When Mahela Jayawardene opted to have his LBW decision reviewed, it convinced me that allowing batsmen to question an umpires decision is not only unnecessary, it is also dangerous in the long run. Consider the circumstance - Jayawardene was sweeping early in his innings, he fell over playing the shot - was off balance, was beaten in the flight and the drift, and yet, felt confident enough to question the umpire's decision, merely because he assumed that it was a normal off-break.

That is the very definition of the term dissent, and if batsmen are to be allowed to question decisions, there ought to be consequences for them for asking frivolous questions. Jayawardene's decision to review had less to do with the actual decision, than it did with his status as the most important batsman of the side, and with the match situation. There was absolutely no way Jayawardene could have had any inkling as to where the impact was what the ball was - the sweep, playing in front of, and across the front pad, is invariably played more or less "blind". Whats more, Jayawardene was completely off balance.

There was an arrogance and cockiness behind that review request, which has to be checked if the review system is to retain the umpire's authority at least to some extent. In the long run, it will probably be best if the batsman is taken out of the review system altogether. If Trevor Bayliss's point about the reviews giving the bowlers some respite is to come true, then it will probably be best if batsmen are not involved in anyway. The review can be seen as an extension of an appeal from the fielding side.

Sri Lanka did survive a couple of close decisions both due to (P Jayawardene) and inspite of reviews (Samarweera). In both cases, i think the review process worked well. The Samarweera LBW looked out, but it is not possible to say that the replays presented compelling evidence which would have required Umpire Benson to reverse his decision. For example, if Umpire Benson ruled not out merely because Samarweera got a very good stride in, then the point of impact would not have mattered.

There is another aspect to these reviews, and that is the behaviour of the onfield umpire. Especially with Umpire Benson, i got the impression, that a couple of times (especially the Jayawardene catch), he seemed to given an out decision, just in case, knowing fully well that it would be reviewed.

There is another issue with the structure of the review system. When reviews are carried out in say American Football, the umpire makes a statement at the end of the review explaining what was reviewed, what decision was reached, and why it was reached. In the case of this Colombo Test, what you have is a bunch of talking heads on TV who are speculating blindly about why a certain decision was taken. Waqar Younis went so far as to suggest that Mark Benson didn't give the Samarweera LBW simply out of stubbornness. This kind of speculation is worthless, and it comes about because the the review process is largely a black box. Nobody knows what the on-field umpire has asked the TV Umpire. Nobody is privy to the actual deliberation between the umpires. I doubt whether even the fielding captain is privy to it, even though umpires seem to have been explaining reviewed decisions (especially the not out ones) to the fielding side.

This aspect of the review will probably come under scrutiny as well when this trial series is completed. As far as the series goes, it's quite evenly poised. Sri Lanka have to bat fourth, and that would normally make India favorites at this stage. But India's middle order has never looked so brittle. Whats more, with Sangakkara still at the wicket, Sri Lanka could still build a significant lead.

We have six more sessions (it should be over in 6 sessions, unless India's batsmen find second wind from somewhere) of gripping Test Cricket, and exasperating reviews to look forward to.