Referring to 'referrals'

From R. Thirucumaran, Sri Lanka
I know, it may be too early to come to conclusions, but, from what I've seen of it, there are some very inherent flaws in the referral system.

I'm sure most of you are aware of the fact that the 3rd umpire, as far as hawk - eye is concerned', only has access to the pictures which show the path of the ball till the moment of impact with the bat. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand why this is so. The ICC honchos say that hawk-eye doesn't take into consideration the effects of wind and swing on the path of the ball, but I feel that the umpire would have enough brains to look at the ball and see whether it would've hit the stumps.

Secondly, a quite funny regulation that I came to know of only during the course of the test match stated that the 3rd umpire conveys what he has found from TV replays and all that to the field umpire, who then makes the decision. How stupid is that! Obviously, the on - field umpire has no access to TVs, so let the 3rd umpire make the decision instead of wasting time conveying it to the on - field, dude!

Thirdly, I can't understand why the 3rd ump isn't allowed access to other stuff like 'snicko', 'hotspot'. The decision on the appeal by Dilshan regarding his dimissal in the first Test really showed why we need the snicko. He had appeared to edge the ball to the keeper. However, he had also hit the bat with his ground (which was proven by the puff of dust emerging), which made it difficult for the umpire to really conclude whether the sound was from bat hitting ground or ball, and therefore gave the decision in favour of the batsman!

Well, it's too early to make the verdict, but the basic rules of the 'referrals' are quite flawed, and the ICC need to have a hard look at them if they want this to be a success!