The 'Umpire's Call' component of DRS — which upholds on-field decisions when the ball is clipping the stumps — was introduced to protect umpire authority but has been consistently criticised for producing outcomes that seem to contradict the purpose of technological review.
DRS was introduced to reduce clear umpiring errors. Ball-tracking technology (Hawk-Eye) could accurately predict ball trajectory, eliminating obvious LBW mistakes. The question was what to do with genuine borderline cases — deliveries that might be hitting the stumps or might be missing by a fraction.
The ICC consulted with technology providers and established that Hawk-Eye had a margin of error of approximately 2.5cm per 100cm of flight — meaning for balls at 18-20m range, the predicted path could be off by a few millimetres. Umpire's Call was designed to acknowledge this uncertainty.
The first significant Umpire's Call controversy came almost immediately after DRS's introduction. Batsmen who were clearly LBW were surviving reviews because the ball was 'umpire's call' hitting. Conversely, batsmen given out were failing to overturn decisions because the ball was umpire's call missing.
The BCCI initially refused to use DRS at all, partly citing Umpire's Call as a reason the system was not working as intended. Their objection was that technology should eliminate human error, not defer to it on close decisions.
When the Decision Review System was introduced in 2009, it included an 'Umpire's Call' provision: if ball-tracking showed that less than 50% of the ball was hitting the stumps (i.e., just clipping), the on-field umpire's decision would stand regardless. The rationale was that the technology had margins of error and borderline decisions should default to the umpire. In practice, Umpire's Call produces seemingly contradictory outcomes: a batsman given out LBW on the field who reviews and sees the ball only clipping the stumps is still given out; a batsman given not out who is reviewed and the ball clips the stumps also survives. Both outcomes are logically defensible but feel arbitrary to viewers. Multiple ICC committees have reviewed and retained the rule.
2009: DRS introduced with Umpire's Call provision from the start
BCCI refuses to use DRS in India home Tests until 2016 — cites Umpire's Call inconsistency
Multiple World Cup controversies involving Umpire's Call saving or dismissing batsmen on borderline LBWs
2017 Champions Trophy: Bangladesh eliminated partly due to Umpire's Call LBW controversy
ICC review committee meets in 2018 to consider removing Umpire's Call — decides to retain it
2020: ICC modifies how Umpire's Call is visualised for broadcast
2009
DRS with Umpire's Call introduced in India-Sri Lanka series
2010-2016
BCCI refuses DRS in home Tests; Umpire's Call cited as a flaw
2017
Champions Trophy controversy; ICC review of the rule
2018
ICC retains Umpire's Call with minor modifications
2020
ICC changes visualisation of Umpire's Call for broadcasts
“If we are using technology to review decisions, we should use it consistently. Umpire's Call creates exactly the kind of confusion we were trying to eliminate.”
“I understand the logic of Umpire's Call but it creates situations where identical outcomes for the batsman are treated differently. That feels unjust.”
“Having reviewed the data, the committee is satisfied that Umpire's Call reflects the genuine uncertainty in ball-tracking technology at the margins and should be retained.”
Umpire's Call has remained despite persistent criticism. The ICC's defence is that the technology genuinely cannot distinguish between a ball clipping the stumps and missing by 1mm — forcing an arbitrary threshold is better than pretending precision that doesn't exist.
Critics argue the rule should be reversed: if technology shows the ball clipping, the batsman should be out regardless; if the ball is missing, they should survive. The 'defer to the umpire' logic for borderline cases is seen as undermining the purpose of review.
Umpire's Call remains in force with modifications. The ICC reduced the threshold from 50% to the current level and changed how it is communicated to viewers, but the fundamental rule structure is unchanged. It remains one of the most debated aspects of DRS.
Umpire's Call is the most publicly misunderstood aspect of cricket's technology framework. Broadcasters spend significant time explaining it to viewers who cannot understand why a ball clearly hitting the stumps results in 'not out'.
It has, however, survived numerous review cycles — the ICC consistently concludes that the alternative (treating all predictions as certain) would produce more errors overall given the technology's real-world margins of error. The debate continues with each high-profile controversy.
ICC vs Cricket World
2005-07-07
The Super Sub rule, introduced in 2005, allowed ODI teams to replace one player mid-match — creating a massive tactical imbalance that rewarded the toss winner and was abandoned within 18 months as one of cricket's most embarrassing regulatory failures.
ICC vs Cricket Community
2016-06-01
The ICC's 2016 proposal to divide Test cricket into two tiers — with promotion and relegation — was opposed so ferociously by India, the BCCI, and virtually every player that it was abandoned before implementation, but the debate it sparked about Test cricket's future continues.
ICC vs Bowlers Worldwide
2020-07-08
The ICC's temporary COVID-era ban on using saliva to shine the cricket ball became permanent in 2022, eliminating a century-old ball-maintenance practice and permanently disadvantaging bowlers — a decision that continues to divide the sport.