Is technology the answer to cricket’s umpriring woes?
Posted by Hamish McBrearty on January 3rd, 2008
The first test of 2008 is just two days old but has already produced some controversial umpiring decisions. Is it time for cricket to move into the 21st century and allow technology a greater role, or does the human element still provide some charm?
The second day of the test match between Australia and India produced two more awful umpiring decisions; Brett Lee given out LBW from a ball clearly missing off stump and VVS Laxman surviving an LBW appeal which was as plumb as they come. For those keeping score, that is five in the game so far, three in favour of India, two for Australia.
Ponting twice, Symonds, Lee, Laxman, all clearly wrong and in the case of the Symonds and Laxman decisions, match changing to boot. On the evidence so far it would appear the umpires are in need of some help.
Many other sports have embraced the concept of using technology to enhance their officials’ decision making process. But the key word is ‘enhance’, no sport has ever attempted to replace their officials with technology.
Rugby union and rugby league have their video referees to judge close tries, the NFL allows coaches to challenge the officials’ decision a limited number of times, FIFA are trialling their smart ball which sends a message to the match officials when a goal is scored, and tennis has even introduced Hawk-Eye to check line calls in certain events. Yet cricket continues to only allow replays for run outs and stumpings.
But purists argue that too much technology detracts from the game, both the NRL and NFL have heavily revised their instant replay usage after finding that it was slowing down their game. And close calls always lead to great discussions among fans; England’s third goal in the 1966 FIFA World Cup final, France’s disallowed try against South Africa in their 1995 Rugby World Cup semi-final.
When the third umpire was brought into cricket it changed the game drastically, as now we see more run outs and stumpings than ever before, some by mere centimeters. The third umpire can also rule on low catches, but these referrals are becoming a rarity for some reason.
But without the technology at their fingertips, the umpires in the middle now have far less information to base a decision on than fans watching on television. TV provides the viewers at home with projected paths of the ball on LBW decisions, infra-red camera and directional microphone for faint edges along with super slow motion replays.
Perhaps a compromise between leaving everything up to the umpire and replacing him with a robot would be to give the fielding captain a limited number of challenges, much like the NFL where coaches have two challenges per half. On a close decision, or one where the umpire has clearly got it wrong, the fielding captain could request the third umpire review the decision with all the available technology and make a decision. It could even borrow another leaf from the NFL and impose a time limit on the third umpire.
Or perhaps the solution is simply to get better umpires and hold them accountable to a higher standard. Most assessors would be mortified if a club umpire made a blunder like Steve Bucknor did when he gave Andrew Symonds not out, but Bucknor will no doubt be back umpiring test matches until he decides to retire.
Many sports attempt to protect their officials from criticism as they do a tough job which very few people want, and that is a laudable thing. But too few organisations hold their officials to account for their on field performance and cricket is no exception.
Similar Posts:
- Perhaps technology isn’t the answer for cricket
- The art of walking
- Schoolyard scrap breaks out in fall out from Sydney test
- Latest bowling controversy shows ICC have tied their own hands
- Questions remain as fall out from Sydney test continues
The Is technology the answer to cricket’s umpriring woes? by Hamish McBrearty, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
