Do you believe that we shouldn't refer decisions on runouts and stumpings, then? Or the really tricky catches, like the "catch" that claimed Pietersen's wicket? And two points with regard to the umpire being made obselete, if the use of technology was allowed for LBWs and caught-behinds, it will be the umpire's choice of when to use it and when not to- if a decision's perfectly obvious, then the umpire needn't refer it. Secondly, no one goes to a cricket game to watch the umpires, they go to watch the players. As long as the players are still fallible, then that's really the most important thing.

No, I can't. As I said, even with the availability of technology in making LBW and "snicko" decisions, the umpire doesn't have to use it every time- just for the really border-line decisions. Besides which, the umpire will still be needed for maintaining discipline on the field, making decisions about the light, etc, as well as making some decisions.

To be honest I am not sure - but the problem with miminal intervention of the third umpire is that once on that road, where do we draw a line?.

I think it was the match referee Jeff Crow that said this and I agree because if an umpire is sure in his own mind that he is right, then how can he refer the decision to a third umpire?.

If an umpire is rated poor on more occasions than is considered normal - then he can be removed from the elite panel of umpires, that would be an incentive to get decisions right.

LINK:BBC SPORT | Cricket | England | Vaughan urges technology rethink

I would be in favour of limited use of replays - if I was sure the umpires always made the decisions if and when that should be used.
I hope this is what England will do, they feel betrayed by the umpire that is understandable, but the game goes on.

__________________
Ern

It does have to be the umpire's decision, of course. But I got the impression from watching the umpires that they weren't sure if he was out. I also think that there are a great many borderline decisions that should be referred that go the wrong way.

I'm sure that would be what would happen. That's how it happened in the SuperTest, after all.

And consider this- it seems that everyone feels that the game today is stacked too heavily in favour of the batsmen. Wouldn't using technolgy to eliminate doubt in some cases go some way to restore the balance between bat and ball? And, by the same token, wouldn't it help to ensure that some batsmen don't go out when they should?

What started out as a bad session ended as a decent one for England thanks to Matt Prior with his 2nd 50 in successive innings,i fear for Rachael's keyboard as a result of her least favourite player doing well.

I guess we have to look to try and get somewhere near 380-400 but to do that prior needs to score a ton which he probably deserves having done so well in Kandy and now today.

So the innings peters out for 351,well batted Matt Prior an excellent effort.About 100 runs short but the umpires saw to that.Come on the bowlers.

Sri Lanka in trouble at tea 25-2 with the big wicket of Sangakkara already claimed.Cracking test match again despite the poor umpiring,they are talking about Collingwood's decision being dubious but i can accept that one as if you pad up offering no shot you are asking for trouble.

I missed the wickets as i was out but what a catch by Prior to remove Tharanga,top stuff from him.He is having an excellent tour so far.

Yes, although the dive to take the second catch seemed unnecessary.

Stuart Broad's had a good start, but I just have to wonder how long it'll be before we see his autobiography? Five Tests? Ten?

He can include a paragraph about being warned twice for running on the pitch in his first spell in test cricket.

As i say i was out so only saw his first over which was good but i have been hopeful he would do well for quite a while,too early to say he has made it but it is a promising opening by the sounds of it.

...and the first catch should either have been taken with two hands (feasible) or left to the first slip: the odds on an error were high enough and had the ball popped out the talk would have been of another England keeper diving infront of his better-placed colleagues.

The guy getting widely tipped as potentially the best wicket-keeper in the world is, of course, the one playing for the opposition: young Jayawardene seems very promising indeed.

He didn't dive in front of first slip. He took a ball in between the wicket keeper and the first slip. It was his catch and he went for it. End of chat.

My stance is - I am not a fan of Prior, and would prefer to see Read or Davies - however, as long as Prior takes catches and makes stumpings, while scoring more valuable runs down the lower order, he should stay in the team

I don't care if he catches the ball despite fumbling or dives in front of third slip, as long as he takes the catch. In terms of diving in front, this again is where Rachael not playing the game lacks a level of understanding. When I have kept (which is not very often) I have spoken to the slips, and as long as they are happy for me to dive across, then I did. As long as I took the catch, nobody complained, but, if I dived across and spilled the chance, then there would be a comment.

The worst thing in the world is a keeper not going for a catch and seeing it sail between him and first slip. That is much worse than diving across IMO.