What is the reason behind the refusal of the Board Of Control For Cricket In India (BCCI) to accept DRS in cricket, while on the other hand most other major teams favour it?
The BCCI's position
The BCCI's opposition to the Decision Review System has been linked to three main factors.
1) The technology is not 100% accurate
BCCI president N Srinivasan said in December 2012:
We don't believe the technology is good enough [...] if you want to use technology it must be perfect. [...] I'm not against technology but one should be cautious and we should be clear what it is that we are trying to achieve. If you say my correct decision percentage has gone up from 94 to 95.6, is that all you are looking to achieve? It is relative.
Dave Richardson, the president of the ICC, suggested in March 2013 that unfavourable decisions against key India players may have contributed to the BCCI's opposition:
When they first trialled it [...] the technology wasn't very good. The players weren't used to it so every time the Indians asked for a review it went against them. I think it was Sehwag or one of their star batsmen who was given out by mistake by ball-tracking.
2) The umpire's decision is questioned
In his December 2012 interview, N Srinivasan commented:
In cricket the umpire's verdict is final [...] but now you're saying that I have two attempts to question [the umpire's] decision.
3) The system is expensive
N Srinivasan added:
There is a cost to DRS and there are only one or two people involved. It's a monopoly-area situation, which I am not going to go into here.
The ICC's position
1) DRS improves accuracy
Dave Richardson pointed out in February 2012:
If we use DRS, the percentage of correct decisions increases by approximately four to five percentage points, from 93% to 98%.
In the wake of the Trent Bridge Test of 2013, a match noted for a particularly high number of controversial umpiring decisions, the ICC observed that the number of correct decisions had increased from 90.3% to 95.8% through use of the DRS. Their press release declared:
Our confidence in technology is [...] strengthened by the fact that there was an increase in the number of correct decisions in the Trent Bridge Test through the use of the DRS. Technology was introduced with the objective of eradicating the obvious umpiring errors, and to get as many correct decisions as possible. If it can help increase the correct decisions by 5.5 percent, then it is a good outcome, but we must continue to strive to improve umpiring and the performance of the DRS.
2) DRS may improve the balance between bat and ball
Whilst urging caution in drawing conclusions too hastily, Richardson replied, in response to the suggestion that DRS should encourage batsman to use their bats more (because of the increase in LBW decisions):
Yes, it is going to bring about a change of technique. And that will improve things for everybody [...] A year ago, every Tom, Dick and Harry was averaging more than 50 in Test cricket. The balance between bat and ball had got out of kilter and experts were complaining. I think that using DRS may help redress that balance.
3) The cost is justified
It is expensive [...] In my view, cricket will pick up the cost [...] because eventually the broadcasters will include it in their budgeting. [...] The percentage of correct decisions increases [...] I think it is worth it. Technology is here to stay.
Because BCCI does not feel the DRS system is foolproof. See this article for more information.
Dave Richardson, the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) chief executive, has admitted that the technology that drives the Decision Review System (DRS) was not foolproof and that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does “have its own reasons” for opposing DRS.
Richardson’s comments follow the first Ashes Test between England and Australia at Trent Bridge, where a number of umpiring howlers coincided with a controversy surrounding the efficacy and use of DRS.