England batsman Jonathan Trott came to the defence of cricket's controversial Decision Review System (DRS) on Sunday but called for greater "clarity" in the rules governing its use.
During the ongoing Ashes series, where England have established a winning 3-0 lead over Australia heading into next week's final Test at The Oval in south London, DRS has been a repeated source of controversy, with Trott himself just one player on the wrong end of a debatable decision.
However, the Warwickshire right-hander told BBC Radio Five's Sportsweek programme on Sunday: "I think the DRS has been good. It's been under pressure and, (under) the scrutiny of an Ashes series, there are a few grey areas that have been shown.
"We should straighten out the rules and get clarity with how it should work and how decisions are going to be made, then the players or the spectators won't have a problem."
Trott added: "It does create a bit of atmosphere and a bit of tension for the spectators. It creates a bit of drama.
"I've been on the receiving end of DRS where it's saved me a few times -- I think all batsmen have. There have been times where it's worked in our favour.
"There are a few things that could be looked at but I don't think it's a bad system at the moment."
Meanwhile the standard of on-field umpiring has also been a hot topic during this series, as with the bulk of the International Cricket Council's leading officials coming from either England or Australia, there are currently just four 'elite panel' umpires empowered to control Ashes matches.
Whereas traditional practice was for any 'benefit of the doubt' to go to the batsman, the advent of DRS has led to a situation where it instead goes to the umpire, with the result that the same ball can be both out or not out on review depending upon the on-field official's original decision.
Trott, perhaps unsurprisingly, favours a return to the old system.
"Maybe more benefit of doubt should go to the batsman," the South Africa-born top-order batsman said.
"More benefit of doubt is going to the umpire with regards to defending an umpire's decision."