Technology can be a boon or a curse

Umpire

Legend has it that the venerable Dr WG Grace refused to leave the crease when given out and told the umpire: “The people have to come see me and not you!”. Cricket, of course has come a long way since then, but while the sport has evolved, especially in the past two decades, much of the laws of the game remain quite archaic.

The debate over use of technology to aid umpiring decisions has much to do with the need for cricket to “grow up” and flow with the times. The recent move to allow appeals on umpiring decisions in next month’s India’s tour of Sri Lanka, is perhaps, a logical extension or, rather, it was to be expected.

The purists might believe that the authority and sanctity of umpires is gradually being eroded and one might as well do away with them completely with the players depending on the TV umpire to do the needful! However, with the umpires coming under closer scrutiny than ever before with the Hawk-eye, slowmos and super slowmos, and what have you, virtually every decision of theirs comes under the hammer.

Strangely, few care to appreciate that the umpires have to make do without the benefit of replays, and as such, there is always the element human error that is omnipresent, especially with regard to leg-before decisions. Technology would certainly relieve them of some pressure.

Read latest cricket news | Follow all the action from Euro 2008

The proponents of Hawk-eye might like us to believe that the technology in use is near perfect and provides an accurate guide to the likely path of the ball upon pitching. In this context, umpire Hariharan was spot-on when he said the umpires are in the best position to judge. Hawk-eye, at best, only reflects the “likely” path of the ball and not necessarily the “actual” progress.

In any case, the ICC has made its decision and there is no looking back now or debating endlessly whether cricket should embrace technology in its totality unless an umpiring decision is beyond doubt.

On the face of it, there is nothing wrong in offering the teams three appeals. In tennis, players are allowed three appeals per set and nobody is complaining, although more often than not, the chair umpire is always proved correct.

The point is that technology will certainly benefit cricket so long as the teams do not misuse the provisions in the name of gamesmanship or to slow down the game. Of course, it would be a pity that cricket might stand to lose its “human touch” with the umpires taking recourse to replays rather than deliver a decision that might be questioned.

Anand Philar's previous column: Generation Next on its way

As it is, an increasing number of umpires refer run-out appeals to the third umpire even when it is blatantly clear that the batsman is short of the crease. The fear of failure, thus, is not unique to players, but also the umpires.

Technology can be a boon or a curse, depending on its implementation. With the game having undergone a sea change, especially in the post-Packer era, the authorities are themselves under pressure to tinker with the laws so as to “dress up” cricket and give it a modern hue.

Twenty20 has taken cricket to the next level as a medium of entertainment and it would seem that just about everyone involved with the game is swept away by the euphoria of the IPL. In other words, “change” is the new mantra and I believe that it would not be long before the decision-making is taken out of hands of the umpires while technology is given the pride of place.

Perfection can be rather boring, and cricket’s charm lies as much in feats of batting and bowling as umpiring decisions, right or wrong. I have nothing against technology in sport so long as the sport is not reduced to being its slave as we are increasingly becoming in our everyday life. But then, is this wishful thinking, I wonder.

SEARCH