Thats right a poll/topic devoted entirely towards test cricket umpires!
First of all, here in Australia there has been a lot of discussion concerning the umpires, their decisions and the use of technology.

Some of the more significant proposals include:
The use of technology to judge no ball decisions, leaving the umpires free to judge lbw appeals etc. Giving the umpires more chances to refer decisions to the third umpire. Letting Captains officially appeal to the umpire to use technology, possibly reversing the decision. Some people have suggested that the number of appeals per match that a captain is able to dispute should be limited to three or less. Having *one* local umpire on the ground as opposed to two unbiased entities. The argument for this is that a local umpire would have a greater understanding of the conditions specific to the pitch.Also apparently the percentage of 'correct' decisions has fallen in the summer from last years average of around 95%

Poll Information
This poll contains 4 question(s). 5 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: The most scrutinised job in the world - Cricket Umpires (5 votes.)

Should no ball decisions be made by technology or the umpire? (Choose 1)
* The umpire should make them - 60% (3)
* Technology should be used - 40% (2)

Should umpires be able to refer ALL decisions to the third umpire? (Choose 1)
* Keep it how it is, it works well enough - 40% (2)
* Take the pressure off the umpires, let them be able to refer everything - 60% (3)

How many times should a captain be able to appeal a decision per match? (Choose 1)
* none - its a stupid notion - 60% (3)
* no more than three an innings - 20% (1)
* as many as the captain sees necessary (no limit) - 20% (1)

Should one local umpire be chosen for a match? (Choose 1)
* No - it would result in biased decisions - 60% (3)
* Yes - the local knowledge would be worth it - 40% (2)

I feel sorry for umpires. The speed of the action in cricket is absolutely mind-boggling.
Ok, you're a cricket umpire, Brett Lee sends a length ball 95m/ph which hits a bastmans pads. You have all of about 100th of a second to try and see which part of the pad it hit and if it was in line with the stumps. Not only that, but you've got to notice where the ball pitched, how much swing was on it, how high it was bouncing off the pitch and try and measure the sound, amongst all the crowd noise to try and tell if the ball might have edged the bat on the way to the pad. Then you have about 2 or 3 seconds at most to make your decision. **** that for a bag of spanners!
All the while, thousands of people are just waiting to lambast you for giving an LBW when in fact the ball would have missed the stumps by a whole inch!
There's no wonder umpires are using the video evidence more and more in ODI cricket.

Having said that, I never want video evidence to come into test cricket for thigns like LBW decisions. It would take half the fun and debate out of it!

I agree with Barmy. I don't want the human aspect of cricket to be taken away.

I can't really answer the poll since I don't know that much about cricket, but I'll put in my two cents here anyways.

The way they do it in American football is very balanced. The officials make the call, and that's that unless a coach wants to challenge a play. Then instant replay is used, but each team only gets two challenges per game, with the possibility of a third challenge if both of the first ones go in their favor. This means that they save the challenges for the really important plays, and let the little or unsure stuff go (to be debated later by the fans :grin: ), keeping the game running smoothly.

If cricket could adopt a similar system, I think it'd be a good compromise, and most people would be very satisfied. The implementation would have to be tailored to the sport, of course, but moderation is a good way to go for just about everything. Although even moderation should be taken in moderation sometimes. :roll:

I don't think they should be allowed any challenges.

Me neither, we shouldn't be going down that road. The likes of Warney and Ponts do enough moaning about decisions as it is. The umpires decision should be final and that's that. As cricket has always been.

I think it's part of the gane that there are wrong decisions and on the whole it works, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

And on the appeals thing instead allowing them to challenge a decision they should be fined for excessive pressurised appealling notably australia. As a former fast bowler I always knew when I had a chance of an lbw desicion and never bothered appealling for those I knew didn't; but nowadays everything is appealled for even when they know it hasn't got a chance.

The other day Pakistani umpire Aleem Dar said

"(the australians) appeal a lot...That is their right. In the subcontinent they apeal more. I dont wan't them to stop appealing. I enjoy appeals. Don't worry about the appeals."
"Sometimes it can be hard - I have had eight months away from home in the last year"
BTW Channel 9 has revealed that it will be using a "heat seeking device for LBW decisions".

Also in the first international Twenty20 match to be played in Australia (earlier this week) both Greame Smith and Ricky Ponting were wearing wireless microphones and talked to the commentators between a couple of the overs. Channel 9 wants to use this in ODI's as well but has no plans to implement it into the tests.

I think it is good to introduce those sorts of innovations (e.g. microphones) into the 20/20 games because they add so much to colour to those events but I don't think they should come into the longer form of the game.

Also - they need to change that ridiculous Super Sub rule!

Definitely - fortunately the trial period is about to end so we'll find out the answere fairly soon. By the way South Australia's captain (Darren "Boof" Lehmann) has made a captains agreement with the other captain to decide on the super sub after the toss on a number of occasions.