Is DRS technology the problem or the solution?

Coaches and batsmen, the world over, try hard, match after match, to simplify things. There is no reason to complicate them as complications generally lead to trouble. At least that is how things are supposed to be. So then why are the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the International Cricket Council trying so hard to muddy the DRS (Decision Review System) waters? Rather than seem like the solution, technology looks very much like a problem that is threatening to divide cricket yet again. The world of sport is grey. There is never any clear demarcation between right and wrong; between black and white. What’s right for one team may be wrong for the other and vice versa. One team may be inclined to take a decision sportingly, while the other may crib about it no end. The decision that claimed Rahul Dravid in the first ODIs allowed internet users all over to vent their anger yet again. The DRS system was rechristened by some as a Dravid Removal System and still more called UDRS, the Unwanted Dravid Removal System. [caption id=“attachment_76859” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Rahul Dravid, after being dismissed in the first ODI against England. AP”]  [/caption] It was a close call but there was little evidence to suggest that all doubt regarding the decision had been eliminated thanks to technology. Dravid should have got the benefit of the doubt, say India’s supporters. England’s supporters, on the other hand, shrugged their shoulders and got on with the game. In their eyes, DRS was awesome. Hot Spot, it has been shown many times during the series, isn’t as reliable as the BCCI, Sachin Tendulkar, Mahendra Singh Dhoni and various other Indian players thought it would be. Perhaps, it’s only as good as Hawkeye – the tech that the BCCI so hated. Now, maybe, it’s worse. As the uproar grew, the ICC quickly threw up some numbers in our face. Before DRS was applied, the number of correct decisions in the England-India were pegged at 93.35. After the use of DRS, the numbers went up to 96.31. Still short of the 100 per cent success rate that the BCCI is demanding; still short of perfection. Is there scope for perfection in an imperfect world? For some reason, the BCCI believes there is. The whole theory of technology helping improve the success rate of correct decision is lost on them. It’s either all right or all wrong. There is no grey area, according to the BCCI… maybe there isn’t. Do we ever achieve perfection? We always strive for it, right? But do we ever get there? Has any sportsman managed to achieve perfection consistently? Has any cricketer every managed to get it right every time they go out to bat or bowl or field? The answer to that question is obviously no but we expect the umpires to achieve that. Is it fair? Even with technology it’s almost impossible to get it right every time. So maybe cricket needs to do what coaches and players try to do all the time – simplify things. Junk technology and stick with umpires. Football has stuck with referees and avoided technology in the face of some vociferous criticism and only now are they considering goal-line technology. But even without technology, it’s doing fine; it’s only the most popular sport on the planet. Other sports like basketball also restrict the role of technology. Perhaps cricket should follow suit and use technology just for run-outs – that was fun as well. Let the umpires take all the other decisions. Keep neutral umpires around — it is a system that definitely works. Technology is good for television, so keep it there and off the field. Over time, the players will learn to respect the umpire. And if they think an umpire is especially bad, they can always complain to the ICC in the post-match report. Sport is all about rising above the odds and perhaps, even against the odds. But the human element of all sports only makes us fall more in love with it. So cricket basically needs to turn back the clock and move to a simpler, fairer time – when humans mattered.