Umpire's role diminished?

Dickie Bird claims that increased technology in cricket has "finished" the traditional role of the umpire following the first ever video assisted lbw decision.

Do you agree? And has the increase in technology improved the game?

Yorkshireman Bird made his comments after Pakistan's Shoaib Malik became the first cricketer to be given out lbw following scrutiny of a TV replay.

Umpire changes sadden Bird

Under experimental regulations in force for the Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka, match officials out in the middle can refer any decision, including lbws and bat-pad catches, to the third umpire.

Bird believes that the changes have made the umpire all but redundant, and said the "chap from the village green" could now stand in international matches because of the increased technology used in decision making.

Has technology diminished the umpire's role?

---

This debate is now closed. A selection of your e-mails appear below.

---

It's high-time Dickie Bird accepted that too many of his umpiring peers are getting decisions wrong.
Shaun, UK

Anything that improves the quality of umpiring in the game is a welcome change. It will undoubtedly be more accurate. No amount of training or practise an umpire gets can prepare him for a unique situation in a match.

If a game is lost due to a bad umpiring decision, people will argue that the third umpire should be used. We've got the technology so why not use it?
Mark McLauchlin, Scotland

Dicky Bird is absolutely right. I can understand the use of technology for checking whether the fielder touched the rope or whether it was a six or a four because that's out of umpire's reach. But use of replays to help umpires decide run-outs and where the ball pitched on its way to the pads is beyond me.

International umpires have to have a complete control over the activity on the pitch and they shouldn't need any external help at their level.

I remember an umpire ruling a batsman run-out when he was a fraction of an inch short of the crease back in '85 in Australia when there were no replays and today we routinely see every other decision being referred to the third umpire. It's a shame. Instead of spending so much over technology, the ICC should invest in producing quality umpires and sporting players who respect their decisions.
Sachin, India

The current international umpires have brought this upon themselves

Phil., USA

I cannot see how the game of cricket will be improved by video replays. The most common excuse I hear for people not following cricket, even at international level, is the pace of the game. Are we going to start having 10 day Test matches?
Andy Balding, UK

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this (I can't make my mind up on this) it's quite sad that Dickie Bird is turning into something of a latter day Fred Trueman and opposes everything that wasn't around in his day.

I'm afraid my lasting memory of Bird's umpiring will be him calling for the third umpire for every decision no matter how easily he could have given it without referral, and then not referring a really tight decision and getting it wrong. Perhaps if he'd spent more time concentrating on the cricket instead of playing to the crowd, as he did in his later years, he'd have got more decisions correct.
Andy C, England

To a certain extent the current international umpires have brought this upon themselves. In recent years they have shown themselves unable to determine if a ball pitched outside leg in an lbw appeal! Consequently camera technology is being used to advise the umpire on that aspect only.

It has also become clear that the umpires are often not paying attention to the footfall of the bowlers in no-ball situations; this could easily be dealt with in a similar manner.
Phil., USA

Now that literally nothing is left in the hands of the two poor souls on the field why make them stand the whole day just for giving wides and no-balls? Why not allow them to rest in the pavilion and make their decisions from the comfort of their sofas with the help of one extra TV camera?

I'm not opposed to changes but changes should be applied only if they can be used from top to bottom. By that I mean from international level to, say even first-class level and below.
Sandeep Suri, India

Just because technology makes Dickie's mates redundant doesn't make it a bad thing

Kul Bains, UK

Sorry Dickie but if the technology is available you must use it, even if it makes the umpires redundant. This must be the future, just think of the number of matches that sides have won or lost by the umpires' poor decisions. Can you imagine World Cup finals being won and lost by a poor decision? Technology has been introduced fully in other sports and it has made it fairer and more competitive, if it is available it must be used.
Richard Hearne, Wales

I agree with Dicky. All this technology does is remove the "human element" from the game, which after all, is what gives the game of cricket its character. Just how a man sitting 150-yards away in front of a video screen can better judge an LBW decision than a man standing 22-yards away is beyond me. The net result will be more time lost, fewer overs, and less value for the paying public.
Ron Ward, Australia

The whole essence of Sport, and what makes it interesting, is the factor of human fallibility - be it the players, or the umpires. I believe that the issue of the ball pitching outside leg stump (or not) is better solved with markings on the pitch. After that, whether the ball will hit the stumps is an issue solely for the umpire. After all, this second part is not always clear on TV in any case.

