I agree the system could be refined, but I don't understand how removing DRS would have made this decision different. Since DRS was first implemented, I've seen it turn over a lot of wrong decisions that would have stood without DRS being there. Some players abuse it and waste the review, but that's not a fault of DRS, that's a fault of the players/coachhing.

In my opinion the Akmal (inconclusive evidence, benefit of doubt should have gone to batsmen), and Taylor (umpire seemingly not knowing the rules) were poor interpretations of the DRS, rather than the system itself being wrong.

My issue with DRS is with the "umpire's call" ruling, as the reasoning for the on field umpire's call is not given to the video official. For an example of that, let's rewind back to the 4th delivery of WI vs Zimbabwe. Gayle was on 0. Full delivery, hits Gayle on the pads, given not out, reviewed, ball would have only clipped the bails, so it's umpire's call, call stands. However, when the ball was first bowled it looked like there was an inside edge, and that was seemingly why the umpire had given it not out. On replay he clearly missed it. It's possible the umpire thought the ball was hitting the stumps, and would have given it out had he thought the batsman had missed it, and in which case the DRS umpire's call would have been out.

Likewise an umpire could determine an LBW appeal is not out because it pitched outside leg (but would have gone on to hit the stumps), but on review it shows that it was pitching in line, but only clipping the stumps so the umpire's call stands.

I think on a review the umpire should have to state "not out, he hit it", or "pitching outside leg". If he's wrong and the ball would have gone onto clip the stumps in an umpire's call then the team reviewing should at least get their review back.