Player confidence in Hotspot will be further eroded by the manner of Kevin Pietersen's dismissal on the final day of the third Test, says Andrew Strauss.
Pietersen reviewed the decision after he was given out caught behind off Peter Siddle for eight but TV official Kumar Dharmasena upheld the verdict of on-field umpire Tony Hill even though there was no evidence of an edge on Hotspot
Snicko - not part of the formal DRS process - indicated that there was a sound as ball passed bat.
Pietersen's dismissal is the latest of a number of controversial incidents involving the DRS system and comes just days after Sky Cricket pundit Shane Warne described the demise of fellow Australian Usman Khawaja as "absolutely shocking". Are specialist TV umpires the answer?
Former England captain Strauss says that Hotspot is too often confusing the issue.
"It didn't look like he [Pietersen] thought he hit it," reflected Strauss. "He didn't review it straight away.
"My gut feeling is that there was a really fine feather of a nick. He went up to the guy at the other end so maybe he heard a sound or something, but it's pretty clear that he didn't think that he hit it.
"It's one of those really difficult situations that we seem to find ourselves in all of the time at the moment where the third umpire gets inconclusive evidence; Hotspot didn't show up and there wasn't a big gap between the bat and the ball and there was a little sound.
"So there wasn't enough evidence for the third umpire to over-rule the original decision; the problem is that the players have lost confidence in Hotspot; I don't think that it shows up enough. The idea of the DRS is to get more decisions right. I'm not sure it's there to back up the umpire.
"I think the ball-tracking of HawkEye is pretty accurate and certainly more accurate than a naked eye watching it at full pace. I'm just not convinced about the edges - I'm not sure that is more accurate than an umpire listening and giving it out.
"I think Hotspot is good for spinners - it tends to come up a lot clearer - but for me it's about not confusing the issue.
"There is no point having something as part of the DRS system, which is trying to eradicate errors in the game, if the technology is error-ridden itself. That to me doesn't make sense.
"Certainly when I was playing we didn't have 100 per cent faith in Hotspot; we've seen quite a lot of incidents in this series already where your gut reaction is 'I think he hit it' and Hotspot doesn't show up.
Warne agreed with Strauss' view that Pietersen had probably tickled a catch behind - and suggested that the time had come for Hotspot to only be used in lbw decisions.
"The Pietersen noise matched up on Snicko but it also matched up when you heard it at full speed; that's what the umpire's heard. He's seen the bat miles away from the body and pad - he's thought 'there's a noise, it couldn't have been anything else; I'm giving that'.
"I suppose what we want is to get the most accurate we can be as umpires; everyone wants consistency, whether you are watching the game or playing the game.
"If you've got something which isn't 100 per cent accurate and we're relying on it to be 100 per cent accurate answer, it can't do.
"So I think we really have to address whether we should be using Hotspot as an indicator to try and get a 100 per cent accurate decision. That's the issue.
"DRS was brought in to get rid of the howler. So maybe there's a case to say let's just use Hot Spot and everything that is available for the lbws. That's maybe an idea.
"If an umpire gives you out caught behind you just cop that and get on your bike and you can't review it."