COURTESY: AI Overview

The International Cricket Council (ICC) responded to Senaka Weeraratna’s  claims regarding the Decision Review System (DRS) by asserting that their relevant committees reached the concept independently and were unaware of his prior publications. Weeraratna and his supporters argue that this defense fails to account for the legal Doctrine of Constructive Notice, which suggests that because his “Player Referral” concept was widely published in mainstream international media starting in 1997—nine years before the ICC’s formal adoption in 2006—the ICC is legally presumed to have been aware of it. 

The Core Dispute

• Weeraratna’s Claim: He first proposed the “Player Referral” concept in a letter to The Australian on March 25, 1997. He argues that the key elements of the modern DRS (player appeal to a third umpire, routing through captains/batsmen, and limited appeals) are identical to his original proposal.
• The 9-Year Gap: While Weeraratna publicized the concept between 1997 and 1999 across major newspapers in England, Australia, and Sri Lanka, the ICC only formally moved toward the system in 2006, eventually launching it in 2009.
• ICC’s Position: David Becker, former Head of Legal for the ICC, stated in 2010 that committee members were not aware of Weeraratna or his writings during their deliberations and that he had “waived his right to confidentiality” by publishing the idea openly without a patent. 

Constructive Notice Argument

Supporters of Weeraratna contend that the ICC cannot claim ignorance for the following reasons:

• Public Record: The doctrine of Constructive Notice operates on the legal fiction that if information is in the public domain (such as a registered deed or widely circulated public document), a party is deemed to have notice of it, whether they actually read it or not.
• Access to Information: It is argued that a group of professionals (the ICC Cricket Committee) tasked with improving the game would reasonably be expected to have reviewed existing literature on the subject, which included Weeraratna’s articles in prominent journals like The Times of London and The International Cricketer.
• Moral and Economic Copyright: Because the idea was “seeded” publicly years before the ICC’s “independent” discovery, Weeraratna’s legal team at Carroll & O’Dea asserts he holds both moral and economic copyright that the ICC has overlooked.

COURTESY: AI Overview

See also

Martin Crowe proposed the name of David Richardson as the brains behind the DRS system calling it the David Richardson System despite overwhelming documentary evidence that Senaka Weeraratna held copyright of the Player – Referral system (DRS)https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2026/03/26/martin-crowe-proposed-the-name-of-david-richardson-as-the-brains-behind-the-drs-system-calling-it-the-david-richardson-system-despite-overwhelming-documentary-evidence-that-senaka-weeraratna-held-copy/