DeltaAlpha wrote: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!