ICC needs to take ownership of the DRS
Roar Guru By shanebrien, 15 Feb 2012 shanebrien is a Roar Guru
When the DRS (Decision Review System) was introduced into international cricket late 2009, the ICC informed us that this was a crucial component in ensuring correct decisions were made on the field.
We are now in the early stages of 2012 and have just completed a test series where the DRS played no part due to the fact one team chose not to have it implemented.
Various reasons have been used for the non use of DRS. The Pakistan board (the “home” board, in this case) said it couldn’t afford the system, while India believe the system is unreliable.
Like a lot of decisions made by cricket administrators, the fact that one team soley has the power to refuse the DRS lacks leadership quality from the ICC. There needs to be a way to use the system in all matches, the method of asking both teams before a Test series if they want to use DRS is farcical and opens up the game to conjecture and controversy.
As someone who loves the game of cricket and preferred it when the human element had the overriding factor on the result of a game, I accept the fact technology has advanced to the stage where we can have a game with no mistakes, and with so much money involved I can understand why world cricket needs DRS, what I don’t understand is how one team alone can decide upon the fate of DRS before the start of each series.
Whether you agree with the UDRS or not, every series has to be played under the same set of laws and playing conditions. Firstly, every player deserves justice, not just the ones who aren’t playing against teams that oppose the system, such as India.
Secondly,the integrity of the stats, the facts are, DRS or the lack of DRS has the potential to change the course of game. I take you back to the 2008 SCG Test between Australia and India and the decision to give Andrew Symonds not out when he was caught behind, which proved costly. It was a telling moment in the Test that went Australia’s way and it clearly shouldn’t have.
Last but not least, for the sake of the umpires credibility. So far the DRS has caused as many arguments as it has solved disputes. Cricket’s governing body, the ICC, needs to take a stand and not let individual boards dominate the way the game is run.
If a definitive conclusion about the use or non-use of the DRS cannot be met, it should be scrapped.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
The Crowd Says (7) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Cricket, Decision Review System, DRS, ICC, International Cricket Council, Test cricket
February 15th 2012 @ 8:58am
Brett McKay said | February 15th 2012 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Completely agree Shane. But the ICC did take ownership, and only last year declared the the DRS would become mandatory for all test series, only to then change their mind* and reverse the decision in Sept/Oct, instead leaving its use up to the competing nations.
So what actually needs to happen is that the ICC need to FUND the use of DRS around the world, and take the decision away from the nations*. The ICC needs to establish a baseline in terms of quality (resolution, frames/second, tracking system, etc) and from this, the broadcasters can add additional technology if it’s proven to be of better quality than the ICC standard (and with agreement from the competing teams if required).
(I’d possibly like to see the technology handed over to the umps, rather than have on-field referrals, but let’s get DRS mandated first.)
The ICC have shown they can make a decision regarding DRS, they just have to show they can stick with that decision and not be rolled over by the powers behind the *s…
February 15th 2012 @ 9:59am
Atawhai Drive said | February 15th 2012 @ 9:59am | Report comment
” . . . technology has advanced to the stage where we can have a game with no mistakes . . . ”
Really?
No, not really. Technology is in a state of continuous advance, but DRS perfection is still some way away. Some of the decisions in the England-Pakistan Test series were anything but perfect.
Technology helps, but definitive it ain’t. Eagle Eye ball-tracking is no more than an indication of what might have happened, not proof of what would have happened.
But I agree it’s either DRS for all Tests, or no DRS at all. I’d be happy enough with the latter _ DRS wasn’t missed in the Australia-India Test series.
I’m not watching the one-dayers but apparently there was a five-ball over in last night’s India-Sri Lanka match. The on-field umpires, third umpire and match referee all missed it, and so did the players. Would DRS have made a difference, or is ball-counting still left to the human element?
February 15th 2012 @ 10:05am
aussiepolliessport said | February 15th 2012 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Totally agree that the ICC needs to take ownership of the ICC. No one board no matter how powerful should be able to dictate terms of the games in which they play for both sides playing in that match.
If India wish to continue to play without DRS that is fine but the ICC need to have the guts to stand up to this powerful lobby and I think they should dictate that even if the Indian team do not wish to have DRS, their opposition should have that right granted to them.
February 15th 2012 @ 10:10am
aussiepolliessport said | February 15th 2012 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Apologies the second ICC in the first line should refer to DRS ownership. A brain snap on my part.
February 15th 2012 @ 1:26pm
Brett McKay said | February 15th 2012 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Actually, APS, I reckon you had it right the first time. The ICC probably do need to take ownership of the ICC too. Maybe even above all else…
February 15th 2012 @ 10:21am
Matt F said | February 15th 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
I agree completely. The use, or non use issue is becoming tiresome and ludicrous.
The ICC needs to make a definitive decision and follow it through. Their own reports suggest that the DRS, whilst not 100% perfect, is more accurate then not having it at all so if we’re looking to improve the game then it should be put in permanently. Besides the majority of umpires support the DRS system and I would have thought they would be the most important stakeholder in this issue.
The other thing that the ICC needs to do is provide funding for the Test nations to install the best DRS systems possible. There can be a significant diference between the quality of DRS technology used in one country compared to another. For example, Eagle Eye, which is now used in Australia, is supposed to be more accurate then Hawk-Eye which most others use but it also costs more. The quality of Hot Spot this year compared to last year is also better. The technology used is continuously improving and can be expensive to procure so some nations will need assistance in getting the best technology.
February 17th 2012 @ 8:39am
Antonio said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:39am | Report comment
I guess by India’s point of view you can’t influence a computer’s decision with money