ICC news

Reviews to be reset after 80 overs

ESPNcricinfo staff

September 18, 2013

Comments: 198 | Text size: A | A

Michael Clarke asks for a review, Australia v South Africa, first Test, Brisbane, November 9, 2012
A team will now have two reviews - irrespective of how many it has used up - after the 80th over of the same innings © Getty Images


Are the proposed changes to DRS a good move?
See results »

The number of reviews available for a team in a Test innings will be topped-up to two after 80 overs in an innings. The system will be trialed from October 1, 2013 in all Tests where the Decision Review System (DRS) is available, the ICC announced on Wednesday in Dubai after its Chief Executives' Meeting (CEC).

Currently, a team is allowed up to two unsuccessful reviews for the entire duration of the innings. Under the new system, it will have two reviews - irrespective of how many it has used up - after the 80th over of the same innings.

The other notable decision taken at the meeting centered around ODI playing conditions. The ICC has retained - after hearing arguments from both sides - the rule stipulating two new balls to be used from either end but, for an ODI reduced to 25 overs or less at the start of an innings, only one new ball will be used per innings. This will also come into effect from October 1, 2013.

The CEC has asked the ICC Cricket Committee to look into the development of a ball that can last the full 50 overs of an innings whilst still providing a fair balance between bat and ball.

The existing two-ball rule came into force from October 2011 after the ICC Cricket Committee recommended it. However, all four Asian countries believe such a rule has proved to be deterrent to their slow bowlers, who play an integral part in the team structure.

The topic of DRS was expected to dominate the discussions during the two-day meeting, after the system came under fire during the recent Ashes series in England. The CEC reviewed the performance of the DRS during the series and received an update on a technology trial that was conducted during the Old Trafford Test. A paper produced by the Australia and England cricket boards was also discussed.

The CEC has proposed that a Working Group be formed to consider how the ICC should best use technology in umpire decision-making in the future, apart from the top-up recommendation. The effectiveness of the Real-time Snickometer, used to detect faint edges, was also discussed and an independent assessment of this technology will also be conducted before it is included in the list of DRS approved technologies.

Regarding over-rates, the CEC approved the umpires' intention to become stricter on poor over-rates and time wasting and to maximise playing time in safe playing conditions.

The ICC also confirmed that the launch of the World Test Championship will take place in Dubai in October, coinciding with the start of the Pakistan-South Africa Test series.

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Manso on (September 20, 2013, 14:25 GMT)

Yes, YES YES !! The 3rd Umpire shd eradicate HOWLERS, Iresspective of ANYTHING. If Broad's howler had been ERADICATED, Inspite of....... The 2013 Ashes Series wld hv been less acrimonious, and perhaps MORE ENJOYABLE.[Aussies might hv won the test]

Posted by Cricketfan11111 on (September 20, 2013, 9:38 GMT)

Hotspot, hawkeye and snico are too intrusive. Field umpires and players make decisions on the field without technological aids. To detect howlers you don't need intrusive technologies. These technological aids only narrow the margin of errors and There will still be errors.You only need replays to remove howlers. Leave the rest to on field umpires. Just accept on field umpires' instinctive decisions on 50-50 calls.

Posted by Marktc on (September 20, 2013, 9:28 GMT)

IF reviews are reset at 80 overs and you cannot carry them over, captains will feel forced to use up the remaining reviews as the 80th over approaches....

Posted by Dadders on (September 20, 2013, 7:28 GMT)

The opportunity of more reviews later in the innings? Shane Watson and his big left pad must be relieved

Posted by   on (September 20, 2013, 4:59 GMT)

Viewers feel bad when replays confirm howlers, which are currently too many. Official replays preventing this from happening are welcome. Too simple. If somebody thinks otherwise, he's not a lover of the game. Again, too simple. I don't understand at all why some people are allowed to stand in the way.

Posted by   on (September 20, 2013, 3:54 GMT)

Posted by Dean Frenkel on (September 19, 2013, 23:04 GMT)

Nice sincere view point made by you. 3rd Umpires should be consistent & should act instantly by communicating with on field umpires about their decisions or what we will witness that some of them would find some context from text book to justify their biased views. e.g. Broad's non-dismissal of caught behind in the first slip in recent ashes and people talk about in favour of Broad. It's all about uniformity in decision making that required.

Posted by   on (September 20, 2013, 0:11 GMT)

I wonder how significant is the impact of the two new ball for non-asian teams. Eng,South African and to some extent Aussie and NZ pace bowlers have benefitted a lot. I think it def. tips the balance of skills.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 23:04 GMT)

The obvious problem is that the third umpire should over-rule any clear mistake without teams having one or two appeals. It's all about getting decisions right and stopping the howlers.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 19:51 GMT)

Bizarre, I demand a DRS on this decision of ICC. I pity the umpires, as when in doubt have to seek help from players to review their decision. The direction in which ICC is moving, the day is near when umpires have to beg players to Review on every shout/appeal..

Posted by prasanna_79 on (September 19, 2013, 16:53 GMT)

I think the general idea of the usage of DRS is to eliminate howlers and so this decision will not help the cause much.. Instead if each decision is reviewed by a fully trained third ump / an analyst and if feedback is given to the umpire in case a very poor decision is made by him, then the batsman should be called back.. This process can take at the most 2 mins if done by trained people and will not delay the game much.. Also the technology should implemented by the ICC themselves and they should not depend on the broadcaster instead..

Posted by Yasassri on (September 19, 2013, 15:41 GMT)

it would be good idea to reset review based on wicket falls as well, In 80 overs, a team may lose 8 wickets or may be 2 or 3 wickets. it is better to have more reviews for up to no. 6 than no.7 to no.11 in the batting line up.

Posted by Cricketfan11111 on (September 19, 2013, 15:02 GMT)

Single replay/slow mo replay is enough to spot howlers. No need for hawkeye, hotspots, snico, even for fan experience.When 3rd umpire spots a howler he can send a "howler alert"by pressing a buzzer that can be heard all around the ground. He can then review the replay 2more times to make sure and display "out" or "not out" sign on the giant screen himself. No need for player reviews or walkie talkie talks. In place of electronic pitch mat two permanant white lines connecting the outer stumps all along the pitch will help umpires decide the line calls for lbw.

Posted by Arrow011 on (September 19, 2013, 14:35 GMT)

DRS should be made mandatory & also only 1 ball for all 50 overs. With 2 new balls in ODI the spinners are struggling to take wickets in Caucasian countries. Why only promote medium pacers, spinners are a must too.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 14:24 GMT)

Now Shane Watson will be thinking he has 2 reviews for himself at the top of the innings; the rest of the team can fight over the scraps if they last through to over 81.

Posted by cric_leo on (September 19, 2013, 14:04 GMT)

first of ICC must suspend DRS for avoid unnecessary complication of the game. instead of strengthening DRS they should empower 3rd umpire with the aid of match referee. for achieving that it should allow field umpires to contact 3rd umpire whenever they want (when suspicion or doubt arise) and allow 3rd to intervene whenever mistakes had been done by field umpires. all technological support (sniko, hot spot, etc) must be provide to 3rd umpire to facilitate correct decision making. ICC don't allow players to intervene any decision making process. that's umpire's job in the middle. fans come ground to play cricket and not to see trials.

Posted by gandabhai on (September 19, 2013, 13:58 GMT)

So many people from all around the world are giving suggestions on how to improve DRS .Why would they be doing that if we already had a half decent system in place. Why DRS ? Why not MDRMTT,MOST DECISIONS RIGHT MOST OF THE TIME .Scrap DRS .Get the third umpire fully trained to quickly reverse any howlers .( They should use technology if need be.) JOB DONE ! 'much ado about nothin'

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 13:18 GMT)

this confused decision making process adopted by icc elite will be final nail in the coffins of drs as we know of right now.I personally believes that drs must stand the test of time and replicate high rate of success to be considered useful in present world of high competitiveness.if something is new or does not mean we lesser mortals should fall over our heels to give it a fair go.a new iphone does not warrant to be immediately bought no matter the budget of a person.some boards like zimb sl and pak cud not manage proper wages so how cud they afford drs?

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 13:08 GMT)

Good. Equally important would be: it should be made mandatory for all; batter in stead of umpire must enjoy benefit of doubt; simple replays in stead of complicated technology must be resorted to, the primary objective being that viewers should not feel let down by replays open to them. If some people still fear it, their alarm could not be its fallibility but they imagine it won't suit their vested interests.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 13:04 GMT)

in the event that there are 0 unsuccessful reviews by the end of 80th over, will the balance carry forward and the team will have 4 reviews?

Posted by Puffin on (September 19, 2013, 12:22 GMT)

I thought this was all simply to eliminate "howlers": by increasing the amount of reviews available, that implies we have more howlers than we thought. This won't actually get rid of them, we'll just spend longer resolving them.

If we really want less of this, how about having better umpires?

Posted by itsthewayuplay on (September 19, 2013, 11:59 GMT)

DRS was introduced to eliminate howlers by umpires and prior to the new rules each team was allowed 2 reviews per innings. However, if a team did not lose a review for each successful challenge which meant that there at least 4 reviews per innings or at least howlers per innings. Times have moved and the last Ashes saw some crazy things e.g. Australia couldn't appeal Broad's non-dismissal because they were out of challenges and later teams not challenging incorrect decisions because they were afraid to lose a challenge. Let's draw a line under what's happened, let's return the authority to the on-field umpires and give them the confidence to make what they genuinely believe to be the right decision and let technology be used achieve the right decision and all done in a way that won't constantly interrupt the flow of the game and doesn't let teams using DRS for a tactical advantage. Does resetting challenges after 80 overs achieve any of these things?

