All the flaws in how players and umpires use the Decision Review System was brought out starkly in the first Ashes Test. Quite ironically, the final decision was delivered by technology in a match of fluctuating fortunes that could so easily have gone the other way.
The Australians were at the receiving end of a number of marginal DRS decisions but the losing captain, Michael Clarke, acknowledged that he had used his referrals poorly. Even so, there are fundamental issues that must be sorted out if technology is to really help umpires.
It is clear that the predictive part of DRS sports a number of holes. It is better that referrals based on predictions of the path of the ball after impact are done away with. This may also help convince the Indian cricket board that it could also join in to make the use of the DRS more universal. Also, it seems curious that players are the ones who decide on referrals whereas it should be the umpires who should be able to call up their colleague “upstairs”.
The old fashioned view is cricket is better off with its human fallibility factor by which luck plays an extreme and, arguably, essential role. Used properly, technology can be a great help, but there is no hard and fast rule that cricket should aim for 100 per cent accuracy. When used well, DRS is a good system and the ICC should sit down and plan how best to let the referral system evolve.