I think Warney talks a lot of sense, and i like him, but his and clarke's defence of Hughes smacked of old pro's just trying to save a young player from being buried under a pile of (justifiable imo) abuse.

A shame that Botham makes himself look like a xenophobic fool again with his attack on Hughes, yet defending Bell for similar 'cheating'.

I have sympathy with Hughes having fielded in that position myself.....Any chance of a catch in that type of position is usually a reflex one, with little knowledge of how clean a catch actually is, unless it lands plum in the breadbasket...Your own appeal is usually influenced by the reaction of those around you, and with Haddin and co going up, it was little surprise that Hughes followed.

I'd probably say that Bell actually 'cheated' more than Hughes.....He will have felt that nick, and by his reaction I'd say he probably was guilty....Asking your partner, 22 yards away, whether to review or not is a big giveaway and in his interview, after the close of play, he was decidedly sheepish.

Fair play to Bell on using the system, but shame on Botham for again resorting to 'down the pub' analysis.

I don't think so.
This is not about what someone else did ... but what Hughes did.
As for accusations ... yes you are right it depends on what side the perpetrator is as to what view some commentators will take.
And yes it is also true that sometimes fielders lose sight of the ball at the moment before it enters their eager hands ... so they can convince themselves it was a direct catch not a rebound.
Apart from the fact that in general our brain can perceive a mismatch between direct flights and rebounds both on timing and the direction being up not down when the ball enters the hands.
But in this particular case it seemed to me that Hughes watched the ball all the way as well and actually saw it bounce before his hands. This along with both the two other brain signals he got.
So in this particular instance, not in general, I think Botham was right and that Hughes did not have the sense to own up to it. Even though he did appeal, he could have actually said, sorry I was wrong, it wasn't a legitimate catch quite quickly afterwards and he would have gained immense respect for it. However he went through with the charade, did not own up and it was tantamount to trying to cheat someone out.

To some extent its an inevitable consequence of the referral system. The players " appeal" in a half hearted sort of way for everything and then let the technology sort it out. Neither Hughes or Bell were making firm declarations that they had caught the ball or not nicked it. They weren't saying "trust me I caught it/didnt hit it" just "lets see what the cameras say".

If the referral system didnt exist Hughes would have had to say "yes I caught it" for the dismissal to stand, knowing that the cameras would have shown him to be a liar and without the defense "I wasnt sure".

There are obvious teething problems with the referral system mainly due to the time it takes to arrive at a decision. Future investment in the technology should mean that eventually decisions are made instantly, without the need for a referral. But we'll only get to that stage if we persist with the currently flawed system.

That's a good call.....All the referal system does in its present guise, is to encourage players to chance their arm, whether as a fielder, bowler or batsman....Michael Clarke in Adelaide is a perfect example of a player simply clutching at straws, and, similarly, I believe Bell was doing the same and , luckily, got away with it.

I don't agree with the present format, simply because it gives the idea that the referal system should be used as some sort of tactical ploy, rather than what it should be and that is as a back-up aid to the on-field umpires.

The referral system isn't perfect and, as has been said above, I think there will be tweaks before we have the long term, permanent system in place.

I was chatting to someone last night who thought only the umpires should be able to ask for a referral, but that they still be limited in number per innings. The problem with that is I think they'll feel pressured to always go for a referral if a player appeals for it strongly enough just to make sure they don't end up looking stupid.

I think reducing it to 1 referral per side would eliminate the use of tactical referrals hoping to get lucky.

Surely it should be unlimited, but only used as an umpire's aid, with absolutely no influence from any players, similar to how it is used in Rugby??.....Umpires are not stupid, to be fair, they get most decisions right and they are knowledgable enough to know when a decision is 50-50 and may need some assistance from off the pitch.

As for over-appealing??....Well, there are already rules in place for that and if teams decide to try and 'influence' an umpire to use technology by over-appealing, then they should be punished accordingly (Penalty runs, fines...).

If we are stuck with it I would rather see a system the umpires lead rather than the players.

It would require the umpires to be strong willed, plenty of the elite ones do seem to be now but I think the evidence from RL suggests they'd start over-using on the technology, can you really say that there is no influence from any players in rugby? The refs know that the players will be up at them within seconds, same with a bowler making his way back. In a way you can't blame them for doing that as they don't want to look stupid with the cameras picking up things they can't.

Collingwood's retirement from test cricket has just been announced over the PA at the SCG according to Simon Hughes on twitter.

Just been confirmed on Sky Sports News.