|
| November 2005 »
October 31, 2005
Posted by Amit Varma on 10/31/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Martin Williamson says in his post that he likes cricket to be “quirky, annoying and enthralling”. Well, so do I. But I like the quirkiness and the unpredictability to come from the players, and not from the umpire.
Do you turn on the television to watch Sachin Tendulkar and Glenn McGrath strut their talents, or to see Steve Bucknor muff up yet another decision that you can talk about at the pub in the evening? Let me put it plainly: Bucknor exists not for our entertainment, but to make sure that he does justice to the efforts of Tendulkar and McGrath, and all the other players out there. Any tools that can help him do this well are welcome.
Continue reading "Let the game be quirky, not the umpiring"
Comments (0)
Posted by Martin Williamson on 10/31/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Some of those who continue to bang on about the glory of technology and the need to embrace it have an irritating tendency to ridicule those who oppose it, portraying them as conservative Luddites who are incapable of embracing change. Technology used wisely is good. Used because it exists, it is not so wonderful.
As requested by Amit Varma, I read the article "The Perfect Solution Fallacy". Interesting. Not sure what relevance it has to this debate, but interesting. If we start discussing seat belts I will be sure to revisit it.
Continue reading "Let cricket remain quirky, annoying and enthralling"
Comments (0)
October 29, 2005
Posted by Amit Varma on 10/29/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
I know I shouldn't be making two posts in a row in a debate, but I'll keep it short: I'd like to request the opponents of technology in umpiring, especially of Hawk-Eye, to read this.
Comments (0)
Posted by Amit Varma on 10/29/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
I have a confession to make. I do not know how the insides of an aeroplane work.
Nor, for that matter, do I quite understand how a microwave functions, or how a computer works, or how on earth some words I type here in Mumbai can be read anywhere in the world almost instantly. I can’t see any of these things happen with my own eyes, and neither can Sambit Bal, who flies much more often than I do, uses the microwave and has, after much coaxing, started blogging (with this blog). He is as comfortable with all of those things as I am. Why, then, is he wary of Hawk-Eye?
Continue reading "Don't fear it. Try it"
Comments (0)
October 28, 2005
Posted by Sambit Bal on 10/28/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
I have the greatest regard for Bob Woolmer, both as a coach and an original thinker, and it is wonderful to have him in this discussion. He presents an insider’s view and his voice carries the biggest weight in this panel. But I still can't be persuaded out of my ambivalence. Let me elaborate my discomfort a bit more.
I have come to regard Hawk-Eye as reliable, and there is no doubt that in my mind that despite its margin of error, it gets more lbw decisions right than the umpire. I have no hesitation in immediately using it for line decisions for lbw appeals, just like tennis is likely to use it for line calls. In fact, it's a no-brainer. Umpires, who face ridicule on the basis of visual evidence provided by the television camera, should have access to that evidence in quick time. It must be done instantly and in an unobtrusive way. And I believe it can be done with a hand-held gadget without referring it to the third umpire.
Continue reading "How much can we trust predictive technology?"
Comments (0)
October 27, 2005
Posted by Bob Woolmer on 10/27/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
I remember Ken Palmer (a former international umpire – and a good one) giving me out at Taunton caught behind. I knew categorically that I had missed the ball; in fact I was in the process of leaving the ball and as the bat hit the top of my pad and there was a noise. Noise brings appeal, and unfortunately for me Ken gave me out. I walked off pretty disappointed, especially as I was having a tough season with the bat. In the bar afterwards Ken said to me “What’s going on Bob? I thought you were a walker?” I said to Ken: “If I had hit it I would have walked.” “Not to worry,” he said, “it is all part of the game.”
This was long before technology, and players accepted the umpire’s decisions and there was an unwritten code for all players to walk when they knew they were out. Ian Chappell changed that mindset when he announced simply that the umpire is there to do a job and therefore let him make the decision. In an ideal world we would not need technology in cricket, but as Martin Williamson quite rightly said we do not live in an ideal world.
Continue reading "Unleash technology and improve the game"
Comments (0)
October 26, 2005
Posted by S Rajesh on 10/26/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
In his post, Martin Williamson argues that once we go down the technology route, you must go the whole hog. I agree we must, and I’m sure we eventually will, but that doesn’t mean the shift from zero to hundred must happen in one single leap. Had that been the case, the third umpire would never have been introduced for line decisions, because at the time technology was nowhere close to coming up with a solution for lbws or caught-behinds.
The whole process of bringing technology into the fold of decision-making will be a gradual, step-by-step process, and in going down that route, the only question that needs answering is this: is technology more accurate than the human eye in getting that aspect of the decision right? If the answer is yes (obviously, without hindering the flow of the game too much), then we must give technology a chance.
Continue reading "A step-by-step process"
Comments (0)
October 25, 2005
Posted by Martin Williamson on 10/25/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4.
In an ideal world, every umpire’s decision would be right … but we all know this is not an ideal world. Technology has been held up as the way to eliminate human error, and the experiments during the Super Test should have represented another step towards that. That it failed to inspire my colleague Amit Varma, one of its staunchest supporters, shows how badly it failed.
If you go down this route (and this argument assumes that replays for line calls, where the decision is almost always black and white, are rightly here to stay) then you have to go the whole hog. You can’t embark on a quest for perfection and stop short. That means Hawk-Eye for lbws, the Snickometer for edges … and anyone who has watched cricket on TV knows, that means more delays and even then, debate remains. There was more than one decision at Sydney where the umpires, using the same replays as the third umpire, came to a different conclusion. And as for the farce where the third official, unable to decide, referred back to the on-field umpire who gave the batsman out … come off it!
