No batsman at virtually any level of cricket (or for any ball game for that matter) can claim to have never felt aggrieved by an ump call.  The lines and zones and numerous by-laws that must all, and always, be commutated in split seconds by the human mind pretty much ensures a mistake will be made.

 Well what to do.  Well...what everyone else has been doing globally in their respective games and that is, the installation of appropriate technology (once perfected) to ensure a fair decision is derived. How can this be a bad idea.
Paradigm shifts make for numerous social theses and has been more note-worthy than the implementation of technology in sports.  From boxing to winter x-games there has always been the immediate (knee-jerk?) installation of a human decider only to face gradual removal as the professional (and high-stakes) demands of the sport are pared down to its essential contest: the battle between the foes decided accurately by the respective rules.

The guiding gentleman's philosophy of most commonwealth-originated games e.g. football, tennis and yes, cricket has had to make belated way for accuracy as, quite simply, livelihoods now depend on getting decisions right - all the time.

And the spectator (a.k.a. the bottom line) has looong demanded this.

While football remains largely contextual and simple to administer, tennis has made great strides in technological implementation now offering players the right to query and video-review calls as well as wide umpiring discretion regarding technological assistance.

Cricket's embrace of the microchip has been painful and ultimately embarrassing.  Perhaps an ICC PR campaign to 'liberate' umpires from existing shackles or a proactive umpire-led wish-listing of technological assistance shall provide the diplomatic out in what is fast becoming a farcical game of 'you first'.

Either way, an out is urgently required and Brian is waiting.