BCCI’s problems with UDRS explained
The Umpire Decision Review System was always shrouded with controversies from its very inception, and it only got worse during discussions with the cricket boards before getting a go-ahead by the ICC.
When discussions on the use of decision review system pop up, there are multiple issues that get brought to the fore. One starts wondering, why, in the first place, there is need for a UDRS when cricket administrators hire the best umpires from around the world and pay them lucrative salaries.
Has the standard of umpiring in cricket, in general, gone down? Or is it just the whims and fancies of the International Cricket Council, in a bid to make the sport more glamorous?
ICC may have its own reasons to recommend the use of UDRS in International cricket matches – and that is not the topic of discussion here – but the Achilles Heel for them are the Board of Cricket Control for http://www.senore.com/Cricket/India-c750 and the Indian players who are hardly fond of the system.
The Indian players have had their fair share of experience with UDRS. The 2008 series between India and http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Sri-Lanka-c758 saw the emergence of the new review technology in the sub-continent, and it played havoc against the Indians.
There were a total of 11 decisions which went against the Indian cricket team. Since it was the first time players used the review system the Indian side was not able to capitalize on the use of technology.
The Sri Lankans, however, called the reviews correctly, grabbed their chances wisely, and the result was that they got all but one of their reviews in their favour. The end result was a 2-1 series win for Sri Lana.
Close leg before decisions, which may have gone in India’s favour, had there been a human umpire, went against them, and Indian batsman were given out regularly when they could have got away otherwise. The issue was that not all of them were given out correctly, as the UDRS was used by humans in the end, and human errors were made against India.
It is this experience of the UDRS which means that the Indians are still not convinced with the use of the system. The Indian cricket board is therefore is not inclined to implement a system which its players do not support.
BCCI was also not very keen to implement the system because of the heavy costs associated with it. Any system that needs to be introduced will have that extra cost associated with it. The BCCI will never want to incur the expenditure, and nor will the broadcaster. In fact, the broadcaster of cricket in India is Neo Sports, and they have spent millions of dollars in buying the rights and would not look forward to footing the bill for the expensive system.
Hence, it is difficult to expect a broadcaster to pay for implementing the UDRS, when the primary role of a cricket broadcaster is to relay the cricket matches played on the cricket field. Nor was this a part of the agreement when the rights had been won by the channel.
The other reason why the BCCI could be looking to oppose the system is the IPL. Now, IPL is a domestic tournament played in India, but there is a good possibility that the UDRS technology would have to be used in the IPL as well if things go well at the international level. This will mean that the broadcaster for the IPL – Set Max – will need to pay for the same. It gets even worse for Set Max, because they have paid a billion dollars for a period of ten years to win the rights to broadcast the game. They will definitely not want to add to their bills.
Thus, the only other entity that needs to foot the bill is the ICC. The question is, whether they can afford to apply it universally or whether the BCCI will have enough influence to avoid the implementation of the technology.
Tags: