'Well,' the local says, 'if I was you, I wouldn't start from here'.
That joke applies to a lot of modern cricket's structure. The concept of touring, for example, began because it took two months on a boat to reach your opposition. It wasn't worth going unless you stuck around for a while. It's not a calendar you'd draw up today.
Similarly, the technology available to the third umpire wasn't developed to improve decision-making, but to improve television viewing.
Now, with manifestly twisted logic, players are to be invited to use it to umpire their own games, a concept with certain inherent contradictions.
The referral system itself has some built-in nonsense about the number of unsuccessful appeals a side can make - it's currently two. Imagine applying that logic to a bowler, for a start.
Or imagine the last few overs of a tight match in which a side has used up its two appeals on a couple of very close calls, and then something like the Brad Haddin Hand of Dog thing happens.
Let's not even visit the conspiracy theories about the pitch 'mat' that, it's said, has sometimes been subtly tweaked to favour the home broadcaster's team - wider when they bowl, narrower when they bat* - and the way that catches held close to the ground always look iffy.
No, let's instead envision a technical utopia in which the gizmos are never wrong. Why not just have the third umpire inspect every decision and offer feedback to his colleagues? Why only do it if the players ask?
We may or may not be headed towards a future in which every decision is correct (and how much poorer the game will be without human fallibility), but if we're going to get there, I wouldn't start from here.
* Who, from the ICC or the umpires or whoever's in charge, checks that the technology has been set up accurately? Or do they just presume that the TV companies always get it right?