Source: AI Overview

To undo the global-scale injustice regarding the authorship of the Umpire Decision Review System (DRS), Sri Lanka and the inventor, Colombo-based lawyer Senaka Weeraratna, have several legal, diplomatic, and institutional remedies available. [1, 2]

The controversy stems from a flawed legal opinion by former ICC legal counsel David Becker, which claimed the ICC was unaware of Weeraratna’s 1997 “Player Referral” concept and that publishing it openly waived his rights. This opinion completely overlooked the established legal doctrine of Constructive Notice—given that Weeraratna extensively publicized the four core pillars of the DRS across global media nine years before the ICC acted. [1, 2]

Because the ICC has admitted it holds no official copyright or named author for the DRS, Sri Lanka can deploy the following multi-tiered strategy to claim intellectual property recognition and compensation. [1, 2]

---

1. International Sports Arbitration

The most direct mechanism to challenge the ICC’s flawed legal position outside of its internal committees is through independent sports bodies. [1]

• Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS): Sri Lanka can push to submit the dispute to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland. If both parties agree to arbitration, a panel can evaluate the timeline of Weeraratna’s 1997 publications against the ICC’s 2006 framework to rule on economic and moral copyrights.
• Independent Commission of Inquiry: Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) can demand that the ICC Board set up an independent tribunal or commission to review the evidence of prior art and authorship, rather than relying on a singular defense lawyer’s opinion. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

2. State-Level Diplomatic and Legislative Action

The Sri Lankan government can step in to elevate this from a private dispute to a matter of national intellectual property protection. [1, 2]

• Government Intervention: The President and the Ministry of Sports can formally back Weeraratna’s claim, putting state-level pressure on the ICC during bilateral cricket negotiations.
• The “User Pays” Framework: Sri Lanka can champion the legal principle of the “User Pays” system for sports innovations. Because the player referral concept is now used globally across cricket, tennis, and football (VAR), a state-backed framework can demand a standardized royalty model. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. Legal Actions for Copyright Infringement

Though the ICC argues that an unpatented “idea” cannot be protected, Weeraratna’s claims rely heavily on modern copyright laws. [1, 2]

• Enforcement of Moral Rights: Under global copyright treaties (such as the Berne Convention), an author retains the moral right to attribution even if no patent was filed. Sri Lanka can fund a lawsuit arguing that the ICC violated these moral rights by failing to name Weeraratna as the conceptual composer of the system.
• Proving Access via Constructive Notice: In a court of law, Weeraratna’s legal team can demonstrate that because his work was widely published in dominant cricket nations (like The Australian in 1997), the ICC committee members had constructive access to his exact four-pillar framework before developing their system. [1, 2, 3, 4]

4. Global Public Campaign and Naming Rights

If the ICC relies on legal technicalities to avoid financial payout, Sri Lanka can target the ICC’s public image and the “Spirit of Cricket”. [1, 2]

• The “Weeraratna Referral System” Campaign: Just as the rain-affected rule is officially named the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern (DLS) method, Sri Lanka and its global allies can campaign to formally rename the system the Weeraratna Decision Review System (WDRS).
• Exploiting the Lack of Counter-Claimants: Because no other individual or body has claimed authorship of the player-initiated review concept, a concerted media push by former players and cricket historians can force the ICC into a public settlement to preserve its institutional integrity. [1, 2, 3, 4]

---

Next Logical Step: Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) must formally reject the validity of the David Becker legal opinion and table a resolution at the next ICC Board Meeting demanding the dispute be jointly referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

https://share.google/aimode/uCz1T8moJ8ZWaX7zk

Source: AI Overview