"I don't buy ICC's argument that there were only few errors," Dilip Vengsarkar said.
MUMBAI: The International Cricket Council (ICC) may have stoically defended the Decision Review System (DRS) in a press release on Tuesday, but the recent errors in the first Ashes Test at Trent Bridge has only vindicated Indian cricket fraternity's stance on the controversial system.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has resisted the use of technology because of doubts over accuracy, particularly in relation to the Hawk-Eye system used for leg-before decisions. Introduced in 2008 to cut-out human errors, the Indian cricketers, past and present, have not minced words in criticizing the system.
The recent goof-ups in the England-Australia match have only fuelled more distaste for the DRS. Former India captain Dilip Vengsarkar, who followed the absorbing contest closely, had no doubt in his mind that the DRS isn't doing what it was meant to. "Till it is not perfected it will remain problematic," said Vengsarkar.
Articulating his point further, he said, "I don't buy ICC's argument that there were only few errors. I feel there were quite a few wrong decisions made particularly the lbws. In one or two cases the Hawk-Eye suggested that the ball would brush the leg-stump and yet it was given out. It was debatable as the ball still had to travel at least a good ten feet when it struck the batsman. How could Hawk-Eye be so sure about the trajectory of the ball? The benefit of doubt should have gone to the batsman but the decision made was contrary to that."
Vengsarkar's point of view is echoed by Kiran More who dismissed ICC's claims, saying that even one mistake could prove crucial for a team. "There's still a lot of work left to be done. They were big mistakes which hurt one team's chances. I think they need to sort it out, make it 100 % and then bring it back," said More.
Manoj Prabhakar may not exactly be on the same page as the BCCI on most issues, but on this one, he partially agrees.
"There was a time when India was chided from all quarters for rejecting the DRS. But now that England and Australia are involved, it has become an issue. The question I want to raise here is why have on-field umpires? You can replace them with cameras. The umpires, who are paid some serious money to officiate, have become mere spectators thanks to technology," Prabhakar lashed out.
Rubbishing ICC's claim that the umpires had made 95.8% correct decisions with a little help from technology, Prabhakar said, "What they are saying doesn't make sense. Test cricket is ultimate and everybody gives their heart out so why have space even for few errors? It should be an eye-opener for the ICC."
The former India medium pacer said ICC should toy with technology as much as they want in the limited versions of the game.
"Test cricket is real cricket and hence it should be left to on-field umpires to run it. The T20s and ODIs are artificial so even if they rely completely on technology it will not matter," he said.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has resisted the use of technology because of doubts over accuracy, particularly in relation to the Hawk-Eye system used for leg-before decisions. Introduced in 2008 to cut-out human errors, the Indian cricketers, past and present, have not minced words in criticizing the system.
The recent goof-ups in the England-Australia match have only fuelled more distaste for the DRS. Former India captain Dilip Vengsarkar, who followed the absorbing contest closely, had no doubt in his mind that the DRS isn't doing what it was meant to. "Till it is not perfected it will remain problematic," said Vengsarkar.
Articulating his point further, he said, "I don't buy ICC's argument that there were only few errors. I feel there were quite a few wrong decisions made particularly the lbws. In one or two cases the Hawk-Eye suggested that the ball would brush the leg-stump and yet it was given out. It was debatable as the ball still had to travel at least a good ten feet when it struck the batsman. How could Hawk-Eye be so sure about the trajectory of the ball? The benefit of doubt should have gone to the batsman but the decision made was contrary to that."
Vengsarkar's point of view is echoed by Kiran More who dismissed ICC's claims, saying that even one mistake could prove crucial for a team. "There's still a lot of work left to be done. They were big mistakes which hurt one team's chances. I think they need to sort it out, make it 100 % and then bring it back," said More.
Manoj Prabhakar may not exactly be on the same page as the BCCI on most issues, but on this one, he partially agrees.
"There was a time when India was chided from all quarters for rejecting the DRS. But now that England and Australia are involved, it has become an issue. The question I want to raise here is why have on-field umpires? You can replace them with cameras. The umpires, who are paid some serious money to officiate, have become mere spectators thanks to technology," Prabhakar lashed out.
Rubbishing ICC's claim that the umpires had made 95.8% correct decisions with a little help from technology, Prabhakar said, "What they are saying doesn't make sense. Test cricket is ultimate and everybody gives their heart out so why have space even for few errors? It should be an eye-opener for the ICC."
The former India medium pacer said ICC should toy with technology as much as they want in the limited versions of the game.
"Test cricket is real cricket and hence it should be left to on-field umpires to run it. The T20s and ODIs are artificial so even if they rely completely on technology it will not matter," he said.
0 comments:
Post a Comment