BCCI's nod for DRS a significant step

The BCCI finally accepting DRS last week is the most significant development in the sport in recent years, though upstaged for news value by the Supreme Court turning the screws further on the Indian cricket establishment.

But there is a connection, if somewhat nebulous, between these two instances that needs highlighting. Essentially, both are leading to the BCCI's profile and positioning getting redefined: as custodian, not owner, of Indian cricket.

Take the case of DRS, which has been a prickly issue in the sport over the past eight years because of the BCCI's opposition: this, after being among the first two countries (Sri Lanka was the other) to see its being implemented in Test cricket in 2008.

That India got the worse of reviews in that series is touted as the reason for the BCCI backing out subsequently. I would rather believe that this was for reasons of imperfect technology, as the Board has since argued, and which was even accepted by technology providers.

However, this led to the strange scenario of most teams playing with DRS and BCCI the lone opposing voice. (Some other countries could not use it at times because of high cost). This fit poorly with how the sport was administered.

It is not my case that DRS should have been accepted unthinkingly by the BCCI. But it is certainly my case that there could have been no differing yardsticks for different teams playing the same sport at the same level. This was in contravention to the logic of sport.

Is it conceivable that Hawkeye (or any other technology) would be deployed say for the Davis Cup for all countries barring one? It hardly needs explaining that this would clearly make the conduct of the tournament (and the sport) nonsensical.

Strangely, as it played out over the years, the BCCI accepted DRS in ICC tournaments but not in bilateral contests. This flip-flop approach not only made the situation even more ridiculous, but also caused deep heartburn in other Boards.

If it had the clout to disregard the clamour from other Boards for acceptance, the BCCI had the same power to argue for DRS to be suspended till the technology became acceptable. It is pertinent to remember that most ICC presidents since 2008 have been from India.

This would have made the sport more cogent and fairer — to players and fans. Several Indian players and almost without exception all fans wanted DRS. A few star players were admittedly didn't. The BCCI used their objection initially before veering towards imperfect technology' to build on its objections.

In doing so, it projected itself as the owner of not just Indian cricket, but the sport itself, rather than its most influential custodian. Instead of showing intent for the betterment of the sport, the BCCI chose to play recalcitrant bully and spoilsport.
With younger players (like Test captain Virat Kohli), speaking in favour of DRS, supported reportedly by coach Anil Kumble, the situation has changed. All told, the BCCI has had to climb down a peg or two because of changed circumstances.

In some way, the BCCI’s standoffish approach has also been a major factor in the unseemly row with the Supreme Court over reforms mooted by Justice RM Lodha. Now it finds itself at the receiving end of a flurry of big hits from the judiciary in the ‘slog overs’, as it were.

I’ve argued earlier, some of the reforms mooted are extremely harsh. For instance, in the demand for one state-one association-one vote, equating Manipur or Puduchery with Mumbai or Baroda (cricket associations) would be a travesty.

The scope for conscionable debate and reasonable negotiation, however, was squandered by the BCCI’s defiance in the past 12-15 months. So much so that the SC now also appears to see any dialogue as attempt to subvert the judiciary. With the facility to even handle its own funds — among other things — choked last week, it remains to be seen how the BCCI manages things from here.

The option to lodge a curative petition in case the Supreme Court order is completely adverse exists. In the interest of Indian cricket, so much better if things hadn’t come to this pass.