Well the news has its say that the decision review system is about to take a back seat for the reason that it involves a lot of cost that is considered as unnecessary by the ICC. It seems that the world's cricket governing body is not interested in giving the teams or the players a fair trial no matter what on earth happens. It is not the ICC who would be responsible in case a team crashes out of a major tournament when there is hardly any mistake on its side or there is least that it can do. Really?
If the ICC considers about cost cutting measures, one has to reason out why does the game has a provision in giving the umpires an option to refer a doubtful decision to the 3rd umpire? Why doesn't one of the teams suffer in case there can be a lot of money that can be saved. Of course, there is not going to be a loss of anyone's life or property in this case. The ICC should have learnt a lesson after the Sydney test episode between India and Australia where 8 decisions were wrong and funny that one of them included the decision by the third umpire as well.
However, all these are allowed to happen by giving a lame excuse that these are human errors regarding which nothing can be done. One can agree with the former part of the sentence which says "human errors" but not with the latter part that says "nothing can be done". In case something needs to be done, there are lots that can happen. In case a batsman is found to be not out, he can be called by the umpires back to the crease to continue to bat. This can happen when the same umpires rule out a six to be a four after consulting the third umpire over wireless.
Similarly, in case the opposition captain calls back a batsman after learning that he was not out, the batsman can still come back and play like it happened in a match between Sri Lanka and Australia in 2004 after Symonds was given out which was not the case actually. And one other thing that can be done is to penalise the umpires in case they go wrong in deciding irrespective of whether it is a human error or not. When captains can be fined for slow over rate and bowlers for excessive appealing, why should the umpires go scot free for their decision can affect not only a player or a match but also a series?