Decision pending: Is the DRS in or out?

[gallery order="DESC" columns="2"] Ever since the DRS (Decision Review System) was introduced in international cricket, it has had its fair share of criticism. The system was introduced to allow the aggrieved party to get a decision made by the on-field umpires reviewed. The system was introduced in order to correct an obvious error made by the umpires officiating in the middle. Cricket has its complications and how could have the DRS escaped them. But it’s been constantly going through revisions so as to make it as reliable and helpful as possible. And that’s how it should be. The first test match between South Africa and Australia has seen the DRS play a massive part in the bizarre sequence of events on day 2 in Cape Town. The South Africans were bundled out for 96 and the Aussies for 47. Billy Bowden, the third umpire was as busy with the DRS as the players on the park. Most cricket boards were pretty happy with the present status of the technology barring the BCCI. Had it been the cricket board of West Indies, New Zealand etc. it would have hardly been an issue but since it is the BCCI which is at loggerheads with the ICC, the matter is rather grave. Back in 2008 in Sri Lanka, India had a first bite at the DRS and since then it has left the BCCI and some Indian players with bitter taste in their mouths. With the likes of Sachin Tendulkar and MS Dhoni being against the system, the board could have done little. That was 2008. Since then, a lot has changed and so have the technology available that can be part of the DRS. Like in all ICC events, the Review system was used in the ICC Cricket World Cup and India had to use it as well. Ian Bell’s controversial not out decision in a game against India caused much debate. This time though, the DRS’s geometrical intricacies caused confusion. The BCCI has always maintained its rigid stance towards the DRS. India’s high profile tour of England is set to begin in July. Lately, the British media and some current and former English players have said and written a lot about the BCCI and some of the Indian players regarding their position on the Review system. Recently, Tendulkar and MS Dhoni have said that they would accept the DRS if the Hot-Spot technology and the Audio Tracking technology are made mandatory. Both, the players and the BCCI are still not convinced about using only the Hawk-Eye or the ball tracking system while deciding upon LBW decisions. On the 27^th of June, the ICC made the use of DRS mandatory for all international OD’s and tests. While the use of Hot-Spot and Audio Tracking system would be mandatory while using the DRS, the Hawk-Eye would be used only if both the participating teams agreed upon it. This is what the BCCI was ready to accept and that’s what has happened. This negotiation was inevitable. The BCCI could not have afforded to be seen as a bull-headed power centre of world cricket any longer and be pitted against the rest of the cricket boards around the world. The ICC on the other hand could not have afforded to allow the BCCI to call the shots entirely. In that case, the ICC would have seemed to have been hand-cuffed by the whims of the richest cricket board in the world. Had it upset the BCCI, the commercial and economic relationship the ICC enjoys with the BCCI would have received a jolt. Yes, the Hawk-Eye is not a foolproof technology. It can be more reliable in tracing the actual path of the ball than predicting the projected path. Hence, it can play some role in eliminating an obvious error while deciding an LBW. It can be used in a limited way along with the Hot-Spot and the Audio Tracking system. The current form of the DRS is an outcome of a compromise between the BCCI and the ICC. The impact it had in the India-England test series and on Rahul Dravid in particular, raised doubts about the accuracy of the technology in checking the50-50 decision. No matter which technology is used and how much of it is used, the bottom-line remains that maximum correct decisions should be made and an odd howler made by the umpire be checked. In order for that to happen, the third umpire should be given an authority to check a glaring obvious blunder made by the umpires in the middle even if a review is not asked for or a team has exhausted its official number of allowed reviews. As Ian Chappell often says that cricket can do with using common sense in many instances, I completely subscribe to his views with regards to getting most decisions be made correctly.