BCCI and the UDRS system

I haven't been watching the IPL with much attention this year but today I noticed if there is doubt about whether the ball crossed the boundary befor hitting the ground the Umpires may call for the third umpire to review it.

Does that not strike a note of hypocracy?

I know it isn't a decision for dismissal, but still.

that happens everywhere though, and has done for a long time..

CF wrote:that happens everywhere though, and has done for a long time..

Indeed. It pre-dates Sachin so he doesn't object to it

BCCI has only challanged the reliability of ball tracking technology and hot-spot.
Minus those inconsistent technologies other forms of using 3rd umpire support...such as throuhg TV replays has never been objected by BCCI

Here is some news emerging on BCCI's global activities that might have a further impact on DRS

http://www.bdlive.co.za/sport/columnists/2013/04/30/controversy-as-cricket-electors-change-votes

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) already holds the purse strings of the global game and is able to influence its subordinate nations into voting whichever way it sees fit on a host of issues which, in theory, are administered by the game’s supposed global administrators, the International Cricket Council (ICC).

The one area the BCCI has not been able to control is the vote of the game’s most important stakeholders — the players. Up until now, that is.

Playing conditions, proposed law changes and everything else to do with what happens on the field is debated by the ICC’s cricket committee, on which the players have two representatives. They are Sri Lanka’s Kumar Sangakkara and the president of the Federation of International Cricketers Associations, former Australia spinner Tim May.

Those men were elected by the players from around the world through the votes of their Test captains.

The BCCI recently put Laxman Sivaramakrishnan up as a candidate to stand against May. Nine Test caps and 16 one-day internationals suggest there is nothing wrong with the man’s credentials as a cricketer. Except that he is employed by the Chennai Super Kings, the Indian Premier League franchise owned by the BCCI’s president, N Srinivasan.

The players of the world, judging by their votes, were unimpressed. When the confidential votes of the world’s 10 Test captains were voted, they numbered 9:1 in favour of retaining May. It was then that the BCCI started work.


The acting CEO of Cricket SA (CSA) was phoned to ask which way Graeme Smith had voted. He replied that Smith’s vote was private, was handled by the South African Cricketers Association and had nothing to do with CSA. Other responses were less forthright.

The West Indies Cricket Board were asked to "persuade" Darren Sammy to change his vote. Sri Lanka’s Angelo Matthews was leant on, Bangladesh’s Mushfiqur Rahim had his arm twisted by his board and Misbah-ul-Haq was reminded to think about where his bread was buttered. At the last recount of the votes, Sivaramakrishnan and May were deadlocked at five votes apiece.

Why, you may reasonably ask, are Srinivasan and the BCCI so keen to get their man on the cricket committee? Apart from the obvious — it means yet more power and influence — perhaps there is another motive. Ask yourself which aspect of the game on the field currently annoys India the most, and the answer may be the umpire decision review system (DRS).

Sangakkara’s playing commitments mean he cannot dedicate sufficient time to his committee commitments. He has relied on May to harvest global player opinion.

If May is removed, Sivaramakrishnan may be able to tell the committee that "the players do not want DRS any more". And that could be that.

Thanks for that kpfan, it makes you wonder whether the other cricketing associations could stand against the BCCI and survive finacially without Indian cricket

BCCI have long accused ECB and CA of past bullying. Sad to see they behave in the same way.

Unfortunate if this is true.

LondonTiger wrote:BCCI have long accused ECB and CA of past bullying. Sad to see they behave in the same way.

Until 1993 MCC was the body that was equivalent to ICC + ECB put together.
Imagine the conflict of interest / self interests when the international governing body and English cricket governing body were same.

Now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme...where unfortunately BCCI has de-facto taken over ICC.

It's sad and ironic that the democratic institution of equal voting rights in fact has created this situation.

KP_fan wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:BCCI have long accused ECB and CA of past bullying. Sad to see they behave in the same way.

Until 1993 MCC was the body that was equivalent to ICC + ECB put together.
Imagine the conflict of interest / self interests when the international governing body and English cricket governing body were same.

Now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme...where unfortunately BCCI has de-facto taken over ICC.

It's sad and ironic that the democratic institution of equal voting rights in fact has created this situation.

I'm sorry? Equal voting rights? When did this happen?

Mike Selig wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:BCCI have long accused ECB and CA of past bullying. Sad to see they behave in the same way.

Until 1993 MCC was the body that was equivalent to ICC + ECB put together.
Imagine the conflict of interest / self interests when the international governing body and English cricket governing body were same.

Now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme...where unfortunately BCCI has de-facto taken over ICC.

It's sad and ironic that the democratic institution of equal voting rights in fact has created this situation.

I'm sorry? Equal voting rights? When did this happen?

what do you mean ?

I mean most countries who play cricket don't have a vote.

The reason the ICC can be "held to ransom" as it currently is is precisely because the powers that be have always insisted on a very unfair voting system.

