We will not use DRS till it is 100% foolproof--Dhoni

that shoulld put the lid on DRS

Dhoni backs umpires over DRS
Sidharth Monga in Melbourne

December 30, 2011

Sanjay Manjrekar : No DRS, no drama
News : DRS no longer mandatory, says ICC
News : BCCI opposed to DRS once again
Players/Officials: MS Dhoni
Matches: Australia v India at Melbourne
Series/Tournaments: India tour of Australia
Teams: Australia | India


India will not support the DRS until they are convinced that the technology is 100% perfect, captain MS Dhoni has reiterated. Coming to Australia, India were under pressure to agree to the use of the DRS, in part because Channel 9, the host broadcasters, use some of the best technology available in their production of home Tests. However, India did not budge, and Dhoni said his experience in England, where there were several incidents that suggested Hot Spot was not completely accurate, played a part in making that call.

"I still put my money on the umpires because they have been doing the job [for a long time]," Dhoni said. "It is just that the pressure on them is growing with plenty of technology around. We feel the technology is not 100% accurate. At times you see an edge on Hot Spot, sometimes you don't see anything happening. Before the start of the England series I was a big fan of Hot Spot. The way things went in England I don't have the same kind of confidence. If it is not 100% I will still go with the umpires. This is a game in which people commit mistakes. If the bowler doesn't commit a mistake the batsman can't get runs. If the batsman doesn't commit a mistake the bowler doesn't get a wicket. So we'll make umpires too a part of it."


The DRS refused to die as a topic of debate because in the Melbourne Test there were many potentially match-turning decisions that could have been overturned had they been reviewed. Michael Hussey would not have been dismissed for a golden duck and Ed Cowan could, possibly, have continued batting in the first innings. The decision to adjudge Cowan caught-behind is an interesting grey zone with the DRS because there was a sound at the exact time the ball went past the bat but Hot Spot did not show an edge. In the past the umpires have acted just on the sound.


Ironically, It was India who could have had more decisions reversed than Australia. They could have got Ricky Ponting out early in his second innings, and they had Michael Hussey lbw twice and caught down the leg side once. It is all a matter of conjecture, but India could actually have won the match had they agreed to the use of the DRS, and used it wisely. Dhoni, though, did not want to go down that route.


"What is important is that if a mistake is committed by the umpire, it should not affect him," he said. "If as an umpire you give something out when it's not-out, you don't need to go into your shell thinking you have made a wrong decision. If the next ball the umpire feels it is out, he should boldly give the decision.


"We are happy to go that way because it is a difficult job for the umpires. We come back to our dressing-room after bowling and only two batsmen go out to bat, but these are the people who stand there for five days. Cricket has been in good shape for long enough with two people in charge. They don't need to worry too much about what technology is going around, about what will show on Hot Spot and what will show on Snicko. We need to back their decisions. If mistakes are not committed intentionally, I am perfectly fine with it."


Dhoni went on to take a dig at the numbers the ICC provides regarding the number of correct decisions made by umpires. "You'll have to see what exactly the ICC sees as correct decisions. Giving a boundary is a correct decision; that also goes in favour of the umpires. You have to categorically say this is what it is."


Dhoni's mistrust of technology would have grown when India appealed for an lbw against Brad Haddin in the first innings and the ball-tracking service failed to show a projection due to lighting issues. That was a pretty adjacent call, but India wouldn't have enjoyed the benefit of the DRS had it been in use. So even if the DRS was a part of this series we would still have had as large, if not larger, a controversy on the first day itself. Hussey would have survived, Cowan's fate would have been decided subjectively by the third umpire, and Haddin would have continued batting.

So, if the technology were 95% accurate and umpires only 85%, Dhoni would still prefer to stick soley with the umpires?
Bit silly if you ask me.
No, the technology is not 100% fault free, but if used to aid the umpire, I reckon you end up with more decisions being correct than if you don't use it.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:So, if the technology were 95% accurate and umpires only 85%, Dhoni would still prefer to stick soley with the umpires?
Bit silly if you ask me.
No, the technology is not 100% fault free, but if used to aid the umpire, I reckon you end up with more decisions being correct than if you don't use it.

is technology 95% accurate ?
in the view of Eng tour it was about 50% correct....whihc beats the purpose of going to technology.

to get India to join DRS...ICC must show them logically that DRS is 100% accurate
OK even if they show 95% accurate I bet BCCI will accept.

