Cricket has always prided itself on being a gentleman’s game — one where fairness and spirit matter as much as the final score. But that reputation means little if the men standing in the middle cannot be trusted to make impartial decisions.
When it comes to matches involving Bangladesh, there is a growing, uncomfortable case to be made: no Bangladeshi umpire should officiate their own team’s games.
The argument is not about competence. Bangladesh has produced capable officials who know the laws of the game as well as anyone.
The issue is more subtle. In an apparent effort to avoid any perception of bias, some local umpires seem to go too far in the opposite direction, often making decisions that disadvantage their own team.
The recent series against Australia brought this problem into sharp surface. On 9 June 2026, Bangladeshi umpire Gazi Sohel rejected Mustafizur Rahman’s LBW shout against Australian batter Marnus Labuschagne. Bangladesh reviewed the decision, and the batter was subsequently given out. A straightforward case, which Mr. Sohel got wrong.
Two days later, on 11 June 2026, when Mehidy Hasan Miraz appealed for an LBW decision against the same batter, in a match where Australia was batting first and trying to keep the series alive, umpire Tanvir Ahmed turned it down.
The review later showed that the ball was pitching in line and hitting the stumps, with the only reason for the original decision being upheld on review related to the “umpire’s call” on impact.
In contrast, Bangladeshi batters often seem to receive less benefit of the doubt in marginal situations, with some local umpires appearing more willing to raise the finger in close calls.
To cite an example, we can look at the same match on 11 June, in which Mr. Tanvir was again involved. He gave Nazmul Hossain out while Bangladesh was chasing, but the decision was overturned upon review, and Nazmul was subsequently declared not out.
Meanwhile, umpires from other countries are often perceived as being more inclined to favour their own teams when a decision is finely balanced. Whether this perception is accurate or not, these incidents reinforce the argument that neutral umpires are the best way to ensure confidence in the fairness of matches involving Bangladesh.
This is not a new phenomenon in cricket. Umpires, consciously or otherwise, can at times try to overcorrect and the effort to visibly overcorrect can be just as damaging as straightforward favoritism.
The psychology behind it is plausible: an official from the same country as one of the competing teams faces scrutiny from every angle, and the fear of being seen as partial can push a person toward compensatory errors.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) introduced the Elite Panel of umpires precisely to address this kind of problem. For ICC’s bilateral series, neutral appointments should be non-negotiable.
Bangladesh, like any other team, deserve officials who can take command of the game without the mental weight of national identity presiding over every call they make on the ground.
Neutral cricket matches and series demand neutral umpires. It is that simple and important.
