A raised finger for the third umpire?

The Melbourne Age quotes umpires Simon Taufel and Rudi Koertzen as saying that the new video referral process is a failure. I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that the system has flaws. Perhaps the largest flaw is something nobody expected, and that is the effect that the system might have on spin bowling.

It is easier to play spin bowling with your pads than with your bat. Therefore the majority of cricketers play spin bowling by tucking their bat in next to their pad. The fact that it is very hard for an umpire to spot whether a ball hits bat or pad first when the ball is turning - not to mention the problems they have in assessing how much the ball is doing and whether it will hit the stumps - means that this tactic can be followed with minimal risk of being given out LBW. In addition the chance of being given out bat-pad when the ball might be bouncing off pad, thigh guard, hip, glove or bat handle is usually slim.

Referrals to the third umpire for closer examination make playing spin bowling with your pads a much riskier tactic. There were several appeals during the World XI match when this was shown to be the case - notably when Michael Clarke was given out bat-pad to Dan Vettori after replays showed the ball hitting the inside edge of his bat.

Continuation of the experiment with technology could well change the way in which batsmen play spin-bowling. It gives the spin bowler more support and makes playing with the pads a much, much riskier option. This is not necessarily a bad thing - pad-play is negative and makes for dull cricket - but it might unbalance the game. Test cricket is currently in a nice state of equilibrium (at least in games between fairly evenly matched sides) - results abound, but ball is not dominating bat. If technology tips the scales a little in favour spin bowlers, that equilibrium might be lost.