Should the DRS be mandatory?

[DeltaAlpha]

[Making_Splinters]

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!

Pretty much Delta, trying to look for solutions within the framework present at present in the ICC rather than looking at the position of the DRS within the game ignoring the framework- An occupational hazzard sadly.

I don't think we can ever go back to the old Umpire within the game, as I wrote in an article on the DRS way back when I first joined CMS the modern use of technology within the media to examine every decision as its made provides far too much exposure to Umpires decisions to allow for blatent mistakes to be excusable anymore.

I remember as a lad having long arguments with my father in the car on the way back from matches as to whether the ball pitched outside leg or not, of course we'd never see that ball again so neither of us could ever be proven right, that's not the case anymore.

[ddb]

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?

They also can't afford DRS, without a sponsor, anyway. Not sure India have much of a relationship with Pak as the govt still hasn't vetoed anything.

If Eng/Aus really wanted to push DRS through, they could I think but no vote suggests not at this moment in time...

One thing Crowe made a point on CI on ball tracking, Cambridge tests said Virtual Eye was 100% right but the creator said it wasn't and said when Kallis criticised it that he thought all along that it should be used for TV only.

[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.

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?

But India would be FORCED to use it.

[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?

But India would be FORCED to use it.

They'd only be forced to use it if it got through the ICC, which it won't for the reasons given throughout this thread.

[SaintPowelly]

They'd only be forced to use it if it got through the ICC, which it won't for the reasons given throughout this thread.

Which is my problem, what is the point in the ICC, if they are going to be bullied.

[Making_Splinters]

They'd only be forced to use it if it got through the ICC, which it won't for the reasons given throughout this thread.

Which is my problem, what is the point in the ICC, if they are going to be bullied.

Of course the flip side of that coin Saint is would we rather have an ICC that is the bully?

[SaintPowelly]

They'd only be forced to use it if it got through the ICC, which it won't for the reasons given throughout this thread.

Which is my problem, what is the point in the ICC, if they are going to be bullied.

Of course the flip side of that coin Saint is would we rather have an ICC that is the bully?

Well if no team wanted DRS andf they emplyed it, that would be dumb, the majority do, they need to make a decision.

[Making_Splinters]

They'd only be forced to use it if it got through the ICC, which it won't for the reasons given throughout this thread.

Which is my problem, what is the point in the ICC, if they are going to be bullied.

Of course the flip side of that coin Saint is would we rather have an ICC that is the bully?

Well if no team wanted DRS andf they emplyed it, that would be dumb, the majority do, they need to make a decision.

The problem here is, that if for example the entire situation were reversed and it was the ECB and English fans fighting tooth and nail not to have the DRS system being used would we still be happy with the majority at the ICC, parties which we have no say in how they get to their position deciding that the DRS has to be used in England?

I'd far rather see the control of the system placed in the hands of the Home Board than I would see the ICC force a Board to use a system against its will; I tend to take a very Niemoller esque view on such things.

[D/L]

Hotspot seems quite temperamental when it comes to really fine edges, Bell had one in the last series which he knew he had feathered but did not show up on Hotspot and in this series had one he didn't think he'd hit that did show up on Hotspot.

As for the dissent argument, see the Gayle dismissal last series.

I don’t think anyone would seriously expect DRS to quell all dissent. It is clear, however, that it has reduced the number of incidents that could give rise to it.

[D/L]

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'.

Perhaps the ICC wouldn’t have been accused of spinelessness in this case (though in many others they have appeared to be) without the intransigence of the BCCI, without which the matter may never have arisen, DA. As it was, the BCCI were so vocal in their opposition, and they wield so much power, far more than the ICC, that a vote would have been futile. They are the true obstacle to the universal adoption of UDRS.

[DeltaAlpha]

It's a bit weird from my point of view, D/L. I don't recall any dissent - that's not to say that there wasn't any - in my early days of watching and playing cricket in the early 1950s. Umpires made their decisions; players and spectators accepted them, and generally respected them.

With the advent of technology, umpiring mistakes have been brought into focus, and now we have the curious situation where we're using the same technology to solve the very problem it's caused.

Nothing at all to do with your last post, of course, and probably totally illogical, but just the way I see things.

Regarding BCCI and ICC, I think that not to put something to a vote because you think a negative outcome is inevitable is spineless. Again, just the way I see things.

[meninblue]

Is there a chance that like cricketers , umpires are also fixed to give incorrect decissions If so the UDRS will put human bias aside by putting forth the facts.

[D/L]

It's a bit weird from my point of view, D/L. I don't recall any dissent - that's not to say that there wasn't any - in my early days of watching and playing cricket in the early 1950s. Umpires made their decisions; players and spectators accepted them, and generally respected them.

With the advent of technology, umpiring mistakes have been brought into focus, and now we have the curious situation where we're using the same technology to solve the very problem it's caused.

Nothing at all to do with your last post, of course, and probably totally illogical, but just the way I see things.

Regarding BCCI and ICC, I think that not to put something to a vote because you think a negative outcome is inevitable is spineless. Again, just the way I see things.

Me neither, DA, but I was referring to the dissent that inevitably crept into professional cricket since money became the motivating factor for players. Remember,for example, Broad’s frequent tantrums when he disagreed with a decision given only by the on field umpire? UDRS has definitely helped to reduce such incidents.

Re the ICC/BCCI relationship, it seems a classic example of the tail wagging the dog.

[DeltaAlpha]

Yeah, you're probably right about money there, D/L, that's probably at the root of the dissent - just the same in football, and without all the technology. But I do still think that the technology has contributed to the rise of dissent.

The "tail wagging the dog" is fair comment, except that BCCI thinks it is the dog, and the ICC is too spineless to say otherwise.