Should the DRS be mandatory?

[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?

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

Thanks for that Kim. Surely if a formal motion is proposed and seconded, then the Chair has no option but to put the motion to a vote? An amendment could be proposed of course, and if seconded, the amendment would be voted on first. If it failed, they would then vote on the original motion.

Anyway that's how it usually works it most civilised organisations!

However, if decisions are 'cut and dried' before they go into their meeting, which they often are in my experience, then they'll all just pay lip service, have a chat and go nowhere. That's a long winded way of saying D/L's probably right.

Somebody might claim the high moral ground, but that's then just for show.

[Making_Splinters]

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

Thanks for that Kim. Surely if a formal motion is proposed and seconded, then the Chair has no option but to put the motion to a vote? An amendment could be proposed of course, and if seconded, the amendment would be voted on first. If it failed, they would then vote on the original motion.

Anyway that's how it usually works it most civilised organisations!

However, if decisions are 'cut and dried' before they go into their meeting, which they often are in my experience, then they'll all just pay lip service, have a chat and go nowhere. That's a long winded way of saying D/L's probably right.

Somebody might claim the high moral ground, but that's then just for show.

It's been to vote and passed before though it was overturned by the Chief Executives meeting subsequently.

The BCCIs saber ratling is designed to prevent there ever being a second vote, the only shocking thing is how blatently and publically they've resorted to doing it. Suggest the mood is definitely in favour of the DRS these days if India have to turn to such public messures.

[Kim]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... efeat.html

[rich1uk]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/news/9845947/Indians-ban-30-English-players-following-Test-defeat.html

really dont know what to say about stuff like that

surely its in the best interests of cricket for players to get experience in differing conditions , if anything the BCCI should be looking for ways to reciprocate initiatives like that to get young indian players experience outside india , not making themselves look paranoid

[D/L]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/news/9845947/Indians-ban-30-English-players-following-Test-defeat.html

One of the "C"s in "BCCI" stands for "control". DRS, the walk out threat in Australia, their stance over the Harbhajan Singh appeal to the ICC, even their insistence that their logo appears on TV pictures broadcast by Sky, suggests an obsession with control and a readiness to defend the indefensible if it suits their purpose.

[KipperJohn]

MS.

You are saying that a Chief Executive's meeting 'overturned' a decsion made by the full ICC?

That, in effect, means they have more power than the Board - that's too daft for words.

[Making_Splinters]

MS.

You are saying that a Chief Executive's meeting 'overturned' a decsion made by the full ICC?

That, in effect, means they have more power than the Board - that's too daft for words.

I can't remember the exact circumstances off the top of my head, Kipper but I have written about it on here before. It's use has been passed before and overturned by the Chief Executives, I'll have to see if I can dig out some record of that.

What I've never understood is why the BCCI don't push for the whole system to be banned from the game.

I suppose the most amusing thing about it is that back when technology was first being brought in it was the BCCI who saved reviews for catches after England and Australia wanted them banned.

Reviews for close to the ground catches are significantly worse than any part of the DRS for accuracy yet they are quite happy to use them.

[Making_Splinters]

MS.

You are saying that a Chief Executive's meeting 'overturned' a decsion made by the full ICC?

That, in effect, means they have more power than the Board - that's too daft for words.

I can't remember the exact circumstances off the top of my head, Kipper but I have written about it on here before. It's use has been passed before and overturned by the Chief Executives, I'll have to see if I can dig out some record of that.

What I've never understood is why the BCCI don't push for the whole system to be banned from the game.

I suppose the most amusing thing about it is that back when technology was first being brought in it was the BCCI who saved reviews for catches after England and Australia wanted them banned.

Reviews for close to the ground catches are significantly worse than any part of the DRS for accuracy yet they are quite happy to use them.

Actually, I think it was the other way round, the Chief Executives including the BCCI agreed that DRS should be mandatory in all tests and ODIs at their meeting in Hong Kong, it was then overturned at a second meeting.

[KipperJohn]

Although this thread is about DRS, it serves to highlight that the proper governance of our game at the highest level doesn't appear to be in the best of health.

[D/L]

Although this thread is about DRS, it serves to highlight that the proper governance of our game at the highest level doesn't appear to be in the best of health.

It hasn't been for quite some time, KJ, and not just at international level. Power and money, rather than principle, seems to determine most things.

[Chris de Burgh]

Although this thread is about DRS, it serves to highlight that the proper governance of our game at the highest level doesn't appear to be in the best of health.

The governance of cricket is partly the reason it hasn't grown to it's full potential. Look at the USA, once viewed as the biggest potential market for cricket. It is now held back by incompetents, greed or poor organisation.

[Kim]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/ ... 03632.html

[D/L]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/603632.html

Interesting. No doubt, the BCCI will already be preparing their reasons for not trusting that either.

[meninblue]

In India it is often said that technology is used in US and other developed countries first and then after 10 years India uses the same technology. With DRS it seems to be the same case. Others using technology first and then it will come to India after 10 years.

Our cricketers and fans will suffer for BCCI's hypocritical stance about DRS until BCCI are satisfied of living in the cave age.

[backfootpunch]

one of the things that i find confusing about indias stance on drs is that they would probably get the most benefit from it, it seems that drs makes a spinners life much easier, with more lbws and correct bat pad decisions. the case in point being micheal clarke middling one to short leg yesterday, that would have put india in an excellent position, instead he went on to score a century