Umpires vs tech: ICC confused?

NEW DELHI, May 31: The ICC is yet to sort out all anomalies in its new recommendations regarding extended use of technology, and an appeal system via which players can refer thrice in an innings to the third umpire if the decision made by the ground adjudicator isn't satisfactory.
Will such an arrangement, expected to be implemented on a trial basis at the Champions Trophy, undermine the hitherto sacrosanct authority of the on-field umpire? Will increased reliance on technology also imply an increased reliance on TV producers? Most importantly, to what degree is it okay to let technology intrude? And let's not even get started on how it will impact on the 'spirit of the game'.
So the questions are many, but the ICC, as of now, is groping for answers. It was surprising to hear general manager (cricket) Dave Richardson, a former SA wicketkeeper and a qualified lawyer generally regarded as one of the canniest officials around in the game, admit that there were many "grey areas" and that "the Elite Panel of Umpires has expressed reservations on the issue".
While coming down hard on one particular panel member, Steve Bucknor, who suggested TV producers mess with images to influence decisions, Richardson admitted that many others too had expressed doubts, before adding: "But we are eager to try out the new system. We don't want to insult umpires. Mark Benson (of England), for one, likes it. The Elite Panel has been doing a wonderful job. But sometimes one or two bad decisions affect the outcome of a series."
Richardson attended a meeting of the ICC Cricket Committee in Dubai, where the recommendations were passed by the narrowest of margins (six votes to five). But his explanation of how the appeal system will put responsibility back on the integrity of a player is amusing.
"Players won't make bad appeals because they will be shown up by the replay," Richardson told TOI. But replays have existed for a while now and so have outrageous appeals. So how can a revolutionary allowance of three re-trials make players more honest?
The vehement insistence on such appeals not undermining umpire authority also lacks conviction, not only because most senior umpires will be against it, but because by doing so, the ICC finds itself in no-man's land as far as technology use is concerned. A third umpire having a second look at an LBW decision or a faint edge, for example, will be deprived of the Hawkeye or the Snickometer, "not because they are not reliable, but because we don't want to compromise on the on-field umpire's authority," says Richardson. So why compromise and let players appeal in the first place?
The third umpire, as of now, can only use the LBW mat (the line superimposed on the screen between the stumps). But if, as the ICC says, Hawkeye is reliable, then why not go the whole hog?
Could it be because there's an iota of truth in Bucknor's assertion that TV producers can be an unreliable lot? "Bucknor's views are his own, not the ICC's," Richardson said, before adding: "But I agree that maybe we do need a watchdog to monitor TV images. It remains to be seen if the ICC continues to ride piggyback on technology or uses its own. In any case, let's try the system out first."
The recommendations have to approved at the meeting of chief executives, following which it can be ratified at the ICC board meeting, both in July.