If a tree falls in the woods...

England and South Africa will use the referral system in the forthcoming Test series, thus ensuring that the issue of television replays stays high on the agenda. 

Brit at Think Of England had a further take on Thierry Henry, who has asked TV companies to stop showing slow-motion footage of his handball. 

'As a footballer you do not have the luxury of television to slow the pace of the ball down 100 times to be able to make a conscious decision,' he said. 'People are viewing a slow motion version of what happened and not what I or any footballer faces in the game. If people look at it in full speed you sill see it was an instinctive reaction'.

Henry essentially argues that slow motion replays actually show something that wasn't present live; that they invite interpretation of an event that is being distorted by the showing. 

Is he right? Can straight-up raw footage include something that isn't there? One thing is certain about the referral system: it's all about interpretation.

A child called 'Referral System'...

Many years ago, there was a tremendous TV drama called Bodyline. Its highpoints came every time the actor playing Jardine (I can't remember who it was, but he was very good) turned to camera and uttered the words 'Harild... Lig theory...' This was the cue for Larwood to do his stuff.

We have waited some time for a modern equivalent, but we have it at last: the - very televisual - T-sign that indicates a referral by either batting or fielding team.

Now, in this life, Dave Pelzer has been abused. The offshore tax laws have been abused. The memory of Elvis has been abused. But none of them have been abused like the referral system has been abused. A technological innovation designed to protect the integrity of decision-making - and by extension, the integrity of the game - has instead brought out the worst in players, umpires and commentators.

Truth can be relied upon to be stranger than fiction, and the storyline it has developed for the test in Trinidad stays true to type. To chart its course, from Tiffin's first innings hide-behind-the-sofa bloopers to the vicious, mind-blowing inconsistencies of the Chanderpaul and Cook decisions of day four, is to read a map of the idiocies of an irredeemably flawed system.

The heart of this flaw is the concept that the players refer an umpire's decision. This politicises decision-making; it turns technology from a problem solver into a tactical device. It is essentially inequitable. England (naturally) provided a classic example. Having used their referrals up, they were unable to overturn a horrendous not out decision in favour of Brendan Nash proffered by Russell Tiffin. 

Had England been removed from what they no doubt felt was an obligation to contest a couple of early calls by Tiffin in West Indies' first innings, and had Tiffin been relieved of the pressure applied to him by an angry and impotent England, the correct decision could have been made. The solution is simple: remove the obligation to refer from the players, and allow the umpires to confer freely, and as often as they like.

The interviews at the close of play today were enlightening. Asked his opinion on the bizarre over-rule on a caught behind that allowed him to complete a century, Shiv Chanderpaul muttered 'no comment'. And asked how much time England might need to bowl out West Indies a second time, Graeme Swann replied, 'about 300 overs'. Neither was joking.

Everyone, from frustrated players to livid punters, were abused today, and it wasn't pretty.