Absolutely spot on, Hoggy.

v2 wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:So, if the technology were 95% accurate and umpires only 85%, Dhoni would still prefer to stick soley with the umpires?
Bit silly if you ask me.
No, the technology is not 100% fault free, but if used to aid the umpire, I reckon you end up with more decisions being correct than if you don't use it.

is technology 95% accurate ?
in the view of Eng tour it was about 50% correct....whihc beats the purpose of going to technology.

to get India to join DRS...ICC must show them logically that DRS is 100% accurate
OK even if they show 95% accurate I bet BCCI will accept.

50%? Plucking a number out of the sky...

The ICCs own records say DRS improves decision making from 95ish to 98ish percent.

I don't think DRS will ever be able to be 100% accurate, there will be some decision that will still have some doubt in it. So if true the Indians won't use it until 100% accurate we could be waiting a damn long time.

It should be enforced by the ICC that all Test matches at least should have DRS enforced for all countries.

India continue like this and they will be the fools in the long run. Theres no proof against that happening.

If they are hoping the bigger error rate by non DRS supported umpires will swing things in their favour then they are sadly mistaken.

It is well-known India's objections basically stem from the objections of a few of their senior players who had bad experiences with the system when it was in its infancy (and let's be honest when the system was first used in the West Indies - England series when England hit their latest rock bottom it was fairly flawed). Dhoni is really merely towing the party line on this one.

Personally, I think the system as currently implemented (and partially used in the England-India series) works pretty well, and certainly produces fewer incorrect decisions than without it. In fact I struggle to recall a "bad" decision made by DRS in that series so no idea where the 50% figure comes from. On the other hand I can recall at least 5 poor LBW calls (two against India when there were clear inside edges and 3 not outs against England: Gambhir was plumb off Swann and Raina and Tendulkar I think were plumb off Broad), when of course DRS couldn't be used.

The one element of DRS I remain unconvinced about is ball-tracking: I think hotspot in its enhanced form works pretty well, but some of the predictive paths given by Hawke-eye and in particular its poor cousin eagle-eye seem very strange. People who know a lot more than me about these things assure me that it works to within a couple of inches, but of course that is quite a bit, and some of the predictions it comes up with just look wrong.

I don't get as steamed up as a lot of people over this DRS business - cricket got along without it for a long time and I can even now enjoy watching games with or without it , though I can see why players and umpires prefer to have a consistent policy in place.
The main reason it is in now is not so much any special need to have 99% accuracy in decision making , but because the relentless close exposure on television with all the new hi-tech extras renders many previously un-noticed umpiring errors glaringly obvious.
Ever since the line decision was taken to the third umpire the pressure to extend the use of technology became more intense. The trouble is right from the start there have been problems which have caused controversy - remember the (actually fairly obvious) run outs missed because a fielder got in the way of the camera ? And the ones where an overconfident umpire didn't call for assistance when he should have?)
Now today we have better technology but are still sometimes left with a clear error - when a team has used up both challenges and has no recourse to a howler against it. So should we give it back to the umpires to call for a check?
Nor are players ready to accept the new improved verdict when it goes against them : channel 9 says hotspot etc are state of the art but it didn't stop Ricky Ponting going off his trolley last year when he couldn't get the umpires to send Kevin Pietersen on his way at Melbourne...

Seems to me we are always going to have arguments with or without super technical backups to the old fashioned umpires. My own preference would be for all technologies to be available to the umpires , at their own call , with the benefit of [/i]any[i] doubt going to the batsman. The umpires should look at whatever replays/tech analysis they want , but make a decision based on their own judgement rather than an automatic "hawkeye has spoken" etc. And the third umpire should have the option of a quick word in the ear of an umpire who has just made a clanger to ensure he calls for a check...This would I think save time, and hopefully eventually restore a bit more respect for on field umpires decisions.

May even be acceptable to BCCI

But I'm sure it wouldn't please everyone.

To be fair there is a lot of fools in India, its worth making sure this system can deal with them.

Mike Selig wrote:It is well-known India's objections basically stem from the objections of a few of their senior players who had bad experiences with the system when it was in its infancy (and let's be honest when the system was first used in the West Indies - England series when England hit their latest rock bottom it was fairly flawed). Dhoni is really merely towing the party line on this one.

Personally, I think the system as currently implemented (and partially used in the England-India series) works pretty well, and certainly produces fewer incorrect decisions than without it. In fact I struggle to recall a "bad" decision made by DRS in that series so no idea where the 50% figure comes from. On the other hand I can recall at least 5 poor LBW calls (two against India when there were clear inside edges and 3 not outs against England: Gambhir was plumb off Swann and Raina and Tendulkar I think were plumb off Broad), when of course DRS couldn't be used.

