India Do Not Want Referral System in England Test Series

by Duty281 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:23 am

Just disgraceful really. I really hope a couple of wrong decision go against them, I really do. And India wonder why they're disliked the world over! Come on England, we can beat those whingeing Indians!

The Board for Cricket Control in India sent official notification to the England and Wales Cricket Board that it does not want the system to be used in the four-Test series.

Under International Cricket Council regulations the system can only be used with the consent of both boards. India’s senior men, including Sachin Tendulkar and MS Dhoni, have made it clear they do not trust the technology, enabling the BCCI to flex its considerable political muscle and win a concession for its leading stars.

It is a blow for Graeme Swann, who acknowledged during last winter’s Ashes tour the benefit he has gained from the technology. Of his 138 wickets, 29.71 per cent have been lbw, the second highest proportion of any bowler in Test history.

In the past, traditional finger spinners would have been lucky to get one lbw decision in every 20 appeals. Now with the DRS system consistently proving umpires incorrect when giving not-out decisions, that ratio has changed to about one in five.

India’s batsmen have grown up thinking they can kick away off-spinners on turning pitches without the fear of being given out lbw. But with Andrew Strauss now far more astute with his use of appeals, that tactic would have been dangerous this summer with the DRS system.

“The reason India do not want it is because it will favour our bowlers,” said John Emburey, the former England off-spinner. “It [DRS] has been massive for spinners because they are now getting wickets against batsmen playing on the front foot coming forward. It’s a massive advantage to the spinner. The system has shown balls would go on to hit the stumps and umpires have now got it in their minds that they can now give batsmen out.”

Emburey’s own career statistics show how the pre-DRS generation of off-spinners had little joy with umpires. He took 147 Test wickets but only 16 were lbw, some 10.88 per cent of his total dismissals.

“What DRS has done is make batsmen play with their bat rather than hide behind the pad which gives bowlers more chances of edges and catches because they have to play at the ball,” he said.

In May the ICC’s cricket committee recommended the use of DRS in all forms of the game. There are moves for this to be implemented at the board’s annual meeting later in June but convincing India will be tough.

Dhoni has been vocal in his opposition, particularly after Ian Bell was given not out by DRS during a World Cup match in Bangalore. Hawk-Eye showed the ball hitting the stumps but Bell was more than 2.5 metres down the pitch when he was hit, at which point the tracking system is deemed unreliable and the on-field umpire makes the call. Dhoni was baffled by the decision. “The adulteration of technology with human thinking meant we didn’t get that wicket,” he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/8566816/India-block-umpire-decision-review-system-in-Test-series-in-England.html

by activereactive Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:32 am

I am disappointed too, the UDRS benefits both sides.
Let us hope Indians regret.

by msp83 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:45 am

unfortunate. not a good call for the game.

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 12:37 pm

what a suprise, they always moan about UDRS

by sonic_boom10 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:11 pm

Pathetic English bowlers like Swann and Anderson rely heavily on DRS, lets see how many wickets they take without it.

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:12 pm

oh sonic grow up, they cant be pathetic when they are ranked 2 and 3 in the world.

by sonic_boom10 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:15 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:oh sonic grow up, they cant be pathetic when they are ranked 2 and 3 in the world.

30% of Swann's wickets come by LBW, due to the DRS being introduced. Without technology Swann is garbage.

God knows how many wickets Murali, Kumble and Warne would've had with DRS.

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:16 pm

he isnt garbage and u no it, stop wumming

by sonic_boom10 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:18 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:he isnt garbage and u no it, stop wumming

yeah sure, anyone can take wickets vs Pakistan who where match fixing. Hardly Earth shattering.

Sure anyone can minnow bash vs Windies and Bangladesh..

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:19 pm

it was a few balls, not match fixing, look if u cant say anything constructive then dont say it

by sonic_boom10 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:21 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:it was a few balls, not match fixing, look if u cant say anything constructive then dont say it

sure it was pal.

Swann is dross.

