DRS, the Debatable Review System fuels further debate | cricket | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 11, 2016-Sunday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

DRS, the Debatable Review System fuels further debate

cricket Updated: Sep 05, 2011 02:19 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times
Highlight Story


The International Cricket Council (ICC) has again jumped to the defence of technology being used for the Decision Review System (DRS) in the wake of fresh criticism.

Indian skipper MS Dhoni, who had backed the BCCI's initial opposition to DRS claiming the technology was not always conclusive, was left fuming after Rahul Dravid's dismissal in the first ODI on Saturday.

Stuart Broad's initial appeal for caught behind was turned down. England appealed the decision. Although Hot Spot, considered the most dependable technology, showed no sign of a nick and there was no visible deviation, the third umpire reversed the decision. The snickometer indicated there was a nick, but it is not part of the technology accepted for DRS in the series, triggering a debate.http://www.hindustantimes.com/images/HTPopups/050911/05_09_pg17a.jpg

A day earlier, Australia opener Phil Hughes was given out leg before against Tillakaratne Dilshan's spin in the first Test against Sri Lanka at Galle. That decision has raised questions about the accuracy of the ball-tracking technology, Hawk Eye, an issue which India raised while refusing its inclusion for DRS in the England series.

The left-handed Hughes went for a review, although replays showed the delivery had spun from middle stump, Hawk Eye projected a straighter path which the 3rd umpire accepted.

Leading umpire Simon Taufel, who was in Galle to conduct an umpires' seminar, told ESPNcricinfo that more independent testing - outside the purview of broadcasters and suppliers - was required to prove the veracity of technology such as Hawk-Eye, HotSpot and Virtual Eye.

Dave Richardson, the ICC general manager-cricket, acknowledged in a statement on Sunday that technology was not fool-proof but in most cases wrong decisions have been rectified. "The purpose of the DRS is to get as many decisions correct as possible. The statistics show that, with the full DRS in operation, the number of correct decisions rises to almost 98 per cent and that is what we must focus on," he said.