ICC’s impotence over UDRS

Nothing demonstrates the impotence of the ICC more than the drama surrounding the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS). They have recommended the use of the system across the board in international cricket. It would appear to be nothing more than routine for world cricket’s governing body to enforce the use of a system that enhances accuracy and lifts a significant amount of pressure off the umpires’ shoulders without decreasing their importance or authority in any way whatsoever (as demonstrated by the “On-Field Call” mechanism in Hawk-Eye). There is just one issue: The BCCI has persistently opposed the use of the DRS. They should have no qualms about that, though. The ICC will always have to take certain decisions that not every one of their members agrees with. But after all, that’s what they’re there for. They are the people supposed to make important decisions where their members are split, and split much more evenly sometimes than nine to one (yes, India are the only full ICC member opposing UDRS).
The only conceivable reason for India’s consistent refusal to use DRS is their series in Sri Lanka in July-August 2008. That was the first full bilateral series where the DRS was used, with Sri Lanka managing to overturn an astonishing eleven decisions, as opposed to India’s one. Since then, the BCCI has maintained an amateurish grudge against the system, and continued to successfully pressure sides to do away with the DRS in series that they have participated in.
To say that the system holds a grudge against a particular country (as India are effectively doing) is nothing short of ridiculous, and that is exactly how their attitude deserves to be treated. Without the DRS, India wouldn’t have made the World Cup final, when Sachin Tendulkar looked gone for all money against Saeed Ajmal on 23, until the DRS gave him a miraculous reprieve. Surely it can’t be all that bad?
The most astonishing defence of the stubborn refusal to use UDRS came last year when the BCCI President, no less, said he had looked into how the system worked for himself, and come to the conclusion it required a ‘leap of faith’. ‘How can one be certain that the track showed by the computers was the actual path taken by the ball?’ argued Srinivasan. ‘We are not prepared to take that leap of faith.’ That’s right, make up your own arguments to repel this stunning crime against logic. Srinivasan basically questioned the legitimacy of technology in general. Well, how can one be certain the computers that help airplanes land will be accurate for each flight, or that buildings built with the latest earthquake-proof technology will not collapse like a house of cards at the slightest tremor? We take leaps of faith (if indeed they can be called that) for matters rather more important than LBW decisions at times. The reason is that such technology has been subjected to intensive scrutiny before being approved, and hence this reliability on technology is evidence-based, not contingent on blind faith. Isn’t it a leap of faith to presume umpires, in their mind’s eyes, will be able to gauge accurately if the ball was going on to hit the stumps? If we are going to bring Cartesian doubt into the case, we might as well be consistent.
Another bone the Indian board picks with the UDRS is that the incremental increase in technology isn’t sizeable enough to warrant the increased expenses that come with using the system. It’s ironic that the richest cricket board in the world raises this particular issue. Well, implementing the system costs $50,000 per day, which means a quarter of a million dollars for a Test match. India plays an average of six home Test matches a year which means spending $1.5 million a year on the DRS. It’s interesting that the BCCI’s prudence kicks into action where the UDRS is concerned, yet the board has no qualms about sanctioning, and indeed investing in, a tournament which pays $2 million annually merely to acquire the services of Ravindra Jadeja.
This is not an isolated incident. The BCCI (obviously due to their financial muscle) have long influenced the ICC to get things done their way off the pitch. Take a look at the ill-fated Sydney Test in India’s tour to Australia in 2008, where India threatened to pull out after being victim to some poor umpiring decisions that ultimately proved decisive. How did the ICC react? At the BCCI’s insistence, they removed one of their most respected umpires, Steve Bucknor, from officiating in the rest of the series. Moreover, Harbhajan Singh got away with just a fine after racially abusing Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds. John Hansen, the New Zealand judge who was in charge of the trial, said that had the ICC provided him information about Harbhajan’s previous list of offences, he would have likely faced a lengthy ban. Without wanting to be a conspiracy theorist, why didn’t the ICC provide an impartial judge with the complete facts? The rhetorical question is inevitable: Would the ICC have taken the threat of any other full member anywhere near as seriously? One cannot imagine the ICC going to these lengths even for boards like the ACB or Cricket South Africa, let alone the Bangladesh or Zimbabwean cricket boards, even though all should be equal in front of the ICC. The simple reason is that these boards do not contribute to the ICC financially as the BCCI does (60% of the ICC’s financing comes from the BCCI).
Consider the issue of the Indian Premier League (IPL). It is not the first domestic tournament to involve overseas players, and it most certainly will not be the last. However, when the BCCI proposes that a window for the IPL be created in the Future Tours Program so that more foreign players can participate (who are more than willing to do so due to the ridiculous sums of money thrown at them), the ICC obliges. Tours are brought forward or postponed, and international cricket virtually stops for a month every year just so the BCCI can have a grand little tournament of their own. This has to stop somewhere and the ICC has a fabulous opportunity to do just that with a strong verdict on the DRS. India have said they will vote against the DRS when the issue comes up at the next ICC meeting, but that should not matter. It is up to the ICC to decide whether nine votes count more than one. It is up to them to establish that they have the integrity of a governing body. They need to draw a line somewhere, a line that the BCCI crossed a long time ago.