OK, so it works almost perfectly in tennis and American football, but it has its challenges in rugby, while soccer has ignored it. Unfortunately cricket seems to be at war with it!
My apathy comes as a result of spending five days at the Kensington Oval this week where Australia pipped a resurgent young West Indies team in the final minutes of an intriguing match. The game had many pivotal points, not least the fine performances of a number of exciting new players at this level. But too much of the flow was hampered by video referrals and while he was never on the field, the off-field umpire was probably the most influential person in the entire match. That’s all very good when he gets it right, and he should get it right given all the technology and time at his disposal, but when he gets it wrong it shatters confidence and can have a dramatic effect on the match. Also, the number of appeals is a bit of a lottery. After all, if you are out of appeals and television replays in the commentary box clearly show a mistake then what’s the logic and the integrity of the system?
One of the key decisions was a caught behind given by on-field umpire Tony Hall against Australian captain Michael Clarke. It appeared a bottom edge, but Clarke asked for a review and after a long period of time the off-field umpire, without the assistance of a snick meter, said he could not decide either way and rescinded the decision. Happy Days for Clarke who went on to score 73 and steer his team clear of a sticky situation, but was it the correct decision?
The key question in this scenario is what’s the point of having an on-field umpire if he can be over-ruled by indecision? Catches are difficult to determine on the field, but 100 times more difficult looking at replays. How many times have we looked at replays of catches in the covers and failed to be 100% certain? Too many times we see what we want to see, but the umpire on the field has the added benefit of sound and the “best seat in the house” being so close to the action.
Not surprisingly players don’t help the umpires and the use of the Review System had added another tier of gamesmanship to exploit. The Aussies don’t need to be asked to capitalize on system or officialdom failings as their win-at-all-costs approach thrives on such situations.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment is the falling status of “Hawkeye,” once seen as the big star of the video review movies. We now have a margin of error that has to be added to the consideration. Half a ball is the margin so the on-screen visual showing the ball breaking the stumps is now followed by a half ball measurement to see if it is within the allowable margin of error. It certainly packs a lot more benefits in favour of the batsman when you add the legitimacy of the delivery, the pace of delivery, the estimated bounce and presence or not of contact with either bat or body. Of course, the use of technology is to ensure more decisions are correct, but even after review and appraisal the adjudicators still get it wrong!
There is no doubt the spectators enjoy the suspense and drama of video reviews, but should they be shown on the big screen to all and sundry while under review? This has not been encouraged to reduce the possibility of crowd trouble after controversial decisions, but at the Kensington Oval the big screen showed everything so the fans, the players and the umpires saw the same replays as the off-field umpire at the same time and in most case had already made up their minds long before the decision was beamed across the screen.
There is no doubt the technology helps run-out decisions more than any other decision, but do umpires now have to refer everything? Some of the most blatant run-outs are referred when common sense and a practical application of good eyesight should allow for a quick decision and keep the game flowing.
Prior to video reviews it was claimed up to 30% of umpiring decisions were wrong, but we have to ask is the situation much better with them?
Clarence Hiles
Editor
