Braden StokesThere's no good argument against more umpiring technology
April 22nd 2008 02:35
Over the recent summer of cricket, there were a number of calls for the extension of technological assistance available to umpires (and just as many calls for the heads of certain umpires). Having playing club cricket for a number of years, I can say that international players have very little to complain about in this regard, however the question remains as to whether umpires require greater assistance, and whether this is, in fact, desirable.
There are really four reasons why increased technology may be to the detriment of the game: time constraints; unreliability of the technology; an excessive gulf between what is available to international players and lower levels of cricket; and the removal of the “human touch” from the game. The third objection is easily countered, because any continuity between local cricket and international cricket was removed when the third umpire was introduced. Therefore, international and first-class games are already conducted in a different way.
The issue of unreliable technology is, of course, an important one, but also one that is easily dealt with by using existing technology for different purposes, or new technologies which have been thoroughly tested. Therefore, one could use existing cameras to check where the ball pitched for LBWs; one could use “Hotspot”, which I believe is very reliable, to check for edges etc.; however, one could not use “Hawkeye” which is based on probability.
Obviously, using these aids would be relatively time-consuming, however nobody is suggesting that human umpires be dispensed with and all decisions be referred to a giant computer. Besides, who would hold the bowler’s cap and sweater?! What many people have suggested is a system similar to that used in tennis, whereby each team would be given a number of challenges (say two per innings). If the challenge is upheld (i.e. the umpire was wrong), the challenge is retained; otherwise it is forfeited. In most innings this would amount to one or two referrals, which would not occupy any more time than a situation in which you had a slightly higher than usual number of run outs to referred to the third umpire. If this scheme were adopted, time constraints would be of little concern. Thus, more good decisions would be made and umpires, fans and players would be happier. The only thing that would be lost would be the thoroughly enjoyable, interminable griping and hypothesising that invariably accompanies any questionable decision.
The only remaining objection to this eminently sensible solution is the loss of the “human touch”; but what does this really mean? Those who invoke this objection must realise that when they say “human touch” they actually mean “poor umpiring decisions”. As stated, nobody is suggesting the abolition of human umpires, only aids to more consistently correct decision-making. If we are happy to allow poor decisions because we are so committed to this “human touch” why commit any energy to achieving accuracy at all? You may as well not bother training umpires and have celebrity guest umpires, because you apparently want to retain a certain level of inaccuracy.
There are really four reasons why increased technology may be to the detriment of the game: time constraints; unreliability of the technology; an excessive gulf between what is available to international players and lower levels of cricket; and the removal of the “human touch” from the game. The third objection is easily countered, because any continuity between local cricket and international cricket was removed when the third umpire was introduced. Therefore, international and first-class games are already conducted in a different way.
The issue of unreliable technology is, of course, an important one, but also one that is easily dealt with by using existing technology for different purposes, or new technologies which have been thoroughly tested. Therefore, one could use existing cameras to check where the ball pitched for LBWs; one could use “Hotspot”, which I believe is very reliable, to check for edges etc.; however, one could not use “Hawkeye” which is based on probability.
Obviously, using these aids would be relatively time-consuming, however nobody is suggesting that human umpires be dispensed with and all decisions be referred to a giant computer. Besides, who would hold the bowler’s cap and sweater?! What many people have suggested is a system similar to that used in tennis, whereby each team would be given a number of challenges (say two per innings). If the challenge is upheld (i.e. the umpire was wrong), the challenge is retained; otherwise it is forfeited. In most innings this would amount to one or two referrals, which would not occupy any more time than a situation in which you had a slightly higher than usual number of run outs to referred to the third umpire. If this scheme were adopted, time constraints would be of little concern. Thus, more good decisions would be made and umpires, fans and players would be happier. The only thing that would be lost would be the thoroughly enjoyable, interminable griping and hypothesising that invariably accompanies any questionable decision.
The only remaining objection to this eminently sensible solution is the loss of the “human touch”; but what does this really mean? Those who invoke this objection must realise that when they say “human touch” they actually mean “poor umpiring decisions”. As stated, nobody is suggesting the abolition of human umpires, only aids to more consistently correct decision-making. If we are happy to allow poor decisions because we are so committed to this “human touch” why commit any energy to achieving accuracy at all? You may as well not bother training umpires and have celebrity guest umpires, because you apparently want to retain a certain level of inaccuracy.
| 111 |
| Vote |
Comment by Harry
Sydney Diary
Personals
Brisbane Diarystar
Zoo Parent