Is it time to use technology for no balls or rather every decision on the cricket field?

Click here to vote on magic eye use in cricket

Controversial umpiring overshadowed Pakistan's thrilling victory at Old Trafford.

Four England batsmen fell to good deliveries - but deliveries which should have called no-balls.

Bowlers Wasim Akram and Saqlain Mushtaq took full advantage - but technology could have helped the umpires notice them overstepping the crease.

England's chairman of selectors David Graveney has called for a tennis-style 'magic eye' system to be introduced.

So is it time for technology to decide on no-balls?

Why can't umpiring standards be improved? After each match, the match referee should talk to the umpires and show them replays of some of the good & bad decisions they made. The umpires should be evaluated on this basis after each match. Umpires with a strong history of poor decisions should be temporarily removed from the ICC panel of umpires, and other umpires should get a chance. This is a long-term solution to raising umpiring standards.
Masud Mahdi, USA

Use of technology in enhancing the accuracy of umpiring decisions must be welcome. But why restrict only to magic eye --- one should also go for HAWK-EYE for lbw decisions and slow-motion replays for doubtful catches.

The ICC should remove/modify the dissent clause so that the batsmen or fielding side can voice their concern on dubious decisions, and have right to request for third umpire's opinion. This modification would enhance the credibility of the game without affecting its normal flow.
Krishna Singh, UK

Technology should definitely be used to assist umpires. Mistakes were undoubtedly made in the past but the vast improvement in TV coverage of test matches, means that every decision can be subject to the closest scrutiny. Why shouldn't the umpires have the benefit of that technology when the viewers already do?

American football and tennis have benefited from technology so why not cricket? There could be no complaint from either team and the technology would work against the batsman as well as for him.
Peter Lewis, Grt. Britain

Cricket seems the perfect sport for new technology, as there is always a break in play before the next ball. Its not too difficult to provide an instant replay to a 3rd umpire but it should only be allowed during the bowler's walk to his mark. Anything else would slow the game down even more.
Steve, Canada

Bad losers will never make great champions. Alec Stewart however must be applauded for his mature and sensible reaction the situation. It's a shame his chairman of selectors didn't react in a similar fashion.
Alex Feteh, England

The worst part of this is that the umpires are being vilified. I don't believe they are getting any worse but the instant availability of action replays is showing that mistakes are made but remember that they probably always have occurred, we just don't know to what level.

Use the available technology for televised games. The magic eye wouldn't work because the non-strike batsman would interfere and the equipment would need moving with every game.
Ken, Belgium

Cricket must update itself to retain its credibility. Using technology to eliminate errors such as these is quite simple, and the authorities must give this due consideration unless they want the reputation of the game to degenerate further, after the recent match fixing scandal.
Gary Littlewood, UK

Which country can say they haven't had decisions go against them? South Africa's last appearance in England - lost us the series through bad umpiring decisions. At the end of the day it is a sport where bad decisions happen but I don't think anyone who loves the game of cricket can take anything away from Pakistan's brilliant last session! A 1-1 draw is a fair reflection.
Chris Catt, Cape town, South Africa

If the 'magic eye' were introduced, it should only be in international matches and cup finals. The vast majority of umpires (myself included) have been umpiring for years without any sort of technology. We have no help with judging run outs, stumpings or no balls we just have to use our own experience and judgement and the players accept it. I don't think it should be any different in the first class game.
Gary Nichol, England

Just accept defeat gracefully. Everyone gets bad decisions and some English fans can't take it. What about the Pakistan's batsmen who were wrongly given out. I didn't hear any English fans calling for the third umpire to intervene then, so why all of a sudden when a few decisions went against you start moaning?
Saghar Shah, UK

It has always struck me as strange that cricket umpires are older people who might have the experience but are they up to the task, with regard to eyesight and general physical fitness? Or are they bastions of the old boys network?
Stephen Peterson, UK

Cricket is not a rough-and-tumble game like football. In situations like this technology can be used. Once is excusable, four times is verging on stupidity, surely the third umpire kept an eye on the game. I truly believe if England had kept those wickets than they could have won the match and therefore the series.
Dan, UK

The technology should be for all the aspects of the game not only for no-balls: two of Pakistan's players were given out, when they clearly were not. England tends to make too much fuss when the decisions go against them. On the other hand it's part of the game when the decisions fall in their favour. If the technology is there it should be used to help the umpires arrive at the correct decisions for all.
M. Sadique, England