Tennis anyone?.....DRS everyone?

An interesting photo flashed around the sporting world yesterday. It was a snapshot from Wimbledon of Roger Federer chatting to Sachin Tendulkar following the former’s latest third round cruise over David Nalbandian of Argentina.

Federer is in the midst of his remarkable quest to win his 17th Grand Slam title while Tendulkar was clearly enjoying a rare day away from his cricket cauldron. The captured conversation on the players’ balcony between the icons lasted one hour. Earlier Nalbandian lasted an hour and 45 minutes.

What struck me as the two exchanged pleasantries was what the topic of conversation they were both clearly enjoying could possibly be? The cynical side of me decided on Hawk-Eye. Why not? Both their respective sports engage that technology for decision making. In both some embrace it more than others.

The important and common thread with this theme is that all are entitled to their own opinions. That is a right. To put that in perspective, I for one believe that technology should be used for sporting adjudication, provided the quality is standardised.

I have no doubt that it reduces the number of mistakes and is a preference over potential human error. In saying that, this photograph from London yesterday that bounced around sports editors’ offices globally depicted two of the planet’s best ever sportsmen who share a common belief that they don’t totally trust the use of technology for decision making. That in itself warrants recognition and respect.

As you are aware the ICC’s annual conference attended by all pertinent stakeholders is currently under way in Hong Kong. One eagerly anticipated topic on the agenda is whether the implementation of the Decision Review System (DRS) should be obligatory at international level. The powerhouse of the game thinks not.

This current frustrating situation is a consequence of many positives, but also some oversights. The ICC need to be congratulated for being proactive on this matter and for their enthusiasm to execute. However they clearly did not think it all through at the outset. All countries, except the BCCI, are supportive of the use of technology but we all know when it comes to the crunch, things can change dramatically come ballot time. Behind the scenes wheeling and dealing is common place in these environments and do not underestimate the power of an Indian cricketing promise or two.

Many things need to be considered in Hong Kong over the next few days. First and foremost is whether a consensus on this subject can be reached. Should that not be the case, that would be a massive setback if the first hurdle was not overcome and BCCI stubbornness ruled the day.

Another aspect worth dialogue is whether a compromise can be reached where generally trusted components such as Hot Spot and super slow motion cameras are permitted to be used without Hawk-Eye or Virtual Eye? That may well be a short term trade off to placate current concerns but in my mind defeats the purpose.

Long term it should be all or nothing so that confusion is minimised, consistency reigns and the sum of all parts concludes correctly.

Recently the Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations, which for one reason or another does not include players from India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe, asked its members if DRS should be mandatory at international level. Tellingly 97% of the members voted in the affirmative. The mere fact that the majority of international players who operate at ground zero are supportive also warrants respect.

The other major stumbling block will be economic, and rightly so. There is no way in today’s financial climate that cricket boards or those responsible for the television production should be expected to miraculously bear the substantial costs. This is one area where the ICC should have used their considerable influence and found a willing global sponsor who will reap the rewards of significant airtime.

This decision is obviously not going to be a simple one and the discussions will be fraught with illogical explanations and sadly a distinct lack of understanding of the technology in question.

Personally I hope common sense prevails and I would also suggest a revisit as to why it was felt necessary to initiate technological assistance. It was primarily introduced to protect the players from the sporadic ‘howlers’ from the umpires. Although we have moved on from that it is not a bad idea to backtrack and acknowledge that reasoning.

No one can dispute that effectiveness.

Not even Roger or Sachin.