Dumb and Dumber

The BCCI has a history of raising the stakes when they perceive injustice against them. When Sachin Tendulkar was charged with ball tampering, the BCCI threatened to pull out of the tour unless the 'racist' match referee was removed. Eventually the official Test was called off. The game that took place at Centurion was not an official Test. 

Then 5 years later they again threatened to pull out of a tour if Steve Buknor was not removed as the umpire on the tour because they lost a Test match due to what they claimed as 'biased' decisions. This time they got their way.

Given this history, speculative reports that the BCCI, in an ICC meeting, threatened to pull out of any tour where the DRS is made mandatory are quite believable. 

That the ICC has made a complete mess of implementing the process around the technology of DRS is a view shared by many but the absolute stonewalling that the BCCI has been doing regards the DRS is a massive opportunity lost for the game.

The Indian board is in a position where they can pretty much propose any implementation of adopting the technology and the process behind the DRS and they can get the votes needed to change the existing process. There have been many intelligent voices across the globe that if solicited and harnessed the BCCI can propose a system that is better and agreeable to all.

If, the BCCI is not being constructive in its opposition to the current system is disappointing, then their absolute insistence that the underlying technology be fool proof is infuriating. 

Bats are not fool proof, they can break. So does the seam come off before 80 overs. Both, I presume, are manufactured using some machinery. No one from the BCCI insists that bats and balls be hand made so why this insistence on 100% human arrived decisions for snicks and LBWs.

What would be the right way for the ICC to make BCCI see some sense in it....

The only time I have sensed any passion with BCCI personnel including the president N Srinivasan, is when they talk finances. They may use the its-less-than-perfect-technology argument as a front but primarily their opposition to the DRS stems from the fact that the adoption of it is cost prohibitive. 

They are simply using chinks in the technology to their advantage.

If and when the DRS cost is diverted away from the boards or their costs are included in new contracts with sponsors and broadcasters, BCCI's stubbornness will melt away.

And we will be left with the same dumb process of referrals and referral limits and the umpire will pretty much become redundant. 

The BCCI can use its influence to give us a better system. A system where the umpire is given all the information he needs to make a right decision the first time. The DRS should not be a tool to measure how good the on-field umpire is, it should be a tool to allow the on-field umpire to make a decision informed by technology.

If the existing system is dumb, BCCI's stonewalling of it is even dumber. An opportunity lost

1 Angry Board

In 12 Angry men, Henry Fonda's character dissents on the sole basis that before the accused is sentenced to die, the least he deserves is a discussion amongst the jury of his peers. Eventually the lone  'not guilty' verdict, after an angry evening of arguments is responsible for a 11 others to overcome individual prejudices; in some cases; and change their own 'guilty' verdicts.

A Decision Stalled

India is the Henry Fonda of the cricket world where the system on trial is the DRS and India has taken a 'guilty' stance, just for the heck of it.

While in "12 Angry men", the dissenting character backed his vote by reasoned discussion of the events, India's dissent is backed by pathetic, off the cuff,  explanations like "human adulteration" in technology is unnecessary, technology should be fool proof before its adopted and some irrelevant observations like the Hot Spot being more reliable than the Snico-meter.

Opinions on... UDRS

Is the UDRS about technology or the process by which decisions are delivered? 


We are all for technology. But not for technology for technology's sake. Unlike MS Dhoni, we  do not believe technology should be 100% fool proof before it is deployed. Unlike Sachin Tendulkar we do not claim to understand the reliability of Hot Spot over Snickometer. We don't really understand the cost issues around adopting UDRS, so we can't say whether the BCCI is justified in its relentless opposition to using UDRS. 


What we do know is that the process of delivering decisions using technology is flawed. Make the UDRS a tool of the on-field umpire not a tool for the players to challenge his authority.


So the recent announcement that UDRS will not be deployed for the title clash in South Africa, should make us happy. Not really, because its completely missing the point and unlikely to influence that case of our concern. 

Delivering Decisions

When a business invests in new technology to better sales, it does not introduce it as a "Sales Decisions Review System" and have its salesmen second guessing themselves. Hospitals don't use technology to review a doctor's decisions. Banks don't invest in software to review a loan underwriter's decisions. All of them introduce technology as tools to empower their work force. They introduce technology as tools that enable salesmen, doctors and bankers to do their jobs better. To reduce errors. To make them better salesmen, doctors and bankers. Technology is rarely introduced to review and then over turn a decision made by experts.

Why then is cricket, where the umpire's decision is considered to be final, positioning and deploying technology as a "review" of the umpire's decisions?

Much has been made of BCCI's opposition to the UDRS, but all of it is due to its funding. Sachin Tendulkar and Mahendra Sing Dhoni too have spoken against it but both the comments miss what I think is fundamentally flawed about the UDRS.

It isn't about the technology and the need for it to be fool proof. Its about empowering the on-field umpire with the data; images, sounds, heat patterns, etc; available to "off field" umpires and millions of viewers and then allowing him to make a decision.

The process of challenge followed by a referral to an "off field" umpire and a final decision by the "off-field" umpire, undermines the authority of the on-field umpire. Its also distasteful. If players are expected to regard the on-field umpire as the ultimate authority, then the on-field umpire needs to always be in complete control of the game and make the big decisions. And if he needs data captured by the tools; hot spot, ball tracker, snick-o-meter, etc; he needs to be provided access to it.

When a fielding side appeals, the on-field umpire should be the exclusive person to determine the process of decision making, the tools to involve or not involve, and ultimately deliver the decision. If the players do not like the decision; there should be no challenges, no one else to go to.

The problem now becomes how to instantly deploy the data to the on-field umpire. How difficult can that be. Today I get all the data on my iPhone Thousands of miles away. The umpire is only a few yards from where the data is located. The underlying technologies in the UDRS will likely evolve to be more accurate but the process of delivery of decisions is flawed. That process needed to protect the on-field umpires authority and it's failed in that regard.