Posted by aarif on (September 19, 2013, 11:57 GMT)

In my opinion the one thing that technology needs to do is give a definitive answer, whether confirm that the decision was correct or reject and say the decision was incorrect. So, the one thing I do not buy-in as a fan is 'UMPIRE's CALL' as a decision from a review. This for me is an absolute shame and insult to the system. The solution to all this DRS farce could be to allow each team 5 reviews per inning, independent of whether its successful or unsuccesful because if there is nothing like umpire's call anymore then every review is successful with for or against result. All the system has to tell me is whether it is ruled 'OUT' or 'NOT OUT'. Like in the case of a run out the 3rd umpire never says undecided when the bat is right on the line of the crease. So, should apply to the DRS as well. Gives a clear decision, that is all. If there are insufficient evidence to say a batsman was out or not, then just rule it not out, irrespective of what the on-field umpire ruled. Thats it.

Posted by Freddie2020 on (September 19, 2013, 11:46 GMT)

The two new ball rule is ridiculous. It is advantageous to the teams having battery of fast bowlers and no good spinner. This is good for Australia, England and South Africa. ICC is autocratic in approach and is always inclined to the above 3 teams and their benefit.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 11:42 GMT)

DRS should be free in all overs of a match. Restrictions should not be imposed.

Posted by Yasassri on (September 19, 2013, 11:31 GMT)

it would be good idea that, reset review based on wicket falls as well, In 80 over a team may lose 8 wickets or may be 2 or 3 wickets. it is better to have more reviews for up to no. 6 in the batting line up than no.7 to tail enders.

Posted by Leggie on (September 19, 2013, 11:24 GMT)

Any "review" that is turned out because of "umpire's call" should not be counted as "lost" for the team challenging the decision. After all, it was a very marginal call and they were not really wrong whn they challenged the umpire. Also, something must be changed to address the "two-ball" usage in ODIs. For example, at any time between the 26th and 50th over, the bowling team can decide whether they would like to continue with both the balls or just one ball. Why 26th??? Because we know that the white ball loses shine after 37 overs (remember the old ball change rule) So if a bowling team chooses to go with only one ball at the end of the 26th over, they would have a ball that is 13 + 24 overs old when the innings completes. This way the bowling team can decide if they want to attack with spin or with pace and this will provide more balance to all kinds of bowling attacks.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 10:45 GMT)

Crazy, insane but highly predictable. Who exactly comes up with this junk?

Posted by PureTom on (September 19, 2013, 10:24 GMT)

nice to see they are thinking about it, but surely it would be better to have a "cool down" on incorrect reviews. A team starts an innings with 2 reviews, if they review something incorrectly they cannot use that review again for 20/30/40 overs (number to be decided) at which point it will come off cooldown and be usable again.

The drawback I see to the proposed system is teams not having used any reviews will make nonsense/silly referals in the 75 over of an innings so as not to "lose" reviews. On the first day of a test it could be used as a time wasting tactic to get to the close of play as well.

Posted by willsrustynuts on (September 19, 2013, 9:50 GMT)

If the innings is still in play at 80 overs it will be because the track is flat and there will be no wickets to contest or we will be watching tail enders trying to get marginal lbw appeals reversed.

I remember going to the cricket to watch sportsmen applying their skills. Now it is all about super slo-mo and 'Not Spot' and is much the worse for it.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 9:27 GMT)

80 overs does seem an odd time to do it! I'd have gone for every close of play and every innings break

Posted by Front-Foot-Sponge on (September 19, 2013, 9:16 GMT)

Hahaha that's funny! England barely make 80 overs when they bat and if the Aussies hadn't wasted their reviews it would have been more like 50! They don't need more reviews, just a few batsman in form would help England. Oh, and some bowlers who average less than thirty-something! More dominance from Australia in the ODI just shows how drastically the tide has swung against England. Oh what misery it will be for them starting in November!!!

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 9:01 GMT)

The ICC is hanging themselves with increasing complexity. Keep the DRS at one per innings, and couldn't care less what they do with ODI's to be honest..

Posted by spinkingKK on (September 19, 2013, 9:00 GMT)

Two reviews per innings was more than enough. I am of the opinion that they should only be given 1 review per innings. That way, they can only use it an absolute howler. Now, you will see players asking review even when they are clean bowled. Because, it could have been a no ball and they can get an extra life. Because, there will be plenty of reviews left over.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 8:31 GMT)

I think more work needs to be done on the technology before tinkering with the number of reviews. The ICC also needs to make sure that all countries have an acceptable DRS system in place for test matches. At the moment there is not a level playing field which may well be distorting the rankings. The ICC should be striving for consensus on DRS.

Posted by LionsofLanka on (September 19, 2013, 8:19 GMT)


It would have been better for you with some innovative ideas rather than punching shots after shots over India or BCCI. Being South African Fan, you have been embarrassed coz of recent developments & severe ties with India courtesy due to CSA officials & worst diplomacy by Haroon Lorgat. There was a lot of expectations from ICC but revealed a fuss after the meeting with single decision of top up of referrals after 80 overs. So all in all nothing has been changed in constructions or repairing work of DRS. ICC thinks & understands the complications of DRS in a better way which can't be dictated on countries as many howlers expecting to do so. Fans like you need to learn how united nations work. If anyone opposes, you need to convince them rather than accusing for serving hidden agendas. How do you manage to compare weather with DRS? It looks funny to compare rules by nature with manmade.

Posted by warneshane on (September 19, 2013, 8:05 GMT)


It is so simple that they(including India) don't need to play cricket as they can't afford to play. It's high time for ICC for behest on DRS and crack down these lame excuses.

Posted by Cluedin on (September 19, 2013, 8:03 GMT)

SO we might see more teams gambling nearer to the 80th over on the reviews. A more suitable solution would be leaving the reviews completely in the umpires hands.

Posted by ReverseSweepIndia on (September 19, 2013, 7:49 GMT)

I think we did not had problems with the DRS itself as we had with its implementation. And this decision again going to add to confusion. Its being made like a tactical tool. I would suggest to instead of 2 per inning it should be only 1 (ok, may be 2) with the topping that umpires call decisions do not make them lose the review. Increasing reviews or topping them after 80 overs are not viable practically. Reason: all umpires in elite panel are good umpires and just like players they will have off days. And when they are having off days they will make many bad decisions even within 80 overs.

Posted by balajik1968 on (September 19, 2013, 7:34 GMT)

Interesting decision. Let's see how it pans out. I see people blaming the BCCI for everything that goes on with regards to the DRS, but people avoid one question: who is going to pay? India, England, Australia and South Africa are the only teams which can afford DRS. Can Sri Lanka afford the DRS, seeing that it depends on playing India just to pay salaries. Pakistan has'nt played at home for over 4 years, how are they going to afford it? West Indies are in poor shape, New Zealand is'nt great shakes either, and Zimbabwe are also struggling. So that leaves 5 countries who can't afford DRS. Look at this divide, forget the BCCI, and tell me how to make DRS universal.

Posted by JG2704 on (September 19, 2013, 7:29 GMT)

We've had complaints of teams using up reviews as a tactic. For me this will mean it will happen more often.

The change I would make is re Umpires Call lbws when a bowling side reviews a decision.

Either , keep it as it is re umpires call lbw decisions (given not out) which are clipping , but in these instances the bowling side keeps the review in tact.

Or just do away with the umpires call bit altogether and if the ball is clipping it's out.

I've always felt strongly that bowling sides should not be punished ans lose a review for what is a worthwhile shout.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 7:11 GMT)

This doesn't make sense ! They haven't got the review system sorted out yet. Giving more reviews is further undermining the Umpire. Very soon they will do away with an on field Umpire altogether. Alternatively , as we have seen in the recent Ashes , it is undermining cricket. The final consensus on one of the tests was that one team won because they " handled the DRS system better" . What kind of statement is that ? Don't teams win because they play better cricket ??

Posted by IndianSRTfan on (September 19, 2013, 6:51 GMT)

@Posted by Jarryd Hale on (September 18, 2013, 23:37 GMT): "Indians don't want the DRS because half of the LBW calls they get in their home country aren't even out" So don't you think this has more to do with Umpiring standards? If umpires officiating in India's matches, who are not/can't be from India FYI, are giving more than 50% wrong LBW decisions then it's time we used robots in crickets. If in the most unlikely event that your conjecture is right, how do you conclude that these LBW calls happen only when India is bowling? You realize that there is roughly 50% chance that India can be batting when LBW calls are administered right??

You further claim "... keep the 1,000,000 people packed into the sweaty stadium happy." Ignoring the offensive reference to stadiums, can you please tell us which stadium is this which has capacity for 1,000,000 people. I live here and I'm unaware any such place exists.

Posted by IndianSRTfan on (September 19, 2013, 6:39 GMT)

@Posted by Liquefierrrr on (September 18, 2013, 23:57 GMT): You say, "India hates DRS because they don't know how to use it, that's plain and simple and established." That is plainly wrong. During recent Champions Trophy and WC 2011, India had the highest percentage of successful reversal of wrong decisions. Before shooting off with a reply, please check the facts.

