Four-letter words are usually frowned upon in the English language. Perhaps, that is why the ICC decided to shorten the name of the ‘Umpires’ Decision Review System’ or ‘ÚDRS’ to the ‘Decision Review System’ or ‘DRS’. But if they were hoping it would help make the system more acceptable, they were sadly mistaken.

The intransigence of India over the Review System is frustrating to most. Even their most ardent fans don’t get the reason the most powerful cricketing board and its players are so vehemently opposed to something that appears to only help improve the quality of decision-making, if only by allowing the TV umpire more time than the split second the on-field umpires get, and by giving him access to different angles.

As with everything, there are two sides to the story. Pardon me if this piece rambles a bit and maybe even jumps from one argument to the other.

Firstly, let me begin by saying that I think it is better to go with the DRS than without, because it allows the decision to be made after deliberation rather than just on instinct. I also believe that if the protocols were better laid down, there would be less confusion and it might be easier to arrive at the less incorrect decision.

But I also understand the reason India’s deep rooted suspicion of technology-assisted decision-making. Remember, the BCCI were the first to agree to the system on their tour of Sri Lanka in 2008. But the technology was half-baked, the protocols even more so and India were beaten..no, scratch that..thrashed by a combination of Ajantha Mendis and UDRS. Sri Lanka won that battle by 11 successful reviews to 1 – a clear knockout in anybody’s book.

Having worked behind the scenes on that series, I know for a fact that the process was badly handled. The protocols were not clear and no one was really in charge. As the operators themselves were inexperienced, the TV director took charge and decided several variables on the basis of what he ‘felt’ was right. The point of impact in particular was amended manually. It was difficult for the young operators to argue and this led to some obviously inaccurate results. A slight change in the point of impact changes everything about a decision. For example, if a batsman is pushing forward and the ball strikes him on the pad, where the impact is tracked makes a massive difference. The seeds of mistrust that were sown in 2008, soon grew into massive oak trees, and the BCCI have never accepted UDRS or DRS ever again in a bilateral series.

Seven years have passed. Now, the technology is controlled solely by the ICC (yet, incredibly, paid for solely by the broadcasters). True, the technology was introduced by broadcasters, but that was to provide viewers with a new perspective, a new vision. Soon, it was appropriated by the ICC and turned into the basis for a review system, which they control but do not pay for. The good thing about that is that broadcasters do not have any influence over decisions. The bad part is that the technology, particularly ball-tracking is shrouded in so much secrecy, that it seems more a nuclear facility than a television tool. It might help if the ICC were to take the veil off the system and explain it to the entire world, so that everyone can understand its mechanics.

The major problem with DRS now is in its protocols. Why must the benefit of doubt go to the umpires? When people say DRS is only for the howlers and not for line-calls, what does it really mean? Is a thin edge which is not given out a line-call and a thick-edge a howler?

If the umpire gives a batsman out lbw, the batsman is out even if only a minute fraction of the ball is shown to be clipping the stumps. If, on the other hand, he has given a batsman not out, he will remain not out even if 50 per cent of the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps. These are massive margins given to the umpires. All the margins do, is pad up the success stats of the umpires. How else can you explain the fact that if the umpire has given a batsman out, even if a bit of the ball is shown to be pitching within the line of the stumps, the decision stays with the umpire’s call. Otherwise, it requires more than half the ball to pitch within the stumps for a batsman to be out. Now, bear in mind the fact that is not a projection. This is something THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Why the need for margins for something that has actually taken place?

Anyway, if, as is claimed, the technology is near-perfect, then what is the need for margins? And even if there are to be margins, why not have a clear-cut pre-decided protocol? (For example, more than 50 per cent of the ball hitting the stumps, means out. Anything less, not out, irrespective of what the on-field umpire has decided. The numbers could be changed – 75-25, 90-10, whatever). If the system is not even that accurate, someone needs to explain why it has been used as a decision-making tool in the first place. There are those who turn around and say – what then is the need for on-field umpires? That is a good question, but if fourth umpires and match referees still exist, I’m sure we will find some use for on-field umpires as well.

Then, there is the question of how many reviews to be allowed. As it stands, the number is one unsuccessful review per ODI innings and two for the first 80 overs of a Test, which are subsequently reset. Is this number too few? Do the rules need to be tweaked so that if a review is unsuccessful on Umpire’s Call, the review still stands? Will it take away too much time from the game, particularly when teams are struggling to bowl 90 overs in a day? I don’t think so. With four-day Tests having been seriously considered not so long ago, I don’t think time is an issue in Test matches. In ODIs, if you really want to save time, do away with drinks. No other sport allows for a leisurely drink to be brought out onto the field as players laze around and sip their Gatorade, particularly as refreshments are already brought out at the end of almost every over.

There is also the question of what actually constitutes DRS. In some countries, ball-tracking, Hot-Spot and Real-time-snicko are all included. But in others, only ball-tracking is enough to constitute DRS. All this technology is expensive, so not every broadcaster or board can afford to have all of it. Some boards are not able to afford even ball-tracking. So this becomes an inherently unfair system, where the haves, if they so desire, can afford to have all the technology in the world, while the have-nots are forced to go with a truncated version of the system or none at all.

The DRS should comprise one uniform system and should be applicable across the cricket world. This is only possible if there is a central fund allocated to providing the system wherever international cricket is played. Only then will it really fulfil its purpose. If costs are an issue, I would do away with the Match Referee, much like New Zealand have done in their domestic cricket. That should save a lot of money. But I don’t think it needs to come to that. Cricket should have enough money to be able to set up a corpus for technology.

There will still be mistakes. There will still be debating points. But at least, they will be far fewer than if decisions are made solely with the naked eye. The Decision Review System is good for the game. It only needs to be given the right environment to flourish.