Should the DRS be mandatory?

[Making_Splinters]

With the ICC Annual Conference set to get underway today in Kuala Lumpur the ICCs Cricket Committee has once again submitted the motion that the DRS should be a mandatory part of the game at international level. However we should not mistake this as anything more than a token gesture confirming the ICCs Cricket Committee’s support of the DRS as it ultimately has little chance of passing: The battle lines over DRS have not shifted and even if by some miscalculation on the price of a vote has been made and the motion somehow gets through it will likely be overturned at a later date as happened in 2010 where it was passed in Hong Kong then overturned at the Chief Executives’ Meeting the same year.

Even as someone who sees the merit in the DRS without a commitment to centralised funding for the DRS from the ICC then any notion of a mandatory application of the DRS is completely unworkable, and we are unlikely to see the ICC agreeing to fund the DRS worldwide at any stage in the near future. However despite the fairly clear line these discussions in Kuala Lumpur are likely to take is it even reasonable to be suggesting the DRS should be mandatory at all? After all without a seismic shift in position from certain boards the very suggestion is nothing but an exercise in futility just wasting everyone’s time.

An old saying goes along the lines of, “Pick the Battle you can win not the war you will lose” and I feel here that it is very apt indeed: Instead of trying to ram the DRS down people’s throats would it not be significantly wiser to try and increase an individual board’s autonomy on when they can use the system, an analogy here would be touring parties have no say in what pitches will be prepared for the series so why should they have a say in whether or not DRS will be used? At present DRS requires both the home side and the touring side to agree on its use in a series and rather than trying to make its use mandatory I would suggest that the ICC removes this constraint for mutual agreement to be necessary. Pitch the DRS as home advantage and then leave it up to the individual home boards to decide whether or not they view it as an advantage or not.

With the man responsible for most of the progress DRS has made in the international game set to take over as the Chief Executive of the ICC in the form of Dave Richardson this issue is not going to go away, so my simple argument is: What is the point in trying to force boards to use the DRS when they clearly don’t want to? They are not going to be convinced to change their mind in the short term and neither is the ICC going to commit to funding the DRS worldwide hence all efforts to force through ideas such as mandatory DRS at the ICC is just a waste of paper and ink. Remove the requirement for mutual consent for its use and it simply becomes a matter of home advantage for the side just like pitch preparation and maybe we might actually see a begrudging compromise made; it's a damn site harder to argue that you should be allowed force another board not to use DRS when they want to than it is to argue that you should not have to be forced to pay for and use DRS against your wishes at home.

[rich1uk]

on cricket writers on tv this morning this was being discussed briefly and george dobell was saying that there is currently testing being done of the predictive tracking at cambridge uni commissioned by the ICC and the initial findings from that testing suggests the system is actually more accurate than has been previously stated rather than finding a problem with it

the big thing for me if it is going to be successful and widely accepted is that the umpires need to get better training on its use and better guidelines on their role as a 3rd umpire

personally i think it should be made mandatory but that assumes that the funding is available to ensure the full portfolio of technology can be made available as well to support the system

[Aidan11]

For me there is still too much error on lbw's.

I would even go as far as the ball must be hitting the majority of the off or leg stump for the decision to be out. So if an umpire gives it out and the batsman appeals, then if the ball is only clipping the stump it will be not out rather than umpires call.

[rich1uk]

but if the onfield umpire has given it out and the tracking shows it was hitting, even if it was just clipping, why should the batsmen then be given not out. that seems to be undermining the onfield umpire too much imo.

[DeltaAlpha]

Good thought-provoking article, MS!

My view is that, if it's not possible to make DRS mandatory, then its use should be up to the home side.

The real problem though, is the technology itself. The added value of all the advanced technology does not, in my opinion, justify its cost, and, if a conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of video replays, then the umpire's decision should stand. Much, much cheaper, and not enormously less effective, I think.

Just my view...

