If we are to believe that old cliche that the camera never lies, there should be no problem in accepting the theory that the third (TV) man system is infallible and the image of umpires carrying a white stick, wearing dark glasses and guide dog is also a myth.

Which may be all right for those who want to replace umpire with robots who at the push of a button give a batsman either "in" or "out" depending on what they are programmed to see.

Having spent many years being grilled by the sun in the pursuit of making honest and fair decisions at club and provincial level, it was easy enough to understand how the use of camera work should make marginal line decisions that much easier.

Sure, we did not always get it right, but most of the time we did and that was the view of the players. Yet when you have a split second to make a decision it needed a touch of instinct, knowledge of the game's laws and the intricacies of 1000 and 1 situations, to try an get it right.

Now there is a demand by some alleged "expert commentators" who waffle on about how the lbw and the "bat-pad" or "pad-bat" catch decisions should also be handed over to the umpiring gazing at the monitor without giving the matter the sort of thought such comments need. It shows a lack of understanding of the law, camera angle and who should fulfil such a role.

More than once during the World Cup, as well as the Aiwa Cup in Sri Lanka and assorted tournaments in Toronto, Hong Kong and now the LG Cup in Nairobi, we have seen the third man getting it wrong. There have been some notable examples as well: the most blatant were in the World Cup and in Sri Lanka where a batsman (Australian Adam Gilchrist) was ruled "out" although the wicketkeeper Romesh Kaluwitharana dropped the ball and later in the series two other local umpires got it wrong, as did Ken Palmer in Northampton during South Africa's game against Sri Lanka and those involving New Zealand and Pakistan.

What needs to be asked, and which our "experts" have as yet failed to answer, is if the umpire looking at the TV monitor gets it wrong with basic law when making a simple (run out) decision, how can they be trusted when it comes to more intricate matters as lbw decisions and the "tricky" catches? Perhaps the International Cricket Council should investigate the question a little further to find the right answer to a problem which is becoming an embarrassment and questioning the accuracy of the TV monitoring system.

About the most reliable answer is for the ICC to appoint a group of retired ICC test panel umpires to the role of "ICC TV monitor adjudicators" as a way of rooting out erratic decision making and eliminate controversies. It is one way of eliminating the "hometown" decision claims. Test and limited-overs international players are professionals and deserve a professional approach, not a tardy response from those in control.