Sri Lanka v England: DRS tests Tillakaratne Dilshan's patience

The wait seemed interminable. It was only about five minutes, but that is an awfully long time for nothing whatsoever to be happening in a cricket match. The game was waiting for the third umpire, Rod Tucker. The wheels of the Decision Review System were turning slowly.

Tillakaratne Dilshan had been judged caught at slip by James Anderson off Graeme Swann. Without hesitation, he had requested a review. Such immediacy always indicates the certainty of the defence: Dilshan did not think he had hit it. But could as much be proved? Due to financial constraints, there is, of course, no HotSpot technology in use in this series, though Dilshan last night insisted: "DRS should have HotSpot as that would mean more correct decisions."

So the replays began. Angle after angle was explored. Dilshan had played forward, and his bat had certainly hit the ground before the ball hit his pad and ballooned to Anderson. But did it graze an inside edge on its way?

Crucially, though, it was also not possible to tell whether Dilshan had not hit the ball. Certainly, not with the high degree of confidence required. So umpire Bruce Oxenford's original decision stood. Dilshan was out for 35.

However, men have shuffled to the scaffold more quickly. He just did not want to go. Eventually he did, shaking his head all the way to the pavilion. Just before he reached the quaint green-roofed building, he thought he would fully reveal his frustration. He removed his helmet and threw it angrily to the ground.

To think that only a few minutes earlier we had received a missive from the International Cricket Council declaring that Dilshan had been fined 10 per cent of his match fee for excessive appealing on the third day. We may just be receiving another such email today.

Three balls later in this 36th over of the innings, there was another appeal. The left-handed Kumar Sangakkara pushed forward and Swann appealed plaintively. Oxenford rejected the appeal but, for once, captain Andrew Strauss agreed with his spinner. A review was called.

This did not take as long. The ball was tracked to be hitting only the top of off stump. The call remained with the umpire. Sangakkara was not out. There was some incredulity. The Hawk-Eye predictive path technology is not universally trusted. Recently in a Test between South Africa and New Zealand in Dunedin, Jacques Kallis said 99 per cent of cricketers were unsure of the accuracy of its rival, the Virtual Eye. The next morning its creator, Ian Taylor, threatened to withdraw its use.

It wasn't withdrawn, but independent tests are being undertaken at Cambridge University on Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye. The results should be known in time for the ICC's next meeting in May. Yesterday's two incidents, though, provided ammunition for those still wishing to gun the system down. They have powerful support from India, who will not use the DRS. Not so long ago the system was mandatory. Now it requires the consent of both countries.

But the DRS is here to stay. To complain of it is like moaning about old age. It's going to happen. It aids the game, not hinders it. Guess why England's tour here in 2001 was one of the most rancorous ever? The standard of umpiring. Players turned on officials, and then on opponents. Now they just turn on the DRS system. That can't be a bad thing. More correct decisions are made. Of course, the system is not perfect. The wait of 4min 58sec yesterday was too long. And using the system without HotSpot is undesirable.

So money must be found, and that does not just mean ICC handouts. Sponsors must be sought. And parameters must be altered. In the eyes of the tracking technology, the stumps are now higher and wider. The ball only needs to be clipping the stumps to support an umpire's 'that's out' lbw decision.

So, as Simon Hughes noted in these pages recently, the bowler's potential target area has increased by 70%. That is too much. Umpires' egos are more highly valued than batsmen's wickets.

Sometimes, of the three key decisions made on an lbw call - where the ball pitched, where it hit the batsman's pad and the predicted path - at least two of these are found to be umpire's calls. That is too marginal. Two of those and the decision should be overturned.

The truth is, though, that the system was designed to eradicate howlers. These were not howlers yesterday. We move on.