KEY POINTS:
What will cricket look like through the umpires' eyes in 10 years' time?
It might be that by then they are merely out in the middle to hold the bowler's sweater, wave on the drinks breaks and call "play", "over" and "stumps gentlemen", everything else being controlled from
up in the stand.
There are plans to trial a scheme allowing players three appeals against umpiring decisions per innings. On the face of it, that might be viewed as having serious potential to further undermine the umpires' authority.
And yet, it might work in the umpires' favour.
How so? With every appeal which proves the umpires' decision was correct, so their standing will be enhanced. After a time, players may start to take the view that despite their own misgivings, the umpires do get most calls right.
This week, Stephen Fleming spoke of his preference for the human element to remain in the umpires' hands rather than go lock, stock and barrel to technology.
Batsmen play false shots, bowlers serve up tripe, fielders drop catches, umpires make slipups. That's cricket.
The difficulty for the umpires is that they alone stand condemned by the modern age. Who, 50 years ago, would have imagined Snickometer, Hawkeye, or the slo-mo images now available at the push of a button in a truck out the back of the grandstand?
Imagine yourself as the umpire who says "not out", then steadfastly refuse to glance at the big screen which shows you as a complete muppet as scorn reigns down from above. It's a thankless job.
The International Cricket Council was right to replace veteran West Indian Steve Bucknor for next week's third test between Australia and India, but not because it appeased Indian demands and ensured the tour would, at least for the moment, continue.
The timing wasn't great, it could have been done some time ago. It was the correct call because Bucknor is past his best. His work in the bitter Sydney test was simply unacceptable.
In other sports, under-performing officials are dropped. Take the National Rugby League: the big time one week, demoted to second grade the next.
The same in the English premier league. Liverpool v Chelsea one week might become Derby County v Fulham the next. Still the premier league but a plunge down the pecking order.
But if the ICC wanted to give their umpires some support, they should consider ways to strengthen their hand in demanding times.
If a team is guilty of over-zealous appealing, and of reacting poorly to the umpire's decision, they could be entitled to add, say, 20 runs to the batting team's total. That might have more impact than the fines and warnings which seem to mean little to players with significant earning potential these days.
Fleming touched on a key reason why any call for a blanket move by teams to walk when batsmen are caught behind off an edge would be hard to stick to.
Players' livelihoods kick in. Walk on 10 and your test place might go; plug on to 70 and your career survives. Human nature again.
Now consider Ricky Ponting. The Australian captain didn't walk when he edged a catch down the leg side in the first innings in Sydney, then gave the umpire a filthy look when given out lbw after edging the ball into his pads a while later. You can't have it both ways.
It was Ponting who pointedly raised his finger to the umpire to signal teammate Michael Clarke had taken a fair catch, which replays suggested was inconclusive, during India's second innings in Sydney.
It was Clarke who claimed a catch off New Zealand batsman Gareth Hopkins in Hobart last month which was distinctly dodgy - it didn't attract much attention because the game was long gone - and who also snicked a ball to first slip in Australia's second innings and refused to walk.
An MCC committee is investigating new technology with the aim of specifically helping the umpires. They surely deserve a hand.
