The DRS debate

The buzz word for the week has been technology. Cricketers, both past and present, across the world have been debating about the implementation of the DRS (Decision Review System) in the tournaments.

The BCCI, has surprisingly been a vociferous critic of this system from time immemorial, saying that technology is not entirely reliable. Though the DRS was used in the recently concluded World Cup, Indians have never been big fans of the same. Almost every other country has got no issue with the system except for the Indian Board and some of the Indian players.

The DRS allows a team to challenge the decision of the on field umpire, twice in an innings. The challenged decision thus goes to the third umpire, who makes the use of technology (currently only Hawkeye is used), and suggests to the umpire based on his observations. The field umpire then, either stands by his decision or reverses it, based on the inputs of the third umpire.

So why is BCCI so bluntly against it when everyone else prefers it? They say technology isnt fully reliable. Hawkeye, for example, may predict the trajectory with a reasonable amount of accuracy, but doesn’t predict the bounce present in the wicket. Fine, but so are humans. And we are not entirely relying on technology, are we? The only suggestion is to refer to the third item, in case the players feel that a wrong decision has been made. I think it is absolutely fair, considering that games have become all the more competitive these days and over a period of time, even a small mistake can turn the fortunes. With technology being available, I think we should make use of it.

When we are using technology in all other aspects of our lives, to make it better, why not in sports? There may be apprehensions that over the years, technology may completely replace on field umpires. I don’t even see a problem with that. Why is it always necessary to depend on humans for everything, especially when you have better alternatives available? These days, even the on field umpires go up for run outs and stumpings, most of which are fairly clear, only to be doubly sure that they don’t make a wrong decision which makes one team pay dearly. When you have an option, why not use it?

I was reading an article somewhere a few days back, and as the author had said, cricket itself has evolved over the years. We have moved on from Test matches with a rest day in between, 60 overs ODIs to 50 overs, protective equipments have increasingly been used, technology too has been increasingly used in terms of stump cameras, microphones and so on, we are playing Day and Night matches now, cricketers wear colored clothing these days, experiments have been made on the colour of the balls used for the game. So, I think we should just look at it as if it is just another chapter in the evolution of the game. Things from the past, become obsolete and have to be discarded, and we have to move on.