[rich1uk]

the other good point that was made this morning was the way DRS is used has changed alot from its original intention , it was intended to eliminate poor decisions but what we see now is it being used in a very tactical way by captains and batsmen to try and get a "second opinion" on wickets at crucial times rather than when they genuinely feel a mistake has been made

cant really think of any way to stop that however

[Making_Splinters]

Good thought-provoking article, MS!

My view is that, if it's not possible to make DRS mandatory, then its use should be up to the home side.

The real problem though, is the technology itself. The added value of all the advanced technology does not, in my opinion, justify its cost, and, if a conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of video replays, then the umpire's decision should stand. Much, much cheaper, and not enormously less effective, I think.

Just my view...

The limitations of the technology have never been a bone of contention for me after all limitations can be mitigated through how a system is implemented either through incorporating generous error margins into the calculations used or for example when the issue of foreshortening became apparent within the use of TV referrals to decide on if a catch was clean or not simply saying that a catch could only be referred if both umpires’ view was obstructed. Limitation is a white elephant in the entire process though I do sympathise and understand with parties that hold it up as a reason why they do not support its implementation from the ground up.

My issue has always been with the how the system has been implemented to start with, a limited number of referrals and the entire referral process being at the player’s rather than umpire’s discretion means that the usefulness of the DRS has always been diluted from the get go before we even begin to factor in the often tactical role the system assumes through player choice rather than as a common sense application for overturning howlers. It is no wonder that the path has been rocky under these circumstances but frankly the compromise between the current and the ultimate ideal where the system removes all errors is almost impossible to frame within the game but that is more a seperate topic I feel.

Whether or not we ever see the development of a centralised funding pool from the ICC for the DRS I feel is a little bit of a red herring in the whole dialogue, of course it would help some boards to be able to use the system but the validity of my assertion of this aspect being more of a side show is demonstrated by the main opponents to the system being in fact the party who could - even under self-funding - most easily write the cost off. This is why I asked the question why should we be attempting to force boards to use the system when they patently simply do not want to do so?

I have no objection as I detailed above with for example the BCCI not wanting to use the technology based on its limitations even though I think these are easily mitigated, what I do have an issue with is the current set up requiring mutual consent for the DRS to be used: I wouldn’t expect England be allowed to demand at least half the pitches they play on in the Sub Continent to favour our bowlers so why should we, or any other board, be forced to consider the wishes of the touring party before we can use a system that we think benefits the game?

I’m sort of framing the whole question as a realist – as opposed to an abstract question over whether the system should be mandatory regardless of the visible improbability of such a plan - who disagrees with the oppositions thinking but at the same time accepts it and pointing out there is zero point fighting an unwinnable war when there is a far more efficient compromise which would be significantly harder to construct an opposition against. Hence my argument boils down to – No the DRS should not be mandatory but it should be entirely at the home boards discretion as to whether or not it is used.

Probably should have written that as the opening post come to think of it!

[Aidan11]

I also feel there should be at least two referrals in ODIs.

[backfootpunch]

also you shouldnt lose your review if hawkeye says the ball is hitting the stumps and it is hitting less than 50% of the stumps and therefore stays with the umpires decision

[DeltaAlpha]

I see what you're saying, MS, and agree that DRS should be at the host's discretion if it's not mandatory, but I think there is a problem. That is that the BCCI appear not to want DRS at all, and they're currently justifying this stance by expressing doubts about the technology - hence my suggestion that this could be simplified to video replays.

However, if the BCCI are able to block the mandatory use, as they apparently are, then they would presumably also be able to block the host nation having the discretion, wouldn't they?

[Making_Splinters]

I see what you're saying, MS, and agree that DRS should be at the host's discretion if it's not mandatory, but I think there is a problem. That is that the BCCI appear not to want DRS at all, and they're currently justifying this stance by expressing doubts about the technology - hence my suggestion that this could be simplified to video replays.

However, if the BCCI are able to block the mandatory use, as they apparently are, then they would presumably also be able to block the host nation having the discretion, wouldn't they?