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:22 pm

he is an attacking spinner, harbajhan is a defensive spiner and has forgotten how to take wickets

by sonic_boom10 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:24 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:he is an attacking spinner, harbajhan is a defensive spiner and has forgotten how to take wickets

Did i mention Harbhajan?

393 wickets for the Indian, Swann will be lucky to get 250.

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:26 pm

look at the rankings

by Mad for Chelsea Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:27 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:look at the rankings

or the averages. Didn't you say Swann would have no influence on the series result against SL sonic? Spell of 4-4 in the middle of SL's first test collapse says otherwise...

by sonic_boom10 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:27 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:look at the rankings

Rankings mean what?

Harbhajan didn't get to bash a bunch of match fixers?

by sonic_boom10 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:28 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
cricketfan90 wrote:look at the rankings

or the averages. Didn't you say Swann would have no influence on the series result against SL sonic? Spell of 4-4 in the middle of SL's first test collapse says otherwise...

It was a lucky spell.

India will be here soon. End of Swann's career

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:47 pm

UDRS has benefited everyone makes the game more exciting, as batsman cant simply pad up now

by sonic_boom10 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:50 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:UDRS has benefited everyone makes the game more exciting, as batsman cant simply pad up now

I've never seen any 'proper' batsman just 'pad up'.

UDRS ruins cricket, as the marginal decisions get over turn't where in years gone by the benefit remained with the umpire.

by Mad for Chelsea Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:51 pm

hmm actually sonic, if it's marginal it doesn't get overturned (esp for LBWs as it goes "on-field call"). TBH I don't quite understand what the Indians have against the UDRS, without it they'd probably have lost to PAk in the last world cup Wink

by sonic_boom10 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 1:56 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:hmm actually sonic, if it's marginal it doesn't get overturned (esp for LBWs as it goes "on-field call"). TBH I don't quite understand what the Indians have against the UDRS, without it they'd probably have lost to PAk in the last world cup

Because it isn't 100% faultless.

WC vs England, Bell dead duck LBW - ICC comes up with some stupid rule about 2.5m? What the hell was that about?

In the Ashes, Bell given out caught behind of a faint inside edge, third umpire reversed the decision, when snicko showed umpire Dar was correct.

BCCI want snicko in DRS

by Mad for Chelsea Fri 10 Jun 2011, 2:00 pm

trouble with snicko is it takes too long to load, something like three to five mins, which would result in long delays. Also it's not that reliable, it picks up "noise" which is just sound waves, which could also be created by the ball going very close to the bat. Bell's caught behind shouldn't have been reversed, but now people know hotspot isn't 100% so are less likely to blindly follow it.

The 2.5 meter rule is precisely there because the technology isn't 100%. I still think the howlers get overturned, which can only e a good thing.

by sonic_boom10 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 2:02 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:trouble with snicko is it takes too long to load, something like three to five mins, which would result in long delays. Also it's not that reliable, it picks up "noise" which is just sound waves, which could also be created by the ball going very close to the bat. Bell's caught behind shouldn't have been reversed, but now people know hotspot isn't 100% so are less likely to blindly follow it.

The 2.5 meter rule is precisely there because the technology isn't 100%. I still think the howlers get overturned, which can only e a good thing.

Oh yeah with regards to hop spot, BCCI want 4 cameras as to try an get any edge or deflection, but there are limited cameras I think.

by Hoggy_Bear Fri 10 Jun 2011, 2:29 pm

sonic_boom10 wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:hmm actually sonic, if it's marginal it doesn't get overturned (esp for LBWs as it goes "on-field call"). TBH I don't quite understand what the Indians have against the UDRS, without it they'd probably have lost to PAk in the last world cup
Because it isn't 100% faultless.

But still better than not having it.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 10 Jun 2011, 2:48 pm

sonic_boom10 wrote:
cricketfan90 wrote:UDRS has benefited everyone makes the game more exciting, as batsman cant simply pad up now
I've never seen any 'proper' batsman just 'pad up'.

