Umpires & Technology

[Carte Blanche]

The recently concluded ODI series between Australia and ICC XI saw the introduction of 3rd umpire referrals for decisions that previously only ground umpires had exclusive authority over. Although still in incubator, if implemented in future, this may change the face of cricket that we have known since its inception. I, for one, am pro-technology. Or should we say pro-fairness? If the precision of technology can assist us in reaching more accurate and fair decisions, there is no reason not to use them. I was very eager to observe how this change influences the game. After watching the matches live, I have grown less fond of the idea for a good number of reasons.

The first point the critics have against the frequent referrals is the amount of time it consumes. Depending on the number of chances or half-chances the fielding team generates, this can slow the game down considerably. A Warne or Murali bowling with a slip, a silly point, and a forward short leg can cause at least a few genuine referrals to the tv umpire every over. Frequent pauses in the game bores the spectators, both on and off the ground. The intervals irk the batsmen's concentration too. Currently the ICC has level 3 punishments for captains who fail to maintain the standard over rate. The financial loss and game bans will amount to less interest if these referrals are not taken into account. The over rate laws will be required to be revised too, and it surely isn't getting any faster.

Another common accusation is that the "umpire's luck", previously an intrinsic element of the game, will be nevermore. This may favour the developing teams seeing some of them complain about not getting the benefit of doubt on umpiring decisions as regularly as the stronger teams. In today's test match, Brian Lara was initially given not out by umpire Rudi Koertzen on a dellivery that looked fairly plumb to my untrained eyes. 30 seconds and a persistent aussie appeal later, Mr. Koertzen changed his mind and asked for the 3rd umpire Daryll Hair's opinion. Hair asked the channel 9 broadcasting team for a number of replays from angles he wished to scrutinize. Eventually Brian Lara was adjudged LBW, which he would have gotten away with in a traditional cricket game. It was heartbreaking for me as a decade-long Lara fan, and also considering his awful recent form. Nonetheless, justice was done, and it is foolish to fret over it. Surprisingly, this perfection was uncomfortable to me, and not because I am a Lara fan. It reduces the element of luck to an extent I had previously underestimated. The imperfect version is more entertaining. Controversy is an under-rated spice of life. Take a few umpiring blunders, a cup of tea, and a cricket friend. A good time is there to be had.

Earlier this summer, I first got to witness the Hawk Eye technology thanks to the Channel 4 coverage of the Ashes Series. This technology is said to be accurate 99 times out of 100. It not only makes life harder for the ground umpires, but also spoils a section of spectators (specially me). Nonetheless, its accuracy level is frighteningly enjoyable. The snickometer, on the other hand, is a slightly older tool. It is great for detecting thin edges, or picking up that delicate sound that distinguishes between ball hitting the bat and bat hitting the ground. I was shocked to learn that none of these technologies are available to the 3rd umpire. Why the tv umpire is denied access to those two wonderful technologies is beyond me, and contradicts ICC's mission objective.

The whole process of referral/conferral is insulting to the ground umpires too. It reduces their duties to ceremonial levels, as far as key decisions are concerned. They won't have much to do other than make obvious decisions that a street cricketer can't do any worse.

I do not believe that ICC is planning on turning cricket into a robotic game where technology reigns supreme in making all the decisions. However, this experiment is a close step towards that. While I welcome ICC's innovative approach and pro-technology attitude, I consider some of the actions half-hearted. Limiting 3rd umpire's access to the hawk eye and snickometer is a step backward that defeats its original purpose. The human aspect (or the lack of it) needs more careful consideration too. Change is not a bad thing, and the potential of accuracy this experiment promises is paramount. It will be very interesting to see how the technological facet of this sport evolves in near future based upon this experiment. Hopefully the positives will outweigh the negatives.

[battye]

I think it is a good idea, and I don't think it considerably slowed the games down.

I understand why hawkeye is not used, as it isn't conclusive. You said 99 / 100 times it's right. What if the 1 time it is wrong is on a crucial decision, and that is what the 3rd umpire bases the opinion on.

I think for LBW decisions, the 3rd umpire should only be given the view that:

The square leg umpire would get
The umpire at the non strikers end gets.

The umpire at the non strikers end knows the 3rd umpire has the same shot that he and the other umpire has, so therefore would be less reluctant to refer it if they were sure beyond reasonable doubt.

[Rob]

Submit this post to the articles section.

Absolute quality

[Carte Blanche]

99% accuracy is not conclusive enough?!?!

I don't know the actual reason behind not making Hawk-Eye and Snicko available to the 3rd umpire. I'm guessing the reasons may be for commercial purposes. Perhaps the broadcasting networks want to have something exclusive for the audience? A specific tool to stir the pot? Who knows.

[Baundule]

I were against the idea if I were from England or Australia. But being a Bangladeshi, I am in favor of this new idea because it would do more justice. (even though these short pauses may be sometimes boring).

[Rob]

The short pauses are a complete pain in the arse!

It was getting on my nerves. Everything was going to the dam third umpire and I had to sit through annoying looping replays of things.

I hope this experiement is deemed an outright failure!

What is gonna happen to the celebrations of players now when an umpire gives an lbw or something? Instead of running of excited to celebrate (although I don't think that would of happened in this silly Johnny Walker games anway) with their teams mates in the spur of the moment of the decision, they will have to stand around waiting for the third umpire and if it is given, it would just be a boring anticlimax.

Wake up people! Leave the game as it it. Screw technology!

By the way, the reason the 3rd umpire cannot use Snickometer is because it takes too long to process.

[bombayrocks]

dats wot baundule meant english n da aussies wud hav a reaction lik u hav.(screw technology says rob)

[Rob]

Yea but it is swings and roundabouts. You could say Bangladesh also need some luck with umpiring decisions to go for them for example an lbw that is out, not given out or the other way round if Bangladesh are bowling.

[Tigers_eye]

There is always a common ground. Technology gives you accuracy but kills the flow of the game. So ICC can introduce may be 5 appeals per game by each team. if the team batting appeals for a review and the ground call is not over turned they will lose an over (penulty) And no appeals in the last 5 overs for the batting team. If the fielding team appeals and the call is not over turned then they will concede 10 runs for the disruption. In both cases if the call is overturned then the teams are not penalized.

Umpires would also have the choice to see the 3rd umpire if they wish without the penulty.

This would make the teams think twice before they approach the umpire for a review. Stop the nonsense of forcing umpire into submission (aussie bulling tactics).

[Baundule]

Originally posted by Rob
Yea but it is swings and roundabouts. You could say Bangladesh also need some luck with umpiring decisions to go for them for example an lbw that is out, not given out or the other way round if Bangladesh are bowling.

Umpirirng decisions are usually not luck. Most often they go in favor of some teams. Remeber the PAK visit to Australia when 29 of the wrong decisions went against the Pakistanis and only 5 against the Aussies. The games I have watched so far involving England or Australia, my feeling is they always get a favor of the umpires. (To mention here, personally I like Aus and don't like Pak)

More importantly, umpires are making mistakes at crucial times when a right decision would even change the result of a match. For instance, BD's visit of Pak. So, if technology is introduced to make the decisions much more error-free, we should welcome it.

The process of making the game slow is not a fault of the technology, it's something related to how you use it. The field umpires need to get used to using it efficiently. Not all the appeals are going to the TV umpire. The field umpire should refer them only if he is not sure about it.

[bombayrocks]

Rob when sum1 has potential 2 win matches y will he want 2 cheat??
well howeva i agree dat wrong decisions turn matches n so do the rite ones!