Cricket

DRS Accuracy Concerns Raised by Harbhajan SinghFormer Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh has expressed skepticism about the accuracy of the Decision Review System (DRS) in judging the bounce of the ball. Speaking on the 180 Not Out podcast, Harbhajan questioned the system's ability to determine the exact trajectory of the ball, particularly in relation to the wicket.Harbhajan's concerns stem from the fundamental principle of cricket, which dictates that any ball that hits the wicket results in a dismissal. However, he believes that DRS often fails to adhere to this rule, leading to inconsistent and sometimes questionable decisions."I'm not fully inclined to believe that it is entirely accurate because it cannot judge the bounce of the ball and how much it is bouncing," Harbhajan said. "Another thing that bothers me is that when we start playing cricket in the neighborhood, we are shown the wicket and told that if the ball hits the wicket, you're out."Harbhajan also criticized the inconsistency in applying DRS decisions by umpires. He cited instances where umpires have upheld not-out decisions despite clear evidence from the technology that the ball hit the stumps."If the umpire has given a not out, and DRS clearly shows the ball hitting the stumps, it should be given out," Harbhajan argued. "But we sometimes use the umpire's decision and retain the not out verdict. Aap technology ko la bhi rahe ho aur uski baat bhi nahi maan rahe (You are bringing in technology but not accepting its decision)."In contrast, former India pacer S Sreesanth expressed a more positive view towards technology in cricket, but with some reservations. He acknowledged the potential benefits of technology in improving decision-making, but cautioned against relying on it completely."Technology, if used wisely, is brilliant because you've got to accept the change, but don't depend on it completely," Sreesanth said.The debate over the accuracy and consistency of DRS continues to stir controversy in cricket. The recent incident involving Virat Kohli's dismissal in the 2024 Indian Premier League has reignited the discussion about the efficacy of technology in the sport.

England spinner Shoaib Bashir became the subject of amusement during the fifth Test against India on Saturday, when he mistakenly requested a DRS review after being bowled. During the 46th over of England's second innings, Ravindra Jadeja's delivery clipped Bashir's off-stump, but the spinner, assuming he had been caught behind, opted for the DRS.Bashir's comical gesture drew laughter from fans and former England spinner Graeme Swann, while his non-striker, Joe Root, couldn't help but smile. The incident came after Bashir had been criticized for his fiery send-offs during the match.Earlier in the day, Bashir had claimed his second five-wicket haul of the series, helping to dismiss India for 477. However, India's Ravichandran Ashwin stole the show, taking a five-wicket haul in his landmark 100th Test.India's dominance continued as they hammered England by an innings and 64 runs, clinching the series 4-1. England's James Anderson reached 700 Test wickets, becoming only the third bowler to achieve the feat.Ashwin's off-spin proved devastating for England, bowling them out for 195 within three days. The victory was a testament to Ashwin's skill and India's overall superiority in the series.

Rohit Sharma's DRS Blunder Costs India Wicket in Dharamsala TestDuring England's first innings in the Dharamsala Test, Indian captain Rohit Sharma made a costly DRS error that allowed Zak Crawley to survive a clear edge. On the fifth ball of the 26th over, Crawley missed a glance shot off Kuldeep Yadav's bowling, and the ball hit wicketkeeper Dhruv Jurel and lobbed towards the leg side. Sarfaraz Khan grabbed the ball before it hit the ground, sparking a massive appeal from India.Despite Sarfaraz's insistence, Rohit initially declined the request for a DRS review. However, replays and UltraEdge confirmed that Crawley had indeed edged the ball. The Indian skipper was left laughing in disbelief as Sarfaraz smiled wryly.This error proved costly for India, as Crawley went on to score a crucial 56 runs, helping England reach a respectable total of 218 in their first innings. The fragility of England's batters against spin was once again exposed, with Kuldeep Yadav claiming a five-wicket haul.In contrast, India showed their dominance on the flat track, cruising to 135 for one at stumps on day one. Rohit Sharma (52*) and Yashasvi Jaiswal (57) put on a 104-run opening stand, the highest of the series for India. Jaiswal became only the second Indian to amass 700 runs in a series, after Sunil Gavaskar.The Indian pacers and spinners struggled to make an impact compared to their English counterparts. Jaiswal took advantage of this, smashing three sixes off Shoaib Bashir in his first over. Rohit Sharma also played confidently, hitting two maximums.At the close of play, India were in a strong position, with Rohit and Shubman Gill (26*) at the crease. The hosts will be looking to build on their advantage and secure a series victory in the final Test.

