Oh well, both teams will have the same rules.
Anyway, can't the ICC tell each board to use them or is that to simple?

The fact that the umpire had given Bell not out before DRS was requested is ignored. So without DRS India would still not have got his wicket.

Thats where lies India's opposition, me think. If you cant correct umpires decision after using DRS then why use it. In case of Bell, umpires missed an opportunity to impress all in favor of DRS.

I think BCCI will agree when such little loop holes in application of DRS are plugged

"If you cant correct umpires decision after using DRS then why use it."

But you can.
Just not in every case.

Thats right but whatever you cant without justification lefts bad taste. People feel cheated by7 this selective decision after UDRS. Hence the opposition by BCCI me thinks.

but toofan,,,nothing is perfect...and bcci's expectation to be so is just a pretending....
infact the technology has increased the accuracy of the decisions,so many bad decisions have been rectified by the technology......and technology in this case is aid to the field umpires not their substitution..
remember ,,the umpires decision is held if the technology cant convince otherwise....
so why is BCCI's opposing it? is it because they cant use it well??or they think that their star batsman will be at advantage in close cases from field umpires????
or is it because their opponents england are using the technology so well??
sooner or later ,technology is here to state...

remember by your logic,,even run outs are not 100%perfect...
but the reason UDRS is here,is not because it is perfect,,,but to make the decision MORE correct...

Indiasoxs, I agree, I think BCCI will ultimately accept it. DRS if applied correctly is a good aid to umpires who should be open to correct their mistakes. It was pretty good in CWC barring a few bad decisions.

There is no logic to this decision - but it has been a long time since I understood a lot of sporting governing bodies

I came across these articles about Hawkeye and Virtual eye which are pretty controversial and make the BCCI doubts more credible.

http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/2010/06/problems-with-hawkeye.html

http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/2010/10/hawkeye-and-virtual-eye.html

Virtual eye was used in the last ashes series and I remember Hawkeye were claiming it was not as accurate as their own system.

At the end of the day the accuracy of the technology is less important than the willingness of the players to accept it's decisions.

I just hope that it rebounds on India massively this summer and they end up being shafted by decisions that Hawkeye or hotspot pick up on.
Technology moves faster than we can imagine and while these systems aren't perfect, they give the umpires more of a chance of being correct, so to dismiss them simply because they're not 100% accurate is like telling a bowler to give up because he bowls the odd bad ball, it's just backward thinking.

I hope India get a few dodgy mistakes against them..Then they won't be able to complain!

comment by ReallyReal (U5551)
I just hope that it rebounds on India massively this summer and they end up being shafted by decisions that Hawkeye or hotspot pick up on.

comment by sportfan (U7287)
I hope India get a few dodgy mistakes against them..Then they won't be able to complain!

_________________________________________
When India toured England in 2007, they had more than its share of dodgy decisions- both in the Tests and ODIs.
Tendulkar bore the brunt of three of them.
Here are four of them which I could find readily:

2nd Test
Tendulkar lbw Collingwood
Out for 91

3rd Test
Ganguly lbw Collingwood

7th ODI
Tendulkar c Prior b Flintoff
Out for 99 Tendulkar

7th ODI (series was 3-3)
Tendulkar c Prior b Flintoff

All of them clearly wrong decisions. India would have been most happy if an acceptable UDRS was in place.

First of all, I agree with the stand of the BCCI.
If all nations simply accept the present UDRS, then the ICC would NEVER look to perfect it.

They would just say- every nation has accepted it so that should be fine for now. Let's not fix it when it ain't broke.

So if the UDRS is firmly ensconced in place then it would be hard to change it.

We all agree it is imperfect. Cricket as such is an imperfect game and it would be unwise to add more complications.

Using replays to detect edges or wides or even blatant lbw appeals (like pitched outside leg-stump or hit outside off-stump etc) is OK.

But using an imperfect Hawkeye to make calls on marginal lbw appeals is plain stupid.

Even in Tennis, Hawkeye is only used to check WHERE THE BALL PITCHED and not where it would have gone etc.

Cricket would do well to follow Tennis in this regard.

And please let's stop with the quota for reviews. Let's give unlimited reviews for the batting team- let them review every single dismissal.
Not much time would be lost that way. Not more than what players to do waste time nowadays.
Three reviews for the bowling team should be enough.

Errata in my last comment:
Tendulkar was unfairly given out for 99 in the 2nd ODI and not the 7th ODI (he was given out unfairly in this ODI as well, but not for 99. These are two instances)

Rex the examples you have given were in games ehere DRS was not being used and the decisions were shown to be poor by the TV using Hawkeye to display to the public the errors.
Surely these examples should support the use of DRS rather than the converse.
If the BCCI wait until the technology is better they will wait for ever.

hopefor:
That's what I'm saying- those examples were times India suffered without the use of the DRS. Do you want India to suffer the same and make a farce out of this big Test series? Well that'll be great!

First up- I keep saying this and so does Tendulkar and Dhoni and many of the Indian players- that the DRS must not be used for maginal lbw calls.

The above were not marginal lbw calls! They were edges (clearly seen on TV) or lbw calls wherein the ball pitched outside legstump or impact outside off- these can be seen clearly from TV evidence.

But to measure the trajectory of the ball and predict its path from the point of impact is not an exact science and to use it as more than just a gimmick for the TV audience is unfair.

It's all fun for us fans watching it, but not at all fun for the players and unfair to the game.

For such calls DRS should not be used. But amazingly- marginal lbw calls have been what they have been most used for. That must be stopped.

That's why India oppose it. I'll write a separate article explaining what India want and why is that the right way to go about it.

Don't really care about DRS either way.

If I can gracefully accept and applaud a batsman who goes on to make a century after having dolly catches dropped when on 9, 18 and 23, I can also accept a few umpiring errors.

Far more important, I would think, to have the best umpires, the likes of Dar, Taufel, officiating. They do a far better job without DRS than a joker would do with it. I wish the ICC would expend their efforts towards finding the best umpires in the world for the international panel.

Doesn't make much sense to me to hire blind watchmen (Ashoka, Harper) in the first place, and then when they don't measure up to the task, give them loaded guns with the safety catch drawn (DRS) in the hope that that would cover up for their fundamental inadequacies.

Dhoni spoke about improving the standard of umpiring just last year.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-new-zealand-2010/content/story/486514.html

It's quite natural he says so, since one must understand that the presence of DRS makes us believe that even a child can make decisions on the field.

But that is not true- only top quality umpires must be out there and the DRS must be entrusted into their hands alone.

Many of the umpires themselves are woefully inept in handling the DRS (as inept as the players, which is not the players' fault since its not their job) and that is also one of the reasons BCCI does not want such power in the hands of idiots.