Trevor Chesterfield/Cricketnext

Colombo, Jul 27: Grumpy responses to the success or otherwise of the umpires referral system being tested in India's Test series with Sri Lanka suggests that Anil Kumble is not happy with the overall results.

Maybe because most of them went against India when the umpires were either asked to refer an appeal or as one occasion wanted it was referred because Mark Benson felt the need to get the decision right.

Ironically, the referrals are being made at the venue first used during the 2002 Champions Trophy when for those with longer memories than Sachin Tendulkar's last Test century the referral was considered an interesting experiment but didn't really work.

Listening to Kumble and his remarks, "I don't really want to comment at this stage on the way the (referral) system works, it is too early," suggests he and the Indian players felt a tad miffed at how it worked against them and in Sri Lanka's favour during the first game of the Idea Cup Test series.

All their appeals were turned down and the ones sought by Sri Lanka, including that of century-maker Tillekeratne Dilshan on the second day left the tourists pondering. Dilshan had initially been given out caught behind in the early twenties but given not out on referral by the third umpire, Rudi Koertzen.

It appears, however, there are still concerns (in both camps) of the accuracy of the lbw and the Virtual Eye technology used in this case. On three occasions is showed how the ball was tracking either past the off or leg stumps, which were clear enough.

But on two occasions, the first which again involved Dilshan when he went on an expansive sweep, gave the impression that the technology was falling short of the needed requirement as the tracking of the ball suggested it might have gone on to hit leg stump. Yet the point of impact was not clear whether this would have been the case.

But the decision against Virender Sehwag is the one where there is obvious debate and where the technology may not have worked, not so much as in favour of the bowler as that of the batsman. In normal circumstances the decision was turned down. The ball pitched marginally on leg stump and partly off the mat. Frankly it wasn't ideal.

Also the ball was high when it hit Sehwag, who was quite far forward, was hit on the inside of the pad. Koertzen felt the path of the ball from Ajantha Mendis answered all the requirements of the lbw law and would have gone on to take leg stump with the looping googly.

Frankly the concerns with referral, now in its early trial stage, is that it interrupts the flow of the game, one of several reasons stated by the report of why the review system was shelved after 2002 by the International Cricket Council. There were two that took far too long and there was a sense of anti-climax anyway when one (against Sachin Tendulkar in the second innings when the ball touched the glove) was given in favour of a jubilant Sri Lanka.

The batsman took a chance and in such cases of the sweep against the spin often shows that the pad is more involved than the bat or glove.

There also comes a time, when although each side is allowed three appeals an innings, that more decisions are going to be referred and that is bad for the game as it takes away the ability of the umpire to make clear decisions without the need for technology.

Now we have a case where the fielding side a making a demand and the suggestion is that this could result in the number of referral appeals an innings allowed be increased. Not only is that detrimental to the game, so too can be the technology unless it is improved, especially when it comes to the lbw law.