The decision by the ICC to run a trial referral system during the forthcoming India and Sri Lanka series will be welcomed in many quarters. The much-used expression “if you have the technology use it” will finally be put to the test as teams will be allowed three unsuccessful challenges per innings in this experiment. The initiative has no bearing on grass-roots cricket where technology will never reach the level of sophistication that television has brought to the modern game, but it does have the potential to remove some of the most glaring injustices that seem to occur all too frequently these days.
The recent West Indies versus Australia test match in Bridgetown had more than its fair share of umpire errors and even when technology was used it was sometimes inconclusive, so the system is far from full-proof. It also begs the question that if the best umpires in the world make regular mistakes, then how many are made in club games week in week out?
It’s probably best not to go there in this debate, and in fairness to all umpires, their job can be a thankless role in the modern win-at-all-costs culture that prevails.
Bringing more technology into cricket has been a challenge for the conservative ICC decision-makers over the years but even the use of light meters removes personal judgement calls and has been a positive step forward. In the same vein calling for the assistance of the third umpire for “line” decisions has eradicated many errors and adds a little excitement to matches pending the verdict. However the use of Hawkeye, even in an illustrative role, has not been universally accepted and when the chips are down, it depends on your bias as to whether you accept Hawkeye or not. With so many variables involved, Hawkeye will require a lot of fine-tuning before it attains ICC certification.
But not everyone sits on the technology bandwagon and former Barbadian all rounder Franklyn Stephenson is not alone in asking the technicians to perfect their equipment before bringing it into operation. Franklyn pulls no punches in his radio commentaries and many listeners enjoy his candid assessment of modern cricket and his views on technology are just as punchy;
“It’s good to be able to use technology for straightforward line decisions but it gets a bit tricky when you get into the areas of catches, snicks and LBW decisions. And can we be 100% certain that expert technicians can’t tamper with technology identifying a snick? There’s big money in cricket these days and a genius in the technology department could be just as damaging as a bad umpiring decision!”
So it’s not all black and white.
Can you imagine Sachin Tendulkar on 99 not out in Delhi giving the faintest of touches to the wicket-keeper and the decision being passed to the third umpire? As the seconds tick by and over 500 million viewers wait in anticipation the verdict comes predictably up……NOT OUT!
After all it isIndia, and who’s going to give the nation’s favourite cricketer out on 99?
Five years ago the former England coach Duncan Fletcher led a campaign for a referral “appeal system” after he highlighted a series of horrendous umpiring decisions at the highest level, and if it has taken the ICC that time to put it into place then it was still worth waiting for.
We haven’t quite moved to the stage when a well-programmed robot could do the job with 100% accuracy, but we are slowly moving down this road.
Clarence Hiles
Editor
