The Economist's sports blog Game Theory looks at how DRS has altered many aspects of cricket - the way batsmen play spinners, the increased boldness of umpires when it comes to lbw decisions, the reduction in the tension between teams, and the introduction of a new tactical angle to the sport.

DRS has also made cricket more civil. Because the teams themselves now have a stake in the decision-making, captains can no longer berate an umpire’s perceived bias or accuse a batsman of poor sportsmanship. If they are convinced of their case, they can refer it to a higher authority. It is now unthinkable that play might be halted for a day because of accusations of umpiring impropriety, as happened following the Shakoor Rana affair during England’s tour of Pakistan in 1987. The recent series was played in a fine spirit even though the two sides have a long history of cricketing acrimony.

Nearly 30 years ago, an accountant in Sri Lanka, Mahinda Wijesinghe, made one of the earliest calls for video replays to assist the umpires at a time when technology in cricket was still in its infancy. His suggestion to the ICC were rejected. In The National, Osman Samiuddin chronicles the history of technology in cricket from the 1990s.

Three months later, in the New Year's Ashes Test at Sydney, arrived the first of many false tipping points. John Dyson was run out by Bob Willis off his own bowling in the match's first over, by at least 18 inches, the Wisden Almanack recorded. Except he was not, because Mel Johnson, the square leg umpire, did not think so. Dyson made a five-hour 79 in a game that was ultimately drawn, allowing Australia to regain the Ashes.

Since it was first trialled in 2008, there has been no uniformity in the way the DRS has been implemented. It may never be perfect, but cricket has soldiered on. The sport hasn't died, nor has it been irreparably damaged, writes Osman Samiuddin in The National.

In any case, humans love the idea of perfection rather than perfection itself; we strive for it precisely because it is unobtainable (though you wouldn't know this going by some of the incredibly pedantic debate on the mechanics and accuracy of the technology being used). But if it at least reduces the number of really bad decisions, holds umpires to a greater degree of accountability (and as a bonus is entertaining viewing) then what is so wrong with it?

The ICC’s inaction and the BCCI’s arm-twisting tactics have left cricket in a situation where the use of technology is not uniform across series, Kunal Pradhan says in the Mumbai Mirror. This leaves players feeling cheated and people talking more about the DRS than the actual cricket, he says. The solution Pradhan offers is for the ICC to insist on a uniform system and if they decide not to use the technology currently available to invest in further research to develop technology that will make the game more fair.

Therefore, on the topic of the Decision Review System in cricket, which has been analysed threadbare this year, going over the merits and demerits of every component – Hawk-Eye, Hot Spot and Snicko – comes later. First, the world cricket governing body (the ICC, not the BCCI) needs to take a call on whether ensuring that results of close matches are not altered and peoples’ careers not cut short by inadvertent human errors, is important to it or not. If it is, it should evaluate the technology available and ascertain if it offers a solution. If it does, the ICC should take a vote of its member nations and decide for or against implementing the rule, irrespective of what the BCCI, or any other minority group, no matter how rich, may have to say about it.

The issue with ball-tracking technology in its current form is that its accuracy varies depending on the quality of the cameras used, Mike Haysman writes on Supersport.com. In order to standardise the technology, he suggests the ICC find a global sponsor to fund it rather than have individual broadcasters pay for it on a series-by-series basis.

The harsh reality is that the speed of the cameras that collect all the essential information to enable ball tracking systems, varies substantially based on cost. These cameras are the engine-room of the process. They range from capturing 25 frames per second at the low end to 250 frames per second at the top end. The faster the cameras, the more accurate the information obtained and the less chance of error.

The BCCI has finally agreed to accept the DRS, albeit a modified version without ball-tracking technology, but Pradeep Magazine, writing in the Hindustan Times, remains critical of India's behaviour and their attitude to technology.

The debate whether technology is foolproof or not has its merits, but when players and teams cry foul at umpiring errors and scream murder, it seems logical that anything available to assist the umpires in correcting their errors should be made use of. Especially by a country which believes there is much bias in the umpiring world against them and even goes public with their protests on the evidence of the same technology which they decry.

"If the BCCI refuse to concede [to use DRS], they must be told to. The regulations governing cricket must be standard and mandatory. Why must we wait for consensus, a majority is enough. Governments around the world work to that principle, surely cricket can too," writes Gaurav Kalra for IBNLive.

