David Leggat: India play ball over umpiring system

Niranjan Shah (left) and M S Dhoni. Photo / Simon Baker

So who won, the International Cricket Council or India?

Or should it be a case of hang how it got there, just enjoy the fact that cricket is the, ahem, winner with the Umpire Decision Review System getting approval for all test and ODI matches?

The ICC chief executives' committee accepted the unanimous recommendation of the international body's powerful cricket committee that the UDRS be used in every series - including the infra-red Hot Spot and snickometer, but excluding Hawkeye, the device which allowed ball tracking.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India has long opposed the UDRS - specifically any ball-tracking system, which they don't trust - and which until now has required both teams to approve it for it to be used in a series.

India claim their position hasn't changed, ergo they have not been beaten by the ICC. They wanted Hot Spot, didn't want a bar of Hawkeye, therefore they're satisfied.

The ICC, having their annual conference in Hong Kong this week, are simply pleased the UDRS has been approved, albeit in a watered-down version.

It said further research would be carried out on ball-tracking technology, its accuracy and reliability. However if two countries want to use the Hawkeye in a bilateral series they can.

Unanimous was also the word belatedly being used by the ICC to cover the introduction of the UDRS.

So all is sweetness and light in the world of cricket technology.

No mention has been made of who will fork out the cost of the equipment. The candidates include the home nation, the ICC, a worldwide sponsor or a splitting of the costs between countries in a bilateral series.

That will come later. Opinions vary. BCCI vice-president Niranjan Shah claims it was as high as US$60,000 ($74,400) a match. The ICC reckons it to be more like US$5000 a day.

Having no ball-tracking does throw up a couple of curve balls.

A batsman will survive an lbw appeal if Hot Spot shows he struck the ball with his bat first; but could be given out even if Hawkeye would have shown the ball clearly pitching outside the leg stump before hitting his pads. A batsman cannot be given lbw if the ball lands there.

The problem with ball-tracking is the occasions when deliveries appear to have taken a greater deviation than the eye anticipates once passing the batsman's pads.

Indian superstar Sachin Tendulkar survived one such situation during the World Cup semifinal against Pakistan in March.

He was given out lbw when struck by a ball which both landed, and then struck his pad in line with the stumps, before the ball-tracker suggested it took a significant swerve to miss the leg stump.

Even the umpire, Ian Gould, shook his head in apparent bemusement at that one.

The fact that all other test-playing nations wanted the UDRS may have weighed on the Indians, who seemed to take the view of the puzzled mother watching little Johnny marching in the school band, and wondering why everyone else was out of step with her boy.

So this is a victory for the art of compromise.

"It is a compromise until all the countries are totally convinced about it," former New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming said yesterday.

India will use the UDRS for the first time since 2008 against England next month.

There are other large fish to be fried in the next couple of days, mostly involving the BCCI. So however it arrived, you take the UDRS and move on.

New Zealand's first series under the new review system - two unsuccessful appeals per test innings, one in ODIs - won't come until they visit Zimbabwe in October.