29-6

[C_C]

That's what they said about runouts, now the umpires refer everything because even the slightest possibility of getting it wrong isn't worth it.

What i mean is, it isnt like referring every decision to the 3rd umpire. The decisionmaking is done by a machine and not an individual, thus much better response times.

What games do you watch that only have 24 LBW appeals in a game?

I said that with ODIs in mind.

Could they detect a ball moving at 150km/h within a millimeter?

That particular model cannot but more sophisticated models can. But an umpier cannot guage within a millimetre either. You are demanding perfection from technology when all that is required is for it to be superior to the umpires-which it already is.

As I said, the problem is gathering and assessing the data.

600 frames per second, each frame having 480*720 pixels ( would probably need better, but this is whats transmitted in a tv signal, so the numbers on that can be found easily. ) Let's say each pixel is 1 byte.

Thats 600*480*720 bytes or ~200MB of data transfer per second.

I think most PCs would fail at that.

Each frame then has to be opened and assessed to find the exact location of the ball.

THEN you can start checking the trajectory. ( I'll agree a PC could do this ).

Umm.. for most PCs, the bottleneck is NOT your processor or RAM. its your ethernet card. Even then you can watch a live transmission full screen with TV qualities. However, on ground, you dont need to rerout it through an ethernet card, an USB port is sufficient.

And nothing has to be opened. All it has to do is refer back the delivery before the umpire pressed the checking button and run it through an algorithmic process.

So the point isn't to improve accuracy, it's to remove the perception of bias? I'd rather people grew up and accepted the umpires decision.

Did the rest of the world grow up when the WI were dominating the scene ? they whinged about umpires too....its not a question about growing up...every nation whinges when they are not in the domination stage. But you arnt gonna change human nature and i suggest you deal with the problem in a practical manner instead of throwing arbitary 'grow up' comments. The only solution to erradicate any perception of bias is to incorporate a mechanical device with algorithms to determine the outcome.
By the way, 90-91% accuracy is PRETTY POOR and you wont have unfair advntages being handed out to good teams where the umps are psyched out by them to certain degree. Plus the technology in place is FAR more accurate than the human umpires and it seems to me that certain elements are treating the human umpires almost as an advantage.....almost as if the Aussies would lose ground/others will catch up if technology took hold.

One tiny detail....According to the laws of the game, the umpires decision is required for someone to be out..ie, if the umpire says it's not out, then according to the laws of the game, it is not out whatever else might have happened. In other words, by law, the umpires decision is always correct. ( yes, there is an obvious problem with this logic and I'm not advocating it, but I've always thought it was cute ).

well it requires the umpire's verdict....ie, even after 3rd ump refferrals, the ump on ground is required to raise his finger...he can do the same with the technology in place.

I will give you an example of how technology is superior.
In NHL(Ice Hockey- i follow it regularly..or rather, used to before the lockout) the % of disputed calls went down by 95% after technology took over the decisionmaking and was not simply dependent on the eye of the referree on ground.
The 5% discrepancy has almost always been on extraordinary circumstances( the goal post getting knocked out of groove and the puck crossing the line almost simultaneously) or by the error of the tv refferees.

 

[benchmark00]

At the end of the day, no one can doubt that decisions invariably tend to go in favour of Australia, the close calls especially.
What we have to ask ourselves is, why?

The reasons explored thus far...

1. Over Appealing/preasurising umpires.
2. Racist Umpires
3. Crowd Pressure

Since there is no way of proving whether or not an umpire is racist, I guess we have to discount number 2. With regards to crowd pressure, this really only favours Aus when they are playing in aus and seeing as though aus get favourable decisions pretty much everywhere they play, crowd pressure isnt much of a factor.

So were left with over appealing. Anybody watching the pak-aus series would have noticed that the likes of warne, gillespie and gilchrist partake in obscene ammounts of appealing. The law of averages suggests that if Aus appeal for just about every half (or even quarter) chance they will eventually get their man. Add to that the factor of Adam Gilchrists image of being some sort of saintly figure sent down by god to rid the world of cheats and were pretty much left with a decision influenced by aussie intimidation.

From my experience, the Australians dont appeal any more than other countries, if its generally close, they will appeal, thats not me being biased or anything, thats just the truth... from my experiences, the biggest 'appealers' would have to be the current indian side and you all have argued that the better side gets the better decisions so to speak, and australia being undoubtably better then india should will more often then not get the close calls (according to others logic) despite 'over-appealing', now thats not being racist or anything, so dont try and put that crap on me, its just an observation.... having said this, theres no statistics (that im aware of) that has proven any of this....