Its ironic but even among senior Indian players there are vehement supporters of UDRS. Virender Sehwag is one and his logic is compelling. I asked him after the world cup if his support for UDRS had dwindled since both in the semi-final and final he referred his lbw decisions, and was proven wrong both times! Sehwag answered that on the contrary he was an even bigger supporter because at-least 'he got a chance' to question the decision. I asked him if Sachin Tendulkar was a convert after he escaped what appeared to be a plumb lbw to Ajmal in the semi-final. And he cheekily answered, 'You will have to ask Tendulkar'!

In an interview in the Hindu, S Dinakar speaks to the former video analyst of the Indian team, S Ramakrishnan, on the various features of UDRS, how the technology works and its pros and cons.

Now we come to the heart of the matter. Why do inaccuracies creep in beyond the 2.5 metre mark? This was the reason that allowed Bell to stay at the wicket even when Hawk-eye showed the ball clearly hitting the stumps.

Over to Ramakrishnan: “There is more data to extrapolate and evidence from past data has shown that the chances of an error increase if the point of impact is more that 2.5 metres. In most systems, there may be a point from where the information may not be completely accurate.”

Would the use of technology, which enabled Aleem Dar to make two crucial decisions on the second day at the MCG, have also been able to avoid the travesty of Thierry Henry's handball that denied Ireland a trip to the football World Cup? James Lawton poses the question of whether technology should be used to assist football referees, as it does their cricket counterparts, in the Independent

Cricket accepts video evidence as a gift of the 21st century in the belief that it would be as absurd to ignore it as forswearing the benefits of antibiotics and running water. Fifa, on the other hand, rejects technology even as it enthuses over the possibility of turning the desert enclave of Qatar in a massive air-conditioning plant in order to make the 2022 World Cup possible – either that, or ransacking the traditional schedules of the entire game.

In an interview with DNA, Hot Spot's inventor Warren Brennan explains the technology, how it came into being and the challenges of implementing it in international cricket matches everywhere.

It is like any television cameras. The difficulty with the technology is that it is restricted military equipment. In order to use it, you need to apply to the government of the country that produces the equipment and to the government of the country that uses it. It is a military-based camera that is being used first time outside the military. So, this involves a lot of paper work. I can’t take the camera to the US. I can use it in Australia, New Zealand, England, South Africa, France, UAE and India. There is also a catch here.

The Australian government can withdraw the permit to a certain country or all the countries at any time. We can’t leave the cameras at the ground. They have to be packed and taken back and kept in a safe place. That is the legacy of using military equipment.

Cricket is one of the more forward thinking sports when it comes to using technology to get things right. Of course, for all its virtues, technology isn’t full proof. But its very rare lapses actually prove its worth, says Edward Craig in the Wisden Cricketer.

This all makes Hawk-Eye look good – it reinforces the quality of the technology to hand. How many mistakes can you remember Hawk-Eye making? One – this one, as all the other gadgets at the broadcaster’s disposal quickly proved.

How many mistakes have you seen umpires make? Plenty – and with an umpire review system in place, technology can quickly iron those out too.

The speed gun is one of those rare innovations that have added excitement to the game. The instant a quick delivery is bowled, spectators and players alike crane their necks to see just how fast it was. But can we trust the results? Writing in the Guardian, Mike Selvey says speed gun readings should be taken with a big pinch of salt.

But as with Hawk-Eye, or the pitch mat for lbw, or Snicko, or even the enhanced technology of Hotspot, it is not there to be taken too seriously. It has its flaws. It is not definitive. There is a margin for error. It may even be open to a little trickery if there is a little tinkering with the calibration.

I was reminded of this during the first of England's recent one-day internationals with Australia at the Rose Bowl, when in the course of the England innings Ryan Harris was deemed to have sent down a delivery in excess of 96mph. This marks him down as one of the fastest bowlers in history, and while I bow to no one in admiration of Harris's blood-and-guts, in-yer-face bowling, he isn't that. Goodness only knows what that would make Tommo, or Mikey Holding, or Shoaib Akhtar.

