The main problem with the Umpire Decision Review System is that people expect it to solve all wrong decisions. Having said that, the new system seems to have achieved a perfect balance between the available technology and accuracy. The new system of decision referral has captured an overall positive feedback. This statement can be emphasized by the fact that even the BCCI (the governing body of ICC) has accepted these rules. The change actually restricts DRS from using hawkeye, or other ball tracking systems and reducing the number of referrals to one per team per inning.
Hawk eye is opposed due to the reason that it doesn’t guarantee perfect mapping of ball trajectory, angle and delivery variations. While it may predict the trajectories wrong, few of the wrong decisions are basically due to the pitching issue, for which hawk eye seems to be an ideal solution. However to make things more confusing, think about this... It is relatively easy to bribe TV technicians than umpires (maybe BCCI also thought like this)
BCCI mainly opposes the Australian based hot spot because of the estimated cost. The most interesting thing is that among all the cricket boards, it is BCCI that is actually opposing the cost issue. Very strange !!
UDRS when used with Hawk Eye, a ball tracker, a super slow motion camera and a stump microphone, Snickometer and Hotspot synchronously can eliminate most of the wrong decisions. However, the cost would be extremely high and the boards will start wishing that umpires make wrong decisions, so that these technologies become real useful.
The majority of UDRS decisions will be helpful for batsmen, i.e an inside edge when being adjudged LBW, or the ball just hitting the thigh pad when being adjudged caught. This is not good news for bowlers in a sport in which they barely have respect these days.
Umpires in cricket have a huge role, compared to other sports. And talking about the on field umpires, the general thought is that UDRS reduces the pressure on them. Here again there is a contradiction. Umpire Daryll Harper, who had a rather ordinary India - Windies series has said “Technology is not the aid it is claimed to be in reviewing on-field decisions”.
To those who fear about whether these changes would actually benefit cricket, the answer would be that, the super sub rule was actually implemented with the above intention. But once they felt it did not receive enough support, the rule was discarded. So, the game always evolves constructively over time. And there can be a trial period for all experiments. While other sports have incorporated technology, this is the right time for cricket to evolve too.
