The question of umpiring standards in Test Cricket is currently being raised following Steve Bucknor's decision to give Sachin Tendulkar out LBW in the Australia - India Test in Brisbane, even though the delivery from Jason Gillespie appeared to be going comfortably over the stumps had it not first found Tendulkar's body. A call has been made for the introduction of Third Umpire involvement for LBW decisions. What do others think?

No, I say leave things the way they are. I feel too much technology will spoil cricket. These mistakes can change the course of a game. Which is why cricket is such a funny game. I think this will also undermine the authority of the field umpire. I think he should be allowed to at least judge whether a ball is going to hit the stumps. I say, no, firmly.

How long did it take you to get over the shock of Tendulkar's quick exit, Chinky?!

I was snoozing when he got out, serendipity, but did you see Ganguly's innings ? And also Zaheer's bowling.

My initial reaction to the real time play - was - Too high.
However I'm a firm beleiver in the umpire being the one to decide and until the technology is 100% to prove him/her wrong I'll abide by that decision.
I have umpired in games and on LBW decisions I find I don't have to think about it (unlike some Test Umpires) - I'm appealing with the bowler and the finger goes up! (Right or wrong!) or I say NO (didn't think that was LBW , Right or wrong). I'm just sorry that the decisions have to be queried over and over again - I'm sure there's no bias from the umpires and I'm sure certain players try to influence the officials by releasing the stories that they are being victimised. I'd love to go back (forelorn hope) to when a player knows he's out and walks and the Umpires (They are human anyway!) decision is final with no argument from the TV hasbeens and would have liked to be's!

I think Serendipity has got it absolutely right. I'm sure the standard of International cricket would improve with the coming of new technology.

Umpires should never feel less-important if the technology does the work, as we are all on the same side. We want cricket to be more accurate and fair. Everyone will accept that cricket can't even put a step ahead without the ground umpires. But, these crucial decisions do need the aid of technology.

I will throw in a quick word or two here-
Technology is NOT fool proof right now.
In case of "Run outs", stumpings, there is still element of doubt, isn't it(in case of certain extreme close call situations)
In case of LBWs, it is absurd if you let existing technology (read HAWKEYE) determine what is LBW or not.

On the brighter side, all the test matches (even on a dead pitch) would get over in 98.5 overs (don't ask me the rationale behind that sentence)

Look at it this way, we need excuses for explaining the poor performances of the 'better' players. So NO technology, Please....

I think, generally the standard of umpiring is great. You look at somebody like Steve Bucknor. He makes 200 good decisions for every bad one and everyone bags him. You have to leave some decisions up to the umpires. Who wants to go out for 30-35 hours in a test match (16 hours if Australia’s playing) and prove they can count to six?? As Ace pointed out, the technology is no more infallible than the umpires. Run outs and stumpings OK, but anything else, leave it up to the ump. It’s been shown that if an umpire is in doubt about a catch, the technology NEVER gives you a result. I say, if the player says “Yes, I caught it” it’s out. If they say “I don’t know” it can’t be out, if he doesn’t know, how can anybody else? The current system of having neutral umpires is the best.

One question which may not be in sync with the ongoing thread - How do the Umpires get their training? Who trains them, or is it just 'practice maketh a man perfect'?