Oh, the irony. After sticking to their guns by opposing DRS technology for so long, the BCCI will surely now join the rest of the cricketing world in the 21st century after a Test marred by bad decisions.
Both teams had some decisions go against them, but it will be India’s board doing some introspection after their ‘no DRS’ stance possibly cost them a historic victory on Australian soil.
Infamous for getting their own way, throwing the toys out of the cot, and holding every cricket board from Cape Town to Barbados hostage, the tears must surely be rolling in New Dehli now.
They will feel particularly hard done by due to the second innings, where opener Shikhar Darwan and Ajinkya Rahane were given out with poor decisions and fell just short in what was a remarkable run chase led by Virat Kohli.
But in the end, they have no one to blame but themselves.
The technology may not be perfect, but by stubbornly and ignorantly ignoring the rest of the world’s pleas to use it they have done themselves no favours.
If Darwan had stayed and contributed 30 runs and Rahane another 20, the game could have been very different.
And if they had been able to review David Warner’s not out decision when he was on 70, they could have been chasing a total of 263 instead of 363.
They could have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.
As it stands, Nathan Lyon did the damage, not only getting the second innings monkey off his back but hurling it into the upper deck.
To make it clear, I have the upmost respect for India’s cricketers themselves and even more so after the way they fought in this Test.
But there’s always something special about winning over India at home since 2008.
Not necessarily because of the way some players conducted themselves in that series, although it was disgusting, but because of the strong-armed tactics the BCCI used to have Harbhajan Singh’s racial abuse charge downgraded.
Not because of the way they drove a wedge between both playing groups, sullied the names of legends like Sachin Tendulkar, who blatantly lied to protect a racist, and further alienated themselves from the rest of cricket.
But because of the cry-baby poor sportsmanship, and most of all because they essentially forced Cricket Australia to turn on their own players.
When Ricky Ponting’s Australian Story aired last year, there was an interesting and candid confession from Justin Langer regarding the Singh incident.
He remarked that when he approached Cricket Australia officials, he was told “don’t be naïve, you’ve got to understand the politics”.
When he pressed further and said surely they wouldn’t throw their own under the bus, he was reminded of the crucial TV rights dollars that an Indian series injects into the coffers.
Earlier on Saturday some commentators assessed maybe it was time for the ICC to take the decision out of India’s hands and force them to use DRS.
But after today, I doubt they’ll need to.
Maybe now there will be some form of sacrifice from the suits on India’s board, some form of compromise.
And with the mountains of bad luck that went against them this Test, I doubt the players would disagree.
After all, it’s time for the BCCI to realise just because you have a nation of one billion, it doesn’t mean you can dictate the laws of Test cricket.
Bostonian
Guest
1. It is in the Indian teams interest to implement the use of the DRS system (in spite of some of its obvious flaws). At the least it will stop the flow of howlers. The BCCI should know this well because it has happened series after series after series in Australia dating back to a few decades! 2. No matter what team a fan supports, a rational person WILL notice and acknowledge at least in their mind when an unfair decision is made. They may use excuses and their own bias while trading off a single bad decision their team received against a whole bunch the opposition received to justify why it was all "fair" in the end but remember that two wrongs DO NOT make a right. Unfair decisions damage the credibility of the game. Bad decisions also sow disinterest in the minds of the fan and can contribute to a decreasing fan base overall to the game. Everyone plays to win and no one wants to play while handicapped by the system. It has happened too many times in the colonial past. We all know that in our minds although we may refuse to acknowledge in it public.
Larney
Guest
Why can't the third umpire overule on howlers?
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
No, but it does make it pretty damn funny. Especially when the only reason they don't use DRS is because they know they get a luxury ride when playing in India.
Tom
Guest
Agree totally I gave up supporting Australia because of their unsporting and loutish behavior and lets face it who wants to cheer on a team of ill mannered oafs.
Simon
Roar Guru
Good article, and agree with your thoughts. They will bite the bullet, sooner rather than later. With respect, it wasn't just Singh/BCCI who behaved in a disgusting manner during the 2007/08 Sydney Test. I have never seen such appalling antics by an Australian side in all my years watching Test cricket.
Sandy
Guest
Craig, remember the dismissal of Khawaja in the Ashes series in England, I'll never forget that one, and that was USING DRS. There has been some pretty poor umpiring over the years.
The BCCI has all the power, be it incidents on the field or off it, they hold everyone ransom because they have a vast population and the most interest and money in the game. The other cricketing nations can and won't do anything about it, just compare the stink the BCCI made in regards to the West Indies tour, even wanting to sue them for lost revenue, yet after screwing CSA the year before "to teach them a lesson" no money was given to South Africa for the revenue they lost. Nothing worse than a Dictator with double standards.
