A review changes the decision only when the ICC test for reversal is met.

The rulesets used on this page

This page applies the ICC Decision Review System and Third Umpire Protocol in Appendix D to ICC internationals in which DRS is operating. It was checked against the men’s Test conditions effective June 2025, men’s ODI and T20I conditions effective July 2025, and women’s Test, ODI and T20I conditions effective July 2026—the current standard documents listed by the ICC on 26 August 2026.

DRS is not a universal provision of every cricket match. The ICC says the full protocol is in each competition’s playing conditions. A tournament, bilateral series, domestic board or lower-tier international may change the available system, so a broadcast simply having a third umpire does not prove that Player Reviews or ball-tracking are available.

Player Review and Umpire Review are not interchangeable

A Player Review under Appendix D paragraph 3 challenges an on-field decision about whether a batter is dismissed, except Timed Out. Only the batter involved may challenge Out; only the fielding captain or acting captain may challenge Not out. No other on-field decision is independently reviewable by a player.

An Umpire Review under paragraph 2 is initiated by the officials within the protocol. Its permitted subjects include run out, stumped, bowled and hit wicket; fair catch or bump ball; obstructing the field; boundary questions; two batters at the same end; and specified no-ball questions after a dismissal. Short-run calls under clauses 18.3 and 18.4 are automatically checked. Players cannot demand that an umpire use this route; the ICC protocol warns that doing so may amount to dissent.

The decision window is 15 seconds

Appendix D paragraphs 3.1–3.2 require the eligible player to make a “T” with both forearms at head height. The clock runs from the ball becoming dead. The bowler’s-end umpire prompts the player after 10 seconds if no request has been made; after 15 seconds the umpires must decline a late request.

• The captain may consult the bowler and fielders; the two batters may consult each other.
• For LBW only, they may ask whether the umpire judged that the striker made no genuine attempt to play the ball. They cannot question other aspects of the decision before deciding.
• Input from the dressing room can cause the umpires to decline the request, and big-screen replays must be withheld until the 15-second window has expired.
• A valid request cannot be withdrawn.

The third umpire checks facts in a controlled order

Once a request is accepted, the on-field umpire identifies the decision and mode of dismissal. For LBW, the umpire also communicates whether there was no genuine attempt to play the ball. Appendix D paragraph 3.3 then requires a two-way consultation:

1. The third umpire first checks every relevant mode of No ball except an illegal bowling action, subject to the protocol’s narrow prohibited-variation provision.
2. Replays and approved tools are used to test the dismissal. For LBW, fairness and bat before interception are decided before ball-tracking is used.
3. If the evidence reveals another possible dismissal, the third umpire must tell the on-field umpire and review it using the original decision as the default reference.
4. The on-field umpire reverses the decision only if the information leads to the conclusion that the original decision was incorrect.

If the third umpire cannot decide with a high degree of confidence, the report is “inconclusive” and the on-field decision stands. The protocol does not permit a probability-style answer.

Pitching, impact and wicket are separate tests

Appendix D paragraph 3.4 applies playing-condition clause 36 in sequence. The delivery must be fair and the ball must not have touched the bat before striking the batter. Tracking then supplies three facts:

1. Pitching: the centre of the ball is classified as In Line, Outside Off or Outside Leg. A ball pitching Outside Leg cannot produce LBW; there is no Umpire’s Call category for pitching.
2. Impact: with a genuine shot, a reviewed Not out decision can become Out only if the centre of the ball was inside the Impact Zone (“In Line”). If no genuine shot was attempted, impact outside off stump can still satisfy clause 36; impact outside leg cannot.
3. Wicket: tracking reports Hitting when the ball’s centre is inside the Wicket Zone, Umpire’s Call when the ball would hit but its centre is outside that zone, and Missing when it would miss.

Every required element must support LBW. Passing one part of the chain does not rescue a failure at another.

“Clipping” preserves the original call

ICC Appendix A paragraph 5.10 and Appendix D paragraphs 3.4.5–3.4.6 define Umpire’s Call only for marginal impact and wicket findings. At impact, some part of the ball is inside the Impact Zone but its centre is outside. At the wicket, the ball would hit the wicket but its centre is outside the Wicket Zone, whose outline includes the bails.

