India's refusal for referrals could be a problem

At some stage within the next week or two, India's cricket hierarchy will indulge in their best Shilpa Shetty act and tell South Africa how laws for visitors work.

Having told Sri Lanka and Bangladesh as well that India were not going to use the umpires decision review system (UDRS) in their Test series, they may want to chance their luck and tell South Africa how the same 'rules apply'. But here there could be a problem.

Touring captain Graeme Smith and England's Andrew Strauss, have suggested that the system has been trialled with some success in the Basil D'Oliveira Trophy series. This is despite the England coach, Andy Flower voicing his reservations as the South Africa TV company used for the UDRS couldn't afford the costs needed to have the HotSpot facility or the second camera, which were used in New Zealand for the Pakistan series and now Australia. And the excuse they gave Sri Lanka last year for non compliance of the technology: who is to pay for it.

Sure there are still concerns about some of the technology used; this includes camera work as well as how each producer has a different idea of camera uses to help the umpires and which is not as straightforward as could be expected. Yet the Indian board, still wrangling with the International Cricket Council over the Kotla pitch ignominy created by the disreputable Delhi District Cricket Association, may also now be asked to explain this time their reluctance to use the referral system against South Africa.

If you examine the background of how the ICC decided to trial it in the Tests, with the first being between India and Sri Lanka during the three-match series on the island in July and August 2008, it was India who wanted it in the first place. They had in early January 2008 threatened all but 'weapons of mass destruction' to tear apart the ICC if they didn't replace the lanky Jamaican Steve Bucknor in the Test series against Australia after three decisions in the Sydney New Year Test along with a three Test match ban on Harbhajan Singh over accusation of 'racial abuse' of Andrew Symonds.

It was the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCC) who argued strongly in its favour in January 2008 after the board was accused, in a veiled manner by Dave Richardson, the ICC's general manager of cricket affairs, for the pressure they placed on West Indian umpire Steve Bucknor after the Sydney Test. Bucknor, as with all umpires (and players for that matter) make mistakes, but the way he was hounded by the board and media as if he was lower than a criminal, placed added pressure on the ICC.

Instead of looking at the real reasons for their 2-1 Test series defeat, the bowling of mystery spinner Ajantha Mendis, the players were miffed at how some of the decisions went against the side through the review system. But as Richardson said explaining the need to put the system on trial, is that it was not just the Sydney Test but other Tests, where the view was that it was time to give the review system a chance to prove itself. It is why the series involving India and Sri Lanka was being used as an experiment.