Wednesday, January 25, 2012

The DRS Debate

Will it ever end?

Debates on employing technology in a sport is bound to happen – as it would reduce the role of match officials. However, once this hurdle is crossed, there shouldn't be much problem but in cricket, there is this peculiar scenario right now, where there is a heavy debate going on after it has been implemented.

Ever since it has been employed, it has been bringing in largely correct decisions in the game and controversies have largely been reduced and any wrong decision by the umpire can be blamed on the captain for making wrong choices.

While most full-members agree with the use of the decision review system (DRS), unfortunately, the most powerful board (unfortunately), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) doesn't agree with the use of technology and has refused the system on totally unreasonable grounds. Their claim is that DRS has always been against India notwithstanding they've been the biggest beneficiaries of this system and they used in fairly well during the world cup (the crucial one being Tendulkar's semi-final decision). Besides, saying that computer projections are wrong is absolute nonsense.

Although BCCI is rejecting the DRS due to absolutely illogical reasons, I feel that the DRS has not been implemented properly by the ruling body. What I feel is that once the captain has challenged the decision of the field umpire, the original decision must be forgotten. Keeping the original decision in mind has ruined several good challenges and the chance of a challenge turning out right becomes very less. The greater repercussion of this stupidity is that the team also loses a valuable challenge. I feel the “On-field call” rule in an LBW decision definitely is the worst part of the DRS. Even clipping the bails is good enough to dismiss a batsman and a recent case to prove this is AB De Villiers being dismissed by James Anderson in the World Cup. So, the DRS must just tell whether the impact is within the line of the stumps, where the ball is pitching and whether the ball is hitting the stumps and nothing else. The concept of “On-field call” must not be brought in. Once the decision is reviewed, the field umpire should no longer have a say in it. Even if the original decision is taken into account (which I don't agree with but just in case), on such a case, the team shouldn't lose their challenge as they've made no error of judgement.

There have been controversies in the past such as the Ian Bell case and they still haven't stopped, like in the case of the decision on Saeed Ajmal and Andrew Strauss in the recent test match played in between England and Pakistan. While DRS is a very good concept, its implementation has been awful and steps have to be made to make the system better. Besides, the ICC should also make this compulsory and not be afraid of the BCCI's power. Right now, the only boards that are boldly protesting against BCCI's stubbornness are the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Cricket Australia (CA). The rest are afraid of the BCCI's power and the ICC must take a strong stand in order to make this beautiful game better.

Have a nice day.


  1. "Their claim is that DRS has always been against India"

    Really? I'm very much in favour of DRS and don't agree with the BCCI's reasoning, but this is blatantly untrue.

  2. Thank you for being in favour of DRS. This is what Sanjay Manjarekar said during the world cup.

  3. Infact there may be some deficiencies in this system but totally rejecting this system is not a wise step. One can demand improvement in the system. The main critic of this system is BCCI but its look like BCCI is overreacting. So far the advantages of this system has been noted more then its disadvantages.