The one element of DRS I remain unconvinced about is ball-tracking: I think hotspot in its enhanced form works pretty well, but some of the predictive paths given by Hawke-eye and in particular its poor cousin eagle-eye seem very strange. People who know a lot more than me about these things assure me that it works to within a couple of inches, but of course that is quite a bit, and some of the predictions it comes up with just look wrong.

Mike...I think its a cultural objection to the technology across Indian cricket. Youll see a similar attitude from a lot of commentaters here, Aggers a classic example of someone who is just fundamentaly oppossed to it on an almost moral basis.. The incidents you allude to are certainl;y used as part of the " see this is why we are oppossed to it" case, but I dont think its the pure reason why so many in the Indian set up just refuse to debate the technology in a logical way.
Agree with you on that 50% figure, its a clasic example of misrepresneting scientific data to fit a preconceived notion.

Your last statement for me sums up exactly why predicted path is better than human guesswork. Its based on consistent and equaly applied reading and calculations with a known error threshold. Its been shown that many assumptions people and umpires were making were simply incorrect. Its also far more consistent that any umpire ever could be. If ball tracking cant be relied upon then umpires cant be either, so do we scrap lbw? Theres no reason that ball tracking couldnt be used with a modified version of the "umpires call" halo. Use the error calcutaions for the specific ball from the system ( eg if it hits the batsman a long way from the stumps or was showing a lot of movement the error area increases) to give a 99% certainty. It will cut out the howlers and only in very unusual situations lead to a good umpire call being overuled.

It's simple really, human error is fairly common and often the same error occcurs time after time, computers can't make mistakes, the systems used may not be sensitive enough, they may have a large margin of error, or the person using the technology may not be reading the data properly, but computers can't make mistakes.

In his comment, Doni just sounds like an idiot or a child, regardless of how something is viewed by the vast majority of people, if it's not 100% perfect, it's not good enough for him, well Mr. Doni, DRS is far more reliable than any umpire, so should we stop using them and the idea that just because something's been done for a long time we shouldn't move with the times, is quite frankly, bonkers, everyone was happy with propeller planes, it didn't stop the world from embracing the jet engine, did it?

The sooner a major/rich board (England, Australia or SA) stands up to India and says we're using DRS, live with it or don't come here and by the way we'll sue you for lost revenue, the better, for such an innovative nation, India appears to have more than its fair share of Luddites and their cricket board seems to be filled exclusively with them.

how many UDRS threads do we need FFS!

2 per poster per innings?

to cut the long story short ICC needs to demonstrate to India to their satisfaction that DRS is more competent than human umpitres.

Unfortuantely they sc.rewd up that opportunity in the Ind-Eng series, where a combiantionf of DRS flaws with the discretionary inferences from it by the 3rd umpire meant it is dead for now.

this statement from dhoni was meant to put a lid over this discussion...and as far as I am concerend that is adone now

The problem is that a computer doesn't suffer from 'Oh no, I can't give <insert deified Indian> out LBW because I'll get shouted at' disease.

Dhoni knows this.

India will suffer if more decisions are correct, so they oppose DRS.

Put your bloody foot down ICC. YOU are the head of the game. At the moment I believe the majority of countries favour DRS so make it MANDATORY for all

If India don't like it, tell 'em to jog on and demolish their test status. They won't be missed as long as the big 3 (England, Australia and South Africa).

In my opinion and it is by no means an expert one, there are a number of issues of concern here.

There is enough evidence of recent test matches where DRs was used that proves DRS is more accurate than the human factor on it's own.

How is it that India with this evidence at their disposal can still object the use of it?

What is the real reason why India does not want it used, and I am not talking of the mumbo jumbo talk they have given so far. If the DRS system is better, how can they deny the facts?

How is it that one country, albeit one with a population 10 times bigger than the collective of all the other test playing nations can be allowed to stand in the way of progress?

Even if they do have the most money and the biggest following, SA, OZ, England should surely be able to carry the torch of test cricket and the progress needed.

How is it that the ICC can continue to perform the way they are without losing face and continue to have the authority necessary to administrate a game older than some very old oak trees?

It is time that the other test playing nations put a vote of no confidence in the ICC.

If none of these issues can solve it, it means only one thing, India indeed does have the monetory means to control cricket from behind the scenes.

