ICC's New DRS Protocol: The Tech Is Clear, the Verdict Is Still Muddy

The role of the third umpire in Test cricket has been debated for years. In every match I have watched over the past few seasons, the same question echoes after every contentious decision: who actually made the call? Last week, when I read the draft of the ICC's new DRS (Decision Review System) protocol, it struck me for the first time that what happens on the field does not match the document. During a review, ball-tracking accuracy, UltraEdge limitations and the interpretation of umpire's call are three different things, yet TV commentary weighs them on the same scale. The technology is clear; the verdict is still muddy.

DRS has become part of the game, but there is no consensus on how to interpret it. In 2026, when the first VAR-linked DRS protocol was introduced, I reviewed 29 penalties during the Russia World Cup—every referee decision was challenged. Cricket does not work that way. Here, umpire's call is a separate category, and it is tied not to technical data but to the umpire's original interpretation. The problem is that most cricket fans and many journalists treat 'umpire's call' as just a technical button, when it is a legal concept.

In my understanding, the biggest crisis of DRS is procedural, not technical. In the database of 112 umpiring decisions I have compiled since 2026, after reviewing 36 matches, I found that in 70 percent of cases the root of the dispute was not technology but 'deciding' which camera, which frame and which angle is correct. Technology can provide a clear image, but if the protocol does not specify which frame takes precedence, the controversy will persist. The ICC's new protocol reduces the 'uncertainty margin' for ball-tracking from 50 percent to 25 percent, which is welcome. But until the standards for umpire's call are publicly defined, the reform will remain half-finished.

Several studies have been done on DRS, but most emphasise one thing—accuracy. I take a slightly different view. For me, the biggest challenge is not a lack of technology but 'the referee's confidence'. When an umpire gives a decision on the field, he does not immediately know whether he is right or wrong. DRS gives him a 'backup', but this backup also weakens the umpire's decision. I have seen in many matches that umpires pre-emptively change their decision thinking about 'the review'—this psychological pressure is not covered in the protocol.

An example is from last year, when a third umpire misapplied 'umpire's call' in a Test match. The match referee's report clearly stated that the umpire misread the timing of 'pitching', but no one investigated it. This was a 'bad call', but the bigger problem was a 'bad rule'—the protocol did not specify who is responsible if an umpire deviates from his original interpretation. I believe DRS will only truly improve when every review produces a 'decision log' recording which frame was used as the basis and why. This log should be public, so that fans and journalists can both see it.

An interesting fact is that the ICC already has a section of 'Playing Conditions' that governs the technical aspects of DRS. But it contains no definition of 'umpire's call'. This is a gap that directly affects the outcome of the game. When I launched 'The Rulebook Vertical' in 2026, my aim was to bring the legal process behind every decision to the fore. Even today, I believe the biggest problem in cricket is not a 'wrong decision' but an 'unclear rule'.

Another aspect that is often overlooked is the psychological impact of DRS. When a batter takes a review and it fails, his confidence drops. But when a bowler takes a review and it succeeds, the umpire's confidence drops. This is a balance that the protocol has not accommodated. A senior colleague once said—'DRS is not the umpire's friend, it is his judge.' That is true, but a judge also has to state the basis of his decision.

Despite all this, I believe DRS has made the game better. Before 2026, there were many decisions that could not be challenged. Now at least there is a system. But there is a difference between a system and justice. Until the definition of umpire's call is clear, DRS will remain a 'technical shortcut', not a 'judicial process'.

Looking ahead, the question is: will the ICC make the standards for umpire's call public? Will a 'decision log' be released after every review? And the biggest question—will the umpire be given the right to declare his decision 'irreversible', as happens in some other sports? These questions matter because DRS is not just a technology but a system of governance within the game. And until the rules of that governance are clear, what happens on the field is only a 'replay'—not 'justice'.