Born of frustration, I think one of the TMS guys asked if it would have happened had the aussies not been getting their ar'ses kicked.
The review system is a bit of a nightmare, technology had to be used in some way because TV was showing replays and umpiring errors exposed anyway so it simply left the umpires exposed to "trial by TV" without the same technology to aid them. Now the umpires are in the unenviable position of still not being in control of technology, it is now the plaything of the teams/captains.
Smith was right that reviews should either be for all series or not at all, I think not at all is now no longer an option. The issue for me with the "review system" is whether it achieves what it intends to ie get wrong decisions made right. With only two reviews, of which LBW calls are too tempting and have been Strauss' downfall, so the bottom line is wrong decisions can go without being made right. A simpler system is that calls are reviewed via one replay watched by the third umpire. If he believes, either by the live play or by the replay, that there may be an error, he calls for play to be delayed for TWO more replays. If in those two additional replays he has cause to reverse or review the call even further then so be it. This way you don't have the players effectively challenging the umpires' decisions which can't help the umpires. It also takes the focus (of blame) off them and puts it on someone they can't speak to as he's tucked away.
I don't think gimmicks like snickerometer and snotspot should be used, snickerometer in particular is not an exact science. If there is an edge then it should be visible via replay, if it is not visible TO THE NAKED EYE then why should it be made audible or visible by other gadgets? The inevitable quest of s*y and its minnions has undermined cricket, taking a simple game and making everyone play it their way.
If those two gimmicks aren't permitted to be used by the TV company, only replays, then the amount of controversy would be reduced no end. If it isn't visible to the naked eye then people will accept mistakes, now there is the expectation of an absolute right answer. Why was there less questioning of an umpire's decision and authority back in the day (of Dickie Bird)? Maybe some umpires commanded that respect for other reasons, but would they have had technology been exposing mistakes they made but TV didn't make a song and dance about. Same goes for football, no doubt there were loads of goals not given where the ball crossed the line, and vice versa, but many years ago TV didn't slow motion overanalyse every incident.
And that was marvellous, like fair catches everyone just accepted a decision as the best the HUMAN making it could make and got on with it. Now the focus seems so heavy and intense on these one or two controversial decisions that get analysed 99,000 times more than the rest of the game which influences the game 99,000 times more than those one or two controversial decisions. Did that goal not given cost a team the point or two? Or were the other 89 minutes and 50 seconds more than enough time to shape the game? Even a throw in given the wrong way can change the course of a game, for example that happened for the very first goal Liverpool scored in an 8-0 win over Besiktas yet that wasn't overly focused on as a key moment.
Was the catch not given actually important in the context of the match or series? As it turns out Pietersen didn't last much longer, kinda reinforces my point that the once overanalysed review and aftermath was insignificant in the greater context. People go on about dropped catches, THE topic of discussion back when Jones was keeper, but didn't the 1st innings show that catches go down yet the aussies were still skittled for 98? Maybe it was the emotion and pressure of the situation, but was Ponting really that worked up and angry about a decision that was unlikely to change the game? A few runs off that block of wood he carries about with him might have.
The review system as it is will still get too many decisions wrong. LBWs are too high risk calls for captains to safely challenge them, I know it is principally to correct clanger calls but why only half use technology? (and by technology I mean TV replays not s*y gimmickery) The fact that dorkeye is used to make crucial decisions and even if that gimmick reckons the ball will hit the bails, if it is only half hitting it apparently that is somehow different
Maybe batsmen should request reinstatement if the ball only just clipped the bails or stumps to knock off the bails
What they are in fact admitting is margin for error, that dorkeye isn't 100% accurate and for me that is not technology