KATHMANDU, Sept 20: The Nepal Premier League (NPL) has yet to begin its third season, but a possible change is already drawing attention: the introduction of the Decision Review System (DRS). After disputed umpiring calls in the first two editions, players and supporters want to know whether teams will finally have a formal way to challenge key decisions.
The Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) is considering the move. Its secretary, Paras Khadka, said on Saturday that CAN had tested technology from two companies and was seeking feedback on its accuracy and effectiveness. The association will decide whether to use DRS after assessing those results. Khadka cautioned that limited resources may prevent Nepal from using the full system seen at World Cups. What the available system can reliably review will therefore matter as much as the decision to introduce it.
Questions about umpiring arose during the NPL’s inaugural season in 2024 and grew louder in the second. By the sixth match of that edition, reports had alleged more than two dozen incorrect decisions by on-field and television umpires. LBW, catches, no-balls, stumpings and caught-behind appeals all came under scrutiny. Some calls remained contentious even after television replays were examined.
A match between Chitwan Rhinos and Lumbini Lions offered two examples. Sandeep Jora’s dismissal from a Rijan Dhakal delivery went to the television umpire, but viewers questioned why a no-ball was not called when the replay appeared to show the bowler’s front foot crossing the crease. A review of Rohit Paudel’s stumping in the same match took roughly six to seven minutes. Chitwan players, including overseas cricketers, expressed dissatisfaction with that decision.
Way to solve India-Nepal border dispute
The Sudurpashchim Royals–Kathmandu Gorkhas match produced further complaints. Josh Brown was given out LBW, although a replay appeared to show the ball touching his bat. A caught-behind appeal against Arif Sheikh was turned down, with a later replay appearing to show an edge. Kathmandu wicketkeeper John Simpson was also given out LBW despite footage appearing to show the ball hitting his glove. He signalled for a review, but the competition had no formal DRS.
Those incidents raised a straightforward question: when an umpire makes a possible mistake on a decisive ball, how can it be corrected? DRS gives teams a defined opportunity to ask for certain decisions to be checked with the technology available. After the second season’s disputes, Lumbini captain Rohit Paudel noted that umpires make human errors even in international cricket, where players can seek reviews. He urged improvements rather than blame.
LBW calls could benefit most. Depending on the system selected, officials may be able to examine the ball’s path, where it struck the batter and whether it would have hit the stumps. Replays and other tools can help determine whether a ball touched a bat. Camera footage can also clarify a front-foot no-ball that was difficult to judge in real time.
Television umpires already examine run-outs and stumpings in the NPL. DRS would broaden the process by allowing teams to challenge eligible decisions themselves. In Twenty20 cricket, one wicket or a few deliveries can change a result. Giving players a clear route to seek a review could also reduce prolonged arguments on the field.
Reviews cannot, however, guarantee agreement. Some decisions in the second NPL remained disputed despite television replays. Their usefulness depends on camera angles, picture quality, trained operators, capable television umpires and rules that make the process clear to everyone. A limited system may be unable to assess every type of appeal. CAN will need to explain exactly which decisions teams can review and what evidence officials will use.
Cost presents another challenge. Cameras, replay equipment, tracking technology, technical staff and television umpires require funding. CAN must weigh those costs against the accuracy and service offered by the two companies it has tested. A full international setup may be beyond the league’s budget, but a smaller system will still need to produce dependable decisions within its stated limits.
The planned expansion of NPL broadcasting adds to the discussion. The third season is expected to be shown on Star Sports, Himalaya Television and Net TV’s streaming platform. Better coverage could support better reviews, provided the cameras capture the angles officials need. It could also make disputed calls more visible to audiences.
Regular reviews could help umpires improve. Officials would receive clearer evidence about difficult calls, which could inform training. DRS would support their work on selected decisions while leaving on-field umpires in charge of the match.
Reviews may add time, so CAN would also need a process that reaches decisions promptly. For players and supporters, the test will be practical: when a close call occurs, can the system examine it fairly, explain the outcome and keep the game moving? The first two seasons showed why the question matters. If CAN introduces DRS for the third, its value will rest on how reliably it answers it.
