Paul Lewis: Bird-brained to deny technology

Harold 'Dickie' Bird says technology will reduce the role of umpires to gestures and counting down deliveries in an over. Photo / Getty Images

Quote from Sir Ian Botham: "Dickie Bird arrived on Earth from the Planet Looney to become the best and fairest of all umpires. Great bloke, completely bonkers."

Harold Dennis "Dickie" Bird, probably the most celebrated cricket umpire ever, is vehemently decrying the "invasion" of technology into territory previously occupied only by umpires. Bird believes the increased use of technology, as witnessed during the fifth and final Ashes test between England and Australia in Sydney, is turning cricket's top officials into mere bystanders.

"Electronic aids have taken all the authority away," Bird says."The umpire that used to make all the decisions, like in my day, that umpire has finished. It is now run by electronic aids."

Soon, he says, the umpire will be reduced to just counting to six each over - and that only run-out technology is required. He pointed to Ian Bell's maiden Ashes century; Bell benefiting from a reviewed decision after he was given out caught behind on 67 off Shane Watson by umpire Aleem Dar.

Replays did not show any mark on the "hot spot" technology and Dar reversed his decision. But the Nine Network's "Snicko" device, not available to the match officials, suggested a thin edge.

"The third umpire in the box gave it 'not out' but the correct decision was out and the umpire on the field had it right so electronic aids have taken all the authority away from the umpire," Bird said.

Dickie is being picky; selective in his examples. The video reprieves that have followed Alastair Cook around like a lucky charm during the Ashes have shown the worth of technology. Dickie doesn't mention them; not a dicky bird, you might say ...

Cook has scored 766 runs, with two centuries and a double century in this series. He did so with the aid of technology. In the first test at the Gabba, he had a life when scoring that magnificent 235 not out, with Australian skipper Ricky Ponting seemingly getting a finger under the ball to take a catch. However, replays were inconclusive and he survived.

Cook was already on 209 at the time but the next technology intervention was more telling. In the second test in Adelaide, he was given out by the umpire caught behind on 64, trying to hook a bouncer. Cook called for a review, the decision was reversed and he posted a match-winning 148.

Cook's 189 in Sydney meant he became the second most prolific scorer for England in an Ashes series with 766, behind only legendary batsman Wally Hammond with 905.

He again did so with the help of technology - after a referral for a catch appeal. The ball was shown to have been taken on the bounce by Phil Hughes off left-arm spinner Michael Beer.

What would we rather see - Cook given out by faulty umpiring and a fantastic achievement blighted? Or would we rather see the right result - which it was in each of the above cases?

Dickie Bird is twittering on like a canary in a cage about the reduced role of the umpires. I don't give a sweaty batter's box about the umpires.

Cricket isn't about umpires. I might be wrong but I don't recall anyone watching a game of cricket to see the umpires.

Bird was colourful and, since his day, there have been others who have attempted to impose themselves on the game - fluttering-hand signals for fours and Billy Bowden's crooked finger dismissal. Bollocks. Couldn't care less. If I want to see someone adopting daft postures, I'll watch Parliament or play a re-run of John Cleese's Ministry of Silly Walks skit from Monty Python.

Let's face it, the technology exists now to make umpires completely redundant. No one is seriously advocating that but Bird is right about one thing - all they are actually needed for these days is to count to six.

Bird says there are more controversies now than ever before. Bull, Bird. In past times, umpires have been shown up time and again by television technology. What's worse, the men supposedly in control being shown to be wrong by tools that they should be able to use? Or parking a few egos while the right result is achieved?

The only problem with technology is that the International Cricket Council is once again failing to govern the sport. Different applications in different countries, and the ability of teams like India to ditch it if they choose, mean there is no uniformity across the world of cricket. Even in the Ashes, Snicko wasn't used - not because it doesn't work but because of the time it takes to relay the information and occasional confusion surrounding what made the noise. If the video umpire had Snicko, Bell may have been given out - and Kevin Pietersen, too, in the furore which led to Ricky Ponting being fined A$5000 ($6,554) for gobbing off at the umpires in Melbourne.

It's either all technology or no technology at all, surely. Australian skipper Michael Clarke, speaking after the Bell incident, said he was a fan, even though technology was not always 100 per cent right: "There's not many things in the world that are, there's going to be a few inconsistent areas in that ... but both teams are dealing with the same issues. I'd like it to be either in or be out. I'd like the ICC to make that decision and then at least it's fair for every team dealing with the same issue."

Absolutely. The technology means there are more right decisions. If the ICC doesn't do it, then they will end up like the then two-year-old Hamish Maxwell, son of the Australian ABC radio cricket commentator Jim Maxwell who took his boy to work one day while broadcasting - only for thousands of radio listeners to hear Hamish say: "Daddy, I want to go uckies ..."

The ICC haven't yet done uckies in their pants but, if they don't take charge of this technology thing, they surely will.