Fairplay explains DRS, Umpire’s Call and fair play: Player Review versus dissent, a clearly scoped ICC Test example and respectful decision-making.
The short answer: a review is a process, dissent is conduct
A legitimate DRS Player Review uses the competition’s authorised route to ask the third umpire to consider an on-field decision; it does not turn that decision into an argument. The ICC defines DRS as technology that assists match officials and distinguishes Player Reviews from Umpire Reviews (ICC — Decision Review System).
Dissent is different. Under MCC Law 42, showing dissent at an umpire’s decision by word or action is a Level 1 offence; serious dissent is a Level 2 offence. The availability of DRS does not make a player’s hostile words, gestures, repeated protest or aggressive approach acceptable. A side can review the decision and still be required to respect the official making it.
That is the useful fair play distinction: use the formal channel, let the match officials work through it, then accept the outcome and prepare for the next ball. For the wider sporting principle, see Fairplay’s guide to what fair play means in cricket.
- A Player Review is a permitted request under the applicable competition procedure.
- An Umpire Review is initiated by an on-field umpire, not elected by players.
- Umpire’s Call can leave a decision standing in defined ball-tracking cases; it is not a licence to dispute the result.
- Check the competition’s current playing conditions before relying on review limits, signals or procedure.
Decision flow: what should happen after a close on-field call?
Start with the on-field decision. In a DRS match, pause long enough to decide whether the side wants to use the authorised Player Review route. The practical choice is not between ‘accept it’ and ‘argue it’; it is between taking the permitted review and moving on. The ICC says the detailed third-umpire protocol sits in each competition’s playing conditions, so the current event document—not television habit—governs the available process (ICC — Decision Review System).
If a Player Review is requested, the third umpire considers it under that competition’s protocol. If the on-field umpire consults or refers a matter, it is an Umpire Review. Players do not control that official’s review, however strongly they feel about the incident.
Once the final decision is communicated, reset positions and keep emotion away from the official. A live score records the match state; it does not substitute for officials’ decision-making.
- On-field decision.
- Check whether the applicable rules permit and allow a Player Review.
- Player Review, or an Umpire Review initiated by an on-field umpire.
- Third-umpire outcome under the competition protocol.
- Accept the final outcome and restart without argument.
Player Review and Umpire Review are not the same request
The ICC’s high-level definition is deliberately simple. An Umpire Review is when on-field umpires may consult the third umpire. A Player Review is when players request that the third umpire consider an on-field decision (ICC — Decision Review System). Both use technology to assist officials, but the trigger is different.
For players, a review is a defined procedural opportunity, not a forum for persuasion. A calm, quick choice to use it is compatible with competitive cricket; lobbying the umpire during or after it is not. Players use the permitted route and officials decide the matter.
Competition rules can be more detailed than the ICC overview. The ICC Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions effective June 2025, for example, define Player Review and Umpire Review in Appendix A and set the protocol in Appendix D (ICC Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions). A domestic, age-group or club competition may have different DRS availability or no DRS at all.
Why an Umpire’s Call can stand
Umpire’s Call does not mean the technology found nothing. In the ICC Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions effective June 2025, it is the DRS concept under which the bowler’s-end umpire’s on-field decision stands in specified marginal ball-tracking cases involving the Impact Zone or Wicket Zone (ICC Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions, Appendix A, 5.10). It preserves the on-field decision where the conditions classify the relevant tracking result as marginal.
The same ICC Test document says the category is reported where technology indicates a marginal decision about impact or whether the ball would hit the stumps. For wicket projection, it describes Umpire’s Call as a ball hitting the wicket with its centre outside the Wicket Zone (Appendix D, 3.4.3 and 3.4.6). These are ICC Test definitions, not universal explanations of every replay graphic.
The fair response is therefore not to claim that the original umpire has been ‘proved wrong’ or ‘ignored’. The review applied the event’s stated threshold and the on-field call remained. That can be frustrating in a decisive moment, but frustration is not evidence that a player may contest the official personally. For context on the boundary between contest and misconduct, see fair play versus unfair play in cricket.
| Moment | What the ICC Test example says | Fair response |
|---|---|---|
| Ball tracking gives a marginal impact or wicket-zone result | In specified cases, the bowler’s-end umpire’s on-field decision stands as Umpire’s Call. | Accept the result; do not treat the marginal result as a reason to confront the umpire. |
| A Player Review is considered | The third umpire applies the applicable protocol. | Let the formal process run rather than arguing the decision. |
| The review finishes | The on-field decision may stand or be reversed under the conditions. | Reset for the next ball and discuss tactics away from the official. |
The narrow ICC Test example: an LBW review unchanged solely by Umpire’s Call
Review-count rules are a common source of overstatement. The ICC Men’s Test conditions effective June 2025 allow up to three Player Review requests categorised as ‘Unsuccessful’ per innings; a reversed decision is ‘Successful’ and does not count (Appendix D, 3.6.1–3.6.3).
Where an LBW Player Review leaves the on-field decision unchanged solely because of Umpire’s Call, the ICC Test conditions call it ‘Unchanged – Umpire’s Call’; it does not count towards that innings limit (Appendix D, 3.6.4). Do not shorten this to ‘all Umpire’s Call reviews are free’ or apply it automatically elsewhere.
