Belling the board

There is a strong case for setting up a committee to review the problem that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has with the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS). The BCCI has faith in committees, doesn't it? And if a committee says so, it might even reverse the ostrich-like position it has taken on UDRS.
The BCCI is a monopoly and doesn't feel the need to give any explanation for its decisions.And it can't be blamed for this. What, after all, is the benefit of financial might if you can't even get away with your unreasonable actions but have to account for them like any commoner? Why should the BCCI let go of this most basic pleasure that comes gift-wrapped with power?
A minor irritant is that it creates a vacuum for all kinds of speculation about the motives of the board and sometimes even puts a question mark on the players more identified with opposing the UDRS. The BCCI is practically in charge of ensuring the global health of the game. But it likes to function in a manner that would make the Opus Dei look like Transparency International.
Now our all-weather Test-playing friend England has also deserted us. And if that wasn't complicated enough, Sachin Tendulkar suddenly had a mood change in London. Tendulkar and M S Dhoni have in the past been identified as staunch opponents of UDRS.
A blog post in the Guardian seems like the place from where the fresh trouble has started. Bar one point, the writer has not said anything alarming. It has casually solved the mother of all induction problems. That of deriving a general conclusion from a specific case: "India does not like it [UDRS]. Or more specifically M S Dhoni and Tendulkar do not like it, which pretty much amounts to the same thing." If you never thought that Tendulkar and Dhoni spoke for more than a billion souls, well, you've been educated differently now.
The board and those who oppose the UDRS say that it is not 100% reliable. We take it, then, that the board is 100% reliable. We can even go further and say that life is perfect, so we object to all things that are not 100% foolproof.
It began in Sri Lanka where we lost 2-1 in 2008 when Ajantha Mendis and Muttiah Muralitharan combined well with the UDRS to leave all our top batsmen bleeding. This is where we need some perspective to move on.
I look back at the recent past and see how the UDRS would have helped India in general and Tendulkar in particular. The away series in England would have been a draw as Sreesanth was out leg before at Lord's. We may have won the acrimonious Sydney Test of 2008 and thus the series.
Tendulkar, who made 90 plus in Mohali against Pakistan, would have gone at a low score but in the very next match where he was playing better, he would have survived at 50 plus. At least four times he would have survived in the nineties and his hundreds would have been at least 103 and possibly around 110 as he has had more than his fair share of howlers.
The problem is just how to deal with the board and it is here that most of the mistakes are being made; like openly attempting to send a strong protest message to the board. Taking on the board is stupidity as it makes the board more unreasonable. The best thing would be to join hands and unanimously oppose the use of UDRS. The board would then use its power and take the contrary stand of plumping for the DRS. At this point the detractors should acquiesce, giving the impression that they are scared of the board. That way, they can get what they want without any bloodshed. All we need at this point is someone who can bell the board.