Many cricket pundits along with the Indian cricket team have demurred the use the DRS since it's inauguration. They have been reiterating all the way that a technology which isn't 100 percent correct should not be used until it proves to be infallible. But the ICC had different ideas. It made the use of DRS indispensable in all the ICC tournaments.Now it's proving to be an object of ridicule. The recently concluded test match between the Aussies and England is a good example to show that DRS has been a failure. The reviews of Trott, Broad ,Haddin have all become controversial. The decision on Broad in particular has given respite to England and allowed them pile on their lead which brought a huge difference to the outcome of the match. Trott's case even sounds farcical. '' The hotspot was busy in showing the replay of the previous ball and was unable to record the ball Trott got out. '' Coming to Haddin's case, even though they opted for the review, the fielding team didn't look all that convinced. If there weren't two reviews remaining and had the match not been in its final stage, one could say that they wouldn't have opted for the review. The evidence was also not so lucid. There was only a very faint spot visible on the hotspot replay and snickometer wasn't all that convincing either. There might be cases where DRS proved useful, but there are cases where it failed utterly and became controversial. Also, the use of DRS is limited. Instead of using such an unreliable source, it's better to go with the Umpires. If necessary the Third and fourth umpires can be given additional powers. If there is someone who is happy with all these proceedings, it's the BCCI. All these are in favour of BCCI to vociferate against the DRS. The most powerful cricket board will make sure that it makes full use of the situation.On the other hand Immediate steps must be taken by the ICC to overcome the trouble and make sure that the technology used is impeccable before it is stamped ''drossy.''
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
DEPLORABLE REVIEW SYSTEM(DRS)
Many cricket pundits along with the Indian cricket team have demurred the use the DRS since it's inauguration. They have been reiterating all the way that a technology which isn't 100 percent correct should not be used until it proves to be infallible. But the ICC had different ideas. It made the use of DRS indispensable in all the ICC tournaments.Now it's proving to be an object of ridicule. The recently concluded test match between the Aussies and England is a good example to show that DRS has been a failure. The reviews of Trott, Broad ,Haddin have all become controversial. The decision on Broad in particular has given respite to England and allowed them pile on their lead which brought a huge difference to the outcome of the match. Trott's case even sounds farcical. '' The hotspot was busy in showing the replay of the previous ball and was unable to record the ball Trott got out. '' Coming to Haddin's case, even though they opted for the review, the fielding team didn't look all that convinced. If there weren't two reviews remaining and had the match not been in its final stage, one could say that they wouldn't have opted for the review. The evidence was also not so lucid. There was only a very faint spot visible on the hotspot replay and snickometer wasn't all that convincing either. There might be cases where DRS proved useful, but there are cases where it failed utterly and became controversial. Also, the use of DRS is limited. Instead of using such an unreliable source, it's better to go with the Umpires. If necessary the Third and fourth umpires can be given additional powers. If there is someone who is happy with all these proceedings, it's the BCCI. All these are in favour of BCCI to vociferate against the DRS. The most powerful cricket board will make sure that it makes full use of the situation.On the other hand Immediate steps must be taken by the ICC to overcome the trouble and make sure that the technology used is impeccable before it is stamped ''drossy.''
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You can not question a system by its failure in just one case, That to resulting by an erroneous operation of the device. If the camera misses a bowl you can not ask to stop the broadcast of the match. DRS has given many matches a justified output, many decisions have been overruled. Human eye and perceptions can not be 100% correct always, so there is nothing wrong with captains referring for the 3rd umpire. Its even more necessary in test cricket, because a day long spell or a 300 ball inning can just result in huge disappointment with a one ball blunder. It should not be forgotten that there have been many blunder even in absence of DRS(remember 2002 sydney test IND vs AUS), infusion of DRS has only minimized it. That is why I found the writers view biased towards the BCCI.
ReplyDeleteYeah certainly, if a camera misses or fails to track a ball, one cannot ask to stop the broadcast of the match but can question the credibility of the camera. Similarly, when a technology is used it must be 100% accurate, otherwise its credibility can be questioned. A technology that has loopholes can be trusted at times but not always. It's not just the case of erroneous decisions but also the limitations of the uses of the technology. We all know what happened in the 2011 world cup. DRS was not effective in tackling some decisions and eventually led to controversies. As you said a single wrong decision could bring a huge disappointment. So is the case with a technology that is not 100% accurate. Why should the number of review chances be limited if one wants to expel the mistakes. Why isn't the technology being used on all doubtful occasions to make sure that no blunder creeps in. If a team is done with the number of reviews available and if a wrong decision is then given by the umpire, players are helpless and so is the DRS. So the current position of the DRS is not foolproof and its usage is limited in a match. So, the quality all well as the usage of the technology in a match must be increased in order to eliminate the blunders completely. This is probably the only feasible solution.
ReplyDeleteThe quality is being Increased, But we should use of the available technology to motivate the innovative scientists and engineers. Review chances are Unlimited if used judiciously.
ReplyDelete