The practical lesson is to ask two questions before making a claim from a broadcast: what was the decision under review, and which competition’s current playing conditions apply? That habit is as useful in cricket analysis as it is on the field.
How to review firmly without crossing into dissent
A player can be disappointed and still behave properly: confer within the side, use the authorised Player Review if available, then give the umpire space. A review is a procedural challenge, not an accusation against an official.
MCC Law 42 supplies the conduct boundary. It lists dissent by word or action as Level 1, serious dissent as Level 2, and separately identifies excessive appealing and advancing towards an umpire aggressively when appealing as Level 1 conduct (MCC Law 42.2.1 and 42.3.1). Whether conduct reaches an offence is for the umpires under the Law; players should not try to litigate that judgment on the field.
A captain can help by using one calm voice, moving teammates back to their positions and leaving any later administrative issue to the competition process. That is not surrendering a legitimate review. It is making sure the team’s challenge ends where the rules say it ends. Fairplay’s captains’ fair play guide has practical ideas for setting that team standard before pressure arrives.
- Discuss the decision with teammates, not as a public confrontation with the umpire.
- Use the event’s authorised review method if the side chooses to review.
- During the review, keep body language and language directed toward readiness, not protest.
- After the outcome, reset the field or batting plan and keep any tactical conversation internal.
Illustrative scenarios: separate the review from the reaction
Illustrative scenario — a possible LBW: The captain and bowler confer and request the permitted Player Review. The third umpire leaves the not-out decision standing through Umpire’s Call. The captain resets the field and discusses the next ball with the bowler. The team used the process without arguing with the umpire.
Illustrative scenario — an out decision against a batter: The batter believes there was an edge or a miss and uses the available Player Review without yelling or gesturing. The decision remains out. Disappointment is human; words or actions showing dissent risk a Law 42 conduct issue.
Illustrative scenario — no Player Review available: A local competition has no DRS, or does not allow a review for that decision. The same standard applies: players cannot replace a missing mechanism with pressure on an official. The same standard applies whether the match is televised or local.
A team checklist for close decisions in a DRS match
Build the response before the match. Confirm who makes the on-field Player Review call, use only current competition conditions and agree who settles the group once the result is known. The aim is a rule-respecting outlet for competitive instinct.
After play, separate a rules question from an emotional replay. Consult official event documents and use its formal channel; do not turn a close call into public abuse. For Fairplay, fair play here is an active match skill: use the process properly and leave officials room to decide.
| When | Do | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Before play | Read the event’s current DRS and conduct rules. | Assuming a televised international procedure applies everywhere. |
| At the decision | Confer briefly and decide whether to use the authorised Player Review. | Crowding, shouting at or gesturing toward the umpire. |
| During review | Wait for the officials’ process and keep the team ready. | Treating the review as a debate with the umpire. |
| After outcome | Accept it, reset and use later formal channels if needed. | Continuing protest because the result is disappointing. |
Questions, answered
Is asking for a DRS review dissent?
No. A Player Review is the authorised process by which players may ask for a third-umpire consideration of an on-field decision, where the competition makes it available. Dissent concerns the player’s words or actions toward the umpire, not the mere use of the permitted process. The ICC’s and competition’s current playing conditions control the procedure.
What is the difference between a Player Review and an Umpire Review?
The ICC says a Player Review is a player request for the third umpire to consider an on-field decision. An Umpire Review is an on-field umpire consulting with or referring to the third umpire. They may both involve technology, but they begin through different routes.
Does Umpire’s Call mean the umpire was correct?
It means the on-field decision stands under the relevant protocol. In the ICC Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions effective June 2025, Umpire’s Call applies in specified marginal ball-tracking cases for impact or the wicket zone. It should not be used as a universal statement about every competition or every DRS decision.
Does an Umpire’s Call review use up a review?
Check the current rules for the competition. In the ICC Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions effective June 2025, an LBW Player Review left unchanged solely because of Umpire’s Call is categorised as ‘Unchanged – Umpire’s Call’ and does not count toward the innings limit. That narrow ICC Test rule should not be assumed elsewhere.
Can a player argue with the umpire while a review is happening?
A player should not use the review as an opportunity to protest personally. MCC Law 42 identifies dissent by word or action as a Level 1 offence and serious dissent as a Level 2 offence. Use the authorised review process, give officials space and accept the resulting decision.
Sources and evidence
- ICC — Decision Review System
Accessed 12 October 2026. Official high-level definition of DRS and distinction between Umpire Review and Player Review; notes that detailed protocols sit in each competition’s playing conditions.
- ICC — Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions (effective June 2025)
Accessed 12 October 2026. Primary ICC Test source for Umpire’s Call in Appendix A 5.10 and Appendix D 3.4.3–3.4.6, and for the LBW ‘Unchanged – Umpire’s Call’ review category in Appendix D 3.6.4.
- MCC — Law 42: Players’ Conduct
Accessed 12 October 2026. Primary-law source for Level 1 dissent, serious dissent at Level 2, excessive appealing and aggressive approaches to an umpire when appealing.
Scheduled facts and sourced history are separate from live match data. Source attribution does not imply affiliation with IPL, BCCI, ICC or players.