From the outset India have distrusted the Decision Review System, in particular the ball-tracking technology used for deciding lbw appeals. It only took one decision in the recently completedGabba Test between Australia and New Zealand to provide further proof India are right to have reservations about the system. When the DRS was upgraded to include ball-tracking, the ICC explained the intention was to reach the correct decision. In the second innings at the Gabba, Brendon McCullum was adjudgedcaught in the slips after the umpire concluded the ball had gone from bat onto pad and was then caught by the fielder. Replays showed this to be incorrect as the ball only hit the pad. The DRS, as it is presently constituted, actually conspired against McCullum receiving the correct verdict. That one decision encapsulated a lot of the controversy surrounding the review system. Firstly, any system that has a finite number of reviews can't guarantee the correct decision will always be reached. New Zealand had used up both of their reviews and the recalibration (after 80 overs) was still a few balls away when McCullum was given out. He had no recourse to justice, and reluctantly, and in an agitated state, left the field. Unfortunately for McCullum this situation was replicated at the WACA when New Zealand were again unable to correct a decision via DRS because they were out of referrals. Some believe McCullum only had himself to blame at the Gabba, as just a few balls before he had encouraged partner BJ Watling to review his lbw decision. That proved futile, as the umpires, who had had a very good game, were once again proven to be correct. Therein lies another problem with the DRS: the players often use it as a tactic. Umpires' decisions shouldn't be part of a team's tactics. It's a ludicrous concept, but that's what the DRS has spawned. McCullum obviously believed it was worth the gamble on Watling's lbw as he was a central player in their bid to save the game. Just as obviously, he didn't envisage needing another review before two more were reallocated 15 balls later when the 80 overs had been bowled. This was a tactical gamble and it backfired. However, he would never have been in that position if the umpires were in sole charge of the DRS. If that was the case you'd expect only howlers to be overturned - the way DRS should work - and the fifty-fifty decisions wouldn't attract any scrutiny.