Bob Woolmer speaks about the use of technology

Last week I had to do an assignment at school about a current issue affecting sport!
So i did
“The Use of Umpiring Technology in Cricket”
So its kind of funny for me to see this up here.
I just wish i had of gone to that cricinfo blog before I wrote the assignment!

I have a lot of time for Robert, I admire him as a coach, and I think he’s going to be a part of very many great things for us, in him and Inzi together; we literally have heavyweight combination … unique, un-match-able…

BUT BUT BUT …

I don’t subscribe to his ‘Hawk-Eye-is-good-for-the-game” theory.

I’m firmly, to this date, in the romantic/dyed-in-the-wool Luddite camp … very much leaning towards Duncan Fletcher’s appeal against an appeal idea …although the idea the you could challenge an umpire (a character in the game I keep in very high respects) does sound a bit strange – still sounds a whole lot better then Hawk Eye though, I’m not in favor of it at all, I like the way test cricket is now, your average test lasting 4, may be 4 and half days, the possibility that it might cut short to 2 or 3 days doesn’t lighten me.

In fact, here’s the naive me: I’d actually go as far as saying Hawk Eye is the worst thing that happened to cricket broadcasting after Arun Lal’s commentary.

Woolmer talks about arranging a tournament so that the technology on offer could be tested in full. Well why not introduce it to one day cricket for a year. Let’s face it; it would probably be more entertaining and interested than the frankly rubbish subs and power play concepts.

I’m not in favour of any more technology. Having it for line decisions (run out and stumpings) is fine, but having everything else decided by a machine does take away the traditional values and magic of the game. I firmly go along with Michael Atherton’s comment that “life isn’t perfect, so why should cricket be”. So if it is to be introduced ruin one day cricket with it not tests.

This is where the appeal against a decision idea appears so attractive to me, it puts a bit of responsibility back on to the players, and if one can persuade ones self to keep the minor emotional aspects aside it gives you the perfect balance in terms of just how much technology is needed.

9 times out of ten, the fielding side knows when an appeal’s really close, and when its just time pass
9 times out of the, a batsman also knows if he’s out or not

If both sets of players knew they had only 3 chances to avert possible affect of human error in the umpiring, they will not waste it trying to abuse it. Appealing I would imagine would become less intimidatory then it sometimes is now-a-days, it would lessen the pressure on umpires too – everyone would gain.

I’d at least give it a try, and see how the players, umpires, fans and everyone else responds.

hello,BOB.
i am from lahore . i am student and 20 years of age.i want to ask that..”why the pitch of first test was too dead?” if bad weather is its reason then please tell me that “is there no any technology through which we can make a supporting pitch in exceptional case i.e bad weather.”