Mike Selig wrote:I mean most countries who play cricket don't have a vote.

The reason the ICC can be "held to ransom" as it currently is is precisely because the powers that be have always insisted on a very unfair voting system.

It's not entirely clear what you might mean by unfair voting system.
but it appears you might be alluding to voting rights for members that are not full test playing nations ?

If that is the point you make...... there is some merit in assesing how to bring such members also within decision making processes throuhg voting rights.

neverthless the way it stands now test playing members get 1 vote each towards decisions impacting test cricket.....fairly democratic on paper.....and twisted in practise the way Neil Manthorp has reported in this article.

KP_fan wrote:
but it appears you might be alluding to voting rights for members that are not full test playing nations ?

That's the one. You know, the 96 other countries.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/634249.html

Siva wins the election...and as Manthorp feared a few days back in the article above...Siva might go and tell ICC.....we player's don't want DRS.....and that is that.
That Tim May was an open critic of IPL and T20...didn't help his cause

ICC News

Sivaramakrishnan set for ICC panel

Nagraj Gollapudi

May 5, 2013

Be the first to comment | Login via | Text size: A| A



Laxman Sivaramakrishnan, the former India legspinner, is set to join Sri Lanka's Kumar Sangakkara as a players' representative on the ICC cricket committee, replacing the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA) chief executive, Tim May. Sivaramakrishnan, currently a commentator on Indian television, is learnt to have beaten May in a fiercely contested election that saw intense lobbying by both sides.

The ICC board had proposed three names - those of Sangakkara, May and Sivaramakrishnan - for the two players' representative positions. In the election, held last week, Sangakkara was re-elected unanimously as the sole current player while Sivaramakrishnan is believed to have received six of the ten votes in the other slot, for former players. The representatives are elected by the captains of the ten Test-playing countries, who cast their votes in a secret online ballot.

Sivaramakrishnan has been backed by the BCCI, which, ESPNcricinfo has confirmed, contacted at least one other member country "requesting" support. He is also believed to have been backed by one more country, independent of the BCCI. Incidentally, though he has been elected as a players' representative, India has no recognised players' association.

May, the former Australia offspinner, has been the public voice of players' concerns globally since establishing FICA in 1998. He was, however, handicapped by the fact that FICA is recognised by only five Full Members of the ICC: Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa and West Indies, the first four of whom are understood to have supported his nomination.

Apart from FICA's limited global influence, one factor that is believed to have gone against May was his sustained criticism of the running of Twenty20 tournaments including the IPL, Sri Lankan Premier League and the Bangladesh Premier League. It is believed that this won him few friends on the Asian boards.

Tony Irish, the chief executive of the South African players association, criticised the BCCI's interventionist approach to the election process. "It's a sad day for the governance of cricket when players aren't allowed to freely elect their representatives," Irish was quoted as saying. "Cricket is a global game and the decisions that are made should be global decisions for the benefit of the global game, not for the benefit of one country, whichever country that is."

However, a member of a board that voted for Sivaramakrishnan contested that view. "It is disingenuous for FICA or its supporters to protest because in an election, candidates canvas votes and FICA did the same thing on Tim May's behalf. The fact is that May didn't have the support of many captains and that showed in the votes. Suggestions that May had the support of nine captains to start with are completely baseless."

The ICC cricket committee is a leading decision-maker for the game's governing body in on-field matters, including playing conditions such as the use of the DRS to review umpiring decisions. It is headed by Anil Kumble, the former Indian captain, and includes Andrew Strauss and Mark Taylor (past players), Gary Kirsten (Full Member team coach representative), David White (Member board representative), Steve Davis (umpires' representative), Ranjan Madugalle (match referees' representative), John Stephenson (MCC representative), David Kendix (statistician), Trent Johnston (Associate representative), Ravi Shastri (media representative) and Clare Connor (women's representative).

Looks like the West Indian captain changed his vote.

question I would have is which WI captain voted ???

only yesterday Dwayne Bravo ( note worthy Chennai Super king owned by Srinivasan's long standing player) was made the West India captain.

I would go to the extent of imagining that that's why Sammy was sacked yedterday as the WI captain from ODIs

What are the chances that SA, England, Australia and a few others break away from the ICC?

Biltong wrote:What are the chances that SA, England, Australia and a few others break away from the ICC?

No chance whatsoever!.
And some of them aren't acting similar to the BCCI, just because they are not in a position to do so. Some of them have quite a poor past record as well.
Not a defense of the BCCI, but just stating the obvious.

Why is there always some sort of power struggle in cricket, was it England that ruled the roost prior to the BCCI now?

Something tells me the structure is wrong if there is always someone that basically dictates the status of cricket.

Indeed, there are serious structural problems with the ICC, but the way things stand now, significant change is unlikely in the near future

what is the structural problem with ICC? I do not see any.

It is based on principles of democratic governance.

