The Case For Technology in Cricket

The use of technology in sports has been thein the year 2000 is a good example. The West
subject of intense debate. The governing bodies ofIndians were nine wickets down and about to lose
rugby and cricket have acquiesced to the use ofthe series. Then not one, but two umpiring errors
technology for purposes of officiating. However,ensured that they won the series based on one
cricket includes technology in a limited way.undeserved win. As a West Indian supporter and the
Television replays are used for stumping decisions,victory certainly felt hollow to me.
run outs and boundary calls. Cricket's reality is thatUndeniably, the role of the umpire will be affected by
several umpiring errors are highlighted bythe increase of technology. The nature of that
comprehensive television coverage with cameras atchange will be subject to debate. There is the view
all angles. Therefore, it is no surprise that somethat the umpire's role and authority will be
quarters are clamouring for the use of technology toundermined by increased use of technology.
assist umpires. On the other side of the continuum,However, this is yet another moot point, since
there are those who insist that the status quo shouldumpires are made to look foolish (via replays) each
be maintained.time they make an error. This is exacerbated when
There is the view that increased technology usethe cameras focus on them for a few seconds after
would make the game of cricket fairer by reducingthe commentators denounce the decision as
umpiring errors. To evaluate this, the International"atrocious" or "a shocker".
Cricket Council experimented with a decision referralThe entire technology debate is useless. What the
system whereby umpires could refer dubiousICC should forbid is the constant replays that place
decisions like disputed catches or leg-before-wickettoo much emphasis on umpiring errors. The fact is
decisions. The results of this have shown that inthat umpires make few errors, but TV coverage and
critical cases, the footage used to examine decisionsthe way the human mind works makes them appear
sometimes provides inconclusive evidence.as buffoons who can't see very well.
Cricket purists advanced the notion that increasedThe television viewers are privy to the analysis
technology use would make the game of cricketprovided by "Hawkeye" or "Hot Spot" and the
more protracted. This seems to be a moot point,benefit of several replays. The ICC must decide to
since minutes are wasted replaying a boundary calleither continue to allow the over-examination of
that would be a matter of a couple runs. Theumpiring decisions or discontinue it. If decisions are
technology advocates suggests that it is better togoing to be scrutinized, then those making it should
spend this time determining if a batsman is out or nothave the same tools. If this is not the case, the
out. If purists are thinking about the game-length,decision should not be scrutinized. After all, many
then they'll address the problem with over-rates.viewers or supporters wait until they see a replay
Purists argue that the human element is and shouldbefore their emotions go one way or the other.
remain an integral aspect of the game. They opineThe law of cricket states that if the umpire is unsure
that everyone makes mistakes and that cricket is awhether a batsman is out, he should give the
microcosm of life. Therefore, unfair decisions givebatsman the benefit of the doubt. The modern
teams the chance to demonstrate character.umpire is not too interested in giving the benefit of
The counter-argument is that viewers and supportersthe doubt, because there is a lot of pressure to get
don't want to see a microcosm of life. They want tothe decision correct each time. The ICC needs to
see a match-up of skills, not umpiring decisions thatmake a decision to give umpires some more toys, or
adversely affect a team's fortunes. For thetake them away from the television and stadium
less-passionate fans, it seems a pyrrhic victory ifcoverage. The game of cricket will be better off for
obtained by a glaring umpiring error.it either way.
The series that the West Indies won against Pakistan