On Saturday, in the second Test in the on-going Border-Gavaskar Test series in Australia, Indian batsman Ravichandran Ashwin was declared out, caught behind off Mitchell Starc. Replays showed that the ball had hit the top of his pads. On the first day of the second Test, Cheteshwar Pujara was caught behind for 18. The ball had bounced off the helmet’s grille. Replays showed the delivery from Josh Hazlewood went past the bat and did not touch the glove.
A week before, the first Test also witnessed a couple of umpiring errors. India opener Shikhar Dhawan was caught off the bowling of Mitchell Johnson and the umpire’s finger went up. The problem was that it hit his shoulder and not the glove. Dhawan stood at the crease for a few extra moments and then marched back.
On the fifth and final day of the Adelaide match, as India fought hard to win the Test, they were undone by the umpiring yet again. Ajinkya Rahane faced one of Nathan Lyon’s off-breaks, which turned sharply and Chris Rogers claimed the catch. The umpire asked Rahane to make the walk to the pavilion. Replays showed the ball had lobbed off Rahane’s pad, the bat was nowhere close.
All these decisions would have been overturned had the Umpire Decision Review System been in place. It was not though, because India’s national governing body for cricket, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, pigheadedly opposes it.
Revisit of stand?
The DRS is a system that uses technology to essentially determine a delivery’s trajectory and ascertain what it comes in contact with. Its supporters say the technology enhances the experience of cricket by making questionable umpiring calls less questionable. The system was introduced in Test matches in 2009 and One Day Internationals in 2011. At first, it was mandatory. But the BCCI, the world’s largest and richest cricketing board, stubbornly held out. Pushed by its most powerful member, the international governing body of cricket, the International Cricket Council, made the use of DRS conditional on a bilateral agreement between the playing teams.
This ensured that no India series would use DRS. All this while, BCCI’s only argument, echoed repeatedly, has been that “DRS is not 100% accurate”. Nor are umpires, its critics retort.
After the second Test at Brisbane, Mahendra Singh Dhoni said that India were getting more bad calls than Australia. “"What's more important [than DRS] is that a lot of 50-50 decisions are not going our way”. He added that even with DRS, these decisions wouldn’t go India’s way. He also lambasted the poor umpiring in the first two Test matches by Marais Erasmus and Englishman Ian Gould.
India’s latest reservation is against umpire’s-call. Sometimes, even the technology is uncertain. In LBW decisions, the technology is used to determine if the ball would have hit the stumps. The rules state that more than half the ball should hit the stumps. If not, the original umpire decision (out or not out) stands. So what is the BCCI's probem?
Preferring human errors
Despite the umpiring misreadings last week, Virat Kohli, the stand-in India skipper for the Adelaide Test, said the BCCI’s stance will not change until the ball-tracking technology is “100% accurate”. “I don’t think it can be a thing that we will change our take on,” Kohli said. “If it gets 100% accurate and consistent, then who knows?”
One of the reasons the BCCI is vehemently against DRS, according to reports, is that two of its former star players, Sachin Tendulkar and Anil Kumble, opposed it. Critics of the DRS note that “human error is part of the game”, the system “slows down the game” and “embarrasses umpires”. For them, television replays highlighting umpires’ errors are not embarrassing enough.
The wait continues
There is a flip side. The DRS’s reputation took a jolt during the last Ashes tour, when on occasions, even the technology could not give precise decisions.
Still, as media reports point out, ICC statistics show fewer mistakes were made when the DRS was employed. Out of 11 Tests played between April and September this year, the ICC concluded that umpires got decisions right 93.1% of the time. With DRS in use, the figure increased to 98.5% – a smidgen less than the BCCI’s demand of “100% accuracy”. So will the BCCI change its mind? It appears unlikely.
And so the obstinacy goes on. The BCCI and the Indian cricket team players may give hints about accepting the DRS, but in the past six years, nothing has changed. DRS anyone?
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
A week before, the first Test also witnessed a couple of umpiring errors. India opener Shikhar Dhawan was caught off the bowling of Mitchell Johnson and the umpire’s finger went up. The problem was that it hit his shoulder and not the glove. Dhawan stood at the crease for a few extra moments and then marched back.
On the fifth and final day of the Adelaide match, as India fought hard to win the Test, they were undone by the umpiring yet again. Ajinkya Rahane faced one of Nathan Lyon’s off-breaks, which turned sharply and Chris Rogers claimed the catch. The umpire asked Rahane to make the walk to the pavilion. Replays showed the ball had lobbed off Rahane’s pad, the bat was nowhere close.
All these decisions would have been overturned had the Umpire Decision Review System been in place. It was not though, because India’s national governing body for cricket, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, pigheadedly opposes it.
Revisit of stand?
The DRS is a system that uses technology to essentially determine a delivery’s trajectory and ascertain what it comes in contact with. Its supporters say the technology enhances the experience of cricket by making questionable umpiring calls less questionable. The system was introduced in Test matches in 2009 and One Day Internationals in 2011. At first, it was mandatory. But the BCCI, the world’s largest and richest cricketing board, stubbornly held out. Pushed by its most powerful member, the international governing body of cricket, the International Cricket Council, made the use of DRS conditional on a bilateral agreement between the playing teams.
This ensured that no India series would use DRS. All this while, BCCI’s only argument, echoed repeatedly, has been that “DRS is not 100% accurate”. Nor are umpires, its critics retort.
After the second Test at Brisbane, Mahendra Singh Dhoni said that India were getting more bad calls than Australia. “"What's more important [than DRS] is that a lot of 50-50 decisions are not going our way”. He added that even with DRS, these decisions wouldn’t go India’s way. He also lambasted the poor umpiring in the first two Test matches by Marais Erasmus and Englishman Ian Gould.
India’s latest reservation is against umpire’s-call. Sometimes, even the technology is uncertain. In LBW decisions, the technology is used to determine if the ball would have hit the stumps. The rules state that more than half the ball should hit the stumps. If not, the original umpire decision (out or not out) stands. So what is the BCCI's probem?
Preferring human errors
Despite the umpiring misreadings last week, Virat Kohli, the stand-in India skipper for the Adelaide Test, said the BCCI’s stance will not change until the ball-tracking technology is “100% accurate”. “I don’t think it can be a thing that we will change our take on,” Kohli said. “If it gets 100% accurate and consistent, then who knows?”
One of the reasons the BCCI is vehemently against DRS, according to reports, is that two of its former star players, Sachin Tendulkar and Anil Kumble, opposed it. Critics of the DRS note that “human error is part of the game”, the system “slows down the game” and “embarrasses umpires”. For them, television replays highlighting umpires’ errors are not embarrassing enough.
The wait continues
There is a flip side. The DRS’s reputation took a jolt during the last Ashes tour, when on occasions, even the technology could not give precise decisions.
Still, as media reports point out, ICC statistics show fewer mistakes were made when the DRS was employed. Out of 11 Tests played between April and September this year, the ICC concluded that umpires got decisions right 93.1% of the time. With DRS in use, the figure increased to 98.5% – a smidgen less than the BCCI’s demand of “100% accuracy”. So will the BCCI change its mind? It appears unlikely.
And so the obstinacy goes on. The BCCI and the Indian cricket team players may give hints about accepting the DRS, but in the past six years, nothing has changed. DRS anyone?
