Many cricket pundits along with the Indian cricket team have demurred the use the DRS since it's inauguration. They have been reiterating all the way that a technology which isn't 100 percent correct should not be used until it proves to be infallible. But the ICC had different ideas. It made the use of DRS indispensable in all the ICC tournaments.Now it's proving to be an object of ridicule. The recently concluded test match between the Aussies and England is a good example to show that DRS has been a failure. The reviews of Trott, Broad ,Haddin have all become controversial. The decision on Broad in particular has given respite to England and allowed them pile on their lead which brought a huge difference to the outcome of the match. Trott's case even sounds farcical. '' The hotspot was busy in showing the replay of the previous ball and was unable to record the ball Trott got out. '' Coming to Haddin's case, even though they opted for the review, the fielding team didn't look all that convinced. If there weren't two reviews remaining and had the match not been in its final stage, one could say that they wouldn't have opted for the review. The evidence was also not so lucid. There was only a very faint spot visible on the hotspot replay and snickometer wasn't all that convincing either. There might be cases where DRS proved useful, but there are cases where it failed utterly and became controversial. Also, the use of DRS is limited. Instead of using such an unreliable source, it's better to go with the Umpires. If necessary the Third and fourth umpires can be given additional powers. If there is someone who is happy with all these proceedings, it's the BCCI. All these are in favour of BCCI to vociferate against the DRS. The most powerful cricket board will make sure that it makes full use of the situation.On the other hand Immediate steps must be taken by the ICC to overcome the trouble and make sure that the technology used is impeccable before it is stamped ''drossy.''