UDRS ruins cricket, as the marginal decisions get over turn't where in years gone by the benefit remained with the umpire.

You obviously didnt see many people playing Shane Warne then

I dont understand how marginal decisions getting overturned ruins cricket. If its marginal its still marginal whichever way it oges, at least people all know its based on a significant review of all available evidence rather than the impression of a half asleep old man in real time.

DRS has significantly cut down bad feeling between umpires and players and on the field arguments.

Another thing it has proved, and made batsmen admit, is that sometimes you dont know for sure if you edged it or not.

by Mike Selig Fri 10 Jun 2011, 2:51 pm

I am not sure DRS in itself has made much difference to Swann and spinners generally. What has made a difference is Hawke-Eye (when it was just used as an analysis tool), which has shown that many balls which hit the front pad of a batsman when facing a spinner would have hit the stumps. As a result, and also as a result of a new generation of umpires (Dar and Tauffel the leaders), umpires have been much more ready to give LBWs to spinners on the front foot

One of the first I can remember was Giles dismissing Gibbs in South Africa (04?). Dar gave it, Gibbs looked unhappy but replays suggested it would have canoned into the middle of middle-and-leg. The trend culminated in Panesar getting 5 (?) LBWs against the West Indies, as batsman after batsman propped forward and played with his pad. All of this was achieved before DRS.

I am not sure any of this concerns India that much. Dravid aside, the indian batsmen tend to play out in front of their pads which reduces LBWs.

On the point of the thread, it is of course regrettable that India have chosen not to use DRS, due to basically not having grasped it yet. One hopes that the ICC will soon grow a pair and impose its use in the current form (which IMO is just about right, although I would rather there was a margin for "ball just missing the stumps" which didn't lead to an "out" decision being overturned). I somehow doubt it.

On the ridiculous debate surrounding Graeme Swann, he has performed well so far in all conditions, and outbowled Harbajhan in India. I don't expect him to enjoy as much success against India as against other teams, since they play spin well (Murali averaged well over 30 in India). I don't see how this makes him rubbish. He is comfortably the best spinner still playing international cricket at the moment.

by Mike Selig Fri 10 Jun 2011, 2:52 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Another thing it has proved, and made batsmen admit, is that sometimes you dont know for sure if you edged it or not.

Although surely Maharoof knew he'd edged it? I mean I saw the edge live...

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 3:24 pm

india have never liked the referral system though have they :/

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 10 Jun 2011, 3:30 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:india have never liked the referral system though have they :/

Or neutral umpires.

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 3:31 pm

haha lol true.

by Duty281 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 3:54 pm

sonic_boom10 wrote:Pathetic English bowlers like Swann and Anderson rely heavily on DRS, lets see how many wickets they take without it.

Anderson and Swann are better than any of your bowlers Very Happy

by battingwitharunner Fri 10 Jun 2011, 4:21 pm

sonic_boom10 wrote:Pathetic English bowlers like Swann and Anderson rely heavily on DRS, lets see how many wickets they take without it.

If the DRS gives them wickets that means the batsmen were out. It also means that the umpire gave the wrong decision initially. DRS isn't giving an unfair advantage, it is making sure justice is done.

by JDizzle Fri 10 Jun 2011, 4:34 pm

DRS has definitely proved a success. Anyone who says otherwise it talking rubbish. More decisions are being proved to be correct and more howlers are being cut out. Their are still flaws in it, obviously, but it is better than nothing. Hopefully the ICC will make the DRS mandatory to all boards before long, and I know it will prove expensive to countries like Bangladesh and NZ, but hopefully the ICC will offer some funds to these countries to help them run it. Anything to stop countries resisting use it to get an "advantage" over another country is ridiculous.

by Grizzly Fri 10 Jun 2011, 4:42 pm

I was considering joining this debate until I saw the comments made by Sonic Boom and it looks like the same mentality of people who ruined the cricket board on 606 are looking to so the same on 606v2.
Shame

by Duty281 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 5:09 pm

Oh well, Grizzly, these Indian wums will disappear after they're given a solid beating by the mighty mighty England!

