Is DRS for domestic cricket the right way forward? Or is it an unnecessary expense? Implications of this move in long term.
The Decision Review System, or DRS, is not just to remove human errors by umpires; it can also help batters improve their technique. India’s off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin pointed out how a DRS referral overturned a ‘not out’ decision to ‘out’ in the Duleep Trophy 2024 not because it was due to an umpiring error, but it was due to a batting error that could have saved the batter in the pre-DRS era.
BCCI’s decision to implement DRS in domestic matches is laudable, but is it worth it? Just a basic DRS would cost $12,000 to $15,000 per game. Is it really necessary to implement it in domestic cricket rather than spending the same money on more critical requirements of the board and cricket in general?
Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of having DRS in domestic cricket
Batters could identify technical errors and correct them
In the ongoing Duleep Trophy match, India D’s Ricky Bhui was trapped on the pads with a big front foot forward. India C bowler Manav Suthar’s appeal was turned down. However, the decision was overturned on DRS, and Bhui had to go back to the pavilion.
Ashwin pointed out that “this was not a faulty technique pre-DRS, but now it is. Back in the day, batters were given not out just because they managed to get on the front foot. Now, keeping your bat behind the pad can be fatal.” Ashwin also said if not for DRS pointing out this flaw, a player “could very well take an entire test series to understand what he needs to work on and his career could well be over.”
Bhui would be a mature batter now with this experience and would work on correcting his technique against spin bowling to become a better player. This experience would also help other domestic cricketers to correct the flaws in their batting.
Reduces human errors
There have been many instances when an incorrect decision has changed the course of the game and even tournaments. If DRS improves domestic cricket with better umpiring, it's worth the cost of the technology. Being the richest cricket board, BCCI has the necessary funds to afford such costly technology, raising the standards of the game in the country.
Does the cost make for a good bargain?
Just having a four-camera DRS system would cost $12,000 to $15,000 per game. If more advanced technology such as Hawk-eye, UltraEdge, and Hotspot is deployed, the cost would rise exponentially. It would go up to $100,000 for ODIs and T20Is and up to $300,000 to $500,000 for Tests.
BCCI may be a rich board, but this amount of funds could be utilised for other important facets of the game. BCCI could use the money to raise the standards of the game in the country, improve the cricketing infrastructure, and help cricket grow in territories that lack the basic amenities for the gentleman’s game. It could also pump money to improve women’s cricket in the country, as the eves have shown they have the potential to win matches and tournaments. Such a move could inspire a generation of girls to take up the sport.
If the BCCI thinks DRS is needed in domestic cricket, they could employ the technology in knockout matches where a wrong decision could make the difference between who lifts the trophy and who ends up as runners-up.
Comments