It is an issue that just will not go away. Should the Decision Review System (DRS) be used in all forms of international cricket? Sports reporter Robert van Royen thinks so, but cricket writer Adrian Seconi disagrees.
Van Royen says:
Anyone who has played cricket will tell you there is nothing worse than being given out incorrectly or the umpire failing to see or hear a blatant edge.
The feeling when an umpire gives in to a leg before wicket appeal when there was clearly an inside edge is rage-inducing for players and fans alike.
At the amateur level, you can live with that, just.
But there should simply be no such thing in international cricket in this day and age.
There is too much at stake for players to be sent packing when there was daylight between bat and ball.
The technology is there and it needs to be used. The recent first test between Australia and India is further proof the ICC just needs to say: ''Look, we are making the DRS system compulsory.''
It is a disgrace that the Indians are allowed to act like spoiled little children and refuse the use of the review system.
Their persistent refusal to embrace the technology, which they say is not 100% accurate, is only holding the game back.
It only makes it that much sweeter to see India shafted by bad umpiring decisions. And that is exactly what happened a couple of times in its fateful second innings in last week's loss to Australia.
Umpire Marais Erasmus deemed Ajinkya Rahane caught at short leg, but Nathan Lyon's offbreak had bounced off the top of the front pad.
Had the Indian Cricket Board not been so stubborn, Rahane could have appealed the terrible decision and continued his innings.
Shikhar Dhawan could have done the same earlier, when Ian Gould adjudged him caught behind for nine, despite Mitchell Johnson's bouncer hitting nothing but his shoulder.
Surely, the Indians can see the DRS system is more accurate than those kinds of howlers we see all too often.
Football finally started embracing technology on the world stage by introducing goal line replays at the Fifa World Cup earlier this year.
It is time cricket does the same, and not just in one or two forms of the game.
It needs to become a part of the game in all three formats and no team should have the right to refuse it.
Stand up, ICC.
Seconi says:
Look, do we really need to call in a forensic video analyst every time someone launches into an appeal?Cricket is a wonderful game that is full of human drama. It is not an episode of CSI.
Of course, there is nothing quite as exciting as watching another commercial, so the graphics department can stitch together a pitch map from No8 wire and take a wild stab at where the ball might end up. I mean, the game takes up to five days, so what's another 10 minutes?Yes, yes, yes - apparently this ball-tracking software is quite accurate. Hot Spot, too, and all the other gadgets. It is less No8 wire and more gigabytes and whizz-bang stuff no-one really understands.
And it certainly makes no sense to use the DRS in one test and not another. That is a ludicrous situation. The ICC needs to take the lead and actually make a decision on the future of the DRS.
But there is more at stake than people's averages.
Remember when West Indies great Michael Holding sent the stumps cartwheeling at Carisbrook when his appeal for caught behind was turned down by umpire John Hastie?Of course you do. Watching John Parker dip his head and fumble nervously at his gloves - perhaps wondering whether removing them would make the trip back to the dressing room more comfortable - has become entrenched in our folklore.
Parker hit the cover off it. It was 34 years ago and if you listen carefully, you can still hear the nick now. Hastie made a terrible decision and it triggered one of the most infamous moments in New Zealand cricket history.
Had the DRS been in action, well, it would have been a rather banal moment barely worthy of a footnote.
Holding would have asked for a review. The crowd would have sat in silence while the boffins in a truck out the back tinkered with their laptops.
Hastie's decision would have been overturned. Holding would have got his wicket. Parker would have been able to complete what he started and taken his gloves off.
The right decision would have been made but technology would have stripped the sport of one of its great dramatic moments.
