The idea of using technology to "eliminate" human errors is logical. Instead of using it retrospectively, the current hardware will be upgraded to give instant decisions. The on-field umpires would be redundant. Loudspeakers and digital screens will be used to communicate with players.

It is not the system..but it is the umpires that are not capable of using the DRS...in other words not know how to use it properly

To say that DRS can make things worse simple ridiculous. The system cannot possiby turn a good decision into a bad decision, but it can turn some bad decisions into good decisions. Of course some players can make things worse by trying to exploit DRS in inapparopriate ways, but that is the fault of the players, not the system.

I am absolutely Pro - DRS. It reduces the howlers a lot. And as far as the bad decisions in the Ashes or elsewhere goes(there are very few), if conclusive evidence are not found, then the umpire's decision stays...ri8? which is what would have happened has DRS been not there. For all Indian fans, remember the Sydney Test, we would have won it had DRS been there :D

Umpire errors consider as part of the game as long as impartial. No one talks about umpire decisions after one or two days.

Purpose of DRS: To eliminate the "howlers'. Basically, to correct an umpire when there is a very bad decision e.g. Stuart Broad 'ninking' to first slip.

My problem is this, the howlers are obvious issues, but how often do you really see a genuine howler?

Right now, I have no problem with teams using it on the 50/50 calls because rather than correcting an Umpire, it can be used to either back him up or to actually get the right decision.

I agree with Mark Butcher, if you get a 50/50 challenge, ie an "Umpires Call", wrong you should keep your reviews. However, like with any sport that use technology (AFL, NRL, Football (soccer) or Tennis etc), the "3rd Umpire" should have the ability to overturn a 'howler' without a challenge being required.

Use the last ball of the day from Johnson to Carberry that was a half LBW shout. Was given not out and was not reviewed, however, if it had been, it was out. Isn't that also a 'howler' as the decision was wrong and could've changed the result

I personally like the idea of DRS to get the right decision but if it's umpire call then the appealing team should not lose a review. Still keep it at 2 reviews per innings.

3. Either all test matches should be played with DRS, or none. It should also be applied to stumping and run out decisions for the sake of consistency, and the sake of simplifying the game.

Every time fans see a dismissal like Kallis's in the recent test when there is no DRS in place them frustrated, whichever side they are supporting, when simultaneously in the ongoing Ashes they see such howlers easily overturned. Equally, Broad's non-dismissal under the DRS system was also frustrating. In neither of these two instances was the howler avoided, whereas with the changes I suggest, I feel virtually howlers will be eliminated, and the game will be more approachable to new fans as a result of the simplified system.

I think a couple of ways to approach the current problems in the DRS system would be as follows: 1. Eliminate hotspot, real time snicko, and any other expensive technology which countries refuse to hand out to countries that are not England or Australia based on 'security' concerns, or are simply too costly to be catered for, as the ICC seems unwilling to stomach the bill. This would make DRS consistent across all test matches. 2. Take the DRS out of players' hands. Players should be playing high quality cricket, not wasting their time learning how to become better than PAID PROFESSIONALS at umpiring. 2 or 3 TV replays will suffice for almost all decisions, and is affordable for all host Test nations. Please stop saying time is an issue, if it is an issue, it is a minor one, especially given how captains around the world don't seem to care for over rates. While a review is being considered, the fielding team should position itself as if the next delivery were to be bowled.

1) DRS is here to stay. India will eventually accept it. The next Indian captain may well be pro-DRS and BCCI will be guided by him and the coach.

2) DRS does takes away from the Drama, but also adds to it, especially in a mundane day's play.

3) Cannot allow the on-field umpires to decide on the DRS. It will be harmful in many ways: A) It may lead to a lot of reviews and delays. B) Every now and then you may have a very confident (read egoistical) umpire who may not ask for a review. C) It will eventually de-skill the umpires. Most umpires nowadays dont bother much about run-outs and no-balls, they just check it with the 3rd umpire. I dont have the numbers, but during the current ashes, umpires checked for no-balls after a wicket many many times.

4) A quick check by the 3rd umpire after the wicket falls and informing the on-field umpire if there is a gross error (no-ball, ball pitching outside leg stump, clear inside edge etc) may work.