You also wrote, "I can vividly recall Sachin walking off the field.......but for DRS, he'd have survived the howler." Can you please elaborate which match was this? Also did Sachin personally call you to to tell you why exactly he was disappointed?

Lastly "The bullies at the BCCI make it so that most line-ball calls go with India, so to implement DRS whereby the other sides can overturn these calls is bad news for them." This comment is purely ridiculous as even with DRS, line ball calls go with on-field umpire's decision. That shows how little you know about DRS.

Posted by KishoreMalladi on (September 19, 2013, 6:35 GMT)

Topping up 2 reviews after 80 overs should have been a decision taken after a lot of think-tank from ICC and other officials. Whether it would be a success or a failure would be known only once implemented. Also for reviews where the on-field calls, in my opinion, the review should not be lost. Technology invasion is welcome but regular amendments should be made where technology is used so that the maximum can be extracted. Also we should remember that there will be limitations, be it human error or with technology. The ICC should keep the limitations in mind and adequate amendments should be made. It is also good to note that the ICC brings in changes acting on the furore and impact the DRS made in the Ashes.

With respect to the new ball rule, didnt we have excellent matches earlier before the rule was implemented? What about the bowlers who did wonders with the old ball? And what about subcontinent teams? IMO, this rule should be scrapped and we should revert to just one new ball.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 6:34 GMT)

I reckon this is another way to make things even more complicated. I think the best thing we can do to get more decisions right is giving umpires complete authority to review possible outs & not-outs whenever they want. umpires are supposed to be impartial in every aspect during a game. Therefore, it will be more practical to let umpires do the decision-making. I personally don't like the fact that players getting involved in decision making. It has somewhat embarrassed umpires if front of spectators and players. Even in football, referees make huge mistakes. But still referee is the ultimate decision maker during the game.

Posted by Greatest_Game on (September 19, 2013, 6:24 GMT)

@ ROXSPORT wrote "This … just goes on to show the bias ... against the Asian nations. ...India has been crying hoarse on the need for a better DRS system but nothing was ever done. Now, Australia are on the receiving end for one series & we suddenly see a change in the DRS rules. Pathetic really."

Aus were not on the receiving end of anything but their own incompetence. DRS faults affected both teams. So did weather. Was the weather biased?

Asserting bias is totally invalid. The BCCI "has been crying hoarse" to NOT to use DRS, & will not use it in tests. Thus, this minor change means NOTHING to India. Furthermore, INDIA IS NOT ASIA, as the USA is not North, Central & South America. Asia has multiple regions, & India is only 1 of several countries on the sub-continent.

Alleging non-existent bias against Asian countries fans the flames of destructive nationalism, & serves only hidden agendas. It is time to stop crying Wolf, crying FIRE in a crowded theater, & crying in your milk.

Posted by Ibrarhunzai on (September 19, 2013, 6:04 GMT)

Lets see how it works. Giving two more reviews after 80 overs does not seem reasonable though.

Posted by Solid_Snake on (September 19, 2013, 5:53 GMT)

@charith.darshana:If you pick such rare cases,then ICC should ban all Cricketing Rules.Just tell me last time which team was under such situation?Players are always gonne be frustrated as long as there is DRS..Even if there was no DRS,still the players would have been frustrated on wrong decisions.Latest example is the Last Ashes Series

Posted by Anwaruzz on (September 19, 2013, 5:42 GMT)

a) What is so special after 80 overs? How many overs does an innings last these days ? Mostly the tail is batting after 80 overs, how much do they contribute to the total score regularly ? I would rather increase Reviews to 3 per innings and that's that.

b) During 1880/1900 the MCC used to change rules of cricket allowing new ball to be taken something like 65 overs to 90 overs, it all depended on how strong ENG fast bowlers were or how strong the opposing teams (mainly AUS) at that time. Now two new balls from both ends in ODI will signal the spinners will have little say in the game ; and who are weak against the spinners ? need I answer it too ?

c) DRS whether controversial or not should STAY, atleast it minimizes mistakes, though the system not fool proof yet.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 5:36 GMT)

since ICC using 2 new ball in ODI. why dont you try even in test matches. m sure it will make it difficult. whoever wanted to play 1 2 & 3 they must be masterclass to judge the ball and play at its merit. am sure game will be interesting and its going to be be result oriented test match. these days its all about batsman game. show some mercy towards for bowlers who bowl 25 overs a day in test match. about DRS its redeculous that after 80 overs top up. its not F1 track where car gets top up. sometimes teams get all out less than 65 overs. there should be 8 DRS per team . upto them to use 8 in one innings or split equally. these are the small things which makes a team to think. captain decision will b3 crucial. than waiting for 80 overs. i think ICC panel thoughs are good but must have done survey on those. like super sub earlier it was good those days .. team has to plan carefully . hope will see some good changes which can make cricket interesting

Posted by jimbond on (September 19, 2013, 5:35 GMT)

There are such silly decisions which are taken, and still there are people who think that India calls the shots in ICC. Using two balls in ODIs is unfair not only to the slower bowlers, but also to those bowlers who are good at exploiting the old ball. This is another decision favouring non-subcontinental teams. And instead of the 80 over rule, why not just increase the number of reviews to 4.

Posted by a4abhik on (September 19, 2013, 5:33 GMT)

The basic and final purpose of DRS is to avoid umpiring error and provide correct decisions to the maximum degree. But when its restricted to use only a pre-defined times (be it 2, 4 or 6), then the very basic purpose itself is compromised. If the goal is to rectify human errors with machine help, then why restricting it for selected chances, rather than the game throughout??? Use it all or use it not.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 5:31 GMT)

This new proposal, I feel, is not going to ease the situation for the Umpires. Until such time that the overall quality of umpiring improves very substantially and the players themselves develop some understanding of the whole process, I very much fear that this entire exercise with the DRS is going to become more irritating and confusing for all concerned, particularly for the spectators. Scrap the DRS altogether, I say, and leave it to the Umpires.

Posted by Naseer on (September 19, 2013, 5:11 GMT)

One thing is still un-understandable, that ICC is thinking about eradicating minor mistakes which might not be traced by on field umpire and DRS will help in correcting the decision, but what about the oblivious mistakes that are made even by third umpires or those mistaken decision that are not reviewed but still cricket fan can see it on television clearly, but it left wondering why the faulty decision was not overturned, and such obious miskes actually hurts the image of the game specially in these modern tecnological times where ever very tiny details of the live show are shown to the viewers, they cannot be considered fools to watch a game with faulty decisions because ultimately they will feel they are watching a fixed match.

Posted by satishchandar on (September 19, 2013, 5:02 GMT)

Honestly not impressed with the reset of reviews.. Better introduce penalty for review after the allowed two wrong reviews.. That would make more sense.. And, what about not losing review for marginal decisions - the Umpire decision stays ones?

Posted by charith.darshana on (September 19, 2013, 4:23 GMT)

this is a stupid idea. what happens if the batting team has used their reviews, their last recognized batsman is fighting with the last man to avoid follow on & in the last ball of the 80th over umpire days batsman is out lbs when clearly an inside edge can be detected. don't you think it will frustrate the batting team just because they get reviews topped up only in the next ball ? I suggest if an lbw review says umpires call for the wicket hitting part, it should not be deducted from the number of reviews left for the team..... as always ICC is making dumb decisions without thinking about developing the game.....

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 4:11 GMT)

Yes,,Why 80 overs? There obviously must be a pretty good reason..but..can we know it plsss.....However the bottom line in my opinion is not the number of reviews, whether its after 8 or 80 that matters as much as the number of correct decisions that needs to be arrived at...two or three minutes spent on achieving that,should be considered in the light of that it will not only up the fair play element but could also cost /save the livelihood of some cricketers.

Technology will never be perfect so howlers will have their say and day anyway be it DRS or GPS....if we can eliminate some mistakes through some methodology.. then that's word pursuing isn't it ?

Posted by johnathonjosephs on (September 19, 2013, 3:58 GMT)

@SandipManjrekar, Howlers are when the decision is so obvious that any person who watches a replay of the delivery can tell that the decision given was wrong. When you say Snicko/Hot Spot colliding, those are for the 50/50 decisions that could go either way. There is no doubt that DRS has eliminated the Howlers, but the real debate should be whether DRS should be used on 50/50 decisions

Posted by Hodra99 on (September 19, 2013, 3:57 GMT)

Simple solution....take it out of the players hands. The umpire should still make his on field call (lets not forget that for well over 100 years of test cricket this was how decisions stood), but if in doubt he should call for a review. If there is not enough evidence to over rule his original decision, his on field call stands... no need for resetting after 80 overs and does not limit it to just 2 referrals per team...seems to logical for the ICC though...

Posted by himanshu.team on (September 19, 2013, 3:45 GMT)

I am becoming more and more convinced that DRS should be scrapped altogether OR its use should only rest with the third umpire. What would happen if the broad incident happens in the last ball of the 80th over? It would still be a howler. Aussies will still complain despite havng two fresh reviews with them from next ball onwards. I just can not understand what problem has this silly decision solved. As a side if you have any review left by say 75th or 76th over, use it up before the 80th as you are to get two reviews anyways after 80. More time wasting, more stupid reviews while the howlers will still be there.

