Senake Weeraratne
The reply of the South African lawyer David Becker (Head of Legal, ICC) to Senaka Weeraratna in May 2010 on the question of the intellectual property rights over his brainchild ‘Player Referral’ which was rebranded by the ICC as the UDRS (Umpire Decision Review System), was dismissive, disrespectful and patently wrong in the interpretation of law. The legal doctrine of Constructive Notice was overlooked in Becker’s response. Constructive Notice acts as a legal presumption that a person has received notice, even if they actually have not, provided the information is public or easily accessible. Furthermore Becker’s reply was legalistic when the context demanded equity, fair play and simple Justice.
Senaka Weeraratna was the first person in World History to propose a mechanism to empower players to challenge the on – field umpire’s decision and appeal to a Third Umpire to make an informed decision using Video Replay( see Michael Roberts ‘ The DRS Technology as Idea: Senaka Weeraratna’s Inventive Mind) https://thuppahis.com/2022/12/30/the-drs-technology-as-idea-senaka-weeraratnas-inventive-mind/
” This was the first occasion in world history that a case was made (in 1997), using the analogy of the appellate function of the legal system, to press home the point that we needed to adopt it on the playing field in a modified form in combination with modern technology, i.e. video play back in the hands of Third Umpire, to determine the accuracy of a decision made by an on field or ground umpire by way of a Review System.”
…………………………..
Chat GPT says as follows:
https://share.google/aimode/ucqc8MxsAU80dItz7
The reply from David Becker
, then-Head of Legal for the International Cricket Council (ICC), to
Senaka Weeraratna on May 9, 2010, is a central point of contention regarding the origins of the Decision Review System (DRS).
The ICC’s Position
Becker’s response fundamentally denied Weeraratna’s claim to the “Player Referral” concept based on several legalistic arguments:
- Waiver of Confidentiality: Becker argued that by publishing his idea openly in newspapers and journals between 1997 and 1999, Weeraratna had “waived his right to confidentiality” and effectively placed the idea in the public domain without securing a patent.
- Lack of Prior Knowledge: Becker stated that the ICC Cricket Committee members who eventually developed the UDRS in 2006 were “not, and are not, even aware of who you are”. He claimed their deliberations did not involve any information originating from Weeraratna.
- Requirement for Formal Registration: The ICC maintained that if Weeraratna sought ownership, he should have “registered a relevant patent” rather than addressing the public through mainstream media.
Overlooked Legal and Moral Arguments
Critics argue that Becker’s interpretation disregarded key legal and ethical principles:
- Constructive Notice: Critics argue that widespread, prior publicity of the “Player Referral” concept in major media outlets means the ICC is legally presumed to have known of it, a concept detailed in discussions of the case, such as this Lankaweb article.
- Professional Responsibility: It is argued that a committee reviewing technical improvements to the game has a duty to be aware of existing public discourse, making the claim of ignorance implausible.
- Moral Rights and Attribution: Supporters assert Weeraratna holds moral and economic rights, arguing that the ICC failed to attribute the core “Player Referral” mechanism to its original creator.
- Precedent for Recognition: The case of the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method is often cited as a precedent for properly crediting innovators, suggesting a double standard in the ICC’s action.
- ………………………………………………………….
Decolonize Cricket: Re-name UDRS as the Weeraratna Rule
https://www.onlanka.com/news/decolonize-cricket-re-name-udrs-as-the-weeraratna-rule.htmlAuthorship of Umpire Decision Review System: Sri Lankan claims recognition from ICC
Source: AI Overview
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&