There's no logic in denying the DRS

Get both captains to agree to hire neutral umpires. Get them to make the decisions the players appeal for. If they think they need technology, then get the captains to agree. Done.

It's important to note that because Channel 9 effectively control the DRS in Australia, what you get is what suits them financially and in terms of entertainment - not what is best for the game. That is the main problem. It's not just something like Hotspot. Channel 9 do not use the purpose built Hawkeye system (created for the British army for ballistics tracking), they use Eagle Eye, which is animation software with some tracking algorithms bolted on to it. It has to be manually cued by an operator choosing on which frame to start the predictive algorithms and the company behind it openly state it was not intended to do that job. This is critically important. There are anything up to 230 frames to select from that might be the point of impact on the pad, and being slightly wrong (the operator is human) entirely skews the resulting prediction. And the prediction itself is far less accurate than that of Hawkeye anyway. It's not the fault of the company behind Eagle Eye. Their animation software is excellent, but they are being asked to do a job for which it was not designed. But CA's abrogation of their responsibilities means that we have a sub-standard system in use because it suits Channel 9, not because it's best for the game. It is outrageous, and most people are not aware of the difference. This is why you get more instances of Eagle Eye producing results that look weird than Hawkeye does - and Hawkeye itself, whilst undoubtedly more accurate, is not a verified system for cricket.

Maybe until technology reaches a point where Hotspot can be always trusted, I dont think it should be used. For the time being, probably it is more than enough to eliminate the howlers. A close decision (say those 50-50 ones), no one really is upset, because even after lot of replays you are never sure. But the obvious howler can always be rectified without the need of hotspot and this can atleast reduce the burden on the umpires. I had written an article a long time back on this. Please check it out http://rohit-cricket.blogspot.com/2012/09/udrs-umpire-decision-review-system-yes.html

I haven't looked at anything historically, but side on run out slow motion replays were available for over a decade before the third umpire was allowed to adjudicate and I recall very few wrong decisions. The one that sticks in my mind is that Daryl Hair one I described. Technology has undoubtedly made umpires worse. They no longer have to watch closely and learn to trust the evidence of their eyes, they simply refer it upstairs. They are no longer adjudicators of out/not out, they are simply way stations between the guy upstairs in front of a TV and the players.

Patrick, The problem is that the use of technology has been expected to produce a perfect result for all concerned. Clearly, that seemed to credit the technology with more accuracy than we now expect following the most recent Ashes series. Having been there for the first three Tests it seemed like more decisions than I can ever remember previously were overturned on review. Despite that, the one super obvious clanger (courtesy of the technology) was missed and unable to be reviewed based on the rules of the day. Incidentally, I had no issue with Broad not walking and I can understand why the umpire missed the nick. By the end of the series the umpires were shot ducks. Based on the number of decisions overturned their confidence was shattered. Halfway through one Test, after I left England, umpire Hill was ringing Simon Taufel, now with the ICC, to get advice on what to do and how to proceed given he was, in his own words, 'Having a shocker'. I'm not convinced that a forensic examination of the technology is a step forward, even if after three or four minutes and seven or eight replays the Third Umpire thinks he detects the faintest of faint nicks (or not, if it's an LBW decision). The benefit of the doubt has always been with the batsman. It's a basic tenet of the game - or has been until now. As far as I'm concerned if the technology does not make the correct decision obvious immediately - first or second replay - then it's Not Out. Even if he did, in fact, get a faint edge. I'm not convinced the game benefits from the sort of forensic examinations which went on in England. Some umpires I spoke to after I got back to Australia expressed the view that the Third Umpire was actually looking for evidence to support his mate on the field, hence the prolonged and drawn out nature of many of the reviews. The 'support' argument may well be solved by a better training programme for the Third Umpire but don't think such long-winded examination was the intended result of introducing the technology. One argument might be that the number of overturned decisions during the Ashes series proves the technology is needed. Another might be that the umpires have now abdicated their responsibility and lost the art of actually making good decisions, knowing the players can review. However, I don't know any umpire who would enjoy having his decisions overturned as often as happened in England. No wonder Mister Hill was such a mess and he was not alone. If that is good for the game then I'm a Dutchman. The notion that players can make as many mistakes as they like but umpires must be perfect is ludicrous. Like players, the umpires are human - and humans make mistakes. We should live with it. If we further accept that the technology is not perfect, why use it at all? We already know it has given players out who were not, in fact, out and saved others who were out. It started life as 'television entertainment' and I have no issue using it in that manner. The umpire, however, should be the last word on whether a batsman stays or goes. Currently we have, as Brett McKay points out above, legalised dissent which, oddly enough, was probably one of the things which technology was meant to eliminate. Funny game, cricket.