Of course Delta there is the risk that no matter how you phrase the question the answer will always be the same after all as they say a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

But I’d counter this by suggesting the problem with the DRS question at the moment is exactly down to the way that it is being asked: When we’re committed to framing around an issue of it being mandatory or not then it is very simple to construct an argument against the suggestion on two fronts. Firstly the party that doubts the technology can simply say we do not want to be forced to use something we believe is broken and secondly garner support from less financially secure nations by pointing out that if the system became mandatory in the absence of a central monitory fund from the ICC that they would have to foot the bill.

The problem here is that in a rather insidious way this serves everyone’s interests: The pro DRS parties can feel rewarded for upholding their commitment to the system by dutifully asking the question bi-annually even though they know it will likely be rejected and the anti DRS parties know that they can politely on relatively solid arguments turn down the system ensuring that the compromise will still leave them a say in when the system will be used.

Now if we frame the question in the terms I suggest, rather than the issue of DRS being mandatory or not but instead of having sole discretion of its use residing with the host country then both of the obvious counter arguments against the system are taken out of the equation. You can’t say that you don’t want to be forced to use the technology at home or that the less well-off countries will be forced to foot the bill simply because if the series is at home then they have no obligation to use it. Of course this actually poses far larger issues to the parties that are solely concerned by the technology aspect of the system because they lose any powers of veto when overseas, but despite that it seems to me that constructing a solid opposition to the revised question is far more difficult than the original question.

Therein lies the problem, the horse trading required to keep the resistance united suddenly becomes far more obvious that you’re attempting to manipulate other boards solely in your own interest as you’re no longer protecting their purse strings for them and the mutual face saving of the dutiful question breaks down.

Now you may well be right that the outcome of the second question would be exactly the same as the first but is it not worth a try when it seems to be obvious of how the cyclic nature of the mandatory question will progress until at some stage in the distant future one party changes their mind?

[DeltaAlpha]

Certainly it would be worth a try, MS, so why not? Even if the answer is going to be the same...

[Making_Splinters]

I'd speculate that there is a fear that such a move would be viewed as a pointed attack on certain parties with in the ICC and the fall out from forcing them to alter their opperations to maintain their position on DRS might set a trend of more open politicking within the ICC.

Still I think it is unlikely that we will see DRS being made mandatory within the next decade as those that oppose the technology have carte blanche to define their own standards at which they will be satisfied with its performance and hence a moce to allow individual boards to have complete autonomy with regards to the use of DRS at home is a more sensible path to follow as it might even see a result.

[OffStumpYorker]

I totally agree with home boards having the sole discretion of whether they implement DRS or not, though I also beleive that the ICC could mitigate this by agreeing to pay for the system for those Boards that are not as rich as SA, Ind, ECB, and CA, by either doing a deal with the companies in terms of mitigating part or all of the costs or getting the companies to agree to a Lend-lease scheme.

The fall out may be that those boards that oppose the system then refuse to tour to those Boards that have embraced the system, or look to play limited tests in those countries.

I hope that Cambridge University have been looking at both the Hawkeye (english) and Eagle Eye (Aus/Nz) systems and comparing them to see which give the most acurate solution, then the ICC should issue a 3 year Prefered System certificate for international cricket matches, with boards allowed to select what they want for domestic games and tournaments. On the Second year of each 3 year window all current systems are re-tested and Preferred system is selected for the next 3 years.

Paying the prefered system owner a world wide fee for all games should take the pressure off each board that uses the system, it would also mean that course of time the best system becomes apparent, or there is an arms race with the technology driving the system forward, the big issue in DRS at the moment is the length of time it takes sniko to be aligned to the footage as that will help when Hotspot cant detect an edge.

[Making_Splinters]

Well it seems the mandatory campain is dead in the water before it even began - No suprises there.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/569949.html

The more interesting part of that article, well at least with regards to this thread is this:

"The BCCI continues to believe that the system is not foolproof," a release said. "It also sticks to its view that the decision on whether or not to use the DRS for a particular series should be left to the boards involved in that series."