Cricket umpiring is demanding. In today’s world where so much technology is available to television viewers, they expect perfect umpiring, forgetting that what they see on their television screens is not available to the umpires standing in the middle of the field making the decisions. This study aimed to examine cricket umpires on-field decisions during the 2007 ICC Cricket World Cup. Examining leg before wicket (LBW) and caught behind decisions, in particular. The researcher made use of a notational analysis program known as Umpirestat to collect the necessary data on each umpire. The umpires were examined in two groups Elite and International umpires (groupings defined by the ICC) and were compared to a base line in the form of Hawk-Eye for LBW decisions and TV replays for caught behind decisions. The umpire groups were compared to each other and then to the base line, an individual umpire comparison was then done within each grouping. The data was statistically analysed using percentages, chi squared and modelling for the Elite Umpires. For LBW decisions there was a difference of 2.02% between Elite and International umpires, showing a similarity between the two groups. The difference between Elite Umpires and Hawk-Eye was 18.83% and between International umpires and Hawk-Eye was 16.81%, showing difference between the three groups. It was found that there was a difference of 3.63% for caught behind decisions between Elite and International umpires, showing a similarity between the two groups. The difference between Elite Umpires and TV replays was 2.99% and between International umpires and TV replays there was 0.64%, showing similarities between the three groups. In conclusion, for LBW appeals there is a similarity between Elite and International umpire groupings however a difference exists between Hawk-Eye and both groupings of umpires. For the individual umpires LBW comparison the following was seen for the International umpires; no real conclusions could be drawn due to limited amounts of data collected on them. However, variances in individual performances were seen within the International umpire grouping. For Elite Umpires, it is clearly seen in the model that the umpires expected number of dismissals got closer together and almost group together at around four appeals. This indicates a strong consensus amongst umpires when dealing with four, five and six appeals during a match. This consensus is more pronounced for four and five appeals. In conclusion, for caught behind appeals there is a similarity between Elite and International umpires as well as a similarity between replays and both groups of umpires. For the individual umpires caught behind comparison the following was seen for the International umpires; as with the LBW results there was limited amount of data available for the caught behind results. Thus no real conclusions could be drawn for International umpire caught behind decisions, although when examining the percentage data, differences can be seen. For the individual umpires caught behind comparison the following was seen for the Elite Umpires, no consensus is seen between the umpires - they all appear to have different expected dismissals to one another. Copyright / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2010. / Biokinetics, Sport and Leisure Sciences / unrestricted