I’m one of those rare cricket writers who is strongly in favour of the use of technology in umpiring. And yet, I was dismayed by what I saw on view during the recent Super Series. Technology, if it is to serve its purpose well, must be unobtrusive. The experiments during the Super Series were a lousy way to do it. People come to a cricket match to immerse themselves in the ebb and flow of a contest, and that ebb and flow, the rhythm of the game, should be compromised as little as possible.
The fans also want a fair contest, though. They come to watch a battle between two teams of 11 men each (ok, 12 now sometimes), and they want to watch the better side win on the basis of how they do the things they do: bat, bowl, field. The umpires are merely the means to an end: to come up with the right decisions, which alone can do justice to the efforts of the players.
And I feel rather sorry for them right now. In recent years, umpires have come under increasing scrutiny, and their mistakes are highlighted as never before. It is unlikely that umpires are actually making more mistakes than before. It is just that every error they make is far more likely to be exposed to the world. That is because the technology to catch those mistakes exists. So why don’t we use that technology to correct them as well? Why not give the umpire a tool that empowers him and enables him to function more efficiently?
Is it because the game will get slower? No. It is endless television replays that make the game slower, and I am against the use of TV replays for things like lbw decisions and catches close to the ground. Not only do they waste time, they are likely to be inaccurate because they are subject to the same optical illusions that an umpire suffers, if only in slow motion. (I'd written about optical illusions, in a different context, here.)
To name just one, the umpire, standing above the stumps, is alrady susceptible to the parallax error, which is why one frequent lbw decision umpires get wrong is giving a batsman out when the ball would have gone over the stumps. TV cameras are at even more awkward angles. For catches close to the ground, in fact, it is likely that the ball will often appear to touch the ground even if it doesn’t, because the camera is at an angle far above the ball. The only thing TV replays can provide incontrovertible evidence for – much of the time – is line decisions. I agree with Sambit that that is all they should be used for.
But there is far more to modern technology than TV replays. Allowing umpires to refer lbw decisions using TV replays is like heating a burger by putting it under a fur coat when a microwave exists. That microwave is Hawk-Eye. (And no, TV replays are not required for Hawk-Eye decisions; read point four here.) I was suspicious of it when I first saw it, seeing at as a glitzy TV tool at best. But the more I have learnt about it, the more I have been convinced that it should be used in cricket.
Yes, yes, I know all the standard objections to Hawk-Eye. It cannot do this, it cannot do that. Matches will end too soon. The game will get slower. And so on. I’ve answered most of those common objections in an archived 23 Yards post, “Why umpires should welcome technology.” Do read that. Also check out my follow-up posts to that, here and here
To sum up my position, I think that everything an umpire can do, Hawk-Eye can do better, and it will minimise human error and do justice to the game that we love so much. My arguments for that are in the articles I just linked, so I won't repeat myself here.
I’m sure Andrew will disagree with much of what I’ve said in those pieces, and in this post. I’m looking forward to reading his arguments.
Andrew Miller has his say next, on October 22, before lunch, England time.
