With many doubtful decisions marring recent Test series between India, New Zealand, the spotlight is back on India's insistence on not accepting referral system
BISHAN SINGH BEDI, left-arm spin legend and former India captain:
I am for anything which is uniform. If you don't want, let the entire lot not have it. I have faith in the two gentlemen standing in the middle. If there is technology available, I don't see any reason why one or two countries should not have it. We are in a way not following the uniformity of it all by not having it. If somebody is looking for 100 per cent accuracy, DRS is not 100 per cent accurate. Cricket is not 100 per cent accurate. If cricket is so unpredictable, how can any technology associated with the game be predictable. Eventually, they will have to tow the line. And then, it might be too late for that particular set of players to adjust and understand the importance of DRS, when and how to avail it. Whereas Australia and South Africa are serious, we will take that much long to adjust ourselves.
This attitude of not agreeing to it smacks of unwanted angst.
My explanation is quite simple. If the entire world is having it, why not Indians? Bangladesh is having it. Sri Lanka is having it. Why not us?
DEEP DASGUPTA, former India wicketkeeper-turned-analyst:
I am against the current format of DRS. First of all, the whole idea of a player actually challenging the authority is fundamentally undesirable. As kids, we have been told that umpire's decision is final. Irrespective of how many times you are allowed, you are still challenging it. Secondly, the ball-tracking system and the inception points are manually done and possibly by somebody who has not played the game or have the eye for it. The DRS is as accurate as humanely possible. I'd rather have errors coming from the on-field umpires than from somebody sitting in the room tracking the ball.
DRS, per se, should be mandatory across all international games. We can't say, "this series we will have it and the next series, we will not have it". All international games are equally important and the rules have to be the same for everyone.
If I were to change it, I will change it in a very simple way. I am all for the use of technology. There are two on-field umpires, a third umpire, a fourth umpire and a match referee. There is a group of five match officials. If there is a mistake made, the third umpire or the referee can point it out to the on-field umpire with the help of replays. the quick turnaround time for replays make it a practical proposition as well. As a player, I don't have to challenge the umpires who can sort out the mistakes among themselves.
MANINDER SINGH, former India left-arm spinner:
I'm all for DRS except that the on-field umpire should have the last word in judging the leg-before wicket (LBW) decisions. DRS has actually given a level-playing field for both the teams because now every player understands that TV replays are pretty safe and margin of error is just negligible.
But when it comes to LBW decision, anyone who has played cricket knows that pitch behaves in a very funny way. Nowhere in the world does a pitch behave in a similar manner in every session or each day. That's why the umpire should only be told about whether ball hit the pad first or the bat. The bounce should be left to the umpire as he knows exactly how the pitch is behaving that time. Computer has a format and based on that it, calculates the bounce factor. And, that's where the problem comes.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Bishan Singh Bedi")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}