The whole world runs on similar principles of democratic governance.........and this system creates super-powers.

USA is a super power.....USSR is finished but Russia remains a strong power....as do Britian, Germany, France on the world stage.
China has emerged as the newest super-power.

the world of cricket is a microcosm of the larger world order......and since we follow same systems / rules to govern our cricketing microcosm......this is also likely to produce super-powers.

England was for long the superpower...and now India is in the cricketing world.

Eng, Aus are still strong voices in the world of cricket though.

The please explain to me why and how the BCCI manages to control things, as I do not understand it.

Biltong wrote:The please explain to me why and how the BCCI manages to control things, as I do not understand it.

It's all about the cash Biltong. India has it, and the other nations go along because they want some of it.

This is the problem with a 10-nation sport. Inevitably there will be a superpower which holds the money. This wouldnt happen in football because most countries play the game. Cricket is such a closed fraternity that the minute the Big Dog chews a bone, no one is going to bother asking for it.

KP_fan wrote:what is the structural problem with ICC? I do not see any.

It is based on principles of democratic governance.

The whole world runs on similar principles of democratic governance.........and this system creates super-powers.

USA is a super power.....USSR is finished but Russia remains a strong power....as do Britian, Germany, France on the world stage.
China has emerged as the newest super-power.

the world of cricket is a microcosm of the larger world order......and since we follow same systems / rules to govern our cricketing microcosm......this is also likely to produce super-powers.

England was for long the superpower...and now India is in the cricketing world.

Eng, Aus are still strong voices in the world of cricket though.

Agree with most of your realist arguments there KPF.
However,it has to be remembered that the ICC, while following principals of democracy within the closed club, the associates are kept out of the decision making process, and that won't help the game develop much. Even providing or denying test status to countries are largely political decisions. Again, the BCCI isn't alone here, the others, during their strong days did the same, Sri Lanka was kept out for a number of years and even when they entered into the test fold, they were treated as 2nd class citizens.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Biltong wrote:The please explain to me why and how the BCCI manages to control things, as I do not understand it.

It's all about the cash Biltong. India has it, and the other nations go along because they want some of it.

cash and other forms of incentives......
--like keep offering BD a few ODis and a test series... will bring guarnatee and sponsorship money that will mean a lot to them...but never deliver that series ..India is probably the ONLY country that has never hosted BD for even a single test match
--using ruling Congress parties leverage on sri lankan president Mahendra...because congress effectively helped crush Tamil rebellions in Lanka
--like offering Mugawe govt legitimacy and support when they were a test side
--like keeping the bait of an Ind-Pak series dangling always in front of Pak...huge MONEY spinners Ind-Pak series are for both sides....esepcially for a near civil war torn Pakistan
--like using the leverage of IPL owners with WI palyers.......whose primary aim in life is to win and retain bigger and bigger IPL contrcats

agains no diffrent from how political power like USA and USSR used to and still use their clouts.
Realpolitik it's called...and means do what is in practical and material interest of "your" nations...instead of foillowing egalatarian ideologies

kingraf wrote:This is the problem with a 10-nation sport. Inevitably there will be a superpower which holds the money. This wouldnt happen in football because most countries play the game. Cricket is such a closed fraternity that the minute the Big Dog chews a bone, no one is going to bother asking for it.

How many permanent veto members are there in the UN security council ?....5 or 6

The real power dealers that matter are always a handful...the super-powers...rest make up the numbers.....is the way of world from time immemorial

BCCI threatens to pull out of CT....to express it's displeasure over the Siva / May allegations.
Asian boards have supported BCCI

http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/1833996/report-bcci-threatens-to-pull-out-of-2013-icc-champions-trophy-reports


BCCI threatens to pull out of 2013 ICC Champions Trophy: Reports

Monday, May 13, 2013, 13:48 IST | Agency: DNA Web Team


According to various reports, the BCCI is unhappy over the hue and cry being made over Sivaramakrishnan's appointment ahead of FICA chief executive Tim May.

The controversy over the election of L Sivaramakrishnan into the Federation of Cricketers Association (FICA) is set to take an ugly turn as the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has dropped hint of pulling out of the 2013 Champions Trophy.

According to various reports, the BCCI is unhappy over the hue and cry being made over Sivaramakrishnan’s appointment ahead of FICA chief executive Tim May.

FICA wants the whole issue of election to be referred to Ethics Officer of the International Cricket Council (ICC) which has irked the Indian cricket board.

According to a report, BCCI is mulling many options to express its displeasure over the issue and pulling out of the high-profile event, set to be held in England in June, is one of them.

The furore over the former India spinner`s appointment was caused following allegations that BCCI forced a re-vote to get Sivaramakrishnan on the committee after May won the initial vote 9-1.

The Asian cricket playing nations including Sri Lanka and Pakistan have thrown their weight behind the BCCI claiming the allegations to be baseless.