The Decision Review System (DRS) has become a hot topic at the Duleep Trophy, with renowned Indian cricketer R. Ashwin pointing out its significant impact on batting techniques. Ashwin cited the dismissal of Ricky Bhui, who was given out leg before wicket by Manav Suthar on the second day of the first round match between India C and India D. The umpire initially deemed Bhui not out, but the decision was overturned after a review by India C.
Ashwin took to X (formerly Twitter) to express his perspective, stating, “DRS for domestic cricket is not just for the right decisions to be made. Ricky Bhui’s dismissal last evening against Manav Suthar is a classic case of a batter who will get away with this technique 10/10 times in FC cricket. 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.” He believes that DRS forces batters to be more careful with their technique, as previously accepted flaws are now being penalized.
Former Ranji Trophy umpire B.K. Ravi explained the reasoning behind the initial not out decision from the umpire’s perspective. He explained that the margin of error in DRS, particularly when the ball travels a greater distance due to the batter being on the front foot, often favors the batter in close calls. “The hawk eye shows the trajectory right from the release point. However, many times, the ball appears to be virtually hitting the stumps, but hawk eye shows it to be missing. Now, when the batter is on the front foot, the possibility of missing is slightly higher. Whenever there is a fifty-fifty call, the benefit goes to the batter. Hence, when a batter is on the front foot, we do not give out due to the possibility of missing,” Ravi said.
Despite the debate surrounding its impact on batting techniques, players have overwhelmingly praised the use of DRS in domestic cricket. Ricky Bhui, who was given out by DRS, acknowledged the technology’s benefits, stating, “It is a great initiative. I have been playing domestic cricket since the last 10 years and there have been a lot of instances where I have been given out wrongly. As a batter, it is hard. You get one chance and then you get given out by a wrong decision. Technique wise, it does not change anything. But yes, we have an added advantage. Both teams, in fact. And it is sort of fair play, we are using technology for the betterment of the game.”
Manav Suthar, who claimed a seven-wicket haul in the second innings and benefited from DRS on two occasions, highlighted its crucial role in close calls. “On the Padikkal wicket, I was not very sure. But the wicketkeeper Abishek Porel was certain there was glove involved. We were able to convince our captain and we ended up getting the wicket. So, in those kinds of situations, it helps,” Suthar said.
The DRS was utilized 13 times during India C’s match against India D, with three decisions overturned. In the match between India A and India B, the system was used 15 times, with only two correct decisions. The implementation of the no-ball tracking system, controlled by the third umpire, has also revealed a higher occurrence of overstepping by bowlers in both matches. Akash Deep of India A and Saransh Jain of India D were caught repeatedly overstepping, with the India A versus India B match witnessing as many as 19 no balls over the four innings.
Umpire Ravi acknowledged that the third umpire’s involvement in checking for no balls significantly reduces human error. “Sometimes, we miss it as well. Wherever it is touch and go, we give it in favour of the bowler. If the batter is dismissed they can always go back and check it. But if I call a no-ball, and it turns out to be a legal delivery, that would be unfair because the bowler does not have an option to check that. That’s why it is better to wait for it [third umpire’s call]. “The other is, what everyone sees is the side on angle. It is easier to see from that angle. The umpire stands roughly 10 feet away from the crease. You can miss it from that angle at times.”
The debate surrounding DRS extends beyond the current Duleep Trophy. Teams and coaches have consistently advocated for full-time DRS implementation in domestic tournaments. The technology was initially introduced in the 2019/20 season, but its use was primarily limited to televised, high-profile matches. Madhya Pradesh coach Chandrakant Pandit had expressed his dissatisfaction with this limited use during his team’s Ranji Trophy semifinal against Vidarbha, where DRS was available for only one of the two semifinals. “I’m sure the BCCI should look into this matter. It’s only the BCCI that can decide. It is not the association which can. I think fair opportunities should be given, and if you’re playing in a big tournament it is unfair that one team has DRS and the other does no,” Pandit had stated in March.
Despite the clear benefits of DRS for improving accuracy and ensuring fairness, the substantial financial investment and infrastructure required for setting it up has hindered its widespread implementation across all domestic matches. As umpire Ravi stated, “Definitely, it will be good from the umpires’ and players’ point of view. In many cases, the umpire’s decisions have been overturned. But earlier, players used to complain throughout the match, pinning the blame on the umpire. These things can affect the judgement of an umpire in the back of the mind. DRS provides clarity. But it’s pretty expensive which means not a lot of grounds can set it up.”
The debate around DRS continues, with the BCCI facing a crucial decision on whether to invest in its full-scale implementation across all domestic cricket tournaments. The current Duleep Trophy is offering valuable insights into the pros and cons of the technology, highlighting its potential to enhance the game while acknowledging the financial limitations that stand in its way.