Controversial LBW Decision Sparks Outrage in Women's Premier LeagueIn a bizarre turn of events during the Women's Premier League (WPL) 2024 match between UP Warriorz and Royal Challengers Bangalore, UP Warriorz' Chamari Athapaththu was controversially dismissed LBW. The incident has raised questions about the accuracy of the Decision Review System (DRS).Facing a delivery from Georgia Wareham, Athapaththu was initially given not out by the on-field umpire. However, RCB captain Smriti Mandhana opted for a review. To the astonishment of the players and spectators, the ball-tracking technology showed that the delivery would have hit the stumps, suggesting it was a googly and not a leg-spinner as initially perceived.The decision left Athapaththu and her non-striking partner Alyssa Healy perplexed. Healy was caught on camera exclaiming "no way, no way" in disbelief. The dismissal proved to be a turning point in the match, as UP Warriorz went on to lose by 23 runs.UP Warriorz coach Simon Lewis expressed his frustration with the decision. "You watch the ball with the naked eye, and you think it might pitch in line, just maybe," Lewis said. "Then you look at the ball rotating, and well, it's rotating like a legspinner. There are not many legspinners that go towards that [other] side. It was a fascinating dismissal and a massive turning point for us in that game."Lewis believes that if Athapaththu had remained at the crease for a longer period, the outcome of the match could have been different. "Chamari is an amazing player and you saw how difficult it was when a left-hander and a right-hander were batting together, of the quality of Smriti [Mandhana] and Ellyse Perry," Lewis said. "To lose her in that way was incredibly frustrating."The incident has sparked concerns about the reliability of DRS. Cricket experts and fans have questioned whether the technology is accurate enough to make such crucial decisions. The International Cricket Council (ICC) has yet to comment on the matter.

Joe Root's controversial LBW dismissal in the fourth India-England Test in Ranchi has sparked a heated debate over the use of DRS (decision review system). The England camp has vehemently criticized the technology, demanding its abolition, while former skipper Michael Vaughan has labeled Root's dismissal a "shocker."Paul Hawkins, founder of Hawk-Eye, the technology provider for DRS, has hit back at Vaughan's comments, dismissing them as "uneducated." He maintains that the correct decision was made by third umpire Joel Wilson in overturning on-field umpire Kumar Dharmasena's call.Hawkins has accused Vaughan of lacking understanding of the technology and its operation. He has urged journalists to be more responsible in their reporting and to ensure factual accuracy.Vaughan, in response, has demanded full transparency from Hawk-Eye, requesting them to demonstrate the exact workings of the system. He believes that this will help dispel any misconceptions and provide a clearer understanding of how DRS operates.The DRS controversy has cast a shadow over the ongoing Test series, which India has already clinched with an unassailable 3-1 lead. The fifth and final game will commence in Dharamsala on March 7.

England's Test captain Ben Stokes has once again expressed his frustration with the 'umpire's call' rule in the Decision Review System (DRS), which he believes has cost his team wickets during their tour of India. Stokes pointed to the dismissal of opener Zak Crawley in the second innings of the Rajkot Test as an example, arguing that the ball was clearly missing the stumps but was given out due to the 'umpire's call'.Stokes's concerns are shared by former England captain Nasser Hussain, who agrees that the Crawley dismissal was incorrect. However, Hussain believes that the 'umpire's call' is an important part of the DRS system, as it accounts for the margin of error in the technology."Technology can be fallible, but I've always been very strong on the fact I like the DRS and I also like the umpire's call," Hussain wrote in his Daily Mail column. "Look at the shemozzle with VAR in football. It's just not like that in cricket. Stokes and others like Virat Kohli may want to get rid of it, but the umpire's call is not there to protect the officials; it's there because of the margin of error in the technology."Hussain also pointed out that there have been changes to the DRS system in recent years, including increasing the height at which the ball can clip the bails. This means that some LBW decisions that would have previously been given out are now being overturned."Bear in mind, also, there have been a couple of changes in the system and the ball can now clip the top of the bails," Hussain said. "The LBWs for Ollie Pope and Zak Crawley in the third Test did look high, but they have increased the height by 1.3 centimeters. One thing I will agree on with Ben. He said the visual of Crawley's dismissal showed the ball missing the stumps. If that's the case, you can't have that."The debate over the 'umpire's call' is likely to continue, with strong arguments on both sides. However, it is clear that the system is not perfect and there is room for improvement.