Continue reading "Not an ideal world"
Comments (0)
October 24, 2005
Posted by S Rajesh on 10/24/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, 1, 2, 3.
As Andrew Miller pointed out in his post, cricket at its best is a game of ebb and flow. Those ebbs and flows, though, are best left to the players to conjure up, not the officials. What were the most riveting moments in the Ashes? Glenn McGrath speeding in with gusto and exploiting the Lord’s slope? Shane Warne toiling away relentlessly with his bagful of magic balls, dragging Australia back in the contest match after match? Andrew Flintoff and Simon Jones’s outstanding old-ball spells? Or Aleem Dar’s shocking error which cruelly cut short a gutsy rearguard act by Simon Katich?
For me it’s a no-contest. As a watcher, it’s frustrating and annoying to see outstanding cricket go unrewarded because of umpiring incompetence. It happened again and again and again on India’s tour to Australia in 2003-04, when Anil Kumble kept deceiving the batsmen with straight deliveries at the stumps, and was repeatedly denied legitimate lbws. It was frustrating not because the decisions were going against India, but because a good performance was being denied its due by poor officiating. India have benefited at other times, just as Australia were at the wrong end of the decisions during the Ashes. And the argument that it all evens out just doesn’t wash: repeatedly, games have turned on incorrect umpiring decisions. Sure, it makes for great post-match discussions, but ask Damien Martyn if that’s any compensation for those couple of shockers which contributed in ensuring that he may have played his last Test.
Continue reading "The flaw is not the charm"
Comments (0)
October 22, 2005
Posted by Andrew Miller on 10/22/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, 1, 2.
As anyone who watched agog during this summer’s unputdownable Ashes series will testify, cricket at its very best is a game of ebb and flow. No single incident can be deemed to have turned a match, precisely because – in a sport that is tussled over for five days straight – there is plenty time for a wounded side to right a perceived wrong.
If we are to accept this basic premise – and let’s face it, only the most one-eyed of partisans would prefer to watch a two-day rout ahead of a bumsqueaking cliffhanger a la Edgbaston 2005 – then to take the expression back to its tidal origins, we find ourselves one step short of saying: “what comes around goes around”. Which is where my argument against technology comes in.
Continue reading "What goes around comes around"
Comments (0)
October 21, 2005
Posted by Amit Varma on 10/21/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Intro, Post 1.
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.
Continue reading "Doing justice to the players"
Comments (0)
October 20, 2005
Posted by Sambit Bal on 10/20/2005 in Technology in umpiring
Earlier posts: Introduction.
I must confess to a gnawing ambivalence over how much room should be granted to technology in umpiring. I am a cricket romantic who also wants to be a realist. It’s not an easy balance to achieve. Cricket is a game of ancient times and it survives the impatience of the modern age because its followers care about its past and traditions and its quirks and oddities. I see umpires as an integral part of this circle. Cricket is a slow and long game in which the real action time is a fraction of the time spent on field. You can argue that spectators don’t pay to watch umpires, but they are part of the whole package that makes cricket the game that it is. They add character and charm. I would hate to see them reduced to hat racks.
But I am not oblivious to the advantages of technology. It’s hard to imagine run-outs and stumpings being ruled without the help of television cameras. Indeed, cricket is a better game for it. But the central question is, how much? At what point does technology become an intrusion, a hinderance, a spoilsport? And why are we seeking perfection in decision making in a game of cricket?
Continue reading "The question is, how much?"
Comments (0)
October 18, 2005
Posted by Amit Varma on 10/18/2005 in Technology in umpiring
There are few topics that arouse as much passion as the use of technology in cricket. An umpire makes a couple of mistakes and everyone is screaming for technology, and getting decisions right, and reducing human error, and so on. But when the referrals to the third umpire pile up, everybody screams about the artificial delays and how the charm of the game is ruined, and so on. So is technology in umpiring a good thing or a bad thing? And if it should be there, to what extent should it be there?
To debate this we've assembled an inhouse group of writers with strong opinions on the subject: Sambit Bal, Martin Williamson, S Rajesh, Andrew Miller and myself. Sambit will kick off the discussion in a short while, and then mayhem will be unleashed. Coming up ...
Comments (0)
Posted by Amit Varma on 10/18/2005 in Introduction
Welcome to Wicket to Wicket, Cricinfo's discussion blog.
It's rare for people to talk about cricket without argument taking place. Mention a cricketing topic, and opposite points of view spring forth, each passionately advocated and cogently argued. These arguments, at least for a fan like me, are part of the fun of following the game. Sitting with friends and arguing about the merits of technology in umpiring, and Dravid v Ganguly, and whether Flintoff is better than Botham is often quite as much fun as watching this great game itself. And we intend to have some of that fun on this blog.
On this blog, cricket writers will, by invitation, get together and discuss stuff. We'll pick issues and ideas that are somewhat nuanced and that generate good discussion. (There'll be no "Is Robert Mugabe good for Zimbabwe?" kind of discussions, for example.) And we'll have fun with them.
There are many advantages to doing it using a dated-posts blogging format. For one, there's no formal structure to adhere to, as there inevitably is when one is writing an article for someone. Secondly, there's no restriction of space: from a 25-word thought to a 2500 word essay, anything is allowed. (We'll try to avoid the longer stuff, though!) And thirdly, one's tone can be informal, like in an email conversation with friends, or in a pub.
Sadly, because of the volume of feedback that we routinely get, there are logistical issues in handling feedback, so we'll have to keep comments disabled. We'll try and figure out a way around this sometime. Until then, please do listen in.
Comments (0)
|