Lawrence Booth watches a talk by Hawk-Eye founder, Paul Hawkins, and a debate between Geoffrey Boycott and umpire Billy Bowden over the use of technology in cricket, after which he finds it 'teeth-grindingly stupid' that the ICC and Sky Sports can't agree on how to split the cost of the UDRS system, due to which it can't be used in the England-Bangladesh series. Read his report in the Wisden Cricketer:

I’ve argued before in this blog about the benefits of the UDRS system and the misunderstandings that allow its critics to use the cliché about it not being cricket. But one sequence during Hawkins’ lecture was especially persuasive in its attempts to dismantle cherished truths.

Hawkins showed footage of India legspinner Amit Mishra drifting one towards leg before striking South Africa’s Jacques Kallis on the pads. He then asked the audience to adjudicate, with the ball frozen at the point of impact. About 15-20% of the room said “out”. Hawkins went on to show the ball would have hit leg-stump easily, despite wicket-keeper Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s misleading presence outside leg-stump: irrelevant, said Hawkins, who has studied enough of these incidents to speak with authority on the matter.

He then replayed the same Mishra delivery, this time replacing Kallis with an imaginary left-hander, the result being that the ball pitched on off-stump before straightening. A small gasp: stone-dead!

England’s grizzles about the umpire Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) are wide of the mark. Likewise Mark Benson’s hasty withdrawal after the first day of the Adelaide Test was self-indulgent. Darrell Hair’s outburst about the betrayal of umpires was hot-headed, writes Peter roebuck in the Hindu.

Six Tests in Australia were enough to confirm the value of the new-fangled system. Of course it is a work in progress. Especially in these early seasons, third umpires can make mistakes. For that matter the replays and sounds are often inconclusive. Third umpires are obliged to act quickly so that the game can go on.

The decision review system needs fine-tuning to quell the controversy over umpires' poor calls, writes Mike Selvey in the Guardian.

Richardson knows the system is a work in progress, with a deal of fine-tuning to be done. So here are some suggestions he might consider. First, the idea that there should be a time limit of, say, 15 seconds is not new but it needs reinforcing. In the series just gone, reviews generally took too long and the game stagnated. Secondly, every dismissal, even such as that in which Dale Steyn sent Jonathan Trott's off-stump cartwheeling, in Cape Town, should be checked. This takes seconds, would occur at most only 40 times out of a possible 2,700 and could be communicated almost immediately by a signal into an earpiece. That Kevin Pietersen, for example, was out in the first Test to a no-ball is a nonsense when set alongside the rigmarole over everything else.

Kevin Mitchell believes that the advent of the UDRS has irrevocably marred the on-field bonhomie between players and umpires, in the process taking away an integral aspect of the game. Writing in the Guardian, Mitchell rues that “in the blink of a Hawk-Eye, cricket has changed forever”.

There, surely, is no going back to the chummy days of yore, when Ian Botham and Allan Lamb felt comfortable popping a mobile phone into the pocket of Dickie Bird's long white coat and getting someone to ring it when Beefy was coming in to bowl.

Those were warm-hearted, innocent times. Cajoling and schmoozing the umpire was part of the art, and players and officials had a rapport built up over seasons of kidding and winking. Most of the umpires had played county cricket themselves; they not only knew the tricks, they had used them.

Mike Atherton, writing in the Times, on a similar note, says the thrill of the game has been lost as a result of the UDRS. He believes the emphasis on perfectionism threatens to rob the game off its natural charm.

Those who were at Edgbaston in 2005 will tell their grandchildren about the atmosphere at the winning moment of that match: the moment when Stephen Harmison got a lifter to brush the bottom glove of Michael Kasprowicz to seal victory for England over Australia by two runs. Under the new system the drama of the moment would probably have been lost. Andrew Flintoff would not have hoisted Michael Vaughan, to have the captain near rip off his ears in ecstasy, because both would have been waiting for the review.

David Gower, writing in the Sunday Times, says the revised Umpire Decision Review System is superior to the old one but it still leads to debate.

At tea yesterday, Sir Ian Botham and I got stuck into a decidedly warm discussion following the upholding of the not-out lbw verdict in favour of AB de Villiers. Hawk-Eye had shown that the delivery from Graham Onions would have clipped the leg stump pretty hard. The crucial point was that it was not within the tolerance levels prescribed by the International Cricket Council (ICC) for such incidents.

