How and why cricket should use the UDRS

Julia Beffon: Technology - or the lack of it - was in the news in both cricket Tests played this week.

Daniel Vettori's protest over Tim Southee's dismissal at the end of New Zealand's first innings against Australia on Sunday was more the result of the Kiwi captain not understanding some tweaks to the referral rules.

The Umpire Decision Review System (or DRS as the commentators call it, dropping the "U" to avoid cow jokes) now says the original decision stands unless there is conclusive video evidence to overturn it.

There wasn't, in Southee's case.

On Tuesday, another helpful innovation was made: every angle and replay the TV umpire was shown was simultaneously displayed on the ground's screen, so that players and spectators could see it.

On the Monday in between, the DRS did not fare so well.

The game was in Wellington and it became gloriously obvious why the local rugby team is called the Hurricanes.

Play took place in a gale strong enough to blow off the covers (with a few groundsmen attached) and send the 500kg "light" roller trundling down the ground on its own.

Ricky Ponting challenged a decision only to be told the review system wasn't working - with winds of 140km/h buffeting the Basin Reserve, the expensive virtual tracking devices and hot-spot cameras had been removed.

Ponting was mollified only after he was assured that the unavailability of the technology would not cost him one of his two challenges.

In Dhaka, where Bangladesh were hosting England, the issues were more serious than a couple of petulant captains. And it was more about colour than the whiter-than-white England outfits.

The DRS system was not in operation at Mirpur, because the Bangladeshi board cannot afford it.

In the space of two days umpire Tony Hill, made four appalling decisions. Three times he turned down Bangladeshi appeals for plumb lbws; and once he gave an iffy lbw in favour of an England bowler.

In the context of the game, the decisions were highly significant and might have cost Bangladesh the match.

Much, much worse, though, was my impression while watching - later backed up by a complaint from the Bangladeshis - that the decisions were not honest umpiring errors, but came from that horrible racist colonial belief that the Tigers could not possibly be good enough to beat England. And damned if Hill was going to help them try.

The Bangladeshis might be the weakest team in world Test cricket, but they deserve the respect of their peers and the officials.

And they're fun to watch. I'd rather see Tamim Iqbal blast another quick 30 than Jonathan Trott crawl to 64 in 64 overs any day.

Hill and his ilk - the Darrell Hairs of the world - should be banned from standing as Test umpires.

Responding to calls that the International Cricket Council pay for the DRS to be installed at all Test grounds, ICC president David Morgan said broadcasters should share the costs.

Morgan said: "Cricket is not a rich sport and we believe there has to be a contribution."

What udder bull.