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?
Let’s be honest: we’re never going back to the days when batsmen would walk, or bowlers would not appeal if they didn’t think the batsman was out.
We also have to live with the fact that modern grounds show replays on their big screens – ostensibly for the benefit of the crowd, but essentially because there’s no reason not to – and that there’s bound to be a reaction from those watching it.
So today we had two instances of ‘catches’ being referred ‘upstairs’. Neither were, officially, out. Who cares what the decision was? Whatever the decision for each, at least it was given to someone with a better point of view to decide. And, probably the right decision was made for each.
Here’s the point. The decision to give Cook out was wrong. So was Collingwood’s decision in the first test. As was Strauss’s. A decision upstairs would have resulted in a better verdict for each – ie, that they weren’t the right ones. Forget that in the past they didn’t have the benefit of TV – back then, top edges never used to go for 6, either.
The referral system should work. County cricket captains messed it up last summer, badly and unforgivably. It CAN work. See tennis. See ‘Hot Spot’ on Sky. Rubbish when it first started; when they learnt how to implement it properly, it became useful.
It can work as it does in tennis. Captains just need to work out when’s a good time. As a captain, surely that’s as important as any other decision to make?
I don’t think we need more accurate technology, just more convincing technology.
The tennis is a great example. Hawkeye isn’t God, it doesn’t know exactly where the ball is at all times — it’s a best guess based on available footage and historical statistics — but it acts like it’s fact. It’s happy to say the ball was in or out by a fraction of a millimeter and people are happy to accept it as fact. Is it always right? No. Does anyone care? No.
I don’t think we need to wait 10 years for more accurate technology, just a year or two for more convincing tech. If both these decisions were displayed on a big screen in 3D with a ball-trail that either bounced or didn’t there’d by no debate about the decision. Be it right or wrong.
Notice that we never see closeup slo-mo replays of line calls at the tennis?
I can’t see any reason at all why it’s a good thing to have demonstrably wrong umpiring decisions, so I’m all in favour of using the TV technology more.
What seems nuts is that it *is* currently used to see if the fielder took a low catch, despite the fact that those are often difficult to judge from the replays, but it isn’t used for things which the TV coverage seems to show reliably, like checking if the ball pitched outside leg for LBW decisions.
I would love to have seen an appeal system for this series. Yeah, sure, occasionally you’ll get decisions which all the TV replays leave ambiguous, and that’s frustrating, but I can’t see it’s any worse than having decisions allowed to stand when every person watching on TV knows that they’re wrong.
Well eng deserve every wrong decision they get ,coz I believe they decided against trying out the referral system.SA wasn’t pleased.Ind-Srl series will be using it.
My point is a simple & obvious one.
But you see,the ICC is so dumb, the most simplistic arguments cause ‘concern’ to them.
Point is, the referral system will work.It gives players a sense of comfort & frankly its ridiculous when the whole world including theumpire knows he’s blundered & can’t do anything about it.It’ll work,PROVIDED the skills of the 3rd umpire take a +ve leap.Since the role given is bigger,skills need to be better.On-field umpires can be amongst the weakest,but the 3rd umpires selected should be mentally stronger ones from the elite panel.
You have indecisive, insecure chumps there,you’ll get indecisive,insecure decisions.
No hawkeye,no snicko.Only the slomo replay should be allowed.
India would have won both their last 2 series in Oz if this rule was in place.
Obvious mistakes would be corrected.Those that aren’t obvious,well benefit of doubt sadly comes in to play.
I’m amazed that you’re in your 20’s & you post the same old drivel about the inconclusivity of technology.Lets leave that to the ‘golden oldies’ & lets get real here.
It’s frustrating, however many times I tell myself that decisions ‘even themselves out’. The use of technology would help get more decisions right – the fact it wouldn’t guarantee 100% is not a reason not to use it. Simply, we would be in a better position than we are now.
Nick is right – a referral system would work with current technology and in a year or two there would be no fuss at all.
…just to add, de Villier’s claim was outrageous and not at all comparable to Vaughan’s. The latter apparently asked for the third umpire decision, so sure was he that the catch was clean (as were the umpires and batsmen). de Villiers couldn’t even manage the token shrug of ‘I’m not sure’ that fielders usually manage in these instances. He should be censured by the match referee.
I don’t think umpires would feel undermined by the use of technology, but would rather just see it as an extra resource as the officials do in rugby and tennis. It’s clear to me that England hid behind this reason for refusing referrals in the hope of getting ‘home advantage’ from the umpires; Strauss,, Collingwood (Lord’s) and Cook (Headingley) will suggest that it hsn’t worked out that way!
My facts straight! Simon Hughes is wrong – the ball did not just appear to bounce, de Villiers palmed it onto the turf.
He also did not seek confirmation – he was actually celebrating wildly and engulfed by team mates. I am not jumping to attack de Villiers for the sake of it, but rather people like Hughes and you Johan, are afraid to contemplate that it was downright cheating.
Why are you using the word of a journalist as irrefutable evidence? Look at the footage yourself, as I have done.
| 
Posts and words
Loading ...