The direction of the challenge therefore matters. If the umpire said Not out, a wicket result of Umpire’s Call is not enough to change it to Out. If the umpire said Out, the same projected contact is not enough to change it to Not out. In either case the decision is categorised “Unchanged – Umpire’s Call” and the team keeps its review.

A long projection can preserve Not out

Even when tracking reports Hitting, impact In Line and legal pitching, Appendix D paragraph 3.4.6.4 preserves an on-field Not out decision if first impact was 300 cm or more from the stumps. It also preserves Not out when impact was more than 250 cm but less than 300 cm away and the distance from pitching to impact was less than 40 cm.

This is a specific boundary condition for reviewing Not out, not a general rule that every ball striking the pad far down the pitch is automatically safe. The remaining LBW elements still have to be considered.

Formats limit unsuccessful reviews, not total requests

Appendix D paragraph 3.6 gives each team the following allowance in each innings:

• ICC Tests: three Player Reviews categorised as unsuccessful.
• ICC ODIs: two unsuccessful Player Reviews.
• ICC T20Is: two unsuccessful Player Reviews.
• Super Over: one unsuccessful Player Review per team in each Super Over innings, independent of the match allocation, under the current ODI/T20I procedures. The ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026 used this same rule.

A successful review does not count against the allowance. “Unchanged – Umpire’s Call” also does not count. A fielding review that ends at an identified No ball without further evaluation is not charged, and a Player Review made unnecessary by an Umpire Review from the same delivery is disregarded. Teams can therefore make more requests than the numerical allowance so long as they do not exhaust the permitted number of unsuccessful ones.

Inconclusive evidence is not the same as broken technology

The third umpire may use available broadcast replays, stump-microphone sound and the approved tracking, edge-detection, heat-based and LED-wicket tools specified in Appendix D paragraph 3.8. The exact set present at a match can vary. If part of the system fails, the third umpire still supplies facts available from the remaining evidence and the on-field umpire decides from that information and the original observation.

The ICC Match Referee may reinstate an unsuccessful review if technology failure meant it could not properly be concluded. Reinstatement is not automatic: it is unavailable if other technology still allowed the correct decision, and an unclear result from technology that worked as intended remains an unsuccessful review.

The review can change the wicket, but not revive later play

Appendix D paragraph 3.7 fixes the dead-ball consequences. If Out becomes Not out, the ball remains dead from the original Out decision. Runs that might have been completed after that call do not count, apart from any No-ball penalty identified in the review. If Not out becomes Out, the ball is retrospectively dead at the dismissal event and later runs or events from that delivery are ignored.

The third umpire communicates the result, but the relevant on-field umpire gives the official Out or Not out decision and revokes the earlier signal when necessary. A broadcast graphic is evidence used in the process, not the legal decision by itself.

Not out, with the projection clipping a bail

Situation: in an ICC men’s Test under the June 2025 conditions, the fielding captain reviews Not out. The ball pitched legally, impact was In Line and tracking shows contact with the bail, but the ball’s centre is outside the Wicket Zone.

Ruling: Not out remains. The wicket finding is Umpire’s Call, so the challenge is “Unchanged – Umpire’s Call” and does not count toward the team’s three-unsuccessful-review limit. The decisive fact is the centre of the ball, not the animation showing some contact.

The same clipping projection after an Out call

Situation: under the same ICC Test protocol, the batter reviews an LBW Out decision. Every other LBW element is satisfied and the wicket projection is again Umpire’s Call.

Ruling: the batter remains Out, but the review is retained. Umpire’s Call preserves whichever on-field decision was made; it is not a universal Not out result.

No clear edge on a fielding review

Situation: in an ICC women’s ODI under the July 2026 conditions, the captain reviews Not out for caught behind. The sound and pictures work normally but do not establish contact with a high degree of confidence.

Ruling: Not out remains and the review is unsuccessful, reducing the team’s allowance of two. Umpire’s Call cannot apply to an edge; functioning but inconclusive evidence is not a technology-failure reinstatement.