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 5:52 pm

Grizzly,

I can assure you that sonic's comments aren't representative of this cricket section, usualy we have good, well mannered, constructive debate. Don't let one poster influence your opinion.

Sainty.

by Cracker Fri 10 Jun 2011, 9:47 pm

Well said sainty.what a very angry man. And that's being kind. Looking forward to a top series's against a very good side.

by Stellar Key Fri 10 Jun 2011, 9:54 pm

I 'd rather see this discussed by everyone than have the subject ignored.

My initial feeling with Indias reluctance for DRS in tests IN India is that umpires can be influenced ( even the Independents ) more when the decision is down to them alone. When you have referrals and hawkeye revising a decision then maybe it will go slightly against Indias advantage.

Other countries , ones who once I thought would have been reluctant for DRS have tried it now so when is India going to stop hiding from this technology ?

by CaledonianCraig Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:20 pm

Crazy decision really that makes no sense whatsoever. The DRS corrects poor decisions made by umpires and confirms such things as run-outs and do believe it takes pressure off of the umpires. I really cannot see any viable reason for objection to it.

by Duty281 Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:27 pm

Why don't the ECB show some balls? Threaten to abandon the tour unless India agree to using DRS. The Saffers and Kiwis aren't doing anything this summer - I'm sure we can hastily arrange a series with one of them in place? Thoughts?

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:27 pm

It is an odd scenario, from watching this test series so far it has been utilised well and caused no hassle whatsoever. Long may it continue I say!

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:30 pm

It needs sorting and sorting fast, Duty.

They used it in the world cup, and won the damn thing, I don't get the issue!

by CaledonianCraig Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:31 pm

It is down to the ICC to make it compulsory. Until they do then the likes of India are free to object (but for what reason I do not know).

by Mad for Chelsea Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:31 pm

I can't help but think the main reason for this stance is the BCCI taking their chance to flex their muscles again and show the rest of the cricketing world who's boss. The fact that they can do so standing up to the "old" power England is an added bonus. Pretty pathetic, but that's politics for you. Unfortunately, this kind of attitude really grates me, and makes me want to wish that either
a) An England batsman gets awa with a shocker early on his way to a bif hundred.
or
b) Indian batsmen are on the wrong end of a few poor decisions.

by legendkillar Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:33 pm

I find it strange. Very interesting. It is similar for example when Federer didn't want hawkeye. The technology is available, they should use it. I mean when you see things like Snicko, Hawkeye, Hotspot. It is amazing. If India get a decision based on the DRS I would like to see if they oppose it's use.

by Mad for Chelsea Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:37 pm

they did LK, world cup semi, Tendulkar early on given out LBW, got it overturned as it was just missing leg stump. Without that they'd probably have lost the game. Unfortunately I think after India initially struggled with it the players decided they didn't like it, and now the BCCI has dug its heels in and refuses to budge. Still I think pretty soon it will be made mandatory (it was one of the recommendations at the last meeting) so hopefully that will be that. Just seems silly that every team bar one is happy with it, and that team can still veto its use...

by CaledonianCraig Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:39 pm

The thing is only good can come from the DRS. No DRS and you get a build up of bad feeling if decisions work against you, players get ratty with umpires and all in all nobody gains anything so why do India want all that negative stuff?

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:40 pm

The ICC shouldn't bow down and stand for this in my opinion. Maybe if the BCCI continue to oppose they should reprimand them? Is this a valid alternative? Just seems very petulant to me!

by legendkillar Fri 10 Jun 2011, 10:48 pm

It is strange that they strongly oppose it Sainty. It is there to help. I agree with Michael Holding that I don't like it's tactical use, i.e to buy a wicket.

by Guest Fri 10 Jun 2011, 11:00 pm

There is that LK, yes. But that's merely just a drop in the ocean really. The positive far outweigh the negatives!

by Sponsored content