I too have the same thought about DLS method. It is quite fair and effective, maybe in few matches this could've turned the result upside down. Those are exceptions, and as a system it need to be fair functioning all the time. But, technical errors happen in all means. Other than DLS, no effective system is used and the only choice is to share the points between the teams and end the match.
It is surprising to see so many people complaining about the DLS system. It is the best we have at this point. The only draw back is that it doesn't take pitch conditions in to account. For example, the projection will be same irrespective of whether the pitch is a dust bowl with zero support to the pacers, or whether the pitch is a minefield with a lot of support for them. But these small things we need to ignore. DLS is a hundred times better than what we had previously, when South Africa was set a target of 22 runs from 1 ball (1992).
But I think the DLS system has another flaw. Often times it comes into play because of the rain. And many times after a break in play because of rain the cricket pitch does not stay the same as it did before the rain. That usually has a significant effect on the outcome of the match. That is the biggest and most effective flaw in the DNS system. Other than that I think the system is OK.
But as I have said many times, this is the reason why the result becomes unbelievable. I know that it is better than what we had previously and it is actually good, not gonna lie, but I just think there can be something better.