If TV umpires are used for lbw decisions it will soon go the way of run-outs. That is, almost every single one is sent to the third umpire for consideration by umpires who might otherwise reach a clear decision.
Mike, UK

Just because technology makes Dickie's mates redundant doesn't make it a bad thing. If anything it'll reduce the amount of appealing because teams will realise that they can't get a dubious wicket simply by bullying the umpire at the crease. Cricket has moved on from being a village sport and if it wants to be taken seriously then this is a step in the right direction.
Kul Bains, UK

The technology used by the media has systematically destroyed the role of the umpire

Phil, England

When the technology is available, why not use it? Modern day cricket is far more competitive than a couple of decades ago and I'm sure the technology will make the umpire's job a lot easier and the game more interesting - provided it is used within its limits. Otherwise the umpire's job will be to stand in the middle to accept the bowler's hat and count six
Dushy, Canada

The technology used by the media has systematically destroyed the role of the umpire. For some, the rules of cricket are more of a religion than a set of laws. The spirit of the game and all it stands for is being overtaken by the opportunity to make money.

Who is protecting these values for future generations? I can see a time, in no more than 10 years, where the role of the umpire is no more than ceremonial.
Phil, England

There was a suggestion on the radio this morning that the camera wasn't in line wicket to wicket which would mean that it is unlikely to give better results than a decent umpire who is in line. The technology isn't always right, even when it appears to disagree with the umpires in the middle.
Charlie, UK

While Dickie Bird was a great umpire with a very high proportion of correct decisions, it is true that in the past some terrible decisions have been made by international umpires that have effectively turned games and contributed to one or other side losing a Test.

Given the pressure captains are under to win matches, I am all for getting the right decision and using technology, as long as it does not slow the game down too much.
Chris Stanbury, UK

If it improves the accuracy of umpiring overall, then what is the problem?

Simon Hand, England

Why do we now need an umpire in the middle of the pitch? Surely the number of balls delivered in the over can be indicated on the scoreboard and a coat rack can be discreetly placed behind the stumps to hold the jumpers, as that seems to be all that's left for the man in white.
Peter Haslam, UK

Leave the umpires to do their job. It's hard enough as it is without big screen TV replays showing 'wrong' decisions. The only things technology should be used for are telling the umpire if the bowler is over the popping crease, so he has more time to watch how the batsman plays the ball.
Andy B, UK

I agree - sad but inevitable. It simply isn't acceptable for me to have a better view of a decision from half way round the world than the umpire does from 22 yards away. It's just not fair on the umpire.

It's not the end of the world - a referral on the basis of "did that pitch outside leg" is no different from "was it grounded" in rugby league. It creates accuracy and some much-needed tension when the crowd await the decision.
Mark Lewis, England

Certainly, it has. But the key question is: What is more important? Getting the right decisions to make the sport achieve highest standards in terms of fairness, or sticking to an inherently flawed system to keep the human umpiring industry alive?
Salman Ahmed, Pakistan

The umpire should make all judgement calls like lbw's and leave TV to decide on run-outs only

Andrew Hart, United Kingdom

Sad but inevitable. With TV showing up every mistake and with more and more resting on each decision, TV umpiring was always going to come. But when all is said and done, if it improves the accuracy of umpiring overall, then what is the problem?
Simon Hand, England

I think the increasing use of TV replays is ruining the game. The umpire should make all judgement calls like lbw's and leave TV to decide on run-outs only. In a tight Test match where nearly every delivery is appealed for the umpire is there to make a quick decision and get on with the game.

If these decisions are referred to TV every time - and they will be because the umpire will be afraid not to - you'll get around 70 overs bowled in a day.
Andrew Hart, United Kingdom

I think Dickie is right. Whilst Cricket is played at a pace that lends itself to the use of an official in the stand (football doesn't) half the fun of watching sport is complaining about the decisions.

When Flintoff was given out 'caught-behind' during the winter, the outrage kept me and my mates taking for ages. Without that sport would become boring!
Sean, UK

I totally agree with Dickie. This will turn into a farce - either you need to refer all lbw decisions or none at all. In Thursday's game, Wasim had De Silva Plum lbw at a very crucial period of the game, but the umpire (same umpire who referred the decision against Malik) declined the appeal and - more astonishingly - did not refer it to the third umpire.

There needs to be consistency if we are to use technology for lbw decisions. With this in mind, if all lbw appeals are referred then what is the point of an umpire?
Suhail, UK