So if a review shows that the decision of the man in the middle fell within the margin of error, the orange graphic comes up “Umpire’s Call”, and the original decision stands.

This does present an anomaly. We had a situation in which the umpire had given De Villiers not out, and Hawk-Eye suggested strongly that he should have been given out. However, because of the margin of error, the third umpire could not definitively say the original verdict was wrong, so the on-field umpire’s decision stood, and England had lost their final review. That was the point Sir Ian was most indignant about: that even if one accepted the decision as laid down by the rules of the system, it seemed harsh that England had lost the review when everyone knew it could well have been out.

In the Observer, Mike Selvey zeroes in on another debatable characteristic of the review system: "England asked for a referral that showed, if Hawk-Eye, the tracking device, is to be believed (and remember it has a margin of error) was hitting leg stump substantially, if not quite to the middle-of-the-ball hitting-middle-of-stump degree required for an unequivocal electronic decision. So the umpire's original decision pertained, as per protocol in so-called fringe decisions, a bonus for De Villiers and tough on the bowler who knows that had it been given out, and the batsman sought clarification, he would have been on the way to the dressing room."

The Umpire Decision Review System has had teething problems, not least on England's tour of South Africa, but will lead to more correct decisions and liberate umpires, writes Steve James in the Sunday Telegraph.

It simply cannot be right that an umpire makes a shocker of a decision and the whole world knows about it in an instant, while he remains in the dark. Alerting him doesn't undermine him, it liberates him. He does not stew all day, listening for the whispers, avoiding eye-contact with the aggrieved party (have you ever experienced the cut-the-air-with-a-knife atmosphere of standing at square-leg next to an umpire who has sawn you off earlier in the day?) and maybe even attempting a 'make-up' decision.

James Lawton makes a case for cricket and football, sports that often haven't gone hand in hand, to embrace the review system, despite the glitches, to rid the games of the "worst examples of failed justice." Read his article in the Independent.

Yet Strauss admits that the system is almost certainly part of the future and that he, along with everyone in cricket, has to work both to understand it and show it in its best light.

It would be wrong to suggest this is the overwhelming view in cricket. One of the most persistent complaints – and no doubt it would be redoubled in football – is that the process is guaranteed to break the flow of the game. One experienced observer at Centurion says: "It just feels wrong. Fans celebrate the fall of an opposition wicket one minute, then the next they are cast down. Better to let the breaks come as they may, and just get on with it."

But can this really be a viable view at the end of the first decade of the 21st century? If sport is worth any kind of trouble, should we not endeavour to get it right when a wicket or a goal is illegitimately claimed?

Nasser Hussain criticises Stuart Broad in the Daily Mail for challenging the umpires' authority following his dismissal on the third day. However, he agrees that the umpires gave South Africa too much time to call for a review, and that is an issue that ought to be addressed.

If yesterday's incident was a one-off then it wouldn't be too much of a problem but this is far from the first time that Broad has shown stroppiness towards officials, and if he carries on it is going to lead to umpires turning down his appeals and generally having a downer on him.

The Adelaide Test and the speculation surrounding Mark Benson's exit was an indication that the Umpire Decision Review System had its pitfalls, writes Mike Selvey in the Guardian. He suggests the review system be used to increase the authority of umpires, rather than erode it.

I would like to see umpires given more responsibility as promoted by the review system. For example, why the square-leg umpire has never been required to adjudicate on height for lbws is beyond me. The training of better umpires, and the use of the best rather than a broad international spread, should be as important as the drive for correct outcomes. In fact, one ought to predicate the other.

But, if the ICC insists the technology is paramount, then it should be used not at the request of the players to query but of the officials to augment, as it was during the Stanford series in Antigua. There should be nothing wrong, either, with the third umpire interjecting if he sees something untoward: we all want the best decisions and, in particular, the elimination of obvious howlers.

Andy Bull, in his blog The Spin in the same newspaper, agrees with Selvey. He writes that the power to review decisions needs to be taken away from the players and must rest with the umpires, something Allen Stanford implemented in his tournament in the Caribbean but the ICC is yet to embrace.

If the aim is to aid the umpire, they should have control over the process, calling on it as and when they need it. It should be a stick to prop them up, not a rod to beat their backs. Otherwise, as Benson has shown, you are only making the job harder.