This is why it cant be squarely put down to appealing

 

[C_C]

From my experience, the Australians dont appeal any more than other countries, if its generally close, they will appeal, thats not me being biased or anything, thats just the truth... from my experiences, the biggest 'appealers' would have to be the current indian side, now thats not being racist ro anything, so dont try and put that crap on me, its just an observation.... having said this, theres no statistics (that im aware of) that has proven any of this....

This is why it cant be squarely put down to appealing

I agree.
The indian side does tend to over-appeal.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I agree.
The indian side does tend to over-appeal.

Maybe a little, but to be fair to the Indian players, on Indian pitches with the likes of Kumble and Harbhajan bowling and many close fielders there are simply a hell of a lot of "chances". Basically anything which hits the pad with the bat anywhere near it and goes to short leg is a potential wicket, so they appeal. I've seen overs where this happens 4 or 5 times. It might be a little over the top, but that has more to do with the fact that they get so many of their wickets in that manner, and it is quite difficult as a player (unless you have the bat in your hand) to tell if a bat-pad chance is legitimate or not.

However, suggesting that Australia a) get better decisions than other countries everywhere in the world or b) over-appeal more than any other side (despite my earlier defence, India are the only side I would actually say are guilty of this, and them only to a minor degree) is quite ludicrous. Bowlers and fielders are perfectly entitled to appeal if they think it might be out, and as long as you aren't appealing for every ball that beats the edge or hits the pad when you know it isn't out it's really not a problem. The umpire's job is to differentiate between legitimate appeals and non-legitimate ones, and generally speaking they do an excellent job of it.

 

[Richard]

Like the players stay in their positions while waiting for a run out decision?

If this happened, it would make things easier, but I just don't see it.

A simple instruction would do wonders.
All it takes is a bit of practicality.

 

[telsor]

That particular model cannot but more sophisticated models can. But an umpier cannot guage within a millimetre either. You are demanding perfection from technology when all that is required is for it to be superior to the umpires-which it already is.

At 600 frames per second, a ball bowled at 150kmh moves ~5cm per frame.
Umpires see a continuous image, the technology needs to make up for this gap, and therefore more accuracy is required.

The calculations for working out an edge onto pad from a few cm infront of the pad when the whole thing happens between frames would require enormous accuracy.

Umm.. for most PCs, the bottleneck is NOT your processor or RAM. its your ethernet card. Even then you can watch a live transmission full screen with TV qualities. However, on ground, you dont need to rerout it through an ethernet card, an USB port is sufficient.

That was why I mentioned the data transfer rate.

A 'high speed USB' does 6mbps. The number I mentionend is 200mbps ( and I thought that was on the low side ).

And nothing has to be opened. All it has to do is refer back the delivery before the umpire pressed the checking button and run it through an algorithmic process.

Just how do you expect this to happen without the examination of each frame to find out where the ball is? To do that, it needs to load it into some kind of 'find the ball' analysis software.

I've deleted the rest of what you wrote discussing why we need this because I think thats where I doubt we're going to agree no matter how much we debate the speed and accuracy these decisions can be made at.

I'm willing to accept what I consider to be honest mistakes by umpires and don't want technology that will slow the game down.

If I'm correct in my assesment of you're argument, you don't accept that umpires mistakes are necessarily fair/honest and want technology to overcome that doubt, even if it slows the game down.

I suppose it comes down to which hurts the game more...Doubt about the fairness of umpires by fans or wasted time.

 

[telsor]

A simple instruction would do wonders.
All it takes is a bit of practicality.

I agree and wish they would do this, but until they do it for run outs, let's not assume they'll do it for anything else.

 

[C_C]

At 600 frames per second, a ball bowled at 150kmh moves ~5cm per frame.
Umpires see a continuous image, the technology needs to make up for this gap, and therefore more accuracy is required.

False.
The human eye sees just as much a jerky image (actually a jerkier than the 'computer's eye' if you will) than a computer.
The human brain is unable to follow denominations in motion after the speeds exceed a certain frame-rate ( i think its 15 frames a second). In reality, the object 'jumps' from point A to point B and the brain fills in the information to make it appear a smooth transformation.

