Stop embarrassing yourselves over the DRS, India

Poor Vijay. Poor batsmen of India. Poor Ashwin, the lone spinner. Whispers say that Sachin Tendulkar and MS Dhoni advised N Srinivasan against the Decision Review System. These whispers are unsubstantiated, though believable. There are enough ways of getting out without the contribution of a computer. The two biggest names in Indian cricket almost certainly preferred a subconscious leaning.

But the DRS provides a level playing field. And it rids the match of lingering suspicion. Most cricketers take the main chance. They push umpires to the point of mental disintegration (to borrow a phrase). After all, if you don't ask, you don't get. So keep asking. With the DRS, you can ask someone else, or something else we should say, that is not prey to emotion. Is the DRS perfect? No, of course not. Is it better than the situation insisted upon by India? Yes.

Frankly, it is scandalous that international matches involving India are played without the DRS. There is no greater indication of power. Lest anyone move against the motion that India rule the game, let them think of the DRS. It is proof enough.

And it is a misfire because it betrays the men upon whom the game relies. Umpires do an impossibly difficult job. It is astonishing how much of it they get right. Sure, there are some bad decisions, and worse, their mistakes - for there is no avoiding human error - are the subject of public scrutiny and much hyperbole. From this comes accusation and therefore insecurity. Job satisfaction is not always obvious. Any pleasure derived from this strange way of life is not present but reflected. You can only admire the dedication, judgement and skill of these men. And all for little thanks.

The South African umpire Marais Erasmus has long held the view that it is better to be corrected by the system than to allow an incorrect decision to stand. He admits that a build-up of wrong decisions weighs upon his mind, but wisely he adds that the right decision outweighs any personal concern. He agrees that reference to the technology removes suspicion, with a knock-on effect that takes the angst out of potentially explosive situations.

The players' behaviour is on the edge of darkness. Ian Chappell explained the problems clearly in these pages a few days ago. Umpiring error heightens anxiety in an already fraught environment and can lead to irrational responses. Surprisingly - rewardingly, actually - the DRS has a calming effect on the players because they see a consistent application of judgement for all.

Dhoni has said that the DRS does not improve the marginal calls because it is weighed in favour of the umpire. But it was never intended for the marginals; they are a by-product. It was intended for the really bad mistakes: the howlers as many call them. Vijay got one in the second innings in Melbourne. With the DRS it would have been overturned. India have had a number of these in the series - more than Australia as it happens.

Rahul Dravid recently explained that the technology used in the less wealthy countries is sub-standard and therefore unreliable. He felt this was good enough reason to delay the general use of the system until everybody was playing alongside the same technology and, therefore, within the same context.

Surely that is an excuse. If the BCCI moved a wider care for the game to the top of its agenda, it would empower the ICC to take responsibility for the provision and application of the DRS. The cost would be justified by a unilateral agreement to abide by a common system. This would surely improve with time and investment and might lead to an Official Replay System - one in which a third umpire works with the same pictures as the television director and can make almost instantaneous judgements about moments that are not clear out in the middle. A dedicated ORS should be the Holy Grail. If India do not like what is in place then it can use its muscle to influence a rethink. Much of the present process is effective and worthwhile. Aspects of it can be altered and improved.

Now that both Dhoni and Tendulkar have moved away, Virat Kohli should ask Srinvasan and his board to reconsider. There is a jealousy and mistrust of India that comes from such seemingly selfish positions. This one is easy to rectify and would allow the young Indian players the same judicial reference as their peers all around the world. At the moment it is easy for opponents to tease and bait the Indians with remarks about the DRS, or more specifically, lack of it when the pressure is on. Such behaviour further inflames the existing tensions.

It is a cop out to say that Test cricket has been fine for 130 years without the umpires receiving external assistance. Modern science now offers the option, and when India play, it is going to waste. It makes no sense to adopt such an inflexible stance. At worst, the game should respond to general replays that can clearly correct a decision. At best, India might give the ball-tracking technology - which is the controversial element of Hawk-Eye/Eagle Eye that predicts the path of the ball - closer investigation, as it offers support for umpires who have come to see its value. From that support will come more confident umpiring.

Years ago, when neutral umpires were first mooted, Imran Khan gave the idea vocal support. His reasoning was simple. Neutral umpires will rid the game of any suspicion of bias, he said, and from that will come a greater trust and a happier place to play. This from a cricketer whose home matches were played with some agreeable Pakistani umpires.

Now is your moment India, your chance to see the bigger picture and ease the game of an inconsistency that leads to an unpleasant friction. Go on, do it. It may be the start of us all working together, as we surely must if a disparate future is to be avoided.