The Umpire Decision Review System is not to be blamed for the criticisms associated with it, but the players, who have misused it and to some extent, the TV umpires, who haven't yet come to grips with their job description, writes Lawrence Booth in his blog, the Top Spin, in the Daily Mail.

The truth is, it couldn’t be simpler. A quick reminder: if a player thinks he’s been done an injustice and his side has one or both of its challenges per innings in hand, he can refer the decision to the TV umpire. And if the TV umpire sees clear evidence that the original decision was wrong, he can over-rule. Where, gentlemen, is the difficulty?

Problems have arisen not because – as romantics such as Dickie Bird believe – the on-field umpires have been stripped of their authority, but because both the players and the TV umpires have exceeded their brief. The ICC, in trying to deal with the kind of umpiring-induced bad blood that marred India’s tour of Australia in 2007-08, have made it clear all along that the UDRS is there to get rid of the howlers. And that is it.

There are already a host of technological aids for umpires and players in cricket and now comes the latest - an analytics program - that gives a team an insight into which way the match is going, the position of the game and, importantly, what strategies to be employed to win. Hindustan Times' Kadambari Murali talks to the head of the company that developed 'Over the Rope' and asks if such a program won't go on to kill creativity.

This means the coach/dugout will tell the batsman he has to get 40 runs in the next three overs. His job is just to get those runs in that time. The bowler’s would be to prevent that, knowing fully well what the batsman has to get and execute his plan. So here’s the question that many will pose: Would this not kill the creativity and the natural instinct of a batsman/bowler and make him more robotic? Ramky believes that isn’t the point. “We’re not trying to kill their creativity but trying to help them win. We’re telling the player: ‘be creative in achieving your goals’. The route is up to him, how to get those 40 runs, not whether 40 or 60 is enough. Dynamic strategising is involved and the program does that based on proven fact and data.”

A Brisbane university hopes to take the controversy out of throwing following the development of strap-on technology that can tell immediately whether a bowler’s action is illegal, reports the Australian.

The device uses electronic sensors to measure the degree of elbow extension from the time the bowling arm reaches a horizontal level to the ball's release ... Griffith University project leader Daniel James said the device would help remove controversy "and let people get on with playing the game".

"Once somebody has developed an arm action, it is very hard to correct on the day,” Dr James said. “But as a training tool this device could be invaluable, especially for developing athletes.

Kumar Sangakkara, in his column in the Telegraph, talks about the positives of the umpire review system, which is under trial in the Sri Lanka-India Test series.

The bottom line in the current Sri Lanka-India Test series that I am playing in is that obvious mistakes have been corrected and the quality of decision-making has been high.

Concerns that technology would undermine the role of the on-field umpire have proved misplaced. Player referrals are a radical departure from the game's traditions, but we have seen both teams conduct themselves responsibly on the field when requesting reviews.

A pattern has started to emerge whereby the overturning of decisions will be rare. Only where obvious mistakes have been made, like whether the ball pitched outside leg or in-line, or whether there was an inside edge on to pad, will the third umpire recommend that the on-field umpire changes his decision.

Peter Roebuck is another fan of the referral system. He says the Sydney Test between India and Australia earlier this year would have been far less ill-tempered if the new system had been in place. Read on in the Hindu.

Angus Fraser in the Independent, isn't in favour of the new umpire referrals system as it could devalue the experience of watching cricket at the venue.

Those watching live at a venue will no longer have the best seat in the house, they will be left in the dark every time a referral is sent to the third umpire. It can take a minute or two for the third umpire to get the images he is looking for from the television broadcaster, with an over containing two or three referrals taking seven or eight minutes. After a while punters will question whether it is worth paying £75 for such a view when a better one can be obtained on a sofa at home.

	David Gower thinks that was taken cleanly © Getty Images

It is amazing there are not more off-field confrontations similar to that between the England captain, Michael Vaughan, and South Africa's AB de Villiers, Angus Fraser says in the Independent on Sunday, given the close proximity of the opposing dressing rooms at most venues. Fraser recollects one such rare flare-up.

