How do you view the progress of the UDRS - has it moved forward in the direction envisaged; what are the areas that are still a cause of concern?

Dave Richardson: I think the DRS has worked well in the Tests we have used the system in so far. Since October last year we have used the system in four series involving 13 Tests and the very fact that the correct decision % in those 13 Tests has been improved from what would have been 91.3% had we not used the DRS, it has improved to 97.4% by using it which means a percentage increase of about 6%. To us that indicates that we are on to something here: the system works. For that reason alone we have been very pleased with the progress that has been made.

However, nothing always works 100% all the time. What we have found with respect to lbw decisions the use of the ball tracking technology and the protocols that are used with that technology have worked really well. But when it comes to decisions involving thin edges, more often than not in fact, the TV technology that is available does not always help on every occasion. I think if we have to use the DRS going forward the next step will be to have a look very carefully at the specifications that we have got as far as technology is concerned for all those technologies that we have got to help us with those edges and to see whether they can be implemented across the board and if so how we are going to finance that in the long run.

There are about four hot spot cameras across the world, UDRS is not being used in all Test series' despite it being made mandatory …shouldn't the onus be on the ICC to ensure consistency use of technology?

DR: One of the issues that the ICC needs to consider is whether it is necessary to standardise the technology specifications across the board in all series. For example in some series we have had Hot Spot cameras but there are only four Hot Spot cameras available worldwide, so sometimes it is not possible to have those cameras involved. Some series' have ultra motion cameras available which are also very good at helping to pick up the thin edges. Sometimes all we have is the sound from the stump microphone. Now there is an argument either way. Some people will say we have to standardise it, otherwise people will get confused; other people will say as long you make use of the best technology available then it is still more useful than not. I like the analogy of having to go into a war zone - some people will argue that they are not going to go unless they get a bulletproof vehicle and if they are told you still have to go and all we have is a bulletproof vest, some people will argue that is better than nothing. So if we apply that analogy to the DRS some people will say that if you have six cameras and that can correct one of the mistakes, isn't that better than nothing?

But I think the overall consensus has been across the board, whether it is from umpires, or players or the media, is that the DRS has worked well; that we should continue to implement it but we should look at ways of improving the technology, refining the technology and, certainly as far as possible, standardise the technology across all series.

A lot of the boards signed deal with the broadcasters when UDRS wasn't made mandatory. So they hadn't budgeted for the cost implications - isn't this something the ICC should be taking upon itself?

DR: A lot of people are suggesting that the ICC should get involved and that it should take on the cost burden. But the fact of the matter is that the ICC doesn't have its own funds. The funds that ICC gets from ICC events are all distributed as soon as they come in to the members. So when someone says the ICC must pay, in effect what we are asking the members to do is the members to pay. Now some will argue, why should members like Afghanistan, Ireland, Holland or even some of the other full members who do not have as many Tests, why should they be paying the costs for Tests put on in some other full-member country. So it is wrong to say the ICC must pay, or put it this way, if the ICC must pay, in effect what we are really saying is that the members must pay. I think that is again one of the matters that needs to be discussed by the ICC. We are in this difficult period where we have existing agreements in place between members and broadcasters so we need to rely on everyone's cooperation. But I think the plan is to hold a conference in March this year with the broadcasters to refine the specifications, determine what is necessary and also to discuss the cost implications both for the members and the broadcasters.

Obviously it is still work in progress … so then, shouldn't it have been trialled extensively at the first class level before experimenting with it at the highest level?

DR: We often hear the suggestion or the argument that we should have trialled the DRS at first-class level. The problem with that is purely a practical one. Firstly there is very little first-class cricket that is televised. Secondly, if it is even televised, the technology that is available at those matches, compared to the technology that might be available at international level is very scant; it is normally the minimum that is required. Very few times will there be ball tracking, Hot Spot cameras and the like. So to trial it at first class level is impractical. Thirdly, what we are finding is that what is needed is for players to get better understanding of when to use the system and when not to use the system. We also need the umpires to get practice at implementing the various protocols. It is not going to happen overnight. And a lot of the problems we have had so far have been exactly that. And throw in the mix, we also need TV production staff, video replay operators, sound engineers and even the director of the broadcast also needs practice at implementing the process, the system and protocols before it gets better and better.

I don't think we would have made any progress had we initially trialled it at first-class level, in fact there were a couple of trials used in New Zealand and England, but the technology wasn't good enough. And in any event we need the people who are going to be using the system, the international TV broadcasters and international TV umpires to be using it to improve.

Just looking at the technology itself - tools like Hawk Eye, Snicko still have some apprehensions about their accuracy, their predictive element … but the whole point of getting in technology was to make decision making foolproof wasn't it?

