I dislike UDRS not because of the less reliability, but the fact that it is used more like a strategic weapon than an incorrect decision changer. If there is a wrong decision, you should have not to be having to use some of sort calculation and strategic planning to appeal against. Also close decisions result in number of challenges available to be removed, which is unfair as they were that close hence team was justified in appealing the decision & punishing them for that is ridiculous.UDRS gets a thumbs down for me for not what it is intended to do, but for how it is implemented.
Now, we hear that further guessing is going on with different variations to the number of challenges for Tests and ODIs. What could possibly be the rationale of having two unsuccessful challenges per innings for Tests and one for ODIs?
One unsuccessful challenge would be enough to remove the howler, the bad mistake, the error that every umpire makes now and then and especially under tired duress. When this happens the players simply step in and say 'We'd better check that please'. The decision gets reversed and the challenge system carries on.
Last week the ICC said Ed Rosten, a Cambridge professor, had given ball-tracking technology the 100% tick. Yet Ian Taylor, the creator of Virtual ball tracking says it isn't 100%. Whom shall we believe? The inventor, of course, not the professor.
On the DRS itself, there is a deeper issue. If the objective is to ensure fairer decision-making, it should be allowed on every decision, not one or two. As it stands today, it doesn't eliminate the howler for No. 9 or 10 if the two reviews have been used up. The lesser batsmen effectively live in a non-DRS system. We have created a hierarchy - haves and have-nots.
The visitors had been unsuccessful in their only review while bowling in the first innings, before both Mahela Jayawardene and Angelo Mathews unsuccessfully challenged lbw decisions that were found to be hitting the top of the stumps. Rangana Herath was also given out lbw, but had inside edged the ball onto his pads, and was unable to review the decision because Sri Lanka's reviews had already been spent.
Late in the day, Nuwan Kulasekara trapped Ed Cowan in front with a ball that straightened off the seam, but despite having both reviews available, Sri Lanka opted not to refer the decision to the third umpire.