Matt
Guest
Vijay was out multiple times LBW. Kohli - who almost saved them the game - also should have been long gone. Who knows what would have happened if these 2 were out and the 2 wrong calls weren't made, however it definitely didn't cost them the game, especially given Kohli went within an inch of winning the game for them.
JohnB
Guest
If Warner went at 70, the other batsmen may have played differently than they did and some of the batsmen who didn't bat might have. Aust were 2-140 at the time. If given, it wouldn't have turned 5-290 dec (second declaration in the match remember and the score wasn't more only because of India's very sensible slow over rate) into190 all out. It should go without saying that if Dharwan and Rahane had been able to refer the decisions against them, Australia would have been able to refer multiple decisions relating to Vijay and one (I think) from Kohli. India did brilliantly to get close to winning but they had the opportunity to do so despite the overs lost or wasted only because Australia was prepared to risk losing to retain a chance to win, and bad decisions kept India in the hunt at least every bit as much as they stopped them from winning.
Professor Rosseforp
Guest
Not wanting the DRS is not an excuse for having poor umpiring
Mitch Sabine
Roar Rookie
I know it's naïve to think one match will see them capitulate; they're way too far past the point of sanity for that. but at least it will make them have a long, hard think about it and hopefully make the change for the next series they play in. i'm sick of seeing the BCCI get their own way with everything. as for the decisions against Australia, i'm not denying them and as I said in the article both teams had some shockers go against them. the point I was trying to make is I think seeing their side get so close to victory even with two really poor decisions against them, will make the BCCI re-asses their stance on DRS, which can only be a good thing for the rest of cricket. sad that it may take a few shockers going against them (even though every team is on the receiving end at one point) but it's always nice to see them getting their karma dished out by the bucketload. cheers.
Andrew
Guest
I think the umpire can only refer to 3rd umpire for no-balls and suspect catches. Otherwise its got to have DRS used.
Aransan
Guest
Craig, can the umpire refer a decision without making one themselves under DRS? If you like, I think it is out but unless you can confirm this the decision must be not out.
Craig Watson
Guest
Arasan. I believe umpires can already refer a decision to the third umpire (correct me if I am wrong). Why it was not done on at least two occasion in this test I do not know. A captain should be allowed to insist an umpire refers a decision when it is an obvious 'howler' like the Vijay' not out. I believe Erasmus did not refer it because he knew he would have had a large amount of egg on his face if he had. This to me is a very grey area in the DRS system. Should the ICC look at bringing in an independent arbitrator for DRS decisions? Certainly food for thought.
Craig Watson
Guest
To add to the discussion Vijay should have been given out on 20 and went onto make 99. That wipes out your point about Warner's non dismissal. When it all boils down each side benefited by the non use of the DRS...what is more each side benefited by very poor umpiring. Some of the worst I have witnessed watching cricket over many years. Will this one test embarrass the BCCI into changing their mind and adopting the DRS...I think not. The ICC should step in demand all nations use the DRS or ban it altogether...full stop.
Chui
Guest
I think it's naive believing that this one game will change the attitudes of the BCCI. If you could manufacture a situation whereby the BCCI would increase their power and wealth by adopting the DRS, then you will have your change. There are your motivators. By capitulating now, they will fear that they are just be seen to be weak by others. As for having less to chase if Warner was given, keep in mind that Australia declared with only five down. they were still every chance of making up that 100 runs with Smith and Haddin not out, and a pretty handy tail to follow
Aransan
Guest
I don't believe Shikhar Dhawan was out but I don't think DRS would have saved him. Since the DRS has come in I believe the umpires have been less inclined to give batsmen the benefit of the doubt and that has carried over to games where there is no DRS. I also believe that some senior Indian batsmen were responsible for India opposing the DRS because as things stood they were at an advantage through getting the benefit of any doubt. Perhaps the solution would be to modify the DRS so that, on hopefully rare occasions, the umpire can refer a decision to the third umpire for them to make a decision. If this had been done for Dharwan then I believe he would have been ruled not out.
Old Pete
Guest
I totally agree that the Indians should conform with everyone else in the cricketing world and use DRS. But bit of a one sided article in support of that view-"and with the mountains of bad luck against them this test..." I could do another version putting the same position for Australia-they had some shockers go against them too,and at crucial times. No-India shouldn't do this because selective attention to data in 1 test says self interest should have them do it;they should just do it because it is the right thing to do, and because every other cricketing nation is denied its use when playing them because of their bully boy tactics-we'll take our bat and ball and go home if you don't do things our way.