Much has been said and written about cricket’s Decision Review System (DRS) in the last few weeks. About 95.3% of what has been said is total rubbish. But it is time to take stock of what we’ve learned about the DRS, where’s going and how cricket can make the best use of the available technology to improve the spectacle for its paying customers.
I’ll publish this in sections - it’s turned out to be a bit longer than I thought…
Part 1: Introduction Part 2: Technology Part 3: Reviews & umpiring Part 4: Proposals & conclusions
To be done:
Evidence of absence
Sources of noise
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Margin of error & "umpire's call"
Run-outs & stumpings
Loss of reviews & "umpire's call"
- Professional players' view: James Anderson calls for end to DRS reviews lost to ‘umpire’s call’
- BCCI view: India in discussions over DRS
Current situation with run outs
Conflict of interest
Gaming the system - a strategy for selecting reviews
- Australia's poor choices
- Evidence of emerging strategies
Umpires' role & guidelines
Benefit of the doubt & "walking"
Authority of on-field umpire
TV umpire's conflict of interest
No loss of review for "umpire's call"
No umpire-led reviews
"Evidence of absence" principle
Communication & transparency
Evolution not revolution
Benefits for the paying customer
 Board of Control for Cricket in India  As Deep Throat said: follow the money.