Posted by TATTUs on (September 19, 2013, 3:26 GMT)

Its baffling to understand why the 3rd umpire, who is paid to do so, cant watch the game ball by ball! If he watches what is happening out there and witnesses a horrific mistake by one of the umpires then why cant he just intervene? Why should the players be thinking about the review rather than the ball to be bowled or the next ball in case of batsmen?

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 3:07 GMT)

teams should lose a review after a "umpies call". this is because u should accept the umpires call. anything else is taking a punt. unless its smashing into middle stump and its given not out, why review it. its there for the howler. as they said, the umps got a below average 91% decision right, oz got 6/26 and eng 6/27 in their referrals so i know where most of the howlers and 50/50 calls were made and it wasnt the umpires.

Posted by Insult_2_Injury on (September 19, 2013, 3:04 GMT)

Typical ICC moves at snail pace in any decision which actually affects the results of games, especially when it is a review of their own rules. If you can meet to discuss and 'change' the DRS to add more reviews, than surely you can respond to the player and spectator concern that the WHOLE DRS is flawed and needs to be moved to an umpire initiated review to reduce howlers affecting the progress and results of games. The available technology is not good enough to base decisions on other than run outs and stumpings, but there is no way the ICC will say they are wrong. What a disgrace the current playing group (except India) have to have their careers determined by a flawed ICC playing condition purely because the ICC is afraid of ridicule.

Posted by DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on (September 19, 2013, 2:42 GMT)

Does any changes has made in technology to improve hotspot camera to detect thin edges? or in hawkeye to make it more reliable? and inducting real time snicko in drs process? (if yes, will how increase the reliabiliy of drs). If no, how this change a good move? still we dont know which is best, hotspot or snicko? Bcz sometimes noise and air compression between ball and bat are mistaken as edges. when it all works together, If snicko detect mark and hot spot did not show heat, which tech holds priority - snicko or hotspot? to give decision. What will happen when Benefit of Doubt scenario arises? Stays with on field call or favours batsmen! What or whose role has changed in decision in decision making process to increase correct decision %? What about howlers that will happen after two unsuccessfull reviews (eg 60 to 80)? Please anybody answer my questions. Thanks in advance, a cricket fan.

Posted by Afham_Kazi on (September 19, 2013, 2:33 GMT)

Why 1 DRS in one dayers and t20's ? even though these format are more tense and crowd pulling. rhere should be reset after 25 overs for one dayers or DRS should be incresed to 2 like before and same goes for t20's as well. Further, it should be 100 overs for DRS reset in test. I believe Ireland test status should have been discussed also. Further, Zimbabwe should be given special status so that it could visit other members countires for playing test on the financial help of ICC.

Posted by   on (September 19, 2013, 2:27 GMT)

@rahulbose. totally agreed.i tend to agree with english commentators,which says that during hawk eye tracking, an 'UMPIRES'CALL shouldnt' be considered unsuccessful review. Secondly, in my opinion, field umpire has maximum visual & auditory input, so if he can get a handy device( a tablet or smart phone) then i would rather like him to make decision in place of 3rd umpire, so that he can take full credit or for that matter,discredit in case of a wrong decision

Posted by Wefinishthis on (September 19, 2013, 0:51 GMT)

Completely missed the issue here. The problem is that DRS should not be a tactic used by players. The umpire should be able to hold up the game for 30 seconds max, similar to a phone-a-friend in "Who wants to be a millionaire?". The DRS can be sped up dramatically with improved accuracy by having snicko available immediately and having each technology reviewed simultaneously by an unbiased expert in that field (snicko, hotspot, hawkeye, super slo-mo). They then advise the 3rd umpire who gives a confidence level to the on-field umpire who is left with the final judgement. That way, we have minimal interruption with the most accurate decision possible and the tradition of being given the finger means you're out and stay out, keeping the crowd and the drama in a state of suspense of the dreaded finger. If the umpire needs to have a chat about 90% of lbw calls - so be it. There are already sanctions against slow over rates so teams have to be conscious of over-appealing.

Posted by Liquefierrrr on (September 18, 2013, 23:57 GMT)

@grandclipper - seriously the umpires are paid about $15,000USD per test, they should and will continue to be held to account for bad decisions.

India hates DRS because they don't know how to use it, that's plain and simple and established.

It has nothing to do with romanticism of the game.

I can vividly recall Sachin walking off the field, out caught behind, after a decision was overturned, with a huge replay showing the ball hitting the bat twice and his gloves on the way through to the keeper (it was a spinner). He shook his head the whole way off - he wasn't concerned that the correct decision was eventually made, he was concerned that, but for DRS, he'd have survived the howler.

The bullies at the BCCI make it so that most line-ball calls go with India, so to implement DRS whereby the other sides can overturn these calls is bad news for them.

If India don't want DRS don't use it, let the howlers affect them. If a side wants DRS against Ind they should be able to use it.

Posted by Rowayton on (September 18, 2013, 23:49 GMT)

If they were going to go down this path, it would be more sensible in my view to refresh reviews on subsequent days - that is, batting and fielding sides have two reviews in an innings each day, whether they are bowling 15 overs or 90. The real issue though, that they have ducked, is what is out LBW and what is not in a match where DRS is used? It is ludicrous that the third umpire can find two identical balls out and not out, and that both decisions are 'right'.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 23:37 GMT)

Indians don't want the DRS because half of the LBW calls they get in their home country aren't even out and the umpire gives it to keep the 1,000,000 people packed into the sweaty stadium happy. Indians just appeal and appeal and appeal until finally the umpire caves and gives the batsmen out. But I digress, the DRS should be mandatory for all teams and if India don't wanna use it, enjoy forfeiting each test. I like the idea of "umpires call" not being a lost review, but I also like the idea of refreshing the reviews, not every 80 overs, but every new ball. If they take the new ball at the 85th over then that's when the reviews and renewed. We just want to make sure really bad decisions are made/upheld due to the many, many grey areas the umpires call and the redefined parameters have enabled. LBW strike zones must be amended, we have been using predictive technology for over 10 years now, we should be able to get this right!!!!!

Posted by lisadb99 on (September 18, 2013, 23:36 GMT)

SandipManjrekar - Snicko is NOT used by the umpires using DRS.

Posted by MysterySpin on (September 18, 2013, 23:31 GMT)

Two balls or not two balls that is the question? I find it baffling that the the question has so many stumped. There is already a cricket ball in widespread use around the world that lasts well past the 50 over mark. I speak of course of the classic red ball. Simply use the same red balls used for test and first class cricket and ban red ODI uniforms, there is no longer a country in the world with a flag of a single colour so if they currently have a red uniform it is not too much of a hassle to switch to one of the other national colours.

The tragedy of sides no longer wearing red uniforms in ODIs would pale in comparison to the depriving of bowlers to utilize and the public from viewing the art of reverse swing in the final overs. At the very least it'll stop the ICC getting so fixated with their balls.

Keep the white ball for T20s and teams that want them red uniforms there.

Posted by jimmy787 on (September 18, 2013, 23:24 GMT)

I have no problems with using technology - I just think it's wrong to put it in the hands of players, who will, and often do use it for strategic purposes and try to find loopholes in the sometimes flawed system in order to benefit their team.

On a slightly broader note, I also feel that cricket administrators try to "copy" things from other sports without much thought to how they will apply to cricket. For example, the whole idea of "over-ruling" of umpires' decision by players may work well for a sport like tennis, where often the decisions are very straight forward (the ball is either in or out), and the outcome easily determined by a video review.

But cricket isn't so cut-and-dry, and the application of technology, while required, needs to be done differently. I dare say that the review system should not be in the hands of players but rather the officials who are responsible for maintaining law and order out on the field.

Posted by WonkyBail on (September 18, 2013, 22:31 GMT)

gsingh7 on (September 18, 2013, 14:13 GMT) An intelligent and non partisan offering as usual. Let us get rid of DRS and the 2 new balls as they are unfair to India and may result in legends getting less hundreds. I also suggest getting away from neutral umpires so India never loses at home as they have more money than anyone else so should be ranked No.1. in all formats.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 22:06 GMT)

As a matter of principle, you want to reward bowling teams that bring umpires into play more frequently. In a way this tweak does the opposite. However, more reviews if implemented correctly should lower the error rate. The problem is that they won't be. The DRS tends to give the benefit of doubt to the on-field umpire despite the aim being to remove on-field errors. This business of removing howlers needs to be seriously questioned. When you spend millions of dollars you want to generally improve decision making. Period. Besides, one person's howler could be another person's aberration. I don't mean to plug my own stuff but please check out: http://www.espncricinfo.com/thestands/content/story/660505.html

Posted by brittop on (September 18, 2013, 21:43 GMT)

Not sure about this. 2 seems about right to me. Once you've used those up, put up with the umpire's decision like you did before DRS. Also couldn't disagree more with the suggestion you should not lose a review for umpire's call. Nearly every LBW would be reviewed, then, since I reckon most LBWs are umpire's call.

Posted by mikeindex on (September 18, 2013, 21:12 GMT)

@Michael Lee you are spot on.

Posted by poms_have_short_memories on (September 18, 2013, 21:08 GMT)

I have found that since the DRS has been a part of international cricket the umpires have made far more bad decisions initially. Back in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s there was some dodgy decisions, but by and large the umpiring standard was pretty good, maybe some more training for the umpires and mentoring by former umpires, with a view of getting rid of DRS for good might be the best approach.

