Should the DRS be mandatory?

[Red Devil]

the thing that really wound me up about this story today was the number of indian fans on the cricinfo comments suggesting that the BCCI dont want to use hawkeye or hotspot because they were developed by english companies. i know there are idiots everywhere but it does worry me if people really believe things like that.

I don't believe that could be the case but it is really difficult to try to explain this stance when it so clearly against the interests of the game. I'm not surprised Dhoni wants DRS. because I do think that Ind are suffering from umpires decisions more than other countries and that may be due to the fact that the umps think there will be no come back because it is the BCCI's fault that the decisions couldn't be reviewed. BCCI stance on this is just mind-boggling, as well as being embarrassing.

[rich1uk]

its kinda been inconsistent when the chairman of the BCCI keeps coming out with statements that they dont like DRS because it undermines the on field umpire then we see the players behave they way they do when they get a bad one.

not saying that other teams dont do it as well btw.

[Red Devil]

its kinda been inconsistent when the chairman of the BCCI keeps coming out with statements that they dont like DRS because it undermines the on field umpire then we see the players behave they way they do when they get a bad one.

not saying that other teams dont do it as well btw.

tbh I think part of the frustration of the players is that they know they are getting a raw deal from umps because of the message the BCCI stance sends. Apart from maybe SRT, I don't think the other players support the BCCI stance.

[rich1uk]

not suggesting that umpires do it deliberately but you do wonder if there is a subconscious thing when they think that if in doubt we'll give it the other way and serves them right for not having DRS

[Red Devil]

not suggesting that umpires do it deliberately but you do wonder if there is a subconscious thing when they think that if in doubt we'll give it the other way and serves them right for not having DRS

exactly - the muppets at the BCCI don't get it though

[Arthur Crabtree]

This is only surprising or newsworthy because of the Indian statement, which seems completely unnecessary, and I can only imagine it was just to burn off some anger at being pushed.

Only the ECB was driving this motion. Everyone knows that if the BCCI don't want it, it won't happen. And every board accepts that. The ECB is aware of that, so maybe they should have known better than to push the issue as much as they did. But everyone knew that this couldn't happen, as everyone but the ECB will say what the BCCI want them to say.

So why did the BCCI make such an unnecessarily confrontational statement, given it was a non starter? I'd guess just irritation with the ECB and a shake of the elephant's tail.

[ddb]

its kinda been inconsistent when the chairman of the BCCI keeps coming out with statements that they dont like DRS because it undermines the on field umpire then we see the players behave they way they do when they get a bad one.

not saying that other teams dont do it as well btw.

tbh I think part of the frustration of the players is that they know they are getting a raw deal from umps because of the message the BCCI stance sends. Apart from maybe SRT, I don't think the other players support the BCCI stance.

It's not Sachin, people overstate his influence, I'm pretty sure he is forced to do some stuff.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/conte ... 19312.html

This article mentions MSD's comments but considering he's playing for India Cements soon, he could just be copying Srini's opinion.

[meninblue]

ICC is almost spineless. It looks like BCCI is controlling cricketing world rather than ICC doing that.

[Kim]

It astounds me though that no one took a stand against this threat. If they (unlikely but hopefully) put through this proposal that the home board decides on the DRS then the rest of the cricketing world can move on. If India then back out of a series because the home board decides to use UDRS then let India pull out, let them cut off their nose to spite their own face, let them take the fall and the bad PR for their stubborn, infantile and pointless stance.

Problem is India pulling out of a series hurts the opposiion far more. Financially an Indian tour to England is now worth more than the ashes I believe so its a disaster if they pull out.

I havent followed this much but have India laid down clearly what will make them accept DRS in the future? And, if so, are these conditions achiveable?

Or are we in a siuation where the longer this goes on, the harder it is for India to find a way to back down (should they want to)?

[D/L]

I had to smile at this part of the report; "Srinivasan's concerns are understood to still centre on a belief that the technology could be easily manipulated".

Not as easy to manipulate as the actions of umpires in a series not subject to DRS.

[andy]

the players clearly want DRS, its visible during games, if only the board had a bit of common sense things would actually come together!

[KipperJohn]

It would appear to have come out of a Chief Executive's meeting - it wasn't on the Board's original agenda according to the report.

When it is put on the agenda, and a formal motion put to the Board, presumambly by the ECB, then the minutes will show who supported it and who didn't.

I have no idea if a motion can be carried by a simple majority or not - anybody got any ideas/links to the ICC's constitution, terms of reference, standing orders and so on?

[D/L]

It would appear to have come out of a Chief Executive's meeting - it wasn't on the Board's original agenda according to the report.

When it is put on the agenda, and a formal motion put to the Board, presumambly by the ECB, then the minutes will show who supported it and who didn't.

I have no idea if a motion can be carried by a simple majority or not - anybody got any ideas/links to the ICC's constitution, terms of reference, standing orders and so on?

Whatever its constitution etc., the unspoken policy of the ICC appears to be to repeatedly cave in to its most powerful members, KJ.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The article I read KJ said that only the ECB supported this, but they supported it at length.

[Kim]

It would appear to have come out of a Chief Executive's meeting - it wasn't on the Board's original agenda according to the report.

When it is put on the agenda, and a formal motion put to the Board, presumambly by the ECB, then the minutes will show who supported it and who didn't.

I have no idea if a motion can be carried by a simple majority or not - anybody got any ideas/links to the ICC's constitution, terms of reference, standing orders and so on?

Think its an odd system. 10 full members and 3 votes for associates. Majority wins as long as all 3 Associates and at least half the full members are in that majority.- ie 4 full members and 3 assocs and 6 FMs and 2 assocs are both majorities but neither win. Not 100% on this but pretty sure its right

But isnt issue getting a vote at all? Think all wanted DRS except India last time but it never went to a vote