India controls the cameras but not the truth: Fair cricket for everyone — can we follow the football broadcasting model?

[Ryw]

Nice deflection, but again you’re missing the actual point. Nobody said football is free of controversies, it obviously isn’t. The difference is in football, the VAR system is not operated by Sky, BT, or a club’s own broadcaster. It’s run independently under FIFA/UEFA protocols, with operators separated from the broadcaster’s commercial interests.

In cricket, Star/Sony not only own the rights, they also control the feeds, the angles, and even the Hawk-Eye operators. That’s the conflict of interest. So when you say cricket is “more consistent” maybe in coverage, yes, but in terms of neutrality? Absolutely not.

And let’s not ignore fixtures either. Go back and check: in almost every ICC tournament, India are conveniently scheduled to play the last group-stage game. Why? Because if qualification comes down to net run rate, they know exactly what margin is required. That’s not paranoia, it’s right there in the fixture lists. Every other team plays blind, India play with full information. Another subtle advantage built into the system.

I’m not arguing against DRS itself, I’m arguing against who controls the switchboard. Wrong umpire calls are part of sport. Broadcaster manipulation and tailor-made fixtures aren’t. That’s why I’ve been saying from the start: fair cricket needs neutral broadcasting and neutral scheduling. Until then, every close India match will carry suspicion, whether you like it or not.

 

[Red-Indian]

As a fan, it's always easy to let your bias lead you to genuinely believe the other country's getting an advantage. Always better to look at Stats.

Here's a Cricbuzz 2020 analysis on DRS success rate for tests. While there are minor variations, I think it points to the fact that most countries end up within a range and there's no statistically significant advantage for a country

Team	Reviews	Struck down	Umpire's Call	Upheld	Upheld%	Retained %
Pak	135	97	6	32	23.70%	28.15%
SA	127	84	13	30	23.62%	33.86%
Eng	211	157	7	47	22.27%	25.59%
Aus	151	115	3	33	21.85%	23.84%
SL	173	121	18	34	19.65%	30.06%
WI	105	74	11	20	19.05%	29.52%
Ind	140	98	16	26	18.57%	30.00%
Ban	78	60	4	14	17.95%	23.08%
NZ	105	81	6	18	17.14%	22.86%

Here's the same analysis for ODIs + T20Is. India's right in the middle of the pack

Team	Reviews	Struck down	Umpire's Call	Upheld	Upheld%	Retained %
NZ	53	29	6	18	33.96%	45.28%
Aus	70	46	3	21	30.00%	34.29%
SL	89	58	7	24	26.97%	34.83%
WI	64	40	7	17	26.56%	37.50%
Eng	73	49	5	19	26.03%	32.88%
Ind	64	40	8	16	25.00%	37.50%
SA	73	47	8	18	24.66%	35.62%
Ban	45	29	6	10	22.22%	35.56%
Pak	67	49	8	10	14.93%	26.87%

 

[Local.Dada]

Oh so you are saying India has hackers on site when the match is going on to manipulate the DRS/Hawkeye in real time? Ok. You would have a point if the trajectory of the ball is way off everytime, to move things so precisely to swing decisions in Indias favor is not possible.

Also the other excuse I see all the time is toss.

In 2024 WT20- Pak won the toss, couldn’t chase 119

2025 CT- Pak won the toss, lost the game

Asia cup- Pak won toss in the first match, lost the game

Yes India did win toss in the next 2 games but cmon lol. Don’t be a conspiracy theorist. Especially when losing it’s the worst time.

The commentators are biased towards Indians, sure you have a point but nothing that effects the gameplay.

 

[BullaKeepsItOpen]

Feeling proud Indian army.

 

[Sachin fan]

Nice deflection, but again you’re missing the actual point. Nobody said football is free of controversies, it obviously isn’t. The difference is in football, the VAR system is not operated by Sky, BT, or a club’s own broadcaster. It’s run independently under FIFA/UEFA protocols, with operators separated from the broadcaster’s commercial interests.

In cricket, Star/Sony not only own the rights, they also control the feeds, the angles, and even the Hawk-Eye operators. That’s the conflict of interest. So when you say cricket is “more consistent” maybe in coverage, yes, but in terms of neutrality? Absolutely not.