Posted by mikeindex on (September 18, 2013, 21:01 GMT)

I can see some sense in the general principle of some kind of sliding scale in number of reviews per innings, as some Test innings are much much longer than others. I'm not sure how this could best be implemented, but I'm quite sure that this system, which will above all else ensure that teams with reviews in hand challenge EVERYTHING in overs 75-80 because they know they'll get their reviews back, is not the ideal answer.

Posted by bobmartin on (September 18, 2013, 21:01 GMT)

Someone may have mentioned this already, but it's worth repeating.. why on earth are any Indian supporters commenting on something which has absolutely nothing to do with them...India doesn't use it and have no intention of using it in the foreseeable future, therefore you are not affected by any of theses changes... So what difference does it make to you what the rest of the world does..It won't make the ostriches with their heads in the sand at the BCCI change their minds.. so what's the point..

Posted by wellrounded87 on (September 18, 2013, 20:29 GMT)

I don't get the Indian fans and BCCI objections to the DRS. Your argument is so illogical and unreasonable. "It's not absolutely perfect therefore don't use it at all" What a joke, no it's not perfect but it's still much much better than what we had. Comparing the Ashes to the Aus India series there were much fewer bad calls getting through. Yes there were a couple of howlers in the DRS but there were also plenty of incorrect decisions overturned. There were far more awful calls in the India series where DRS is not allowed. Same goes for Eng v India also.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 20:27 GMT)

no logic !!! senseless

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 20:12 GMT)

Well, not much of a surprise there, the ICC continue to make a pig's ear of the Laws by more tinkering and complication. Lawyers do this in order to make themselves more powerful and more able to fleece clients but you have to wonder why do they have to copy them - unless it is rank stupidity, as we have suspected for a long time. Before long there won't be time for any overs with all the day's 'play' spent looking at television replays. The idea of querying the umpires decisions has already made umpiring club cricket a bit like refereeing football matches with players mouthing off freely. Instead of copying a simple system as used in tennis, it would be much better to place tv replays in the hands of the umpires with the instruction to get on with it so play can be as near as possible to continuous.

Posted by adeflatjack on (September 18, 2013, 19:41 GMT)

The greatest 4th innings run chase of all time is on. Light is closing in but there are around 15 minutes still available and the batsmen are going for their shots. 20 to win and plenty of wickets in hand. It is the fourth ball of the 79th over and a six is heaved into the stand. 14 to win. The fielding captain calls for a review. He thinks there's a chance that the ball struck the pad first and there might be an LBW. We wait.....is it a no ball?.No.the slo-mo suggests the ball missed the pad by 10 inches and was clearly middled..but wait.let's check hotspot - nothing there. 3 minutes pass by, it gets darker. Not Out, get on with the game The next ball, a four. The fielding captain wants another lbw review. Time passes, the gloom gathers. Not Out and his reviews gone. Into the 80th over and we're down to 6 to win, still time left, but the fielding captain reviews the first two balls of the 80th over, heaves that miss by a mile. The umoires consult their meters and bad light stops play.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 19:35 GMT)

It can have both positive as well as negative effects.This will have an impact over the game.After 80 overs there can be a lot of change.Like someone is playing on 199 and then he edges the out going delivery and umpire says not out but review says out .This will be disappointing for the batting side but well for bowling side. This is just an instance.I am from India,not used to review system but i have learnet one thing about it is that it can have positive as well as negative. What more i can say is that ICC is trying to take more help from Technology.Use more technology in game.It will not be suprising if ICC decides to remove umpires and make whole game based on technology .

Posted by NLionheart on (September 18, 2013, 19:31 GMT)

The best improvement to the DRS will be to keep Dharmasena away from third umpire's char.

Posted by SandipManjrekar on (September 18, 2013, 19:15 GMT)

Snickometer is being used to detect faint edges & Hot-Spot for detecting visuals of those faint edges. So when they collide or make friction with each other, it opens larger debates for howlers (bashers). Should we go ahead on basis of visuals or should we trust on sound? Now they are many moving parts that give frictions in real time. How can we determine the friction detected being of bat with ball or bat with other things? What about the judge makers? How can be brought in uniformity of judging elements by umpires? It also varies with how umpires think at that time. Different personalities have different opinions. Another debate is about hawk-eye technology which detects perfection of moving ball's target. We are wasting heavy arguments for technology that concludes nothing but another debate. There are no solutions for loop holes in technologies. There is no consensus on these issues here except bashing the BCCI.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 19:03 GMT)

As Sigismund says, a textbook example of confused decision-making. It does not solve the existing basic problem, which is that teams control the use of an umpiring tool, and so use it strategically rather than to maximize the number of correct decisions. Instead, it exacerbates the problem, by allowing even more strategic use.

Posted by Rahulbose on (September 18, 2013, 18:59 GMT)

Perfectly useless rule changes. DRS is flaws became to obvious to ignore so solution is to have more DRS reviews? Slow bowlers are struggling with the two ball rule so solution is apply change to rain reduced T20 matches only?

Posted by bohurupi on (September 18, 2013, 18:58 GMT)

This new rule is very weird and confusing! Why after 80 overs? What is special about the 80th over?Why not keep it simple: You got 2 reviews, you retain those two as long as you're successfully reviewing them. If you're unsuccessful, you lose them. What is the point of refreshing them on the 81st over?

Posted by grandclipper on (September 18, 2013, 18:05 GMT)

We Indians are romantics (well.....lets say to an extent). No DRS for us please. Any review, if at all, should be through the 3rd umpire or the referee....give them this power and tell them to watch every ball like a hawk.When the spectators can watch a game and provide a gamut of unrestricted and free-for-all information, then why can't these ICC employed personnel? Technology changes the whole outlook whenever there is a major change. Lets have DRS only if its use is handed over to guys who usually get embarassed by its use...I mean the umpires. Let them review themselves and lets not embarass them anymore. A captain or any other player just has to ask for a review without being apologetic or embarassed while an umpire negates a review only after hearing the good news over a walkie-talkie. Have we guys ever thought of his predicament or the increased heart-beat he may have while his decision is being reviewed? Think over it............

Posted by Stark62 on (September 18, 2013, 18:01 GMT)

I'm not a big fan of icc's decision making but hats off to them this time around because this is a brilliant idea and one, which will help eradicate errors from the game.

Although, I would have liked them to have introduced 1 DRS review for T20's and 2 for ODI's, plus the rule that a team shouldn't lose its review after an "umpires" call because they are generally very close to being overturned.

Posted by Sigismund on (September 18, 2013, 17:54 GMT)

This is, truly, a triumph in the field of confused decision-making. It addresses none of the problems, and makes most of them worse. Pure genius.

Posted by sportofpain on (September 18, 2013, 17:22 GMT)

Make it 5 reviews per team per day. Each review takes about 2 minutes. So maximum time for this is 10 minutes but you might get a lot more correct decisions. Simple enough. Why so much talk/ discussions about this?

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 17:15 GMT)

@TommytuckerSaffa: Haha, I know, mate. Libellous, isn't it? There's plenty of anti-technology Luddites about in cricket, unfortunately. The irony is, with the amount of decisions that have gone against India in the last 4 or so years that I can recall seeing, they would be one of the teams that can benefit most from DRS!!!

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 17:13 GMT)

Dont mean to sound pompous but this is exactly what I had suggested after the Chris Rogers sacrifice in the second ashes test. More opportunities will simply provide the opportunity to create a larger body of experience. Since the DRS needs two elements to work together i.e. the technology to provide the input and umpire judgement on it, two additional reviews after 80 overs will partly provide that. Though providing four reviews to start with would have allowed teams to waste reviews, which at first glance may sound stupid but is needed for the body of on-field decision makers (capt, bowler,wk etc) across ALL teams to get their decision making process, ability fine tuned. And its only when all three are evolved i.e. DRS technology, umpire judgement, player judgement that the true value of this process will be realised.

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (September 18, 2013, 17:10 GMT)

I think firstly that it is right that it should not be used on every decision. Secondly it introduces an element of tactics formerly missing and depends on how gung-ho or restrained the decision maker is which is fun. it's cricket's version of the gladiator in the circus awaiting the emperor's pleasure or otherwise. I think that two reviews made it interesting as with the umpires on view this summer the chances of being given a filthy decision without review were highly possible. I wonder if just one review extra might not retain this element of chance more. Still at least they have not been retrogressive on this one. The sooner 'Snicko' is also available the better ,though. Normally the elite panel have had some sort of ability, but lets face it Rob Bailey the other day was streets ahead of Messrs Davis, Erasmus, Dar and D'sena. The umpiring both on and on the field should have got these gents the sack.The clue to DRS is 'get it right on the field.' Agar decision at TB unforgivable.

Posted by 200ondebut on (September 18, 2013, 17:07 GMT)

The two extra reviews seem like just playing at the edges - and doesn't feel logical to me. In essence what they are saying is that if you have good umpires (i.e. their decisions were correct and the reviews were wasted) the side gets two more chances to challenge their decision.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (September 18, 2013, 16:35 GMT)

Great idea, although of no use to Australia though as they rarely last 80 overs. The top teams like England and South Africa will benefit more from this.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 16:32 GMT)

@anton1234..Indians are big six hitters??...Obviously you have never heard of sehwag, kohli, dhoni and yuvraj, who by the way hit six 6's in one over...

Posted by TommytuckerSaffa on (September 18, 2013, 16:21 GMT)

BCCI and some indian fans will be furious about this. Technology being used in cricket !!! Blasphemy !!

