On Technology in Cricket

The issue on how much of technology should be used in cricket is one with many viewpoints. On one hand, at the very basic level, technology makes difficult things easier. On the other hand, it is not true that the computer’s eye is never wrong.

The third umpire certainly is a necessity. It has certainly done a world of good for decision making. Not only has the third umpire resulted in a greater number of correct decisions in the context of close calls. But, in the case of line decisions, the field umpire goes up to the third umpire for confirmation even if he is able to arrive at a verdict. This avoids the possible mistake.

But the same point also proves as a negative, probably the only negative aspect of the third umpire is that it reduces the competence of the umpire and to an extent his confidence. The umpires nowadays do not pay as much attention to the run outs as they can with the reassurance of the existence of the third umpire.

Another aspect of technology is the light meter. This is one implement that can be used well and has – from my point of view – no negative point. The use of the light meter should be encouraged at the lower levels as well.

The other aspect now seeing a lot of controversy is the big screen. The Anglo-Indian test series saw a lot of hue and cry regarding the effect of the big screen. I would have to agree with Dickie Bird and some others who are against the big screen. The basic problem with the big screen is that it brings a sense of insecurity amongst the umpires.

No umpire – I say this out of personal experience – likes to look back at his decisions. And to have a crowd of anywhere between forty thousand to a lakh or even more look at the decision right in front of you is hell for if it turns out wrong, it could ruin the umpire’s day and probably result in more wrong decisions during the rest of the day.

The big screen also unnecessarily unsettles the crowds regarding decisions of the umpire. Furthermore, if the umpire notes his mistake in the big screen, there is the lingering chance that he may over-compensate next time around in a similar situation. The big screen causes quite a bit of confusion on the field as well. Paul Collingwood’s dismissal in the India-England ODI series is an example, where a debutant umpire effectively changed his decision by going back to the third umpire after arriving at a wrong verdict himself. It is true that the right decision was arrived at in the end and that the umpire acted completely within the laws of the game. But, it is also true that had the umpire been more cautious in the first place, he should not have had to revise his decision at all, either by going to the third umpire initially or deciding correctly. The big screen puts far too much pressure on umpires.

The crowds expecting to watch replays at the stadia is not reasonable if these are the side-effects. The spectators cannot expect to have the best of both worlds. They should either watch the replays on the TV at home or enjoy the atmosphere of the game in the stadia.

Some decisions have to be taken, changes to be made. Will that happen?-BS

Feedback to:- southpaw.me@gmail.com. owner@cricketopinions.ath.cx ceases to exist.