If someone ever asked me who the most intelligent people in cricket are, I would put Daniel Vettori up there on the list. Not only does he look professorial, his skill, acumen, and achievements warrant such accolades.

However, he has seriously damaged his credentials today in my eyes. Here's what he had to say after the end of the 1st Test against the Windies:

[Vettori] also proposed only one referral per team per innings instead of the three being used in the New Zealand-West Indies series. "What's happening a little bit is the 50-50 ones are coming into play and I don't think that's what it was invented for," Vettori told NZPA.

...

"If you look at it [the Flynn replay], you can see it's out but is that the reason it was brought in ... to decide on such a fine-line decision?" asked Vettori. "The premise of cricket is the batsman always gets the benefit of the doubt and I think you want to still keep that part of the game in." [LINK]

So the referral system is helping umpires make correct decisions, but you're not happy with that? You want the benefit of doubt to remain a part of the game, when there exists a pretty straightforward process to reduce it drastically?

Strange comments really. Not sure why players are so reluctant to embrace this system. And I like how these players use the diminished role of the on-field umpires as their cop-out. Uhhh...hello??? The third umpire is not a backup umpire - he's an integral part of the game. If he gets a bit more responsibility, what's wrong in that?

My biggest concern is the time factor. But so far I have seen little or no complaints about the time factor by the players, umpires, or analysts.

Bad decisions have been extremely costly to teams in the past, and that's why the referral system is a good idea. I'm disappointed that someone like Vettori is acting quite ignorant about the whole thing.