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 16:17 GMT)

there shd b unlimited reviews..no on field umpire..all decision shd b made through available best technologies..

Posted by Optic on (September 18, 2013, 16:15 GMT)

@geedubnz But yet you fail to mention Aus did exactly the same in the second test where they went large portions of the test match at 11 overs per hour failed to bowl their 90 overs in the day and in the fifth, which was highly embarrassing for them after all the whinging they'd done. When England played India in India Dhoni employed exactly the same tactics and he was even bowling with spinners. SA also employed similar tactics in Australia recently, when Clarke scored all those runs. To single England out just shows you're being one eyed about the situation. Every team does it when they need to. to say otherwise is a lie.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 16:15 GMT)

Third umpire must be given more powers as well as onfeild umpires, yes Tv umpire has all the resources to get correct decision, he can overrule the onfeild umpire s decision. If onfeild umpire is not certain for any perticular decision he should have righr to consult with TV umpire.

Posted by aayush_nangru on (September 18, 2013, 16:15 GMT)

So...some more controversy surrounding an already controversial DRS :-) Not a bad move though, in my opinion. Makes sense to have more number of reviews if the innings lasts longer. Con - Might promote a couple of unnecessary reviews approaching the 80th over of an innings. Well, the last line of the article needs all the attention. Looking forward to World Test Championship :-)

Posted by yoogi on (September 18, 2013, 16:13 GMT)

So in the 79.6 th ball a player cannot review if he is erroneously given out and only when this happens to SACHIN then only people will see this paradox. If an ODI can go on with eight reviews a day (2 for batting team, 2 for bowling team in each innings) and yet can be considered not slowing down the game, then Test should have around 40 reviews (five days of four innings). Not many tests lasts to the fifth day and fans would rather have 89 overs with more accurate results than 90 overs where you leave lot for guesswork. Be innovative and give teams four reviews a day, irrespective of whether they are batting or bowling Thats almost same as ODI.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 16:10 GMT)

disagree with this.. test is the root of cricket..why they are changing rules so often??? cricket future is not so good

Posted by ScottStevo on (September 18, 2013, 16:02 GMT)

The main issue with DRS was relating to it's application, specifically the ridiculous 'umpire's call'. I'd have been happy had this been the only tweak made to DRS. As it stands there's an inconsistency with the system relating to umpire's call that's completely unnecessary and could've easily been eradicated. Possibly the other issues to deal with relate to ensuring that these tools are calibrated and set up by the ICC and not host broadcasters, and that sufficient testing proves out the accuracy of such systems implemented to adjudicate decisions. Increasing the number of reviews doesn't make any difference if one batsmen is given out for a ball that is clipping and another not out in the exact same situation. Referrals are made in the first place as there's a disagreement on the decision made and DRS isn't a supporting tool for umpires decisions - it's there to get decisions right! Mindless effort from the ICC...

Posted by milepost on (September 18, 2013, 15:56 GMT)

Now we get twice the controversy? It should be administered by an off field official to eliminate shockers, not marginal decisions. I think the DRS was a great idea but it stinks in practice. The benefit of doubt should be with the batsman not the umpire and all these umpires call decisions are nonsense. How can you be out and not out based on exactly the same info from the DRS. It's complete nonsense.

Posted by neilddd on (September 18, 2013, 15:54 GMT)

this is dumb. a good idea in principle but it will end up with teams using reviews in overs 70-80 with no real conviction, effectively using them as "free" reviews, you know, just in case, because you're gonna get the review back in a few overs anyway.

a better system would be to give a team another review a certain amount of overs (somewhere between 60 and 80) after their last unsuccessful review. that way teams would be wary of using their reviews at any point during the innings, but would also help to compensate the effect of long innings

Posted by wibblewibble on (September 18, 2013, 15:52 GMT)

I think there are influences at work at the ICC to ensure that DRS is never implemented in a correct manner. Perhaps they want DRS to fail. This is a nonsense change - anything even close will be reviewed in overs 71-80, "just in case". Boring.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 15:52 GMT)

Now the BCCI should accept the drs system.

Posted by Sarfin on (September 18, 2013, 15:45 GMT)

Not a convincing move. I think teams should be given maximum 2 reviews (may be one to force teams to use reviews more thoughtfully) per innings and should not lose one in case of "umpire's call".

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 15:40 GMT)

Don't think the DRS changes proposed would solve the inconsistencies of the system. If anything, we'll see more strategic reviews and not much else.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 15:33 GMT)

I would propose only one change. If the 3rd empire cannot make up his/her mind within 60 seconds, the on-field decision stands. There must be a very clear reason to overturn the decision of the on-field umpire. If it takes several minutes, that clearly is not the case.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (September 18, 2013, 15:30 GMT)

Yes !! best decision by ICC and it will only go on to improve the system further . To be honest it was working really fine as it is - obviously the occasional falling short of its sztandard due to human,third ump or even tech. occurs ,but it only will get better in time . So its ICC 1 : BCCI 0 -:) Good job ,ICC.

Posted by Steve_Stifler on (September 18, 2013, 15:27 GMT)

Okay, excellent. Now lets wait for the BCCI to make a decision....

Posted by anton1234 on (September 18, 2013, 15:27 GMT)

Cut down on the micky mouse sixes. I wouldn't bring the ropes in at all,. This will make the game more evenly balanced between bat and ball in T20s. I suspect one of the main reasons why ICC decided to bring the ropes in is to aid Indian players. Indian players (generally) are not great six hitters when the distances are long.

Make six distances longer but reward it more. For T20s, I would seriously consider 8 runs for a six. There needs to be greater distinction between a four and a six as sixes carry greater danger of getting out.

Posted by geedubnz on (September 18, 2013, 15:20 GMT)

the only remotely relevant thing that came from this meeting was the clamping down on slow over rates. Alastair Cook frequently used this as one of his many negative tactics during the ashes and deducting runs or a ban are the only means by which to stamp this behaviour out. England of course defend themselves saying they "play to the letter of the law" just like Australia did in the 90's and 2000's but miss the point that Australia were always playing to win. Fans pay for 90 overs of cricket.

Posted by brusselslion on (September 18, 2013, 15:19 GMT)

This seems to be skirting around the real problem i.e. Are the various components of the DRS currently fit for purpose?

@ROXSPORT: Whether there's any truth in your theory that these changes have occurred as a result of 'Australian pressure' is highly debatable but, in any event, to reject something you (presumably) want just because it was a response to another's request is, I agree, "ridiculous" and "Pathetic really".

@gsingh7: Nice to be able to agree with one of your sentiments for a change i.e. "..field test in domestic matches.." good idea. Shame that you go and spoil things in the next breath with some ludicrous conspiracy theory.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 15:19 GMT)

STUPID decision, anyone given out or any close call bowling in the 5 or so overs before the new ball is guaranteed to result in a review as it's now basically a freebie they'll get back......One potential route mentioned by lots and lots of pundits was for 1 or 2 reviews but with umpire's call not resulting in a lost review, I can't imagine many having an issue with this??!!?

Posted by EdwinD on (September 18, 2013, 15:18 GMT)

This DRS change is for the worse - you'll now see teams strategically using DRS when they shouldn't be. A far better call would be to leave as 3 reviews per innings, and for a review to be reinstated for 'umpires' call'. Like most figures in 'authority' they have to justify their existence, and so come up with poorly thought out 'ideas' - it's no different to FIFA granting the World Cup to Qatar in 2022.

Posted by Cubitt on (September 18, 2013, 15:12 GMT)

How does increasing the number of Reviews improve the game? DRS was introduced for howlers, already it is used (and wasted) in hope for a break-through. It should be just the 1 review, however you do not lose this review if a LBW appeal ends with 'Umpires Call'. The main problem with DRS is not its ability (although this could be improved) but how it is used by both players and umpires. Pretty soon if this continues a team will be able to review every appeal.

The way ODI's keep changing so often, I sort of hope the ICC decides to cancel all power-plays and allow 50 overs without fielding restrictions. Just let the teams and captains get on with it.

Posted by RaadQ on (September 18, 2013, 15:05 GMT)

bad decision in my opinion. I think the reviews should be limited to 1 per innings so teams only review if there is a definite howler, no guesswork allowed. in such cases, the decision will 99% of the time be overturned so they don't need to worry about losing a review. alternatively, use a 1 review per 80 overs system, as this would too reduce the impact of DRS but still allow teams to review howlers. Third umpire training on how to handle reviews and certain protocols to follow would also improve DRS. Long way to go ICC, quite disappointed. ICC should also analyse marginal decisions. When an umpire's marginal decisions favours one team too much, the umpire should be reviewed for bias. By too much I mean a lot of decisions in a lot of games a lot of times.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 14:59 GMT)

so you lose both reviews on umpires call, then get an absolute stinker in the 79th over. cheers ICC.

