Sports

Mr. David Becker in his letter to Mr. Senaka Weeraratna dated May 09, 2010 says ” Finally, the idea of using a video referral system for decisions in sport goes back well beyond 1997, as is evidenced from Simon Gardiner’s article in Sport and the Law Journal Video Adjudication in Sport” [1999] 7(1) SATLJ 26. With the development of more accurate technology over the years, it is not difficult to see how it would be a natural development in the thinking of the most respected minds within the game of cricket to develop such an idea for umpiring decisions and progress it to the point where it now stands. ” 

This argument is misleading because it tends to misrepresent the proposal of Mr. Weeraratna as calling for Video Adjudication in Sport. Far from it Mr. Weeraratna ‘s significant contribution ( the first person in world history as highlighted by Cricket Historian Michael Roberts) was to call for a Reform of Cricket Adjudication Rules enabling Players to appeal against an on – field umpire’ s decision to a Third Umpire who has access to Video Technology. Until that time i.e., 1997, the idea of Player Referral was not espoused by any one including ‘ the most respected minds within the game of cricket’ . It is never too late for the ICC to acknowledge the fault lines in Mr. David Becker’s argument and concede in the ‘spirit of cricket’ that Mr. Becker was wrong and respectfully acknowledge that Mr. Senaka Weeraratna was the first person in the world to come up with the idea of Player Referral (1997) nine years before ICC Cricket Committee (2006) said they discovered it. The legal rule of Constructive Notice will estop ( legal meaning – impede by estoppel) the ICC from raising this defence in Court.

Chat GPT says as follows:

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has faced long-standing criticism regarding its refusal to acknowledge

Senaka Weeraratna as the primary innovator of the Player Referral concept, which is the foundational mechanism of the Decision Review System (DRS). 

The Core of the Dispute

The argument presented by former ICC Head of Legal

David Becker

in 2010 centers on the claim that “video adjudication” existed as a concept well before Weeraratna’s 1997 proposal. However, critics and historians, including

Michael Roberts

, argue this is a fundamental misrepresentation for several reasons: 

• Distinct Innovation: Prior to 1997, “Video Adjudication” referred primarily to Umpire Referrals—where the on-field official chose to consult a third umpire. Weeraratna’s proposal was the first to advocate for a Player Referral system, empowering players to challenge decisions as an “appellate right” similar to a court of law.
• The 1997 Proposal: Weeraratna first published his concept in a letter to The Australian on March 25, 1997. This was nine years before the ICC Cricket Committee began formally discussing a similar review system in 2006.
• Unique Framework: Weeraratna’s 1997 model included the specific elements now used in DRS:
  • Direct player appeals to the third umpire.
  • Routing appeals through the captain or dismissed batsman.
  • A restricted number of unsuccessful appeals per innings to prevent time-wasting. 

Legal and Moral Challenges

Weeraratna and his supporters contend that the ICC’s defense—that its committee members were unaware of his widely published writings—is legally and morally unsustainable:

• Constructive Notice: Under this legal doctrine, because the “Player Referral” concept was published extensively in mainstream international media (including The Times of London and Time Magazine) starting in 1997, the ICC is legally presumed to have notice of it.
• Spirit of Cricket: Advocates argue that if the ICC values the “Spirit of Cricket”—which emphasizes fair play and integrity—it should concede that its initial dismissal of Weeraratna’s contribution was flawed and grant him formal recognition.
• Historical Precedent: Historians note that unlike the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern (DLS) method, which carries its inventors’ names, the ICC has never named an author for the DRS. 

Would you like to explore the specific legal letters exchanged between Weeraratna’s counsel and the ICC, or perhaps more details on how

Michael Roberts has documented this historical claim?

see  

https://share.google/aimode/r4n1FdYHqgA7i8u3Q

Source: AI Overview

see also 

Correspondence between Mr. David Becker ( ICC Lawyer) and Mr. Senaka Weeraratna (DRS Inventor)

https://archives.dailynews.lk/2011/03/26/spo30.asp

Michael Roberts  

The DRS Technology as Idea: Senaka Weeraratna’s Inventive Mind

The DRS Technology as Idea: Senaka Weeraratna’s Inventive Mind