A source of confusion and controversy for much of the Ashes, the DRS was again dominating discussion early in the one-day series between Australia and England.
A pair of controversial decision review system calls provided talking points after England won the toss and sent Australia in to bat in the second match of the five-game series at Old Trafford on Sunday.
Shane Watson, a player who struggled to come to terms with the system during the Ashes, was at the centre of the DRS drama.
He used the system to have a decision overturned after being given out lbw first ball, but was then on the end of a successful England challenge to be dismissed for 38.
Both reviews took several minutes and could have gone either way, creating a further sense of confusion and frustration among commentators and fans on social media.
A ball after opener Shaun Marsh had been dismissed in the first over, Watson was given out lbw by umpire Richard Kettleborough after being trapped in front by Steve Finn.
Watson looked angered by the decision and quickly challenged it.
It turned out to be the right move, but only after an agonising five-minute wait.
Despite Hot Spot replays being inconclusive as to whether Watson got bat on ball before it hit his pads, the decision was overturned by third umpire Aleem Dar.
But while DRS gave Watson a second chance it ultimately brought about his downfall in the 13th over.
Kettleborough ruled not out despite a convincing England appeal that Watson had been caught behind off Ravi Bopara.
A lengthy review ensued again, and Watson this time was given out on the basis of audio, with no evidence on Hot Spot to suggest he hit the ball.
Both teams made it clear during the Ashes they supported DRS in principle, but were not happy with the inconsistency of decision-making.
Sunday’s match was the first played in the five-match ODI series after game one in Leeds was washed out on Friday.
ChrisUK
Guest
Exactly. Not sure what the argument can be there, if there's a sound, then it can be given. If anyone had grounds for complaint, it was England with the first ball lbw. Personally, I just think that was a very, very hard decision.
ChrisUK
Guest
The ICC don't comment on a mistake having been made. The Trott one they did because it wasn't about the error, it was about the procedure followed being incorrect. For Khawaja it was exactly the right procedure, just a weird judgement.
Rob Barrow
Guest
Khawaja's caught behind decision in Manchester one was the worst i have seen, all evidence showed he wasn't out yet somehow the umpire found a way to give it out and interesting to note that the ICC never responded to our request for an answer nor could they as it was simply the third umpire not using the technology available to him.
sambo
Guest
Agree with Sporting Tragic. A Joke. However,there is good flowing from every referral.I had time to prepare coffee and sandwiches to sustain me for the long vigil ahead.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Watto wasn't given out on noise alone. the cameras also showed there was a good chance he'd hit it. Not like the Khawaja one.
AlanKC
Guest
The way Watto dropped his head after watching it go into the keepers gloves was good enough for me.
Sporting Tragic
Roar Pro
DRS is a joke. Plain and simple.
dasilva
Guest
The on-field umpire has been dismissing batsman based on noise for years. It's one of the two signs whether there was an edge or not - noise + deviation. Before the invention of hotspot, most commentators judge how correct the dismissal by whether they can hear noise on replay. If we remove noise from the criteria than no fine edge will ever be given out. If it's ok for on-field umpire to dismiss batsman based on noise. It's ok for 3rd umpire to dismiss umpire based on noise as the umpire is hearing the same audio that the umpire on the pitch is hearing.
James
Guest
noise has been used in conjunction with the rest of the drs for a year or so as far as i understood. and hotspot gives false negatives, the guy who invented it has said it gives false negatives so hotspot is far far from fallible. sound was heard, the commentators had no problem with it i dont see how anyone can think it wasnt out
DJW
Guest
Snicko is not allowed to be used by umpires so is irrelevant. In the Test series it seemed the on field umpires decision was only overturned if clear evidence. Yesterday seemed it was the opposite. Noise alone never used to be enough to to base a decision on because it's too unreliable. All of a sudden it is enough even if there is no hot spot. Umpires seem to have no confidence in hotspot what so ever.
Murray
Guest
I don't understand the Watson dismissal fuss: there was a loud noise and clear evidence from snicko - he clearly hit it. Not only that, but watch the hot spot replay. A clear - small, yes, but clear - white mark appears on the edge of Watson's bat about 8in from the toe. A hot spot, in other words. There was a lot of talk on the TV about how he toe-ended it and there was no mark on the end of the bat. There wasn't, and from one angle it looked as if he toe-ended it but from another camera angle it clearly passed the bat about 8in up. A loud noise, evidence from snicko and a hot spot where the ball passed the bat. What is the controversy? Columnist on The Roar getting taken in by TV commentators who missed the signs?!?