The calculations for working out an edge onto pad from a few cm infront of the pad when the whole thing happens between frames would require enormous accuracy.

arithmetic accuracy is not a problem with an electronic device- they are far more accurate than the human mind.

That was why I mentioned the data transfer rate.

A 'high speed USB' does 6mbps. The number I mentionend is 200mbps ( and I thought that was on the low side ).

that is standard USB cable. There are special cables worth a few hundred bucks(chump change to ICC even if it involves 1000 grounds) that do speeds FAR bigger than that- for example in server computers and Optics transfer cables.

Just how do you expect this to happen without the examination of each frame to find out where the ball is? To do that, it needs to load it into some kind of 'find the ball' analysis software.

I see. I thought you initially meant that somebody gotto open up the frame and check it...hence i said it.
I am talking about a self sustained system that can produce a verdict, not just show replay results and have another guy make the verdict, ala 3rd umpires.

If I'm correct in my assesment of you're argument, you don't accept that umpires mistakes are necessarily fair/honest and want technology to overcome that doubt, even if it slows the game down.

its irrelevant what i accept or dont accept.
I am addressing the possibility of it, which is undeniable when a human being is passing a judgement.
I want the scope of bias to be eliminated- doesnt necessarily imply that i believe umpires are biassed.

I suppose it comes down to which hurts the game more...Doubt about the fairness of umpires by fans or wasted time.

well like i said, an extra 10 minute added to an ODI game or a day of test cricket wont hurt cricket any. Its a small price to pay and its popularity wont suffer- games go for far longer sometimes with sightscreen delays and various other delays(for eg. players stopping frequently to clean their boots etc) and it doesnt create much trouble...the only trouble is when it far exceeds the time frame( for eg, almost an hour of delay in an ODI game) and any technology implimented most definately would take less time.

But the credibility of the game must be restored- or rather the potential to question the credibility must be eliminated.

 

[Richard]

I agree and wish they would do this, but until they do it for run outs, let's not assume they'll do it for anything else.

The point is, it's easy to do so you can't really use this as a counter for the idea of bringing-in as much techno as possible.

 

[benchmark00]

Call me crazy here people, but i think its the human touch that makes the game what it is, it makes it a constant talking point, sure, it can be argued that it so professional that we need everything to be perfect, but for me, the little imperfections is what makes it so great. As far as im concerned, if its good enough for our forefathers, then it's good enough for us, Bradman, Grace and others didnt have 'Hawkeye' (unless theres a big conspiracy going on ) and they loved the game, the crowds loved the games, so what makes you think our great game needs improving? the standard of umpiring hasnt gotten worse, its gotten better, so lets leave the human touch, let us talk about the umpires, do we really want the game to become totally stale? I guess im just a traditionalist... everyone here debates how you cant compare different era's (although people still try to) so why do we want this gap and difference to widen between generation... this is just my thoughts and oppinions on the state of play at the minute. IMO we have just the right amount of technology, it will be a sad day when technology is used to judge every decision.

 

[telsor]

arithmetic accuracy is not a problem with an electronic device- they are far more accurate than the human mind.

Agreed, but my point was that you need to get very accurate data in there in order to make accurate calculations, hence the need for accurate data sensors.

that is standard USB cable. There are special cables worth a few hundred bucks(chump change to ICC even if it involves 1000 grounds) that do speeds FAR bigger than that- for example in server computers and Optics transfer cables.

I'm not denying that it's possible. Remember this technical debate started with your claim that it could all be done on a standard PC. I'm thinking it would require a decent server with multiple(?) fibre-optic connections. You're looking at a hardware cost tens of thousands of dollars per installation.

It gets tougher when you start to consider that you'll want multiple video feeds ( you need at least 2 to get 3D data ).

I am talking about a self sustained system that can produce a verdict, not just show replay results and have another guy make the verdict, ala 3rd umpires.

So am I. Producing a replay for 3rd ump would be easy, but slow.

well like i said, an extra 10 minute added to an ODI game or a day of test cricket wont hurt cricket any.

As I said ( well..implied ), this is where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Richard]

but for me, the little imperfections is what makes it so great.

In a way I can see what you mean, but I don't think it'd be a tragedy if they were ironed-out.

