To try to restore some sanity to proceedings here, which neccessitates a separate thread from the match thread...
I realise Aussies feel hard-done-by, and in fairness they might well have been given that Strauss may quite possibly not have caught that Hughes edge. HOWEVER, there is actually no grounds on which to blame Umpiring. The Umpires acted in accordance with the rules. The rules state that the on-field Umpires are to consult in the view of the bowler's-end Umpire being unable sight whether a catch carried. If the square-leg Umpire was also unsighted, they should then ask the third-Umpire if he can tell them whether it did.
In the event of Bopara's catch to Hauritz, neither Umpire was able to see the ball. So it was right to refer it. In the case of Strauss' catch off Hughes, square-leg Umpire Doctrove had a clear view. So there was no case under the laws to refer the catch to the third-Umpire.
The Hauritz catch and the Strauss catch were not, contrary to most assumptions, the same thing. That is why they were treated differently.
Now, whether Doctrove was right to believe the ball carried to Strauss is another matter. But personally I've seen enough evidence that a pair of eyes (or a camera) a few yards away from the relevant ball and pair of hands is actually a better judge of whether it's hit the ground or not than a camera hundreds of yards away.