First, there is no agreement over the very nomenclature. Originally named UDRS (Umpires' Decision Review system), it was watered down to plain DRS, as the umpires collectively objected to the "U" factor. They did not want to be seen as coming under scrutiny.

Having once come into force, there are as many interpretations of the DRS as there are voices within the ICC and without. Even those whose job it is to arrange files and look after the general office administration are taking upon themselves the responsibility of pronouncing opinions and reactions, not to mention issuing a reprimand, on behalf of the ICC.

The reference is to one Dave Richardson, who passed adverse remarks against Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni, when the latter rightly criticized the mess that was created by the DRS and umpire Billy Bowden between them. The reprieve he gave to England batsman Ian Bell materially affected the result of the match and India lost a point.

After seeing what happened twice thereafter, the ambiguity is bound to grow and just one such mix-up between what technology reveals and what the umpire beholds could cost a team a crucial match.

Coming to Dave Richardson, the former South African wicketkeeper jockeyed himself to the ICC general-manager's post during the reign of Malcolm Gray as ICC chief. It is a supernumerary post considering that the ICC has an elected president and a CEO, along with a huge staff.

Richardson had quite clearly over-stayed his brief, as at no stage can he be a spokesman for the ICC. The BCCI Secretary N. Srinivasan snubbed him as hard as he could have because an important a body as the BCCI cannot take dictation from a miscellaneous paid staff of the ICC. Tomorrow, it may be an office clerk.

Richardson in his statement had advised Dhoni to read the rules before commenting on the decisions. In other words, he called the Indian captain ignorant. Now see for yourself, who is ignorant.

Five days after the Ian Bell controversy, Zimbabwe captain Elton Chigumbura was given out by umpire Erasmus even though the Hawkeye technology showed the point of impact being well over 2.5 meters from the line of the stumps.

Last Sunday, Australian umpire Rod Tucker overturned his own decision of "not-out" in a review to rule Irish batsman Alex Cusack "out" leg before wicket to Yuvraj Singh.

Now, if there is a law on 2.5 meters according to Richardson, where is it? Are two umpires who adjudged Chigumbura and Cusasck out are ignorant of its existence?

Most of the confusion can be avoided if you allow technology to prevail over the on-field decision. If the issue is taken out of the hands of the on-field umpire and referred to technology, it should not be sent back to the umpire. After all, it is his decision that is being challenged by either that batting or the fielding side,