The DRS Concept in Cricket: A ‘Theft’ that is “Simply Not Cricket”

Senaka Weeraratna, whose chosen title is  “The Cricket Theft of the Century? Sri Lankan innovation v ICC Lawyers”

This ESSAY outlines the intellectual property dispute regarding the invention  f the Decision Review System (DRS) in international cricket.

Background

In March 1997, Colombo-based Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna published a pioneering blueprint for a “Player Referral” system. This model allowed cricket players to appeal on-field umpire decisions to a third umpire. It introduced the foundational pillars of modern sports review mechanisms nearly a decade before global adoption.

 

The Controversy

Despite extensive public promotion across international media, the International Cricket Council (ICC) eventually implemented the system—now known as the Decision Review System (DRS)—without formally acknowledging or crediting Weeraratna. For years, the ICC legal team i.e., David Richardson (CEO), David Becker (Head of Legal). and Jonathan Hall (General Counsel and Company Secretary), maintained a “no awareness” defense. They claimed the governing body independently developed the technology and that open publication waived the inventor’s moral and intellectual property rights.

In addition, the then General Manager David Richardson was twice handed over the ‘Player Referral’ papers by SLC in July 2008 (When Richardson visited Colombo to monitor the historic first-ever public trial of the “Player Referral System”—later known as the Decision Review System (DRS) — in the Test Match between India and Sri Lanka) and in July 2009 when Nishantha Ranatunga, then-Secretary of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC),travelled to Dubai and handed over the player referral concept papers to ICC CEO

Haroon Lorgat and General Manager of Cricket David Richardson. Both handovers constitute irrefutable evidentiary proof that the International Cricket Council had both constructive and physical knowledge of the referral/review concepts well before they were formally institutionalized and rolled out in November 2009. The ICC’s official rollout of the Decision Review System (DRS) on November 24, 2009(during a New Zealand vs. Pakistan Test match).

1. The Legal and Conceptual Handover (1997–2001)

The Originator: Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna formally conceived the concept of the “Player Referral” system in 1997 to empower players to challenge incorrect on-field decisions.

The Official Handover: Weeraratna forwarded his conceptual paperwork toUpali Dharmadasa, the then-President of the Sri Lankan Cricket Board (in July 1997), who officially handed it over to the ICC and tabled at a Conference Meeting.

 The ICC’s Acknowledgment: In May 2001, the ICC Cricket Committee formally met at Lord’s to explicitly review technology playing conditions, verifying that they had physical possession and constructive knowledge of the player referral brief early on handed over by Upali Dharmadasa then-President of the Sri Lankan Cricket Board.

2. The Physical Field Trials (2008)

 The Live Handover: Far from being a surprise deployment in 2009, the ICCactively managed and executed an extensive physical trial of the system more than a year prior.

 The Sri Lanka vs. India Series: The system (then termed the Umpire Decision Review System, or UDRS) was thoroughly tested during the India tour of Sri Lanka in July–August 2008. This live execution gave the ICC direct empirical data and technical feedback regarding how player  challenges operated in practice.

Timeline Milestone Type Nature of ICC Knowledge

1997–2001 Conceptual Paperwork

Board Submissions

Constructive Knowledge (Legal proposals and early committee reviews)

July 2008 India vs. Sri Lanka Test Trial

Physical Knowledge (Live technological testing, match referee integration, and  player signaling data), November 2009

Official International Launch

Formal Institutionalization (Universal rollout across member boards)

Core Arguments

This public talk critically examines the legal and ethical dimensions of this unpardonable omission, framing it as a modern case of uncredited innovation.

The presentation analyses:

 The legal doctrine of Constructive Notice, and challenging the ICC’s assertion of ignorance while sitting on papers physically handed over by SLC to ICC

 Shift from Negligence to Active Concealment This misconduct constitutes civil fraud, professional negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation designed deliberately to shield the ICC from paying millions of dollars in royalties. By maintaining that the ICC was “totally unaware” while sitting on these stamped physical dossiers, the legal positioning crosses the threshold into civil fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and a deliberate cover-up to shield the ICC from massive royalty liabilities.

 Socio-Economic Impact: Denying these multi-million-dollar royalty fees deprives Sri Lanka, a developing country, of substantial foreign exchange that could otherwise be utilized for national development and poverty alleviation. [1]

 The financial fallout is compounded by a severe breach of due diligence within Sri Lanka’s own cricket administration:

 Cricket Transformation Committee complicity and failure to back a Sri Lankan innovator while rewarding the very man (David Becker) who deliberately denied credit to Sri Lanka with flawed advice to ICC

 The Cricket Transformation Committee (CTC), chaired by Eran Wickramaratne, hired David Becker as an advisor to draft Sri Lanka’s new governance constitution.

 Hiring the very attorney who blocked the Sri Lankan inventor’s credit.

 This effectively abandons national intellectual property rights and acts as a betrayal of both the country and the inventor.

 The structural power imbalances between institutional sports bodies and independent innovators from the Global South.

 Actionable remedies, ranging from institutional archival recognition by bodies like the Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka to potential legal and diplomatic advocacy.

 Impact of Player – Referral (DRS) – influenced several other major sports such as Soccer, Rugger, Tennis, Ice Hockey, Badminton,

Available Remedial Strategies

Because the ICC has publicly admitted it holds no official patent or named author for the DRS, Sri Lanka can pursue several avenues to restore justice: [1, 2]

 Government Intervention: The Sri Lankan government can elevate this dispute to an international state-level intellectual property protection matter.

 Independent Sports Bodies: Challenging the ICC’s legal position through external, independent sports arbitration bodies.

 Malpractice Complaints: Filing formal malpractice and civil fraud complaints through respective bar associations against the legal team for ignoring physical evidence. For example, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka can intervene as this dispute is no longer a private matter but a nationalissue drawing International attention.

 Diplomatic Leverage: Appealing to neighboring cricket powerhouses, such as India (under incoming institutional transitions), to force the ICC to review Becker’s flawed legacy advice in the true “Spirit of Cricket”. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Conclusion

Ultimately, the session asks whether institutional convenience and even possible corruption has eclipsed basic intellectual property equity. It calls for a formalhistorical correction to credit Sri Lankan ingenuity for transforming fairness andintegrity in global sports jurisprudence.

&&&&&

SOME RANDOM CARTOONS