Should the DRS be mandatory?

[SaintPowelly]

Its about time the ICC made a decision on DRS, use it or not, this pick and choose is nonsense.

[DeltaAlpha]

I agree entirely, SP. The BCCI isn't the biggest obstacle - the spinelessness of the ICC takes that prize; they didn't even put mandatory use of DRS to a vote, did they? The ICC is not fit for purpose as a 'governing body'.

[Making_Splinters]

I don't think the ICC should be allowed to force a Board to use a system that it does not want to anymore than I think a Board should be allowed to force another Board not to use a system that they do want to.

At the end of the day the top levels of the ICC are obviouslygoing to be embroiled in politicking regardless of who is in charge and with that comes careful considerations about saving face and maintaining at least an illusion of influence within the ICC as a whole hence it is unlikely we will see the pro DRS parties trying to force a vote on the matter unless somehow they can break up the blocks formed against the DRS. That's unlikely to happen with the main consideration holding the blocks together being about money, bodies like the ECB simply can not compete in the horse trading stakes with the BCCI.

Hence my suggestion of home board control over the system as a realistic non chest beating solution.

[DeltaAlpha]

I don't think the ICC should be allowed to force a Board to use a system that it does not want to anymore than I think a Board should be allowed to force another Board not to use a system that they do want to.

Hence my suggestion of home board control over the system as a realistic non chest beating solution.

But doesn't your suggestion imply that one Board could force another Board to use the system when they don't want to, MS?

[Making_Splinters]

I don't think the ICC should be allowed to force a Board to use a system that it does not want to anymore than I think a Board should be allowed to force another Board not to use a system that they do want to.

Hence my suggestion of home board control over the system as a realistic non chest beating solution.

But doesn't your suggestion imply that one Board could force another Board to use the system when they don't want to, MS?

It would indeed force them to use it or not use it as a touring party. However by placing control solely in the hands of the home Board it becomes no different to for example the home team being able to make the pitch conditions suit their team - somthing that no one would argue is particularly unfair nor would they argue that the touring party should have any say in the pitch conditions.

Hence you're ultimately just leveling out the playing field when it comes to DRS.

[DeltaAlpha]

Yes, I understand that, MS, but the point is that, in the light of what I said, BCCI are no more likely to accept your suggestion than they are to accept mandatory DRS. That's why, I believe, the ICC has to make a decision or this will roll on endlessly.

[Making_Splinters]

Yes, I understand that, MS, but the point is that, in the light of what I said, BCCI are no more likely to accept your suggestion than they are to accept mandatory DRS. That's why, I believe, the ICC has to make a decision or this will roll on endlessly.

I'd agree that the two options are equally likely to be unacceptable by the BCCI as they are at present the only party who would lose their current position, however as I have mentioned before the arguments you can construct for the Home Board control over the DRS are different to the ones that are used for the mandatory DRS and seeing as we have many parts of the game which are already under Home Board control for example pitch conditions then there is also a secondary precedent in support.

Ultimately I think the primary role of a Board is the governing of Cricket in its own country, the BCCI should be free to do what ever they want with the DRS in India just as any other Board should be able to do in their own country, they or any other Board should not have a say in what happens in another Country just as they do not over pitch conditions.

If the ECB, CSA or CA want to use DRS in any series played in England, South Africa or Australia respectively then they should be free to regardless of who the touring party is because their duty is to cricket in their country, their players and the paying public who watch the games just as the BCCI should be free to not use it in India for the exact same reasons.

The situation we've ended up in now is one where any Board can not guarentee their ability to provide the best cricket in their own country and that is what I take umbridge with, not whether or not a Board feels the percentage improvements in umpiring decisions outweigh the obvious technological limitations with any system at present.

[DeltaAlpha]

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, MS, but my point is that, unless the ICC finds a way (or has the will) to do something, then your suggestion, good though it may be, is just as much pie in the sky as is mandatory DRS.

[SaintPowelly]

Whats the difference between the DRS and say the DL system, if the ICC enforce it as a rule, then end of discussion.

[Making_Splinters]

At the end of the day Delta I think mandatory DRS is a dead subject at the ICC so there seems little point even bringing it up unless Richardson - an archetypal DRS supporter - can somehow break the BCCIs hold over its block votes, so there is very little point in the ICC bringing it up.

I'd also add that as long as there is a single country that does not want the DRS being used in its games then there should not be mandatory DRS anyway as I fear there is a potential for a precedent being set where the ICC can over ride the control a Home Board has over the cricket in its country.

Reframing the questions provides an alternative argument which draws support from other means than simply saying, "DRS is good for the game" as well as helping to mitigate the opposition that can be brought against the DRS. There seems to be little point trying to break down the BCCIs objection to the technology by simply saying the same question over and over again, changing it may still result in Pie in the Sky territory, but it allows people to reassess their means with out having to break down the BCCIs overarching objection.

[Making_Splinters]

Whats the difference between the DRS and say the DL system, if the ICC enforce it as a rule, then end of discussion.

Nothing, but at the end of the day unlike the DRS the D/L has achieved consistant support within the ICC despite the rumours over the VJD system making waves. The ICC could not keep the D/L in the game if one of the more powerful boards decided to call its votes in and have it changed as we are seeing with the DRS at present.

[SaintPowelly]

Whats the difference between the DRS and say the DL system, if the ICC enforce it as a rule, then end of discussion.

Nothing, but at the end of the day unlike the DRS the D/L has achieved consistant support within the ICC despite the rumours over the VJD system making waves. The ICC could not keep the D/L in the game if one of the more powerful boards decided to call its votes in and have it changed as we are seeing with the DRS at present.

Surely the DRS should be a mandatory decision and its only India that are moaning and holding the game back, tell them to grow up or lose their status.

England,Australia,West Indies,NZ,Pakistan,Sri Lanka,Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are all happy, and the ICC are happy.

[Making_Splinters]

Whats the difference between the DRS and say the DL system, if the ICC enforce it as a rule, then end of discussion.

Nothing, but at the end of the day unlike the DRS the D/L has achieved consistant support within the ICC despite the rumours over the VJD system making waves. The ICC could not keep the D/L in the game if one of the more powerful boards decided to call its votes in and have it changed as we are seeing with the DRS at present.

Surely the DRS should be a mandatory decision and its only India that are moaning and holding the game back, tell them to grow up or lose their status.

England,Australia,West Indies,NZ,Pakistan,Sri Lanka,Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are all happy, and the ICC are happy.

As I said above, should be simple on paper but at the end of the day the politicking will always get in the way. Bangladesh and Pakistan may like the DRS but will they like it more than the prospective rewards an extra series agains India will net them, or even just like it more than losing the support that India provides them on other issues?

[DeltaAlpha]

I think what you're saying, MS, is that your suggestion could allow for a little 'face-saving' and thus open up the possibility of a resolution. Hmm... I'll have to ponder that...

Of course, being an old fella, I really long for the return of the old days, when umpires made their decisions and they were respected. But that really is pie in the sky!

[ddb]

Of course, being an old fella, I really long for the return of the old days, when umpires made their decisions and they were respected. But that really is pie in the sky!

You can watch India matches excluding Virat Kohli