Posts
Loading ...Poor technology hampers cricket
By Will 3 months ago Leave a comment on this post
Michael Vaughan dives to catch Hashim Amla. Or did he? (© Getty Images)
I really want technology to work in cricket, for it to help umpires, and avoid those unnecessary delays. But today highlighted just why no current technology can really be trusted to confirm or correct an umpire’s decision.
There were two incidents, one from each team. Andrew Strauss edged to AB de Villiers at third slip, who dived across and claimed a catch low to his right. Very low. One glance at the slow-mo replay - that is all it took - confirmed the ball had bounced well before de Villiers, and even when the ball made it into his hands, he was not in control of it. It was simply not out, despite his and all the other South Africans’ insistence. Strauss stood his ground and the replay clearly confirmed he was right to do so. I’ve no problem with de Villiers claiming the catch. It’s his duty, and if he felt he caught it, fine.
The second incident is trickier. Hashim Amla fended off a brute of a bouncer from Andrew Flintoff, the ball ballooning tantalisingly in front of Michael Vaughan. Amazingly, for someone with only half a knee, he made a terrific effort to reach the ball, diving in front of him and apparently scooping it up with his fingertips before it hit the ground. He immediately celebrated, whooping with delight, and it looked a clear winner.
Amla headed off, but his coach and captain gesticulated for him to stay, prompting the use of a replay which couldn’t confirm whether Vaughan’s catch was clean or not. From one angle, it looked like he had got his fingers underneath it and it never touched the grass. From another, you couldn’t see the ends of his fingers, so the ball appeared to be grounded. In short, it was inconclusive and Amla was allowed to stay. It could be a decision that defines the series should Amla go on to score a hundred.
Technology ought to be helping cricket, but at the moment we’re stuck in this awful halfway house. The players aren’t sure. The umpires are frightened that their errors will be exposed, and understandably refer it to the television official. But when that last line of defence is so utterly indecisive, the biggest losers are the players and the public for having to wait several minutes for a non-decision. It’s utterly crap.
I have no solution to this. We will have to wait another decade or more for technology to improve, but I’m sure it will. Eventually, I can see the day where all players are wired up, their fingers acting as remote sensors for a television official. When players’ hands touch the ball, it’ll send a signal; perhaps the ball’s own shape could be monitored, signalling to the umpire when it’s touched the ground. Maybe it’ll turn automatically turn green if it’s not-out, or explode for a player who continually abuses the referral system.
Who bloody knows. Maybe we’re asking too much of technology. It works almost flawlessly in tennis, but cricket is far more complex. Many more players on a much larger outfield (of varying sizes and shapes) makes it so hard for science and technology to monitor things…tennis is reliant on the lines on the court and sensors on the nets, and hawkeye has made that process brilliantly slick.
There’s no chance we’ll ever revert to players walking, accepting fielders’ puppy-eyed nodding that they took the catch. So what exactly is the solution until technology catches up?
Tags: ab de villiers, catches, hashim-amla, michael-vaughan, technology, tv, umpiring |
« England v South Africa, 2nd Test, Leeds, 1st day - live chat! | Main | Holiday ideas »
