News report on cricinfo. Having two neutral umpires in ODIs is eminently sensible, but it does not completely address the problem of umpiring inconsistency. I feel there are three other issues related to match officials that should be addressed in addition to bringing in two neutrals.
1. The "Dinosaurs"
This relates to the old-school neutral umpires, eg Koertzen, Hair, et al, some of whose decisions seem to be quite atrocious on a regular basis. Neutrality should be a basic condition, but not the only one; competency and consistency should be ensured by regular independent reviews by the ICC.
2. The 'independent' TV umpire
The third umpire's role needs to be more clearly defined too; for instance, there is no reason why a third umpire needs to see six replays from 4 angles to give someone run-out; if there is so much doubt, the batsman is in. The number of replays and angles that the third umpire sees should be pre-defined, and if he cannot establish that the guy is definitely out from these, he gives him in. This will prevent the Afridi scenario.
However, using a minimum number of replays will also prevent the Gilchrist scenario, where the third umpire did not bother to call for any replays, and after an apparently cursory glance, gave him not out; there, a more careful look might have led to a different conclusion.
3. The Match Referee
Consistency in imposing sanctions from match referees is imperative. We all know of Pakistan's grievances with the strict fines handed out to Kaneria, Shoaib Akhtar and others, where other far worse offenders from other nations regularly escape scot-free. Vaughan made an undignified and uncivil fuss after being rightly fined for a rude outburst, because he and other English and Australian cricketers are not used to the officials imposing any sanctions on them. It sometimes seems that the match referee exists primarily to fine and ban Pakistani and Indian players
.
Inzamam was recently fined
all of his match fee plus another 30% for slow over rates in just one ODI - a ridiculous charge, since over-rates are irrelevant to all but the TV ad-men in ODIs. Yet, Vaughan and Smith escape scot-free after five Tests of sheer gamesmanship; they were regularly cheating the paying spectators out of the minimum 90 overs, and slowing play to gain an unfair advantage on the field. Slow over-rates are a real problem in Tests, especially as they give one side a real advantage, and can rob the spectator of a result. In ODIs, slow over-rates are irrelevant and should not even be a problem. However, the match referee (Chris Broad) fined Inzamam; another reason why only people of a certain calibre and sound reputation should be made match referees, not ex-cricketers who have been the worst offenders in their playing days, a la Broad.