In the absence of the Decision Review System in the upcoming India-Australia Test series, the on-field umpires will once again be the masters of a cricket field, but the broadcasters' move to use the technology for viewers could make the men in white court look silly at times.
In the event of a wrong decision, the umpires would be embarrassed no end as it would be displayed on TV through the usage of either UDRS or Hot Spot technology.
India's refusal to accept the technology has upset broadcasters Channel Nine.
"We are not really sure what they are basing that on. I just hope they are not basing their judgements on the inferior technology instead of the good one," said Brad McNamara, executive producer of the channel's cricket coverage.
Meanwhile Australian captain Michael Clarke has bemoaned the lack of consistency in the acceptance of technology by all national boards and urged the ICC to step in and make a consistent decision.
"I am not bothered either way. I would just like to see a broad decision made for every team. I would like to see it in Test cricket and one-day cricket or in one or the other or not used at all," he said.
"I find it a little bit inconsistent, I guess, that we are having it one series, not having it in the other.
"I don't mind what the decision is. I would just like to see it consistent all the time."
Clarke said he was happy to abide by the on-field umpires' decisions.
"At the end of the day, the umpires will do their best to make the right decision.
"Like us players, I would like to make a hundred every time I walk out on to the field but it doesn't happen, we make mistakes, we make errors.
"The positive thing is it's going to be consistent for both teams throughout the series. That's a real positive thing. Both teams will live with whatever decisions are made throughout the series."
But former umpires such as Australia's Darrell Hair have already slammed the fraternity for not standing up to the widespread use of the technology - and losing their powers in the process.
"How did the reliance on technology come about, and why did we let it encroach on our job," Hair questioned in his book, 'In The Best Interest Of The Game'.
"Mostly I think we, as umpires, accepted it too quickly and without much thought about what our true role is. There was no resistance from within umpiring at international level.
"It was a matter of 'Let's get the decisions correct so we cannot be criticised'.
"I take another view, however. We were not confident or united enough to fight the gradual erosion of our traditional role. I believe we agreed to take the easy way out. This came about in several ways."
Hair said umpires failed to "stand up and say, 'Give us more resources and training and we will provide you with better decisions', while others 'welcomed changes as a way of passing on difficult decisions'".