Umpires going "down under"

When I was in college there was a guy who used to win cricket matches neither by bowling nor batting but by umpiring for his team. Benson and Bucknor weren’t much different except that they weren’t umpiring for their own teams. Both have gone ‘down under’ (pun intended) in their judgements. Benson just stopped short of asking Ponting 'do you want to umpire instead of me?' by asking Ponting’s opinion on a catch. Cricket should have never witnessed such an event. He should have gone to third umpire if he had had doubt. But going to the third umpire wouldn’t have made much difference either considering the fact that third umpire screwed up in the run-out of Symonds.
Come to think of it – umpires make mistakes in Tennis, Football and every other game. Technology is not quick enough to give instant decisions and there is no guarantee that the decisions taken with help of technology will be right. So invariably we have to depend on umpires.
Nevertheless there should be an evaluation system for umpires as well. The correctness of their decisions should be given points and they should be ranked like players. There should be lesser retirement age for umpires. They can be made to umpire in practice matches compulsorily so that they will have some match practice.
Technology can be used in reliable areas like finding out whether a bowler oversteps the line. Ganguly, Dravid and other affected batsmen walking in anguish unable to utter a word against the umpire fearing penalty won’t do any good to cricket. Batsmen could be given limited number of challenges against umpire just like in tennis.
Think about the racism issue regarding monkey …. er… Symonds. In my opinion calling someone a monkey isn’t a racist comment. Symonds was not called as monkey because he was black. If any other white guy in the team had had monkey like appearance and weird hairdo that person would have been called monkey as well. Symonds being so sensitive and the whole team rallying around him is a case of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
What was the necessity to punish Bhajji when there isn’t sufficient evidence? What is the match referee trying to prove with such an act?
BCCI sure has the financial muscle to pull ICC to make any decisions according to its whim and fancies. But is this approach correct? It’s definitely setting a bad precedent by arm-twisting ICC to get back Bucknor. What happens to Bucknor after the series is over? And what about Benson? What if BCCI were a relatively poor board like say Bangaladesh Board? In that case ICC would have stood firm with its decisions right?
Walking out of Parliament is not a good idea. You cannot stress your ideas if you are not inside. This is true for our boys as well. They shouldn’t quit the series. Come what may they must face it and fight bravely. Only that way can we prove a point to the arrogant and self-righteous Aussies.