Most of us would have had a good time with the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) that was in place during World Cup cricket. Technology gave a way for any one of us spectators to accurately determine whether or not the decision was right. As Tata Sky even put it in their ads "Babloo ne kaha out to out"!
However, the BCCI was against this system and therefore the DRS was not made mandatory across all forms of International cricket tournaments, given the clout BCCI holds in the cricket arena. Notwithstanding the fact that DRS was more beneficial than not to cricket (opinions here may differ vastly though), BCCI still is not in favor of DRS in its entirety, especially given that the opposition was from key players like Sachin Tendulkar and MS Dhoni. Ironically, Dhoni was the one who even recently in the WI tour lambasted the 'poor' decisions of Australian umpire Daryl Harper. Oh come on Dhoni, give it a break; you can't have it both ways! Either you accept DRS or you stop criticizing umpires.
Coming back to the present scenario - today's news is that the ICC and BCCI have reached an agreement to have a 'modified' version of DRS mandatory in all International series.
Now this is 'modified' version:
1: Only infra-red cameras and audio-tracking devices are allowed
2: Ball-tracking technology or Hawk-Eye will NOT be used
In case 1: A caught behind or LBW decision can be reviewed by determining whether or not the ball hit the bat - primarily using the help of microphone on the stumps.
In case 2: Technology will NOT be used to extrapolate the trajectory of the ball to determine whether or not it would have hit the stumps in case of a LBW decision. However, the decision can still be appealed and the third umpire will give his view but the final call will be taken by the on-field umpire himself. This effectively means that appealing in this kind of situation is practically useless as the chances of on-field umpire altering his original decision will be minimal, with the lack of technology for everyone to see.
Added to this, there is a talk that only one review will be allowed per innings instead of the current two.
All this sounds totally ridiculous to me. Either you use technology or you don’t. What’s the point of having technology assistance when all these restrictions come into place? I would rather prefer UDRS, in its complete form. In fact, UDRS should not be restricted to one or two reviews; it should be allowed for all decisions that seem vague. Further, the third umpire’s decision/technology’s decision should be final and binding and the ball should not be thrown back to the on-field umpire’s court; after all there will be a conflict of interest (read ego) when this happens.
However, the BCCI was against this system and therefore the DRS was not made mandatory across all forms of International cricket tournaments, given the clout BCCI holds in the cricket arena. Notwithstanding the fact that DRS was more beneficial than not to cricket (opinions here may differ vastly though), BCCI still is not in favor of DRS in its entirety, especially given that the opposition was from key players like Sachin Tendulkar and MS Dhoni. Ironically, Dhoni was the one who even recently in the WI tour lambasted the 'poor' decisions of Australian umpire Daryl Harper. Oh come on Dhoni, give it a break; you can't have it both ways! Either you accept DRS or you stop criticizing umpires.
Coming back to the present scenario - today's news is that the ICC and BCCI have reached an agreement to have a 'modified' version of DRS mandatory in all International series.
Now this is 'modified' version:
1: Only infra-red cameras and audio-tracking devices are allowed
2: Ball-tracking technology or Hawk-Eye will NOT be used
In case 1: A caught behind or LBW decision can be reviewed by determining whether or not the ball hit the bat - primarily using the help of microphone on the stumps.
In case 2: Technology will NOT be used to extrapolate the trajectory of the ball to determine whether or not it would have hit the stumps in case of a LBW decision. However, the decision can still be appealed and the third umpire will give his view but the final call will be taken by the on-field umpire himself. This effectively means that appealing in this kind of situation is practically useless as the chances of on-field umpire altering his original decision will be minimal, with the lack of technology for everyone to see.
Added to this, there is a talk that only one review will be allowed per innings instead of the current two.
All this sounds totally ridiculous to me. Either you use technology or you don’t. What’s the point of having technology assistance when all these restrictions come into place? I would rather prefer UDRS, in its complete form. In fact, UDRS should not be restricted to one or two reviews; it should be allowed for all decisions that seem vague. Further, the third umpire’s decision/technology’s decision should be final and binding and the ball should not be thrown back to the on-field umpire’s court; after all there will be a conflict of interest (read ego) when this happens.
4 comments:
Your thoughts have indeed juggled me for a while.
Swap,
Can you tell me what you even understand about Cricket? :)
Wait for my next blog..
Ha ha ha! Good one. You just made my day. ROTFL :)
Post a Comment