Posted by kristee on (September 18, 2013, 14:56 GMT)

Why the counterpart to DRS stays in Tennis? It has only strong players, not mindless powerhouses.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 14:37 GMT)

It seemed to me as a cricket viewer that the problem was with the quality and not the quantity. If the Ashes fiasco is the basis of this change then it is like like giving a headache medicine for a person suffering from a bout of malaria. Hope ICC make the inventors work on getting the system better rather than having a far fetched narrow minded solution. Also its time to stop having a ICC meeting every now and then to review the ODI rules. Every fan is tired of having new rules every six months.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 14:33 GMT)

The ICC should reconsider levying of a penalty that is non-financial in nature but will affect the result of the match. The players earn so much today that they are least bothered with pecuniary fines. The ICC should consider either addition of a certain number of runs per over to the target of the team batting second or the number of overs available to the second team should be reduced to the number of overs it bowled in its fielding stint. Only then we will see the captains come around. Losing even US$25000 has become a joke for the players today.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 14:32 GMT)

The technology has been shown to be flawed, and the umpires struggle to understand it, therefore give everyone more reviews..... Totally wrong!!!! The umpires control the game, not the technology. This will and is leading to a reduction of respect for umpires, and will lead to less sportsmanship.

Posted by Yevghenny on (September 18, 2013, 14:31 GMT)

carkac, people need to accept that DRS is here to stay, and that will go a long way to ending the debate. For all of the publicised faults of DRS, the decisions where it gets it bang on have gone un-debated. Cricket is far better off with DRS, as long as everyone gets behind it and accepts it is here to stay

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 14:25 GMT)

finally some sensibility prevailed. good job done BCCI.

Posted by Narkovian on (September 18, 2013, 14:23 GMT)

DRS needs to be used better by both players and Umpires. Why is it we , as mere viewers, can see within a few seconds in most cases ( not all) whether the batsman is in or out. Why does it take 3rd umpire so long, sometimes 3 or 4 mins to see what we can see in a few seconds. That's where the time goes. Hotspot goes back and forth umpteen times. The slomo of the runouts goes back and forth with 3 or 4 different angles, when we can see quite clearly what has happned the first time. Why ? Yawn! What we need is EXPERT 3rd umpires. Not just rotation of the on field umpires. Someone who really knows how to interpret the technology.

Posted by ilyas_US on (September 18, 2013, 14:19 GMT)

Finally something sensible from ICC would have been better No review loss once it is umpire call

Posted by danish0079 on (September 18, 2013, 14:19 GMT)

i am totally in favour of DRS system, but it must be compulsory in all tests not just in Ashes

Posted by ROXSPORT on (September 18, 2013, 14:19 GMT)

This is ridiculous and just goes on to show the bias in the ICC against the Asian nations. For years now, I ndia has been crying hoarse on the need for a better DRS system but nothing was ever done. Now, Australia are on the receiving end for one series & we suddenly see a change in the DRS rules. Pathetic really.

Posted by gsingh7 on (September 18, 2013, 14:13 GMT)

why should they not discard drs after recent howlers in ashes?/ field test in domestic matches before being forced on cricket boards like bcci. glad that icc donot have cojons to force such immature decisions like drs over powerful boards like bcci. also ecb and ca get novelties out of each match in which drs is used because these companies are english and australian. want indian companies to device alternative hawk eye and hot(?) spot so bcci can use drs.

Posted by clarkac1 on (September 18, 2013, 14:08 GMT)

I never ever thought I would get round to this point of view, but after this summer's Ashes I would not only think this change is very unwise, but frankly I would like to see DRS ditched entirely. Too many delays break up the game, third umpires can't even make a good jugment even after several long minutes. Or how about restricting it to 'line' decisions only i.e. runouts and stumpings. This latest change will mean more appeals & more delays. Bad idea.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 14:08 GMT)

@gbqdgj: why are u linking this decision with India... They didn't ask for increase in number of reviews. Infact they still won't allow DRS in their test matches... And after the ashes, i reckon a lot of other people would admit that the DRS has shortcomings and needs improvement.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 14:04 GMT)

I'm not sure how much difference this will make as many innings don't go to a new ball, but I'm glad that umpires call reviews are not 'free' as they are designed for shockers, not close calls.

Posted by bhusaranga on (September 18, 2013, 14:03 GMT)

One more flaw decision. The idea of having DRS to remove howlers will still be there and will be criticized as it happens. To me if a decision reviewed and it got decided on umpire's call, the review should be intact for the team. Adding to this, let umpire to take help from the system whenever they feel. Finally remove this hawk-eye system from DRS.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 14:00 GMT)

All of the cricket watchers and supporters seem to believe that the only change needed / required was making sure that a review that stays due to "umpire's call" is not considered unsuccessful. Simple. And what does ICC do? Does what it always does. Comes up with a stupid system that is not going to improve the situation one tiny little bit.

Posted by vedang81 on (September 18, 2013, 13:58 GMT)

The rule for using just 1 ball for ODI's less than 25 overs is really a good rule. But regarding the reviews, it does not convince the need to make 2 reviews available regardless how many used. Instead they should have made that, if the side has no reviews left after 80 overs, then 1 review will be available, else the number available will remain as it is. Making 2 reviews available again looks not much thought has gone into thinking this review solution neatly.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:57 GMT)

Good idea to refresh the reviews, I reckon. Innings that stretch out to 100 or even 120+ overs can see several wrong decisions, though this does have the appearance of compromise I think it is a definite improvement.

I wonder if the umpires will really follow through on over rates, after all the rules were already in place, so why do they need approval from the ICC to enforce them?

Can't wait for the test championship to kick off, it will certainly add interest to games which may decide on who qualifies for the finals.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:55 GMT)

couldn't the umpire check every out decision to double check every wicket to make sure it is a wicket - then they can be 100% on no balls, nicks, wides etc.

therefore, batsman can get away with having no reviews required for their innings.

the fielding side can therefore be given a number of reviews, say 1/2 per innings or session to challenge an umpire when he has given a 'not out' decision.

if time is an issue, then the fielding side can get on the match. if counties and f/c sides can bowl 120 overs a day, then test sides can do it too. if you don't bowl your overs in a session/day/test match, then suspend the captain and pay - make it a serious offence so that tv and viewers don't miss out on cricket

Posted by gbqdgj on (September 18, 2013, 13:53 GMT)

I think any team playing India should have 2 reviews only and the Indian team should have as many as they like and shall be able to refer the same incident many times over until the correct decision has been reached.

Posted by liaqet on (September 18, 2013, 13:50 GMT)

There should be 3 reviews allowed in Test Cricket, 2 in ODI and 1 in T20

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:44 GMT)

Watson will be throwing a party right now in Jaipur.... Now he can use up a review without having to face the guilt or the stare of his team mates.... cheers watto!!!

Posted by muzika_tchaikovskogo on (September 18, 2013, 13:43 GMT)

A foolish idea, if ever there was one. The original purpose of introducing the DRS was to eliminate howlers, which could easily be done if the third umpire is allowed to intercede with the ground umpires. Surely, you don't need state of the art technology to spot obvious errors. Trust the ICC to create a system with obvious flaws and then attempt to remedy those flaws by further complicating the system.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:42 GMT)

The last thing we need is any MORE stoppages. We already have a situation where nobody is ever out until it's been reviewed, this can only make things worse. As David Lloyd keeps saying - "Get on with the game !!"

Posted by jmcilhinney on (September 18, 2013, 13:39 GMT)

It's plain from the comments in this article that there are going to be people unhappy with the system no matter what changes are made. There are lots of different views on what the ideal DRS would be, including there being no DRS at all. They're never going to please everyone.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:38 GMT)

When you have infinite number of reviews for umpires to review runs, run outs, stumping, catch, etc. I think we should have four for each innings irrespective of number of overs.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:38 GMT)

Personally, I think the current system is fine - I don't think the idea of not losing a review for 'Umpires Call' decisions is good for previously stated reasons (i.e. should only be for shockers). However, this would be better than this idea which is ridiculous. Means you will see a LOT of reviews between overs 70 and 80!!!!!

Posted by Cricketfan11111 on (September 18, 2013, 13:38 GMT)

In a low scoring matches on a difficult pitch there will be lots of false strokes and edges. 3rd and fourth innings may not last 80 overs. Instead of resetting after 80 overs, reviews can be reset after the fall of 4th wicket.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:29 GMT)

No extra reviews, no keeping a review if its umpires call. DRS is supposed to be there for extremely bad umpiring decisions, not just wrong umpiring decisions. All umpires will make mistakes. If you want to eliminate ALL wrong decisions. use DRS every appeal, but only umpires can decide. So umpires wont be needed on play? yes they will, all signals and keeping game moving. There is the 3rd umpire, use him as often as is needed. DRS is in its infancy, eventually cricket will have computer umpires.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:25 GMT)

If you are letting your opponent bat for longer than 80 overs, no number of reviews will help you.

Posted by CrICkeeet on (September 18, 2013, 13:22 GMT)

Nothing will work until there r some umpires like dharmasena (dont knw how he got icc award), ashoka de silva, rod tucker, tony hill, ian gould, s tarapore

Posted by bobmartin on (September 18, 2013, 13:18 GMT)

So after 80 overs each side will revert to having 2 reviews... Therefore, assuming the batting team have lost 8 wickets at the 80 over point, they will then get two reviews for the remaining 2 wickets... as will the bowling team for the next however many overs the innings lasts. .Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me....And what happens if an innings lasts more than 160 overs... will there be another top-up.. More to the point, this doesn't address the problem of a team losing a review on an "umpire's call" which is a glaring unfair penalisation inherent in the current system.

Posted by pragmatist on (September 18, 2013, 13:13 GMT)

So a wrong decision stands in the 79th over but gets over-ruled in the 80th? Ridiculous.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:13 GMT)

Crazy, this can create unfair situations, surely. Unless you get 2 reviews added on after 80 overs, regardless of how many you've used...

