Published: Jul 01, 2011, 11:16 AM (IST)
Edited: Sep 12, 2014, 10:08 AM (IST)
By Dhananjay Devasper
The earlier Decision Review System (DRS) system (Hotspot, Snicko and Hawk-Eye) was always in the eye of a storm ever since its inception. The BCCI refused to accept this system whenever India played a series. After numerous negotiations, a decision was arrived at to use a revised DRS, without Hawk-Eye.
This was a compromise as India always opposed the existing DRS. However a number of conspiracy theories abound, since the agreement was reached.
The biggest among them being that India was made to bear the brunt of some of the worst decisions in recent times, for the BCCI to bend from its seemingly rigid stand. Seemingly good umpires have made cardinal errors, leading to some senior players in the Indian squad, commenting on anonymity, that it was a “setup designed to get India to agree to some form of a DRS”.
In the ongoing India – West Indies Series, no less than four decisions went against India in the first Test, and by all accounts two more in the second Test. These bloopers have cost Daryl Harper his job and invited the ire of the normally calm and cool Mahendra Singh Dhoni. From recent memory, whenever there has been an umpiring controversy, the Indian team has been involved. Whether it was the infamous Sydney Test when Anil Kumble declared famously that only “one team was playing in the spirit of the game” or the current West Indies tour where Dhoni lamented that he could have long been in his hotel room if the decisions were correct. It’s no wonder, that folks in India feel that the umpires are ganging up against the Indian team to force them to accept the DRS. However India has had the last laugh here again, with the controversial Hawk-Eye system no longer a part of the DRS.
This brings up fundamental questions: Should we change the rules on who invokes the DRS? And, how do we ensure mistakes are minimized? There is no question that the intent of the DRS is to determine whether the batsman is out or not. So why should the request to review be with the on-field batsmen. Let the dressing room signal if the batsman should review the decision, like the National Football League (NFL) in the USA. Let the Third Umpire get involved too if he sees something amiss. If there is a benefit in seeing the replays and then letting the batsmen know, then so be it. Cricket will be better for it. While many traditionalists can lament that it undermines the authority of the on-field umpires, it also goes to say that the standard of umpiring in the game has also been questionable, in recent times.
And finally two recent instances have also shown that even the broadcaster can be a culprit when reviews are called for. Wrong replays were shown to determine whether the bowler had overstepped. Once, in the recently-concluded IPL, when the dismissal of Sachin Tendulkar was upheld. And, now, in the ongoing second Test in the West Indies, when Dhoni’s dismissal was upheld. It was later found out in both cases that the broadcaster had shown wrong replays. This can be fixed very easily. Instead of stopping the replay just to determine whether the bowler had overstepped, let the replay continue to show the shot that the batsman makes.
In the endeavor to get things right, let’s hope decisions are made with no place for egos, and that we do not lose sight of the reason these systems were introduced in the first place
Stay tuned…
(Dhananjay Devasper is an “IT guy” by profession and a sports fanatic at heart. He has an unbridled passion for sports and Indian achievements in sport. Extremely opinionated, he attempts offering perspectives around sports which are simple to understand and easy to relate with)
