{"id":155429,"date":"2026-03-31T15:27:30","date_gmt":"2026-03-31T22:27:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=155429"},"modified":"2026-03-31T15:27:30","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T22:27:30","slug":"head-to-head-on-drs-intellectual-property-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2026\/03\/31\/head-to-head-on-drs-intellectual-property-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Head-to-Head on DRS Intellectual Property Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

Senake Weeraratne<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

<\/a> The Reply of David Becker (Head of Legal, ICC) to Senaka Weeraratna was dismissive, disrespectful and patently wrong in the interpretation of law.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The reply of the South African lawyer David Becker (Head of Legal, ICC) to Senaka Weeraratna in May 2010<\/strong> on the question of the intellectual property rights over his brainchild \u2018Player Referral\u2019 which was rebranded by the ICC as the UDRS (<\/strong>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\u2019s 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\u2019s reply was legalistic when the context demanded equity, fair play and simple Justice.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Senaka Weeraratna was the first person in World History to propose a mechanism to empower players to challenge the on \u2013 field umpire\u2019s decision and appeal to a Third Umpire to make an informed decision using Video Replay( see Michael Roberts \u2018 The DRS Technology as Idea: Senaka Weeraratna\u2019s Inventive Mind<\/a>)  https:\/\/thuppahis.com\/2022\/12\/30\/the-drs-technology-as-idea-senaka-weeraratnas-inventive-mind\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201d  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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chat GPT says as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/share.google\/aimode\/ucqc8MxsAU80dItz7<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reply from David Becker<\/p>\n\n\n\n

, then-Head of Legal for the International Cricket Council (ICC), to<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senaka Weeraratna on May 9, 2010, is a central point of contention regarding the origins of the Decision Review System (DRS).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ICC\u2019s Position<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Becker\u2019s response fundamentally denied Weeraratna\u2019s claim to the Player Referral\u201d concept based on several legalistic arguments:<\/p>\n\n\n\n