How is it that India with this evidence at their disposal can still object the use of it?

or maybe the evidence produce by BCCI at the latest ICC confercne using footage from the eng series was compelling enouhg to AGREE to drop DRS.

remember.....inspite of all the complains and buzz....the OFFICIAL STAND OF ICC ON DRS IS EXACTLY ALIGNED WITH INDIAN VERSION

yh thats because the ICC pussyfoot around the BCCI.

v2 wrote:the OFFICIAL STAND OF ICC ON DRS IS EXACTLY ALIGNED WITH INDIAN VERSION

Yeah, it shows you exactly in who'se pocket the ICC find themselves.

I have said it before, and I have to say it again. The exclusive targeting of the BCCI in the DRS saga is missing the obvious point that the strong boards suchs ECB, CA, and the UCB too, do not take an open and strong stand where it matters so that the DRS can be mandatory. Had CA insisted that the India tour can go ahead if only there is DRS it would have been there. India couldn't just have canceled the tour and get away with it. Other boards, also could have done the same.
Moreover, the ICC board room, as far as we know, didn't take the DRS decision on the basis of a vote. Of course the BCCI, may be able to 'Manipulate' the 'Asian Group' and some other poor boards into taking the BCCI line, but as far as we know, there is no report of a Yes vote from ECB, CA and the UCB on the issue.

Now, this doesn't mean the BCCI stand on the issue is correct. I used to thik their stand was a joke before the England series, but the very inconsistent use of the system in England showed there has to be more debate on the issue, and although I still favor the DRS I can better understand the BCCI and some players not being a fan of the system.
Now take the case of the previous test. Mike Hussey would have been allowed to continue his after being given out wrongly, Ed Cowan may or may not have got away with his caught behind call, depending on the umpire. Cowan was given out, there was a clear sound when the ball passed the bat, but there was nothing whatsoever on Hot Spot. In England, Rahul Dravid was given on the basis of sound, although there was nothing on hot spot remember.
Brad Haddin was plumb LBW to Zaheer Khan, but the tracking technology had failed and had the Indians reviewed he would have been allowed to continue as well.
In the West Indies MS Dhoni was out of a no ball, but the techy showed the wrong replay and Dhoni had to go. Anyone remember the Ian Bell review in the World Cup match against India? Now, don't they have a reason to think about the system?
But unlike what they do at the moment, the BCCI should involve itself in trying to make the system better. One way to do that to continue using it with all available technology, tracking, hot spot, sneecko, and then see from there on.

@msp83 - as much as I'd like to see DRS implemented across the board, it is not worth threatening to cancel a tour over.

Firstly it would fracture relationships with India, which wouldn't be wise. Notwithstanding the fact that India has the most power, cricket is only played to Test level by 10 nations. Isolating one nation, however powerful or successful, over DRS would not be good for the long term future of the game.

Secondly it would do a great disservice to spectators, especially those from India travelling over to England and other countries India are touring, who are paying significant amounts of money to watch the game. Even if a tour isn't cancelling, the possibility of it happening would keep people away.

Thirdly, there are lots of other parties involved, including sponsors and TV stations all around the world who have put a lot of money into securing sponsoring/coverage/etc rights. Cancelling a series would put significant strains on relationships with those parties and, when the time to renew comes around, will affect what cricket boards can get for those partnerships. Considering how much English counties and the English academy/youth system (such as the EPP) gets from the Sky deal and other such partnerships, it would be madness to risk a reduction in funding.

Finally, tours to South Africa and Zimbabwe have been (rightly) cancelled because of apartheid and the Mugabe regime - the DRS argument is nothing compared to those things.

Maybe the ECB/CA/UCB etc could take a stronger stance, but there is no way they could threaten the cancellation of tours. To suggest that because of this, they are partly to blame is just a silly way to spread the blame without considering the implications.

msp83 wrote:the strong boards suchs ECB, CA, and the UCB too, do not take an open and strong stand where it matters so that the DRS can be mandatory.

I could well be wrong but I think this may be the same kind of thing as the Irish cricket board publicly saying they may not be ready for test status yet. They full well know they can't do anything about it (remember the way the ICC board is run means to make DRS mandatory you would need a 2/3ds majority vote: whilst India oppose it this won't happen) so don't feel there's any political value in kicking up a fuss over it. Pretty sure that should CA have said "agree to DRS or this tour won't happen" they wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on.

