BCCI doesn't like DRS but what's wrong with old-fashioned video replay?

On the fourth day at the Adelaide Oval, Varun Aaron castled David Warner, who was on 66. Aaron, who had to wait 31 overs to get a bowl in the second innings, was cock-a-hoop. “Come on!” he screamed as he pumped his arms in jubilation.

Moments later, Aaron stood deflated and it was Warner who was shouting “come on”. The umpires had reviewed the delivery and discovered Aaron had overstepped with his front foot. Warner went on to make his second century of the Test; Australia went on to win the match on the final day.

On the first day at The Gabba, Australia’s Josh Hazlewood bowled a nasty bouncer to Cheteshwar Pujara, who just about got out the way. He wasn’t able to drop his hands, though, and the ball passed uncomfortably close to them. There was a metallic sound. Australia appealed. The umpire agreed. Pujara was stunned.

Replays showed ball had struck the grill. But these replays were not admissible as evidence. Pujara had to go, even though he wasn’t out.

In the first Test, Ajinkya Rahane was similarly dismissed without touching the ball with bat or glove, while Shikhar Dhawan was given out caught of his shoulder. Both errors were clear on the replay.

Forget the Decision Review System. Forget Hawk-Eye and Ball-Tracking and Snicko and Hot Spot. What’s wrong with good old-fashioned video replay?

Checking to see if Aaron overstepped is no different from checking to see if Pujara nicked it. Yet somehow the first is acceptable to the ICC (and the BCCI) but the latter does not appear to be.

Yes, you want the umpires on the field to be the final decision-makers but the ICC already gives them recourse to the third-umpire to double-check their decisions. And most umpires don’t even bother making run-out decisions anymore, even when it is clear cut. The third-umpire is the default option.

There’s no logical reason the use of the third umpire can’t be extended to cover Pujara’s type of situation. The evidence won’t always be so clear cut, of course. That’s why Hot Spot and Snicko were invented. But it will be good enough for all but a very small percentage of wickets.

In any case, video replay can be inconclusive when it comes to disputed catches but the ICC still uses it.

One option, and many others have already said this, would be to give the third umpire the option of letting the on-field umpire know when there has been an error. An alternative would be to give the umpire the power to check with third-umpire, just as they do with no-balls.

It is a simple system. It doesn’t require fancy equipment. And the ICC already uses it.

Warner deserved to keep batting in Sydney. Pujara deserved to keep batting in Brisbane. In the first case, justice was served. In the second, denied.

If the BCCI doesn’t approve of DRS technology, fine. If it doesn’t want ball-tracking, fine.

But it already approves of video replay. There’s no reason not to use it.