There was an ugly incident in a one-day international I played in Barbados when Gladstone Small, one of the nicest men to play cricket for England, pointed to the dressing room when he dismissed Gordon Greenidge, the rather angry West Indian batsman. At the Kensington Oval the dressing rooms are divided by a narrow walkway, and at the end of the match an England player stuck his head in our room to inform us that an irate Greenidge had Small by the throat

Both Vaughan and de Villiers were at the centre of controversial catches, both of which were given not-out after being referred to the third umpire. In the Sunday Times, David Gower says he thought Vaughan's catch off Hashim Amla was clean, and feels perhaps the player's word should be taken.

My view was that Vaughan had caught it. Sky tried before play yesterday to demonstrate how the ball can look to be on the ground to the long lens when in fact it is safely in a fielder’s hands. The method of Vaughan’s catch, with a dive involved, left it open to suspicion that the ball might have just touched the grass. In our commentary box there was little agreement. I can sympathise with the third umpire and understand there was enough doubt for him to deny the catch.

So here is the key question: should we return to the days when players were trusted to say if a catch was good or should we be heading for greater use of TV pictures to help in the decision making? The answer has to be a bit of both, including selective use of the latter, which could be extended from its current scope to include a second look to check on whether a batsman has hit the ball for a catch or inside-edged it when the arms are up for an lbw appeal.

Billy Bowden and Daryl Harper had a moderate day, but their reputations could have been saved by use of television replays and a greater trust of the player's word, writes Simon Hughes in the Telegraph.

Unfortunately, the ICC, who rule on how technology should be used, display a total lack of comprehension of its benefits. Television can quickly evaluate whether a ball has brushed a pad or a glove, but cameras used to adjudicate whether a catch has been grassed present a flat image and usually cloud the issue. Yet the umpires are allowed to refer the latter and not the former. They are effectively umpiring cock-eyed.

Steve James, in the Telegraph, calls for the increased use of technology to assist umpires and backs the umpire referrals system

For it might have been the first Test series in which the controversial umpire referral system was trialled. But the respective boards could not agree on the finer details, so Sri Lanka and India will become the guinea pigs later this month.

It is a shame. Those believing that such a system will never be in general use at international level are deluded. Believe me, it's coming whether you like it or not. And so it should be. Technology must be embraced.

Why should television viewers at home be able to see an umpire has committed a howler while the side wronged against has no right of appeal?

Virtual reality studios, GPS tracking, data mining and neural network software programs - what do all these have to do with cricket, you ask? These are part of a series of technological developments planned to help maintain Australia's domination of world cricket. John Coomber writes in the Brisbane Times:

Cameras will be set up to capture as nearly as possible a batsman's-eye view of the opposition bowlers, and relay the feed to a studio near the Australian dressing room.

Players padded up and waiting to bat will be able to rehearse their innings using images gathered from the middle, and projected life-size back into the pavilion.

Don't you want to hear what Geoffrey Boycott thinks of all this?

Batsmen may be happier and safer wearing helmets, but, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, they prevent fans seeing the batsmen's faces, which, market research has found, makes it hard for them to relate to the players.

But, as Philip Derriman notes, it’s not all gloom.

If they're bad for TV, they're about the only thing in cricket that is. In other respects, cricket is a broadcaster's dream. It lasts all day; the main action is concentrated in a smallish area; it's essentially a one-on-one (bowler-against-batsman) contest; the game lends itself to endless analysis by commentators; and the short breaks between overs are ideal for slotting in commercials.

Mike Selvey is not a fan of the new rule that allows players to appeal against the umpire's decision. Read his views on it in The Guardian.

The very notion of appealing against an umpire's decision, even in this artificially formalised way as advocated by the England coach Duncan Fletcher, is anathema, for the founding block of the game is the acceptance that the decision of the umpire is final.

In the continuing debate over whether the increased use of technology is good for cricket....or not, Brendan McArdle feels that the TV monitor is creating more problems than it is solving.

Our perspective on the game is being distorted. Ricky Ponting's run-out was supposedly the result of England cheating with its 12th man; Shane Warne was robbed of a maiden Test century years ago in Perth because Daniel Vettori's no ball was not called, not because of a moment of madness on 99 by our champion leg spinner.

To read more on the debate, visit Wicket to Wicket, where Cricinfo's writers put forth their views for and against technology.

Ray White, the former president of the South African board, puts forth his suggestions to improve Test cricket. Read the piece in Natal Witness.