David Leggat: Referral system has to be made to work

Midway through the opening session of the first test yesterday, Pakistan would have been entitled to curse both India and the International Cricket Board.

They were certain they had Brendon McCullum caught down the leg side but umpire Rod Tucker turned the appeal down.

Had Pakistan been able to signal a "T" for a referral they would most likely have got the decision through the Umpire Review Decision System. Snicko indicated some contact between McCullum's gloves and the ball.

But the UDRS is off the table for this series, and the foreseeable future. Why? Ask the aforementioned two bodies.

India first. To be blunt, they think it sucks.

Their greatest player, Sachin Tendulkar, doesn't like it; their captain MS Dhoni reckons it's flawed (and it's certainly not perfect, to be fair).

"We don't accept this technology. We are not going to use it in any bilateral series," the Indian board's secretary N Srinivasan loftily announced this week.

And these days India have a firm hold on the ICC by their delicates when it comes to the game's important matters.

They won't have a bar of it since their one attempt in a series in Sri Lanka in 2008 - the first time it was used - went badly awry.

The Sri Lankans got its use just right, winning 11 of their referral attempts over three tests. India got it hopelessly wrong, having all but one turned down.

Sri Lanka were judicious; India were clueless. Sri Lanka won the series.

The ICC want the system, but are unwilling to stump up the costs involved. They think broadcasters should pay. Potential sponsors won't reach for the wallet unless India are on board.

The technology providers have drawn a line in the sand: use it for all test series or forget it.

It needs refining. That costs money. The designers of Virtual Eye, Hotspot and Hawkeye suspect they're being messed about by the ICC.

During the Ashes series, players were given out, then survived despite evidence suggesting they were actually out; and umpires were checking the validity of wicket-taking deliveries, just to be sure.

What an unholy shambles this is.

But there's no question that the system, as intended to be used - to prevent the calamitous cockups - has been evolved by players into a chancers' charter.

So maybe shelving the whole system for a period of reassessment is the right idea.

One argument which has been advanced is removing the right to seek a referral from the players and putting it into the umpires' hands. That is, if they're unsure they seek a double check.

What is not on is stepping back in time to having no technological input. The days when the umpires were the sole adjudicators, that no correspondence would be entered into, are gone.

The game is better when technology is available and not open to abuse by players.