Allow me to say that I am with the Stoa (who has returned after an extended silence) when he says that he 'opposes the new system of the players being able to refer umpires' decisions to the third umpire'. He thinks the system is silly. I agree. One of the things that is silly about it is that by allowing a team just two referrals per innings, it doesn't go for the best standard of decision-making possible. Suppose a team calls for reconsideration of two umpiring decisions they think are extremely dubious. Then, later, they get an absolute stinker of a decision. Having used up their two referrals, they're doomed on this one.
The limit of two referrals is designed to discourage frivolous appeals. But it means that it's merely potluck which decisions get referred, and the ones that do may not be the worst ones. Better to give the third umpire an independent power of review and of stepping in when he judges the need arises. The players have made their appeal and should be obliged to leave it at that. Or else we could go back to treating the word of the umpires on the pitch as final except on line decisions.