Events sure have moved fast at the ICC's Executive Committee meeting and in the Press, mostly for the better. The crux of the problem and the basic misunderstanding of DRS remains. While the technologies in DRS are now viewed with the skepticism (in the absence of any serious independent scrutiny) that they deserve, the basic problem of resolving issues with the communications protocol remain.
As Siddharth Monga asks in this superb article on DRS (regular readers of A Cricketing Viewblog will be very familiar with these arguments, they have been made incessantly over a period of nearly three years here), "While on the subject of howlers, why stop the elimination of mistakes against a team after it has exhausted its two reviews?"
This report by Sharda Ugra, in which she quotes the BCCI boss Shashank Manohar as saying that the "The leg-before decision for that series will be completely that of the on-field umpire,", is particularly telling, because it suggests that DRS is still misunderstood. The DRS is a communications protocol that uses various technologies to exchange information about events on the field. Currently, it is trigger by a review - from the player or from the umpire.
Monga's question largely remains unanswered. Can a review be requested for an LBW decision in which there is a suspicion of an inside edge, or some doubt as to whether the impact was pad first? The answer, as of now, seems to be no.
It is a good development that Hawkeye has been relegated to being "optional". Expect lots of apologias for Hawkeye from commentators in the forthcoming series.
But DRS remains a problem until the Player Review stays in place. If the point is to make correct decisions, then setting up an economy of error (as Player Review does) is not the way to go.