Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - Machine-made humanity

The players’ largely calm acceptance of their lot is not that hard to comprehend: when a team plays 162-plus games a season, and each batter can anticipate at least four innings per outing, the belief is that rough and smooth tend to cancel each other out. Even now, there is no specific timeframe for the advent of the replay umpire on the diamond. And anyone who watched last month’s World Series cannot have been left in any doubt about the frequency of erroneous judgements by the four onfield umps, most notably with regard to whether a pitch has located the strike zone. Which is, admittedly, even more taxing a decision than a leg-before ruling, for the simple reason that the target is strictly invisible as well as open to subjective stretching and squashing.

Meanwhile, back in cricketland, following the England and Wales Cricket Board’s recent announcement that it would not be continuing its trial of referrals in county cricket (another neglected Duncan Fletcher legacy, albeit one aped from American football), the MCC World Cricket Committee has gone in the opposite direction, rightly pointing out that the flaw in the British system was that the third umpire could only be referred to if one of his onfield brethren had made “a clear and obvious mistake”.

The palpable flaw in the ECB experiment, deployed in televised one-day games only, was to entrust judge and jury duties to a colleague of the onfield officials: another umpire. Expecting these particular team-mates and soul brothers to rat on each other was always a massively naïve proposition. Small wonder no verdicts (or at least none of which I am aware) were overturned. The blindingly obvious solution – so blindingly obvious it was blithely ignored - is to invest the match referee, or some other disinterested observer, with the casting vote.

The MCC committee, whose members include Michaels Atherton and Brearley, Steve Waugh, Courtney Walsh and Majid Khan, also proposes that the third umpire “be able to make his own decision with the help of much more expensive and sophisticated technological evidence”. Such as “Ultra Motion” cameras to detect those gossamer-thin edges that so often elude the official judging lbws and bat-pads. What was unclear from the press statement was whether the third official should be empowered to be proactive rather than simply reactive. Of course he should.

MCC has offered to help finance these cameras for any trial period, which should take place, the committee concluded, during a Test series, where “the highest quality of technological presence is assured”. Athers and co also argue that Hawk-Eye should be utilised to track deliveries for lbw decisions up to the point of impact with the batsman, but not Hawk-Eye’s "Predictive Path", currently used on TV to forecast the ball’s likely subsequent direction. All of which seems eminently sensible.

So who’s right? Is cricket correct in bending over backwards to ensure the squarest, fairest deal possible for the players – and stuff the umpires’ egos? Or has baseball been justified in insisting that the revolution should not, on any account, be televised?

Nobody’s perfect; not even the machines. But they’re still cleverer than us mere mortals © Getty Images

The arguments are likely to plague sport in general for some time yet, not least in the aftermath of last month’s rugby union World Cup final, where a potentially decisive England try was ruled out, possibly in error, after an extensive consultation between referee and TV official. One camera angle told one story, another told a different one. Nobody’s perfect; not even the machines. But they’re still cleverer than us mere mortals.

During the closing stages in Mohali today came a priceless example of why we cannot trust the players – if we ever could. As Rohit Sharma chased a boundary-bound blow from Shahid Afridi, he reached down, collected the ball and threw, but not before his right hand touched the hoarding. When the camera alighted on Sharma a moment or two later, he was wearing a bemused expression of purest innocence. But he knew his hand had made contact, and one assumes he knew the law. The only conclusion to be drawn therefore, at least from one’s armchair, was that he thought he’d got away with it. Fortunately, he didn’t. Fortunately, in the interests of fairness and legitimacy, umpires seldom take fielders at their word these days. Why should they? That said, to pretend that rises in salaries have been accompanied in inverse proportion by a decline in manners and honesty is to buy into the hoarily romantic old theory, and wholly unproveable assumption, that previous generations were more honourable.

To retain credibility, professional sport, its practitioners and audience, deserve as much justice as is humanly possible. And if the humans can’t do it on their own, let the machines help wherever and whenever possible, within reason. “Human error” is no longer a get-out-of-jail-free card: too much is at stake. As Van Morrison seldom tires of pointing out whenever he performs his 40-year-old showstopper Cyprus Avenue, it’s too late to stop now. Far too late. Pandora’s box is open. Live with it.

One thing everyone needs to know about instant replay in American football:

1. Not all plays can be reviewed. There are a set of plays that are not review-able by instant replay

2. There is a cost involved in invoking the instant replay. Each team has 2 challenges per game and 3 Time-outs per half. If their challenge is not overturned, they lose a time-out

3. Inspite of instant replays, there are refering mistakes that happen in most games. That's the price to be paid when human judgement is involved. That has made sports what it is ...

Having said that, this is what i would love in cricket

1. Each team has a time to complete their innings. 3hrs:30mins. A running clock on the field shows the time left for the side. The batting side gets 5 mins (for any change of equipment) and the umpire signals stop/start of clock in any disruption (side screen malfunction). Injuries stop clock. There's a penalty to the team when they don't adhere to the clock

2. Each team has 2 challenges/innings (both ODI and Test). If the challenge is not upheld, the team loses one min of their time clock. Not everything can be challenged. Esp in LBW, ball pitching outside leg, ball striking the pads outside off-stump, missed nicks, bad decisions on no-nicks can be challenged but height for lbw, 'plumb' lbws not given cannot be challenged.

3. Has someone noticed the near-zero NO-Ball in ODI cricket after the introduction of free-hit. The same can be adopted (free-hit) for any deliveries left after the mandatory time.

The rules need tweaking but can be a good start.