Using DRS: When to Review, When Not to, and Why Teams Sometimes Keep Reviews Until the Final Over
The Decision Review System (DRS) gives each team 2 reviews per innings (3 in Tests). A team uses a review when they disagree with the on-field umpire's decision. A review is retained if the decision is overturned. If the decision stands (the umpire was correct), the review is lost. Poor review usage is a major tactical problem: teams that use reviews early and incorrectly often enter the 40th ODI over or final Test session with no reviews — unable to challenge potentially incorrect LBW decisions. Data shows successful teams use reviews approximately 65% correctly.
The Decision Review System (DRS) allows teams to challenge on-field umpiring decisions using technology. Understanding when to use reviews — and when to save them — is one of cricket's most important tactical decisions. Poor review management has cost teams matches: being without reviews in critical moments is equivalent to voluntarily surrendering a technological advantage.
Review Allowances
Tests: 3 reviews per team per innings. ODIs: 2 reviews per team per innings. T20Is: 1 review per team per innings. A review is retained when the umpire's original decision is overturned (the reviewing team was correct). A review is lost when the umpire's decision stands (the reviewing team was wrong). A review is also retained if the ball is shown to have hit the bat on an LBW review (the batter is not out, but the review wasn't 'unsuccessful' — the batter showed good reason to review).
When to Review
Best scenarios to review: (1) LBW where the batter hit the ball and the umpire gave them out — high chance the edge will be detected. (2) LBW where the delivery pitched clearly outside leg stump — Hawk-Eye will show it. (3) Caught behind where the batter is confident they didn't hit it — Snickometer/Real-Time Ultra Edge will confirm. Worst scenarios: (1) Batter reviews an LBW they don't believe is hitting, but the ball was clearly in line and full — Umpire's Call will likely maintain the decision. (2) Teams reviewing clear outs in frustration — evidence of poor review discipline.
Frequently asked questions
What is 'Umpire's Call' in DRS, and why do some fans and players believe it should be abolished?
Umpire's Call in DRS: what it is, why it exists, and the debate over its continued use. 'Umpire's Call' (UC) is the DRS provision that maintains the on-field umpire's original decision when the ball-tracking technology shows the ball is in the 'marginal zone' — hitting only the edge of the stumps or grazing the top of the bail. What Umpire's Call means in practice: for LBW decisions, ball-tracking predicts the ball's path based on its trajectory at the point of pitching. If the predicted path shows the ball 'clipping' the stumps (say, 20% of the ball overlapping a stump), UC applies — the on-field decision stands whether out or not out. If 50%+ of the ball is hitting the stumps, the review overturns the decision regardless of the on-field call. Why UC exists — the official reasoning: ball-tracking has a margin of error (estimated 2–3mm for Hawk-Eye). For balls in the marginal zone (barely clipping stumps), the technology cannot be 100% certain. The umpire's original judgment should therefore be preserved — the technology is not certain enough to overturn it. The 'spirit' of DRS: DRS was designed to eliminate 'howlers' (clear mistakes), not to replace umpiring judgment for marginal calls. Arguments for keeping Umpire's Call: (1) It acknowledges that technology is not perfect — Hawk-Eye assumes the ball travels in a straight line after pitching, ignoring seam deviation. (2) It preserves the umpire's role — if technology overturned all marginal calls, umpires would become irrelevant. (3) Statistical evidence: matches in which UC is applied frequently do not show systematic bias toward either team. Arguments against Umpire's Call: (1) It creates counterintuitive outcomes: a ball clearly predicted to hit the stumps can be 'not out' because only 40% of the ball overlaps. (2) It means the same delivery can be out or not out depending purely on the on-field umpire's initial decision — which should be the thing DRS is replacing. (3) 'Umpire's Call' costs reviews: a batter who reviews an LBW that triggers UC loses nothing (their review is retained), but a bowling team that reviews a not-out LBW that triggers UC loses their review — asymmetric in impact. (4) The 2019 WC controversy: multiple high-profile Umpire's Call decisions in the ICC tournament produced outcomes critics called 'illogical.' Notable examples of UC controversy: India vs England 2022 Tests — multiple UC decisions went against India's bowlers, leading to Indian media coverage of the 'unfair' system. ICC review (2023): the ICC Technical Committee reviewed UC and concluded the system should remain but be communicated more clearly to players and viewers. The margin was confirmed at 50% ball-stump overlap as the trigger for a clear override, with anything below 50% treated as UC.