NZ Cricket officials are in no doubt the Umpire Decision Review System should be extended, writes Andrew Alderson.
The frustration erupted the moment umpire Gary Baxter's finger went up after the ball hit Ricky Ponting's helmet.
The debate is about why the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) is used in test matches but not one-day and Twenty20 internationals.
Baxter's gaffe last weekend and several others during the series make it nonsensical to continue with the status quo.
It is scarcely believable that umpires, in this era of technology, remain some of the least informed people on decisions.
The onus now goes on the International Cricket Council (ICC) to make headway on a delicate matter - delicate, in that it has been seen as galling to the egos of professional umpires.
As the ICC code of conduct attests, umpires still cannot be held accountable to any great degree by players or coaches when their decisions are wrong.
Instead, numerous variations to the cliche 'that's the way the game goes, it's swings and roundabouts' are trundled out.
There are still naysayers regarding further technological advancement.
Some traditionalists argue the benefit of the doubt needs to reign when it comes to fine edges, ground-level catches and LBWs. Others question whether third umpires are suitably versed in the ways of video technology to make an educated call.
However, as the 13 tests using the UDRS have shown, the percentage of correct decisions has swelled from 91 per cent to 97 per cent.
Unfortunately, the series between England and South Africa placed a blight on the move because the audio technology was poorly used. but, by and large, there is more accuracy.
New Zealand Cricket (NZC) chief executive Justin Vaughan is in favour of technology being applied in all international formats as soon as possible.
"For instance, there would be nothing worse than having an umpiring error in a World Cup final caused by a lack of technology. The big issues are cost and not wanting to delay the game. We need referrals dealt with promptly.
"There is a cost to the broadcasters but bringing in extra graphics and software enhances what they can offer to the paying public. I think the UDRS does that. It gives you something extra from the game and the costs aren't prohibitive.
"You don't want a flagrant use of the system, but the current two challenges keep it manageable. The Ponting helmet dismissal is what it is designed for - eliminating decisions that are real roughies."
Former Black Cap-turned-commentator John Morrison is a more vehement advocate:
"It's beyond my comprehension why they don't have it in one-dayers and Twenty20. Some absolute howlers get through. You could say things balance out in the end, but that's unacceptable.
"It's sheer stupidity and pigheadedness when most decisions could be decided on one replay. Officials are quite happy to go through umpteen replays to see whether someone touched the rope when deciding a boundary. It makes me furious and pisses the punters off too."
Sky Television's executive producer of cricket, James Cameron, was reluctant to talk in detail, due to ongoing negotiations with the ICC and NZC.
"It's a delicate topic but we've got time to work through it with NZC until January next year when we host our next one-dayer. One change we have made for this test series is to put the decision reviews on the big screen for paying fans to look at, which we haven't done before."
Costs and logistics could be potential stumbling blocks but Vaughan says their impact could be mitigated.
"There's a need for a neutral umpire to oversee the UDRS but, hypothetically, if you had a trusted system, the drive for neutral on-field umpires goes away because you have a mechanism to safeguard against it.
"Unfortunately, if you look at the South Africa-England series, they didn't have the full array of technology. You need the ball-tracking and hotspot software to make it viable.
"The ICC could contribute some money and you could also shave costs if you found a general worldwide sponsor."
Further backing comes from Rodger McHarg, the NZC's national umpiring manager.
"Umpires are comfortable with the application and outcomes the system has generated. The aim of the ICC is to make it universal, so it's logical it could be used in other forms of the game, especially seeing we're getting closer to the magical 100 per cent in correct decisions.
"They're also okay with reviews being shown live at the ground. If people at home can see something the third umpire's seen, the spectators at the ground should too.
"It shouldn't change anything and hopefully it is another reason for people to come along."
