Use of technology in cricket

I've never been in favour of using technology in cricket, but, given that it has been used for several years for run-outs and stumpings, as well as boundaries, I can't see any reason why it can't be used for every decision.

My first preference would be that cricketers behave like gentlemen and play the game in the spirit in which it was always meant to be played. Yes, I know, I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!

If players were honest there would be no need for umpires. Players know when they've hit the ball. They know when they've taken a catch.

Why is it that Ricky Ponting wants the fielder's word to be accepted in catching decisions, but that batsmen shouldn't walk when they know they've hit the ball? Isn't this hypocrisy and double standards? So Ponting believes that dishonest batsmen suddenly become honest when they're fielding?

Technology can show clearly if the bowler has overstepped the line. For LBWs it can show clearly whether the ball has pitched in line with the stumps, and whether it has hit the batsman in line. There are a variety of generally accepted tools -- hot-spot, snicko -- to show if the ball has hit the bat. I don't like the use of technology, but if it is going to be used for some decisions, why not all?

Very interesting to read the interview with Rudi Koertzen after the second Ashes Test in 2009 at Lord's where several incorrect decisions were made. I'd like to point out that these decisions did not influence the result of the match -- Australia lost because it played poorly and England played much better.