Today while watching News i came to know that now Decision Review System(DRS) is not mandatory. Its upto the boards which are participating in a series to decide whether DRS will be applicable or not. The same ICC has made DRS mandatory for all in July 2011 then what happens in next 5 months that ICC has again has to review his decision. Is it because of BCCI pressure and can this review of review system can be treated as the victory?
Indian are always victims of technology. If you all remember that our own Sachin was the first person given run out by third umpire in 1992. The latest one was Rahul Dravid who was controversially given out using DRS in the first ODI against England when the hot spot doesn't shown any mark and not there was any deflection. BCCI and Team India was never in the favor of DRS. In the ICC meeting at 27 June 2011, the ICC made DRS mandatory for all the series.
I like to put forward a comment made by Michael Vaughan during the India tour to England. It goes like " Has Vaseline on the outside edge saved the day for Laxman? ". This controversial tweet found its way in all the newspaper and news channel the very next day but the topic of debate was not the hot spot, but it was how can someone point out the finger on Laxman's integrity. I have a question over here. How can such a technology can be used where present and former players have doubt about it. And Michael Vaughan is not a member of BCCI or he is not representing BCCI while making this comment. This comment is made by a man who had represent a country who is in favor of DRS. According to statistics released by ICC last year, the 93.6% decision given by umpire before DRS were right whereas after the use of DRS this %age increased to 97.4%. With the use of ball tracking, snickometer and hot spot, these all together form DRS, still this figure just raised by 3.8% .
I still remember India and Australia second test in Sydney in 2008(remembered because of controversy b/w bhaji and Symonds) where some decision goes against India and India lost the match by 122 runs. The very next day the whole media was accusing umpire Steve Bucknor, arguably the best umpire of his time, and Mark Benson. After the match even one of the commentator said that if there were only 11 Australasian then India must have won the match. But there were 13 players who were playing against India. The new debate started that time, when the technology is available then why it is not used in cricket. BCCI since then was against this use of technology. After that match too the BCCI was against DRS. The point put forward by them is that it is not full-proof.
But right now the major question is not is DRS good or bad. The major question is when in july 2011 ICC made mandatory to use DRS in all the series then how come in less than 5 months time it again has to review his decision. Is some of the disaster decision given in India-England series made them think about DRS or is the money power which BCCI enjoys had a role to play in that. Whatever the reason is? 2 persons which are very happy because of this decision are N. Srinivasan, president of worlds richest board and R. Dravid, the latest victim. The most unhappiest person right now will be M. Dhoni as he has to find some other reason when India doesn't played well.
Indian are always victims of technology. If you all remember that our own Sachin was the first person given run out by third umpire in 1992. The latest one was Rahul Dravid who was controversially given out using DRS in the first ODI against England when the hot spot doesn't shown any mark and not there was any deflection. BCCI and Team India was never in the favor of DRS. In the ICC meeting at 27 June 2011, the ICC made DRS mandatory for all the series.
I like to put forward a comment made by Michael Vaughan during the India tour to England. It goes like " Has Vaseline on the outside edge saved the day for Laxman? ". This controversial tweet found its way in all the newspaper and news channel the very next day but the topic of debate was not the hot spot, but it was how can someone point out the finger on Laxman's integrity. I have a question over here. How can such a technology can be used where present and former players have doubt about it. And Michael Vaughan is not a member of BCCI or he is not representing BCCI while making this comment. This comment is made by a man who had represent a country who is in favor of DRS. According to statistics released by ICC last year, the 93.6% decision given by umpire before DRS were right whereas after the use of DRS this %age increased to 97.4%. With the use of ball tracking, snickometer and hot spot, these all together form DRS, still this figure just raised by 3.8% .
I still remember India and Australia second test in Sydney in 2008(remembered because of controversy b/w bhaji and Symonds) where some decision goes against India and India lost the match by 122 runs. The very next day the whole media was accusing umpire Steve Bucknor, arguably the best umpire of his time, and Mark Benson. After the match even one of the commentator said that if there were only 11 Australasian then India must have won the match. But there were 13 players who were playing against India. The new debate started that time, when the technology is available then why it is not used in cricket. BCCI since then was against this use of technology. After that match too the BCCI was against DRS. The point put forward by them is that it is not full-proof.
But right now the major question is not is DRS good or bad. The major question is when in july 2011 ICC made mandatory to use DRS in all the series then how come in less than 5 months time it again has to review his decision. Is some of the disaster decision given in India-England series made them think about DRS or is the money power which BCCI enjoys had a role to play in that. Whatever the reason is? 2 persons which are very happy because of this decision are N. Srinivasan, president of worlds richest board and R. Dravid, the latest victim. The most unhappiest person right now will be M. Dhoni as he has to find some other reason when India doesn't played well.