And let’s not ignore fixtures either. Go back and check: in almost every ICC tournament, India are conveniently scheduled to play the last group-stage game. Why? Because if qualification comes down to net run rate, they know exactly what margin is required. That’s not paranoia, it’s right there in the fixture lists. Every other team plays blind, India play with full information. Another subtle advantage built into the system.

I’m not arguing against DRS itself, I’m arguing against who controls the switchboard. Wrong umpire calls are part of sport. Broadcaster manipulation and tailor-made fixtures aren’t. That’s why I’ve been saying from the start: fair cricket needs neutral broadcasting and neutral scheduling. Until then, every close India match will carry suspicion, whether you like it or not.

If there was neutral broadcasting you would be accusing india of paying off those neutral guys next. Just as the neutral Pycroft was accused. As I said, paranoid conspiracy theories never stop.

 

[pillionrider]

Until then, every close India match will carry suspicion, whether you like it or not.

Enjoy sitting on the sidelines with suspicion as your friend

Why are you still peddling your half and no truths btw

 

[Ryw]

It’s funny how whenever this topic comes up, the default response is either to call it “conspiracy theories,” bring up old losses, or start waving the flag. None of that changes the central point: (fair cricket requires neutral broadcasting.)

I’m not talking about hackers sitting inside Hawk-Eye machines or every decision being rigged. I’m saying when the (broadcaster, the technology operators, and the rights holder are all under the same flag), the conflict of interest is obvious. If the feed is delayed, if certain frames are skipped, if Hawk-Eye margins are presented in ways that always seem to tilt one way, fans have every right to question it.

Even if you want to quote Cricbuzz numbers, stats don’t capture the key moments. A single dubious overturn in a knockout game swings more than ten routine decisions in Tests. It’s about timing and optics, not just volume.

And let’s not ignore fixtures either: India being scheduled to play the (last group game in almost every ICC event) gives them the net run rate advantage. That’s not paranoia, that’s a documented pattern. Add to that broadcasters conveniently avoiding awkward moments (like the toss handshake incident), and you have a system that simply isn’t neutral.

You can mock, call it “paranoia,” or wave the “we’re rich” card. But if cricket wants to be trusted globally, it needs neutral production, the same way football, tennis, and even rugby separate governing bodies from broadcasters. Otherwise, you’re not defending India, you’re defending a system where (the referee, the cameraman, and the scoreboard operator all wear the same jersey.)

FAIR CRICKET FOR EVERYONE = NEUTRAL BROADCAST. That’s the beginning and the end of the argument.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

It’s funny how whenever this topic comes up, the default response is either to call it “conspiracy theories,” bring up old losses, or start waving the flag. None of that changes the central point: (fair cricket requires neutral broadcasting.)

I’m not talking about hackers sitting inside Hawk-Eye machines or every decision being rigged. I’m saying when the (broadcaster, the technology operators, and the rights holder are all under the same flag), the conflict of interest is obvious. If the feed is delayed, if certain frames are skipped, if Hawk-Eye margins are presented in ways that always seem to tilt one way, fans have every right to question it.

Even if you want to quote Cricbuzz numbers, stats don’t capture the key moments. A single dubious overturn in a knockout game swings more than ten routine decisions in Tests. It’s about timing and optics, not just volume.

And let’s not ignore fixtures either: India being scheduled to play the (last group game in almost every ICC event) gives them the net run rate advantage. That’s not paranoia, that’s a documented pattern. Add to that broadcasters conveniently avoiding awkward moments (like the toss handshake incident), and you have a system that simply isn’t neutral.

You can mock, call it “paranoia,” or wave the “we’re rich” card. But if cricket wants to be trusted globally, it needs neutral production, the same way football, tennis, and even rugby separate governing bodies from broadcasters. Otherwise, you’re not defending India, you’re defending a system where (the referee, the cameraman, and the scoreboard operator all wear the same jersey.)

FAIR CRICKET FOR EVERYONE = NEUTRAL BROADCAST. That’s the beginning and the end of the argument.

Which sport has neutral broadcaster?? Please enlighten us, because football is not the correct answer here.
Just ignorant rants non-stop.