DR: I think it is important for people to understand that we will only be using technology that is tested and accredited as being accurate and reliable. Yes, even technology is not always conclusive in 100% of cases and we have seen that with thin edges it is sometimes impossible to tell using TV technology that is available.

But when it comes to lbws we have adopted ball tracking technology systems that have been tested and accredited by the ICC using the MCC. Yes, maybe a mistake will be made on occasions. There are human beings operating this technology but generally we have satisfied ourselves that the results that are achieved using this type of ball tracking system are going to be accurate enough for people to be assured that what they are seeing on that ball-tracking graphic is correct. So yes, there is going to be some education involved. Not many people around the world understand how the ball tracking systems work so we will have to do some work on perhaps educating that public. Certainly we have already commenced that work when it comes to the commentators and media in general. But I think it will take a long time before players are more accepting that what they are perhaps now seeing is real and relevant and correct rather than relying on the human eye. There will always be some sceptics around but hopefully we can convince them in the long run.

Is there a need then to re-look and standardise these protocols? How do you propose to go about ensuring this standardisation of technology?

DR: The only way for us to successfully standardise the technology specifications and develop protocols that are understood by everyone is first of all to discuss and determine them. The first step will be to get together with the broadcasters and the technology suppliers and come up with a more refined set of specifications. And secondly, once those have been determined, to implement those protocols and practice them. Unfortunately, only with practice will things become perfect. I suppose you can say that they will never become perfect and it is an impossible ideal, but certainly by practice we can refine and improve them and by so doing continually improve the system. After all technology, unfortunately in this day and age, is never going to be something that we can say today, is, we have achieved the optimum system, lets adopt it forever. Technology improves day by day and this is going to be an ongoing process and we are going to have to review technology as it improves and make sure we take advantage of those improvements and use them to the best advantage.

With the controversy in the Johannesburg Test, the UDRS is firmly under the scanner. Looking at the sequence of events in the Graeme Smith dismissal, do you think anything could have been done differently in hindsight?

DR: The fourth Test between South Africa and England in Johannesburg was a very good example of how complicated this can all get. There we had a situation that the host broadcaster produced a feed that went to the third umpire's room. At the same time we had in tow other broadcasters, BSkyB which provided and feed into the UK and goodness knows where else plus the Super Sport feed which also had their own feed going out to their own viewers that the third umpire didn't have access to. So when you realise the likes of Sky and Supersport have additional cameras added to the host broadcasters plus their own broadcast staff and sound engineers, you can see that there needs to be some strict protocol for what needs to be shown and what can be used by the third umpire. Obviously if we had that series, we again would make sure that the same levels or specifications that the host broadcaster was using was also being used by the other broadcasters so that there was no room for different feed going out to different people. But these are the things we can learn from experience and hopefully we can rectify going forward.

This is not the first time Daryl Harper in the capacity of third umpire, has been at the centre of controversy. This system was aimed at reducing the scrutiny on umpires - hasn't this made the umpires actually more vulnerable? And taking this argument one step further, hasn't the scrutiny on the third umpire increased?

DR: Obviously the DRS system is going to involve much more scrutiny on the third umpire himself and the role of the third umpire is crucial to the success of the system. And I think it is inevitable that when something is used that involves umpire decision initially there is going to be more scrutiny than normal which as you and lot of others have pointed out is actually contrary to what we are going to achieve in the long run. So I think we have to go through this initial period where it is new, everybody is looking as to how it is working. The third umpire is now under huge scrutiny, the on-field umpires' decisions are highlighted. But we are hoping that once everyone gets used to DRS being used it will be used like it is in tennis where a occasionally the player thinks that a mistake has been made by the line judge and he can lodge an appeal or request a review - the review is conducted, the decision is made and you just move on. In so doing actually, the end result will be that the umpires won't be blamed necessarily for causing series' to be lost or players' careers to be ended and everyone will just accept that the best decision was reached in majority of the cases.

So getting back to my first point, the fact is that in that fourth Test, had we not used DRS, the umpires would have got only 84% of their decisions correct. By using the DRS it was improved to 91%. There was obviously 9% that we did not get right and that is why we need to work on the technological specifications to improve that figure. That was obviously a freak Test; the other stats are much more favourable and we can't forget the fact that again the correct decision percentage went up by 6% points.

In conclusion, going forward how do you see the role of the UDRS?
DR: I think we have seen how complicated it can be and this is not tennis where some ball tracking technology can be used to decide things quickly. There are so many elements to an umpire's decision. The umpire will have to consider at least five or six different elements for an lbw in the normal course. So trying to have technology that replicates that decision making process is equally complicated. So I think unless we are able to improve and refine the specifications it may well be that in the end we think this is too complicated and we leave it to the on-field umpires. But I think we have already learnt enough to see that the percentage of decision making can be improved using the DRS and, yes, it is not going to be perfect 100% of the time, so if we can get correct 97% of the time then it is all worthwhile.