions .So going by sound is not an issue I think

[sensible-indian]

Garbage howlers by DRS is WAAAAAAAAAAY less than garbage howlers by umpires. Case closed.

[Gollum]

DRS howlers frequencey-1 per series Umpire howlers frequency-4 per innings Which one do you prefer?

[bowl_out]

DRS howlers frequencey-1 per series Umpire howlers frequency-4 per innings Which one do you prefer?

No question of whether or not DRS is needed... It is foolish of the BCCI not to go ahead with it... I was bringing in points of why the umpires make it look like it doesn't work, when in reality it does

[bowl_out]

BCCI talking about 100% assurance of correctness in decisions during days where there is no 100% assurance that a batsman will go back to the pavilion alive :((

[Zap_Brannigan]

All this whinging against the BCCI is only sidelining the real issues of the DRS. The technology itself is never going to be 100% (nothing is going to be) but the method of implementation is terrible. What exactly is umpires call? Even with accurate technology, ICC tells us that an identical delivery can be out or not out based on the umpire and not the rules. Thats just absurd. The other problem is leaving it at the hands of captains can make it useless as India showed when it was first used.

[BeautifulGame]

All this whinging against the BCCI is only sidelining the real issues of the DRS. The technology itself is never going to be 100% (nothing is going to be) but the method of implementation is terrible. What exactly is umpires call? Even with accurate technology, ICC tells us that an identical delivery can be out or not out based on the umpire and not the rules. Thats just absurd. The other problem is leaving it at the hands of captains can make it useless as India showed when it was first used.

That's not absurd its common sense. The drs is to avoid howlers .So when its a 50-50 call the umpire decision stands .How is that absurd? DRS is implemented to eliminate howlers not marginal decisions

[Temujin Khaghan]

is this a metaphor or really happened? --- One of the players is so unsure of flying he started screaming uncontrollably when a Johannesburg-Durban flight went through an air pocket last year.:cantstop:

[Cricket_Hacker]

is this a metaphor or really happened? --- One of the players is so unsure of flying he started screaming uncontrollably when a Johannesburg-Durban flight went through an air pocket last year.:cantstop:

rohit might have done that :giggle:

[bharat297]

Just have DRS but leave it to the umpires. If the 3rd umpire suspects a howler, they can overrule it.

[Temujin Khaghan]

ego problem i think. BCCI dont want to look like they fell in line. instead they want to wait for a major breakthrough and announce to the world that this was what they were waiting for all along and they are now ready.

[zep1706]

The 100% argument is a load of BS. It will never be 100% correct, you can only decrease the error margin. But there are many other issues with DRS. For example, there are two systems in play now: Eagle-Eye in Australia and Hawk-Eye in England. Are both of these systems similar? These systems can be easily manipulated, so who ensures that they are not getting manipulated? Are there any independent evaluation of all these different technologies? There are many such questions. However it is clear, more than ever that cricket needs some kind of a review system to remove those obvious blunders. My personal opinion is that simple TV replays are good enough for that. But the present system is still better than not having a review system at all.