Judging by the reactions of the players. the noise that was present, the immediate decision to refer from Strauss, the fact that the bat was nowhere near anything else for the noise to be anything other than bat on ball, all says to me that more than likely he did edge it. However, if asked should it have been overturned ? Then I'd probably say no, because despite what I have said, there was nothing absolutely conclusive on the replays, ie a visual deviation, that would confirm he nicked it.
Bank on cue! Traps Amla bang in front with a type of dismissal that was growing increasing inevitable for Amla.
makes the match so much more interesting than 400/3 at stumps dont you think?? 
Definitely.
Would be interesting to see if they could use hawkeye to measure if there has been a visual deviation from the path of the ball. Of course, stuff like swing can complicate things but I do not think that such technology is out of the realms of possibility. However, once accuracy becomes so high, incorrect referrals allowed should probably be reduced to 1, as there is no reason for more than one attempt and play may start to be unduely held up.
I think two attempts will be around for some time, unless these referrals are taken out of the players hands and dealt with by the umpires. Yes there is probably scope for further technological enhancement on these caught behind decisions, but if the host broadcaster did have snicko and hotspot available it should give enough evidence to reach a conclusive enough decision.
Not sure I'd agree with this, I think Onions is able to build plenty of pressure on batsman with the consistent line he bowls. He will get driven due to the fullish length he generally hits, this is why his ER is higher than perhaps a more defensive style bowler. But nhe averages under 30 due to the wickets he takes with his very probing lengths and lines.
For these reasons, it was stone dead out. The 3rd umpire decision was an absolute shocker.
I disagree. There was no visible deviation, but so what? With a fine nick like that one you wouldn't expect to see a deviation. The key evidence was the clear nick that the stump mic picked up, which came at precisely the right split second and which could not have come from any other obvious source, eg bat on pad or bat on ground.
Fine nicks are always going to be difficult to detect, there was no deviation as you say due to the fact it was a very fine edge, and there was a noise, but it is very difficult to say that noise definitely came from the bat and that the standing umpire had made a howler, of which this system is there to eliminate. The noise is a difficult one to explain, there are a number of admittedly highly unlikely sources the noise may have emanated from, and imo, enough to suggest there was doubt.
