You're out! No, I'm not: Batsman makes Test history by overturning umpire's decision

As the Sri Lanka batsman Tillakaratne Dilshan earned himself a place in cricket history in Colombo yesterday by becoming the first player to appeal successfully against being given out during the first Test between Sri Lanka and India, there are fears that the rush to use television replays to shape decisions on the field could have fundamental and perhaps damaging implications for the game.

After pressure from the Asian members of the International Cricket Council to make more use of technology, the system of allowing batsmen and fielding captains to challenge an umpire's decision is being trialled during the Sri Lanka-India series that began on Wednesday.

India made the first of their permitted challenges – each team is allowed to make three unsuccessful appeals – without success, but then Dilshan won a reprieve. When he asked for the umpire Mark Benson's decision to give him out caught behind to be reviewed, the English official changed his verdict when the television replay umpire Rudi Koertzen could not say conclusively that the ball had hit his bat or the ground on the way through to the Indian wicketkeeper.

Related articles

• Stanford boost for Cup winners
• Angus Fraser: Virtual umpiring will detract from spectator appeal

The International Cricket Council had wanted the experimental system to be used during the current England-South Africa series, only for England to object.Now the umpires' manager Chris Kelly has spelt out the England and Wales Cricket Board's reservations about the consequences of the trial.

"I think there has to be a philosophical discussion on the ICC about how they want the game to look in five years' time, because this could have a profound effect," Kelly said. "It will affect an umpire's mindset if he feels the technology will not support the established standards on which he bases his judgements and could equally change the way batsmen and coaches approach the game.

"No one wants to see howlers made. But the problem with the current technology is that while it is 90 per cent accurate on line decisions it cannot determine such things as nicks and clean catches."

Kelly believes, too, that differences in the relationships between umpires and players in different parts of the world would make the system difficult to apply successfully across the board.

"The way the relationship has evolved in England, the players want to trust the officials and find it difficult to challenge them," Kelly said. "We experimented with the system in the Friends Provident Trophy last season, when 11 challenges were made and none was upheld. It was difficult for the players to get to grips with the system and we had that unsavoury situation in the final with Phil Mustard."

Mustard was given out leg before wicket but did not appeal and was almost off the field when his team-mates, having seen the replays on the dressing room television, told him the ball had pitched outside leg stump, by which time it was too late.

The former England batsman and Test match umpire John Hampshire is concerned about the effect that challenges from players might have on the confidence of on-field umpires to trust their own judgement. "If a player challenges an umpire's decision and he has to change his mind there could be a big effect on his confidence," Hampshire said.

"It depends on the individual involved, of course. Some will take it on the chin, but for others it could be devastating and an umpire has to be able to back his own judgement if he is to do the job. At the moment, the technology is only conclusive for line decisions and until there is accurate, definitive technology for other decisions I feel we have to proceed with caution.

"When I was a player I hated it if I got a bad decision, but research has shown that umpires at the highest level score eight or nine out of 10 for getting decisions right. "This takes away some of the umpire's authority and I wonder if it is a step too far at the moment."

Somewhat ironically, the former England coach Duncan Fletcher is the man credited with putting forward the referrals idea. His successor, Peter Moores, however, is less enthusiastic. "We support referrals but didn't want the players doing the referring," Moores said. "We felt it should be the umpires. We made it pretty clear that we felt certain things should be referred and others shouldn't, but we think the umpires should take responsibility. In a team sport like this, the decisions should be taken by the umpires."

Umpire Benson, too, is lukewarm. "Personally, I like a game like baseball, which turns over more money than cricket does and doesn't use one ounce of technology when the umpire makes a decision," he said

"If they get it right, they get it right; and if they get it wrong, so be it. Nothing is ever overturned. But we allowed technology to come in, so now we have got to work with it, make the best of it," Bencon acknowledged.

But the India captain, Anil Kumble, backed the idea. "I don't think we're trying to say that umpires are redundant," he said. "But it is difficult for them in the heat of the moment and this is a mode of assistance."

Sri Lanka's Mahela Jayawardene echoed Kumble's sentiments. "In general, the system will be good for the game as it will reduce the scope for mistakes, as long as you do it in a way that respects the umpires," he said.

Dilshan not for walking

Sri Lanka's Tillakaratne Dilshan, batting at No 6, had scored just one run when he was given out, caught behind, by the umpire Mark Benson.

Dilshan appealed and Benson's verdict was overturned after replays suggested that Dilshan's bat had hit the pitch rather than the ball.

India later thought they had trapped him lbw, but their howzat went unheeded. India sought the aid of technology, but the third umpire again ruled in favour of the batsman.

This was the second time the tourists had been foiled, after an lbw appeal against the century-maker Malinda Warnapura was rejected.

India have only one challenge left, while Sri Lanka have all three.