With regards to the actual system, I think the new enhanced hot spot works pretty well, but it should be emphasized to the 3rd umpire that he is only there to overturn howlers. If there is no mark on hot-spot but a clear noise as the ball passes the bat with no other possible explanation (apart from the clicking bat handle which can happen) and no daylight between bat and ball, then the call should stand, whatever it was.

I am not convinced about ball-tracking, but am informed by those who know a bit more about it than I that it does work (to within an inch or so) in 99% of the cases, and where we "feel" it's got it wrong, it is because of our pre-conceptions (which of course used to say we couldn't give spinners LBWs on the front foot - how that has changed since Hair and Dar first started giving them).

For example we think that a ball delivered from over the wicket which swings in to a left-hander which hits the batsman around leg-stump is going down the leg-side. Hussey has had 3 such deliveries (one against New-Zealand which was given out on review, the other two in the last innings) which have been given not out, but shown by ball-tracking that the ball was probably hitting the stumps. And if you think of it, to get a ball to miss the leg-stump despite having pitched in line would require a lot of swing (project it onto a right hander which may help, to pitch in line with the stumps and miss off-stump is very unusual), so this is probably an example of our intuition being wrong. With time, and partly thanks to ball-tracking this may change.

Yes, canceling a tour may be too much of a radical step, but to say its just India who are to be blaimed is also silly and convenient.
First of all, the BCB has made it clear they don't have the resources to fund the DRS in their home tests.
The Lankan board can't afford hot spot.
The WICB has their own financial problems. Zimbabwe too got similar problems. So if they vote with India on the issue, there is a reason for that.
The ICC has not shown any willingness to fund the system, and they failed to find any sponsors as well.
And the other boards have also prioritized financial security over DRS, that means its only that much important for them. Or they haven't applied their brains to address some of the serious concerns regarding the system. If they take the lead in the lookout for a sponsor or ICC funding of the entire DRS package, then the financially weak boards might just reconsider their position on the same.
As the associate protest regarding the upcoming boards showed, if there is the will, a way can be found, and the fact of the matter is that, howsoever uncomfortable for some here, the other strong boards other than the BCCI, haven't shown the backborn or the will to stand up for the cause of the DRS.
Let me clarify again, I am still a critical supporter of the UDRS, but I wouldn't favor an approach where the flaws of the system, technological, economic, and of course political, gets swept under the carpet.

DRS corrects some mistaking errors - it means more decisions are correct. But their are countries who cannnot afford it.

I just hope that in future Dhoni will stop criticising umpires when they make a mistake - something he has been guilty of in the past.

did i ever say how much i hate having so many UDRS threads?

biltongbek wrote:

v2 wrote:the OFFICIAL STAND OF ICC ON DRS IS EXACTLY ALIGNED WITH INDIAN VERSION

Yeah, it shows you exactly in who'se pocket the ICC find themselves.

hmm...so the grudge here seems to be that they ( ICC) have gotten out of Aus and Eng,s pockets that they were in for a century or more....and gotten INTO bcci,s pockets....

msp83 wrote:Yes, canceling a tour may be too much of a radical step, but to say its just India who are to be blaimed is also silly and convenient.

But I didn't say that though :P

When I said "To suggest that because of this, they are partly to blame is just a silly way to spread the blame without considering the implications", I didn't mean they aren't to blame at all, just that they aren't to blame because of this particular reason. In fact, I said "Maybe the ECB/CA/UCB etc could take a stronger stance".

With Australia on the ropes yesrterday afternoon at about 3/50 and Ponting and Clarke trying to get set, Ponting clearly edged a ball to the keeper down the leg side which he dropped! They took a run and the umpire ruled a leg bye.

The ball was nowhere near the body and if it had been taken and ruled not out it would have revisited all the issues from the last Sydney Aus-India test, had Indian supporters and their team screaming about incompetent umpires, cheating aussies who wont walk and soured the slowly recovering bonds between the two cricketing bodies.

All because India refuse to accept that DRS is not 100% accurate. DRS does not make appalling decisions. Ever. People do.

Make it compulsory for International cricket now.

v2 wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

v2 wrote:the OFFICIAL STAND OF ICC ON DRS IS EXACTLY ALIGNED WITH INDIAN VERSION

Yeah, it shows you exactly in who'se pocket the ICC find themselves.

hmm...so the grudge here seems to be that they ( ICC) have gotten out of Aus and Eng,s pockets that they were in for a century or more....and gotten INTO bcci,s pockets....

Or more to the point that its got into the pockets of corrupt individuals who havent got a clue and arent running the game as well as it could be.