The India-Australia Test at Bengaluru saw several moments where DRS unceremoniously stole the spotlight. ©AFP

I get disappointed every time DRS takes centre-stage and threatens to derail the narrative of such a beautiful sport. DRS is important but it plays a small part in a large and fascinating ensemble cast of variables in cricket. It is an aid, a prop, a device to remove an irritant at best. It cannot become the talking point at the end of a gripping, outstanding test match.

In its short history, DRS has stood for good intent but scrambled execution. Till the ICC belatedly decided that the quality of technology would be largely uniform across all international cricket, DRS was part of cricket's class system. The rich boards with large TV deals could afford the best technology, the poorer boards couldn't. One set of players was allowed superior adjudication, one set had to make do with what it could afford. It cannot be that way.

Then we came to the referrals. Players could challenge the umpires call and sometimes did so like they were pulling out a hakka pose and directing it at the umpire. Sometimes players had one referral, sometimes two and now a 2+2 after 80 overs, almost like a loyalty programme. If you have one left as you get into the last ten overs, you use it as you desire, like last minute duty free shopping to finish the potentially useless little currency you have left. When someone appealed flippantly in our local cricket in Hyderabad, he would turn sheepishly to his team-mates and say "pooch ke dekha" (took a chance!). In overs 75-80, DRS is "pooch ke dekha."

Most times, you run out of referrals much earlier because the top order batsmen believe it is one of their perks, like a club membership for a senior manager. If you are batting at numbers 6,7 or 8 (the tail doesn't count!), you rarely have the opportunity to use the referral and so you are back to the old ways. Expensive resources accessible to a few! Sounds familiar?

It runs the risk of creating a rift in the team when certain players seek to appropriate referrals. The captain, sometimes standing at cover, has to choose between placating a star bowler who sees a glimmer of opportunity of another wicket and his desire to keep the referral for an obvious umpiring error that might emerge later.

I have often tried to explain the "umpire's call" to people who are perplexed by how it works. 'But the ball was hitting the stumps', they say, 'why is it not out?' By the time I explain it, the ball is now hitting an identical spot on the stumps and, lo and behold, the batsman is out. Then I have to explain to them that the third umpire has to have conclusive evidence to overturn the on-field umpire. 'So there is doubt, but he is still out?' they ask. Some of us follow the game closely but a vast majority don't. That you have fancy gadgets that tell you a ball is hitting the stumps but that the umpire's eyes over-rule it is very tough for them to understand. Sometimes it is for me too.

My biggest concern though is with the non-striker having to play umpire to his own team-mate. No batsman thinks he is out and as he strides towards his partner, he is seeking confirmation of that. What does the non-striker do? Remember most referrals are for LBW verdicts and often it has to do with where the ball pitched, where the ball hit pad and whether it would have gone on to hit the stumps. The umpire, with an uncluttered mind, is in the best position to judge. The non-striker, seeking to switch off before he needs to switch on again at the strikers end, is actually a few feet beside the stumps and therefore in no position really to judge whether the ball landed in line with the stumps.

In this switched off mode he now sees his team-mate advancing towards him. He can either advise him to refer or to walk back (I meant to say "go" but that, as we now know, is confusing!). He is almost certainly going to prefer being wrong with a "refer" call than being proved wrong with a "you are out" call. Can you imagine the non-striker telling his partner that he is out and discovering on the replay that he wasn't? Wouldn't make for a pretty dressing room especially if the dismissed batsman is in sight of a landmark or taking the team to a victory.

There is a reason we have umpires who have no stake in the decision they make. Having a team-mate put into a situation like this is terribly unfair and so, not good for our game. We have to find a way to judge whether a decision is right or wrong without allowing the player into the process.

I am all for fairness and I am all for technology when it is reliable and accessible to all. But DRS cannot take centre-stage and drive emotions.

© Cricbuzz