Technology in Cricket

There is an increasing amount of technology being used in cricket. The third umpire is being used for more and more decisions; hawk-eye is being used (only by broadcasters) increasingly.

This advent of technology in cricket has sparked many debates as to how useful this technology is, whether the umpires on field still have as significant a role to play as they previously did, how accurate some of this technology actually is, whether the technology is being overused, etc.

Sachin Tendulkar was the first man to be declared run out by a third umpire with the help of his TV screen. The third umpire is plays a very significant role in the game nowadays. The third umpire coming in is an advantage as the room for error in certain decisions (mostly line decisions) is much lesser. From this point of view, it is an advantage.

In the Super Series in 2005, referrals to the third umpire in the cases of even LBWs were permitted as a trial. Unfortunately, this was not a successful venture and should not have been. It reduces the role of the on field umpires and makes them no more relevant than the crowd in the stands. In this case they are reduced to man managers only to make sure that there is no misbehaviour or mishaps on the field. It was a good decision though to try this during the Super Series. Also this excessive number of referrals meant that the fielding captain will have to work faster to maintain the over rate.

Permitting referrals to the third umpire for LBWs just does not work. Unlike in the case of run outs, the umpires are inevitably in a good position to take decisions regarding LBWs. In the case of run outs, the facts for the decisions are placed point blanc in front of the umpire. But, in the case of LBWs, it is a matter of judgement, anticipation and prediction. Assuming that the umpire is in fact in a good position to give the decision, the third umpire has no advantage over the field umpire as all he has is repetitive views of the delivery in question which could in fact lead the umpire the wrong way. Therefore the decision to permit referrals for LBWs, if taken by the ICC is regressive.

As for Hawk-eye, at least in cricket, it is not at all precise. Hawk-eye is very accurate in tennis but it is not the same in cricket. Even the television broadcasters who promote Hawk-eye sometimes do not agree with Hawk-eye’s verdict.

Then there’s the Snickometer which has proved to be extremely useful and accurate. It is more accurate than Hawk-eye as it does not deal with prediction and what might have happened. Snicko analyses what has happened and is very elementary technology. The innovation of bringing in visual representation of sound using a wave in cricket is commendable and is proving useful.

Also, the use of headphones for umpires which are connected to the stump microphone are useful and reduce the need for other less useful and less necessary elements of technology. Technology in cricket is progressing, but the necessary authorities have to understand that the on field umpires cannot be done away with in some time at least.-BS