This is indeed the best approach.

But they werent right Andy. You are selective in your memory and it was only that Australia struggled so badly there that the complaints about the lack of good umpiring decisions was lost in the disappointment. It started in the first test and for a while seemed to be favouring the home side but then they copped a few raw deals as well but had to remain silent because they had decided not to use the system. It was a case of the wrong decision being made but lets not make a big fuss about it because we dont want to be criticised.. Sorry but what one other contributor suggested is right. Without the system 90% of the decisions are right. With the system at least 95% of the decisions are right. And most of the poor decisions using electronics were because of again human error. There are some faults in extreme cases such as with the hot spot issue that need tweaking but that will be improved with development of better systems. But the Day of the Robot is here and we need to get used to it. All sports are recognising they need it to give umpires an equal view to the TV audience. And its generally superseding human error. In my opinion if the issue is too close to call, it should always be benefit of a doubt to the batsman. But the electronic systems are imperative to the game in this TV age.

Well said Manoj

t's funny that only 2 years ago India were being roundly criticised for their decision not to use DRS. The BCCI were called every name under the sun and accused of using their power to deliberately hold back this great new technology that every other country wanted to use. Now, we have had an ashes series where the DRS appeared less than perfect and seemed to take the focus and gloss away from the game itself. But have we heard anyone acknowledging that the BCCI were right and congratulating the BCCI for their stance?

No DRS = 90% of decision are correct, with DRS 95% are correct, the only difference is we complain more about that 5% and it takes away the moment of a wicket being taken.

I disagree with that. knowing the innacuracies will lead to good workable ideas like Brett's about the 'bird of prey occular device'

James, I think we're essentialy saying the same thing. Hotpot was never, ever going to be 100% reliable, that was known and accepted. And indeed, true. But when what started as a pretty hard and fast rule - despite the known limitations - that a mark meant a nick, and no mark meant no nick then started being interpreted differently as we saw during the Ashes in England, that marked the end of sensibility. The problem isn't that the technology is not 100% accurate, the problem is that the boundaries around the innacuracies started to be blurred and second-guessed, and all confidence was lost as a result. It should have been literally black and white, but instead it became grey and confusing.

but no mark doesnt always mean you were not out, the guy who invented hot spot has said as much. its not just something we should accept but something that is true. i may be reading it wrong but you seem to be saying that its not. drs isnt 100% reliable but thats ok, accept it isnt but still use it cause its more reliable than mere man as the article says.

im a big fan of technology we just have to learn how to apply it and use it wisely

Spot on Bearfax.

The only technology used should be super slow-mo. If 3rd ump findings are inconclusive then umpires call. Hawkeye and snicko too unreliable and we have more umpiring howlers now than before.

Patrick I couldn't agree with you anymore if I wanted to. The technology is not the issue and not the thing at fault, it is the way it is being used and by whom. I completely agree that dispensing with it is a huge backward step. Bearfax is completely right also, the umpires must have the same access. Great article and completely spot on.

The worse decision i saw was what khawaja got in Manchester, but in that case techonology was fine but the third umpires's failure to use it properly so spend the resources training umpires how to use the technology