A reviewed catch becomes hit wicket

Situation: a batter reviews an Out decision for caught. Replay shows no edge but clearly establishes that the batter broke the wicket in the manner required by clause 35 while playing the delivery.

Ruling: the batter can remain Out by hit wicket. Appendix D requires the third umpire to report another apparent mode of dismissal. Because the original Out decision remains unchanged, although for a different mode, paragraph 3.6.5 categorises the Player Review as unsuccessful.

A run after an incorrect Out signal

Situation: the umpire gives a batter Out LBW. While the fielding side relaxes, the batters cross before the review overturns the dismissal.

Ruling: the batter is Not out, but that later run is not added. Under Appendix D paragraph 3.7.1 the ball stayed dead from the original Out decision; only a No-ball penalty discovered in the review could still be added.

How to read a review correctly

1. Name the competition and edition. Confirm that Appendix D or an equivalent DRS protocol applies.
2. Identify the route. Player Review, Umpire Review and automatic third-umpire checks have different triggers and consequences.
3. Check eligibility and time. Correct player, reviewable dismissal decision and a request within 15 seconds.
4. Check the delivery first. A No ball can end the dismissal question before the disputed edge or LBW path matters.
5. Apply the dismissal’s own tests. For LBW, keep pitching, impact and wicket separate and account for whether a genuine shot was attempted.
6. Classify the outcome. Reversed, unsuccessful, Unchanged – Umpire’s Call, no-ball/no-evaluation, disregarded, or reinstated for technology failure.
7. Restore play under paragraph 3.7. Ignore events occurring after the legally fixed dead-ball moment.

Five claims the ICC protocol does not support

• “The team only gets two or three reviews.” Those figures limit unsuccessful reviews per innings; successful and Umpire’s Call outcomes are retained.
• “Clipping means Not out.” It means the on-field LBW decision remains, whether that decision was Out or Not out.
• “Any uncertainty is Umpire’s Call.” That term is confined to defined LBW impact and wicket zones.
• “Players can ask the umpire to send a run out upstairs.” That is an Umpire Review; players control only the eligible Player Review route.
• “Every televised international has DRS.” Availability depends on the appointed playing conditions and approved technology.

Check the appointed document, not just the match format

The standard men’s and women’s ICC protocols now align on the 15-second request, the LBW zones and retained Umpire’s Call outcomes. The main format difference relevant here is the unsuccessful-review allowance: three in Tests and two in ODIs or T20Is.

That baseline can still be displaced. The 2026 Men’s T20 World Cup conditions expressly include DRS and the standard two-review allowance, while the ICC T20I addendum removes Appendix D for Green status Members. Domestic competitions and age-group events publish their own conditions. Where those documents differ, their appointed protocol controls that match.

ICC rules and effective versions

• International Cricket Council — current Playing Conditions index
• ICC Men’s Test Match Playing Conditions — effective June 2025, Appendix D paragraphs 1–3
• ICC Men’s One-Day International Playing Conditions — effective July 2025, Appendix D paragraphs 1–3 and Super Over procedure
• ICC Men’s Twenty20 International Playing Conditions — effective July 2025, Appendix D paragraphs 1–3 and Super Over procedure
• ICC Women’s Test Match Playing Conditions — effective July 2026, Appendix D paragraphs 1–3
• ICC Women’s One Day International Playing Conditions — effective July 2026, Appendix D paragraphs 1–3 and Super Over procedure
• ICC Women’s Twenty20 International Playing Conditions — effective July 2026, Appendix D paragraphs 1–3 and Super Over procedure
• ICC — Addendum to Men’s and Women’s T20I Playing Conditions for Green status Members, Appendix D
• ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026 Playing Conditions — Appendix D paragraphs 3.2–3.7 and Appendix F paragraph 12

Checked on 26 August 2026 against the ICC’s current playing-conditions index, all six standard international Appendix D protocols, the posted T20I addendum and the 2026 Men’s T20 World Cup event conditions. Match-specific, domestic and age-group regulations may replace or supplement this baseline.