There's another reason why we should be spared the tedious back and forth between umpires. When I first watched cricket, the umpire's word was final. No matter how elderly, short-sighted or unfamiliar with the rules of the game, the umpire was an unimpeachable source of authority. You didn't argue with an umpire. In fact, if you so much as pointed a finger at an umpire, you'd get into trouble.

But the modern umpire cuts a sorry figure. He is endlessly scrutinised, his mistakes analysed, his accuracy rating calculated to a hundredth of a percentage point. His finely honed, spur-of-the-moment decision-making instincts are routinely second-guessed by random player referrals. In IPL games he has to announce that the games have started, like the ring master at some tawdry circus, and he can't even tuck in during the lunch interval lest people begin to whisper that he's too rotund for the modern game.

So do we really need to hear the hesitant back and forth between the man on the field and his colleague in the booth as they try to remember how Snicko works and what the no-ball rule is and which button is rewind? Would you want your tedious, inept work conversations broadcast to an international audience of millions?

Let's face it, they are going to be replaced by androids in a few years anyway, so why not let them cling to this final scrap of umpiring dignity.

I may be alone on this, but I'm a cricket viewer and I don't want to hear what the umpires are saying. I'm perfectly happy with the comforting childhood illusion that a discussion between umpires is a lofty, learned affair, like the coming together of two wizards steeped in cricket lore; a conversation beyond the understanding of mere mortals like you or I, and one upon which we should definitely not be permitted to eavesdrop.