India's reluctance to accept the Decision Review System is regrettable. The BCCI wants to wait till the technology has been rendered foolproof. But humanity cannot wait upon perfection or else we'd all still be in caves. Better to seek improvement.
The wrong question has been asked. The issue is not whether the systems are 100 per cent reliable but whether better verdicts are reached. To my mind, more appeals are answered correctly than ever before. Of course, the new ways are not perfect — players will find loopholes, third umpires will err — but let's get on with it.
DRS was introduced in part because of India's furious reaction to the numerous umpiring blunders that affected the infamous SCG Test match, turning a tense contest into a bitter feud. Had DRS been in operation in that match much of the bad blood might have been avoided.
ADVERTISEMENT
Moreover, it is patently absurd that everyone knows the wrong verdict has been reached except the poor fellow making it.
Defenders of the old ways insist that the umpire's decision ought to be respected and accepted, argue that this is one of the traditional and crucial disciplines of the game. Nothing is more calculated to reduce authority than allowing obviously erroneous judgement to stand. If anything, DRS has improved the reputation of umpires — the good ones anyhow — by showing that they are almost always right.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
In one respect, the BCCI is correct. The tracking system and other techniques need to be credible and consistent. That is not happening in cricket. Only the Australian and English TV channels use the best available technology to track the ball. In these cases, the cameras take 250 pictures a minute so the tracking system has many reference points.
The ICC ought to insist upon the best technology at all important matches, and pay for it. Elsewhere, slower and fewer cameras are used and they produce only 50 frames a second. In other words, if the ball strikes the pad not long after bouncing it is quite possible the tracking system has no idea what course it took after landing. That happened recently to Phillip Hughes in Galle. He swept a full length off-break and the third umpire confirmed the raised finger. What raised eyebrows was the claim made by the tracker that the ball had continued on its original course after bouncing. In fact it turned considerably.
Issues with Hot Spot
India has also lost confidence in Hot Spot. Hitherto regarded as foolproof, Hot Spot has been failing to pick up edges, fuelling doubts about its reliability. But its incapacity has created other rumours, about Vaseline being applied to the edges of bats in an attempt to counter the heat.
Dubious conduct has been going on since the game began, with picked seams, chopped up balls, lozenges and so forth.
Only players will know whether Vaseline has been used — it does seem an awful waste. Anyhow, Hot Spot is now in the doghouse as well.
As far as India is concerned it's back to square one. But it's a mistake.
Every nation has its grievances. England was convinced that Don Bradman was caught at second slip on his comeback in 1946-47.
In 1970-71 England was frustrated not to be given any lbws in the entire Ashes series.
Nowadays replays and DRS and even Hot Spot can still take away the bitter taste of injustice. Well, most of it anyhow.