Posted by inswing on (September 18, 2013, 13:08 GMT)

This is a good idea, but only for the fielding team. For the batting team, all 'out's should be reviewed automatically. Take it out of batsman's hand, as they are not able to judge themselves on the spot esp. for LBWs. Time is not a factor, because most out's are clear cut. Only one or two per innings will take 2-3 minutes, which is not a problem. Right now, a lot of problems are caused by top order batsmen reviewing any LBW decision against them (why did you waste a review? if you didn't review then the next guy would haver been saved, why didn't you review? etc.). For the fielding team, this is better than having just 2 reviews, except there will be same problems in low scoring games when a lot of wickets fall in under 80 overs. It would be tied to number wickets rather than number of overs.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:07 GMT)

it is not about the technology.... it is about how to use it need to educated the players how to use it :) and surely with time it will become full proof as indian fear it as of now.... if it is not 100% accurate but most of the times it is helpful as we all know but no one is ready to acknowledge this fact .... DAY/ Night cricket is an example of technology that makes the game look beautiful but desn't it has drawbacks as batting 2nd is always difficult ???? Be happy to be a part of the change :)

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:07 GMT)

good news.... bt umpires' recent quality is very alarming..... almost in each nd evry test they r giving sm not only poor bt also horrable decisions.... (khawaja is ashes, taylor, mayoyo against pak, sakib against zim, broad escapng by dar bla bla bla).........

Posted by Vasi-Koosi on (September 18, 2013, 13:06 GMT)

Wonderful decision; I had written on this suggestion a long time ago. It is one of the good things ICC has done wrt DRS.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (September 18, 2013, 13:05 GMT)

As a supporter of DRS the 2 review limit was fine, it was enough to overcome howlers but not too many so as to cause captains to think about the review.

THe only change I would have made is that an umpires call doesnt remove the review if it goes against the team using it. Eg a Ball clipping leg stump is given out by the umpire, the batsmen uses his review, but its umpires call so they keep that review, same for a fielding team in the inverse.

Posted by Yevghenny on (September 18, 2013, 13:05 GMT)

I think this makes sense. Reviews are reset in sports like Tennis, seems strange it wasn't like this from the outset

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:05 GMT)

This is a a step forward for me. Mostly due to the fact that ICC has been trying to control the number of wrong decisions. But again feeling bad that the Umpire factor which was so integral to the sport has been flushed out of the sport.

Posted by northumbriannomad on (September 18, 2013, 13:04 GMT)

So now that they've addressed an issue that wasn't even an issue, it's to be hoped they go on to address issues that are relevant. For example, a team doesn't lose its review when the verdict stayed with "umpire's call"; get Snicko available quicker; above all, put actual elite umpires on the elite panel, and relax the neutral umpire rule to encourage more good umpires, who don't want to be travelling all the time, to stand. For instance, go to one neutral umpire, as in ODIs.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:03 GMT)

In my opinion, 2 was a good level of reviews for each team. I agree with Sunman81, If a decision is "umpires call", the review should not be lost. For example; bowler appeals and the decision is given not out. Decision reviewed and umpires call comes back, it show the ball would have been hitting the stumps but due to the acceptable margin of error, it can't be proven 100%. I agree that the decision should stay with the umpire as benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman but the fielding side can see that the ball was going to hit the stumps (a lot of umpire's call decisions are thumping in to the stumps but 1mm less than half a ball). Their appeal is valid so they should not lose the review. Having seen many hopeful reviews during the ashes (rather than "nope, i'm definitely not out there I hit it on to my pad") I think if anything it should be reduced to 1 per team per innings to encourage the use of it only in clear cut wrong decisions. More reviews = more frivolous reviews

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:01 GMT)

Either stop it altogether or keep it as it is. It is getting stupid. Next thing you know there will be a fielding specialist who calls the reviews!

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 13:00 GMT)

This is a great idea and the experimentation will tell us whether it's going to be successful; so reminds me of the extra challenges tennis players get in a tie-breaker! Well, I thought the Umpires' call nonsense was also to be done away with from October, what happened to that? That's the main cause of the DRS controversy!

Posted by AltafPatel on (September 18, 2013, 12:58 GMT)

It could have reduced to 60 overs.

Posted by o-bomb on (September 18, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

@aroop_india - as I understand it both will have 2 from the 81st over in that situation you describe.

Posted by pardo on (September 18, 2013, 12:56 GMT)

Of course the flip side is that once you get to 70/75 overs there will be an increase in speculative reviews because it won't matter if they are struck down. Personally, while I find DRS entertaining, I still prefer the players not to question the umpire's call. That may not be possible these days, but how about no reviews for the batting side - the umpire automatically reviews every "out" decision and presents his view to on-field umpire who makes the final call (and takes the flak if he ignores the advice). As there's not enough time to review all not out decisions, the fielding team can call for any number of reviews, but must accept penalty runs if the review is struck down - 5 for the first struck down review, 10 for the second and so on.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:52 GMT)

DRS should be made compulsory

Posted by sachin_vvsfan on (September 18, 2013, 12:50 GMT)

Batsmen can still take the advantage (like Broads case) if the bowling team exhausts its reviews well before 80 overs say 60 overs. Any umpiring blunders in the remaining 20 overs will be left alone. Third umpires should also have a say in such cases.

Posted by roarster on (September 18, 2013, 12:47 GMT)

I think 2 per innings was just fine if they underpinned it with the caveat that you don't lose a review when the dreaded amber "Umpires Call" results in a failed review. This way your discouraging spurious reviews and not penalising reasonable shouts. I suspect we might now see a flurry of random shouts between overs 70-80

Posted by IndianEagle on (September 18, 2013, 12:47 GMT)

i dont care because ind will not accept untill any drastic change in technology

Posted by andrew27994 on (September 18, 2013, 12:44 GMT)

Excellent decision by the ICC. This will put less pressure on captains and players and at the same time, they would learn to use it more wisely. Also it gives the captain less reasons to complain.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:41 GMT)

They should make it so that if a decision goes against you because of "umpire's call" that you don't lose the review. That would solve heaps of the problems.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:38 GMT)

it was not at all about no of reviews but about accuracy of it so any other change baring new full proof technology nothing will work so again a thumbs down from an indian

Posted by Sunman81 on (September 18, 2013, 12:38 GMT)

ICC should still change the rules by not penalizing the bowling team for any decision that is declared as an "Umpire call"...I think this is not addressed yet

Posted by npc_cricketlover on (September 18, 2013, 12:36 GMT)

most of times the team doesnt survive for the first 80 overs itself. If they want more reviews they need to survive for longer time. This is ironical, yet it is the right of putting it, i feel. It is like giving some new hope inspite of actually not giving any hope :P

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:35 GMT)

Reviews per inning would be 3. This is more than enough to challange Umpires. Currently all all Umpires under ICC pannel are very experienced and their accuarcy are more than 98%. At the same time introducing technology in games has improved the standards of Cricket but by doing this Umpires role will be eliminated soon as they will be more or less play the part of 12th Man...! ICC Think...

Posted by ShanTheFanOfSachin on (September 18, 2013, 12:31 GMT)

Cricketers' job is to play cricket. Umpires are there to decide. Isn't it more appropriate to leave DRS to the onfield AND 3rd umpires?,Let the on field umpires decide when to call on DRS. Give the 3rd umpire the authority to review any decision by on-field umpires and overrule within the timeframe and inform on-field umpires??

I am just not convinced with the business of captains using DRS at all

Posted by aroop_india on (September 18, 2013, 12:30 GMT)

What if team A has 1 review left and team B has none of there reviews left after 80 overs....will it be 3 reviews for team A and 2 for team B, or both will have 2 reviews from the 81st over??

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:30 GMT)

This is absolutely ludicrous, either review every decision that needs to be or leave it up to the umpires every time. This is just another middle-of-the-road idea which no sides will be happy with as with the current DRS.

Posted by Khiladi_Eleven on (September 18, 2013, 12:28 GMT)

Good Initiative by ICC...

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:28 GMT)

good news for player what umpiers

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:28 GMT)

Why not just make available on demand...or are we edging that way, slowly but surely...?

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:27 GMT)

Good decision is taken by icc, as DRS helps umpires.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:27 GMT)

Is this the new Clarke/Broad rule to take in to account all the referrals they waste?

Posted by Jezc on (September 18, 2013, 12:25 GMT)

I would prefer the bowling side not to lose a review if Hawkeye says the ball was going to hit the wickets even if only clipping it

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:22 GMT)

it means that both batting & bowling teams can utilize up to two unsuccessful reviews in first 80 overs of the innings, and if they are still batting after 80 overs, their reviews will be topped-up to two more, seems to be a highly positive change.

Posted by CricketChat on (September 18, 2013, 12:21 GMT)

Good decision. I would have liked a total of 4 reviews per innings, but this might work as well. How about resetting after 120, 160 overs as well?

Posted by mikeindex on (September 18, 2013, 12:20 GMT)

I foresee a spate of reviews in overs 75-80.

Posted by   on (September 18, 2013, 12:20 GMT)

Abysmal decision, I would be in favour of reducing to one per innings to make teams use it for howlers only.

Posted by nthuq on (September 18, 2013, 12:16 GMT)

Interesting move. But I would have 1 review every 40 overs just so that players take it that much more seriously.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
ESPNcricinfo staffClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days