The South Africans have been more blunt about it and are moving to ensure it doesn't happen again. They intend to extend the use of television replays for the third umpire during their coming domestic season to cover not only line calls but also bat-pad decisions on catches and leg-before-wickets.

While everyone else was talking about it, they were the ones who actually led the way by putting the third umpire concept into practice. It is not surprising that they are now keen to match the various, inevitable, technological advances.

``We aren't saying we are right,'' Raymond White, the new chairman of the United Cricket Board of South Africa (UCBSA), said last week. ``But we would rather try it and drop it as unsuccessful or tackle the problems because we don't see any better way forward. In one year's time, we will all know a lot more and then we can make better decisions.''

What happened during the summer's series provided further incentive.

``The main reason we want to do this is that we are concerned at the quality of the umpiring at Test level, referring in particular to the recent series in England where it was prejudiced against our team,'' White added.

Charges of umpiring bias go back to the creation of cricket. There is not a losing team – Test, island, state, provincial, club, school – that has ever felt it got a fair deal from the men in white coats.

There is no sympathy for them, in spite of their thankless task of standing throughout a match and having a split second to rule on any one of the 10 methods of dismissal.

If they make an error, as they must, it is seldom taken as understandable human frailty but incompetence, bias, dishonesty or worse.

In an era of the all-seeing and, even in some cases, all-hearing television cameras, their job should have become less complicated. It hasn't. Indeed, in many ways, it has become more arduous.

Although they took a typically long time about it, the governors of world cricket finally recognised the available technology and, following the example of domestic South African cricket, gave the green light to put it to limited use. Umpires were saved the embarrassment of a mistake immediately visible to millions through their television screens by being able to refer line decisions –- run outs and stumpings – to a colleague who sat in a room beyond the boundary monitoring the replays.

Of late, such assistance has been extended to cover questionable low catches to determine whether they have carried or been snatched on the half-volley.

But technology has kept well ahead of the administrators. Now ``super slo-mo'' cameras have been developed to capture the ball in flight in such detail that its spin can be clearly seen and, an even more recent development, to hone in on the ball, slow it down and magnify it several times over to definitely determine whether or not it has made contact with the bat.

It was that device that brought the Pakistani umpire, Javed Ahktar, into such disrepute in the last Test at Headingley where three of his lbw decisions were shown to have brushed the bat before the pad.

In other times, the aggrieved batsmen would have shaken their heads, mumbled their disagreement and it would have been a matter for public conjecture, not an irrefutable error.

Ahktar today, Steve Bucknor, Eddie Nichols, David Shepherd, indeed anyone who officiates Test cricket tomorrow. It is inevitable since the human eye, ear and brain cannot compete with such scientific wizardry.

And only the magic of magnification has now brought certainty.

Referring to Akhtar's lbw decision against Mike Atherton - one about which the South Africans could claim prejudice – former England captain Ted Dexter observed: ``Each time it was played in normal time, the bat appeared to be miles away and yet it was a clear snick under the microscope.''

Opinion is divided as to where to go next but there is one sureness. The technology will become increasingly sophisticated and will be increasingly used in television coverage.

Already, the issue is challenging the ingenuity of scientists in South Africa where professor Tim Noakes of Cape Town University claims to have developed a system that would accurately predict the path of the ball on lbw decisions – whether it would have passed over the stumps or either side of them.

No doubt cricket television producers are falling over themselves to get hold of that particular gadget so that their experts can further dissect the capability of the poor man in the middle having to give his verdict without such help.

Before that happens, the ICC must revisit its position on the use of TV replays. Responding to the South African statement, its chief executive David Richards said: ``There's been no change in the level of use of technology and we have no plans to increase it now.''

But it surely has a responsibility to keep up with all developments that might benefit the game and save umpires from the defamation that Javed Ahktar had to endure.

Cricket is a game steeped in tradition and, for good reason, has been wary about change for change sake.

Tim Lamb, chief executive of the England and Wales Cricket Board, last week echoed a sentiment that is widely held: ``In any event, the human element in umpiring has always been an important part of the game.''

It is a view that is being made to look more and more anachronistic by the wonders of modern science.