As far as im concerned, if its good enough for our forefathers, then it's good enough for us, Bradman, Grace and others didnt have 'Hawkeye'

Heard of the "ignorance is bliss"? What you can't have and don't know about doesn't bother you. We could now have it if it was deemed the right idea by those that matter.

the standard of umpiring hasnt gotten worse, its gotten better

Hmm, I don't think we can know for certain either way - I doubt it's gotten either worse or better myself, I can't see why it should have.

 

[C_C]

if its good enough for our forefathers, then it's good enough for us

So why dont you give up your computer, electricity-powered house, gas guzzling car and go live in a thatched hut with leaky roof and travel on horse/foot ? Afterall, it was good enough for our forefathers, right ?

so what makes you think our great game needs improving?

That is the fundamental hallmark of a decadent society.
When you dont wanna evolve, improve but just sit tight on your laurels.
Why do we innovate ? why not just ask all the scientists and social workers to **** off ?
why not say **** off to trauma sufferers instead of trying to open 10 new hospitals ?
Why not just say **** off to a student who wants to write a thesis ?
We dont need improving right?

The innate need for something better and something fairer is one of the fundamental tenets that drives humanity- which has led to the birth of several philosophical and theological thoughtstreams.

The ordinary 91-92% success rate of umpires in international cricket needs improving IMO.

so lets leave the human touch, let us talk about the umpires, do we really want the game to become totally stale

last time i checked, the excitement in the game revolved around the players and not the umpires. Did the introduction of third umpires make the game any more stale ?
I dunno what game you watch but the cricket i watch involves a podgy old guy standing behind the wicket and bunch of players going about their business. Not like the umpires are doing splits and jumping jacks and all that.

so why do we want this gap and difference to widen between generation

because the gap widens with every successive generation in almost every sphere of life. Sport is no differnt.

it will be a sad day when technology is used to judge every decision.

I see nothing sad in eliminating the scope of bias and errors. I see it as something rather positive.

 

[telsor]

Call me crazy here people, but i think its the human touch that makes the game what it is, it makes it a constant talking point, sure, it can be argued that it so professional that we need everything to be perfect, but for me, the little imperfections is what makes it so great. As far as im concerned, if its good enough for our forefathers, then it's good enough for us, Bradman, Grace and others didnt have 'Hawkeye' (unless theres a big conspiracy going on ) and they loved the game, the crowds loved the games, so what makes you think our great game needs improving? the standard of umpiring hasnt gotten worse, its gotten better, so lets leave the human touch, let us talk about the umpires, do we really want the game to become totally stale? I guess im just a traditionalist... everyone here debates how you cant compare different era's (although people still try to) so why do we want this gap and difference to widen between generation... this is just my thoughts and oppinions on the state of play at the minute. IMO we have just the right amount of technology, it will be a sad day when technology is used to judge every decision.

I agree which is why I think that until it can bring about a substancial improvement, it shouldn't be considered.

The other point that doesn't get mentioned enough is that the more technology that gets used, the more difference there is between the game played at the top level and that played in your neighborhood park each Saturday which I think is a huge shame.

Also, the more it happens, the harder it gets for the umpires of those weekend games, as they lose the respect of the players, although in that case, the constant criticism is just as bad.

 

[C_C]

Agreed, but my point was that you need to get very accurate data in there in order to make accurate calculations, hence the need for accurate data sensors.

there are enough accurate sensors in the market today. This wont be a problem.

I'm not denying that it's possible. Remember this technical debate started with your claim that it could all be done on a standard PC. I'm thinking it would require a decent server with multiple(?) fibre-optic connections. You're looking at a hardware cost tens of thousands of dollars per installation.

actually you are right- the data transfer protocols would mean it would require a server level computer with Error correction RAM and stuff but it definately wont cost tens of thousands of dollars.
The average server computer sold in the consumer market of Canada(where i live) costs around 4000-5000 dollars( minus input/output devices)....at this point, i am in favour of introducing it in international cricket. Since international cricket doesnt involve more than half a dozen venus active at any given time, around 5-10 of these processing computers would be sufficient to meet the needs of any nation, even during world cup times.
Since the input feeds ( the audio-visual sensors and the optical cables) are not that expensive ( you are talkin about 1000-2000 dollars per ground) and can be left in place, its just a matter of shutting around this computer.....until over a period of time every ground can afford one.

So am I. Producing a replay for 3rd ump would be easy, but slow.

Okay but if it is gonna be recalled automatically inside a computer, you are talking a few seconds to open the required program and load the stuff ( remember-this stuff doesnt have to run on windows and unix/linux is a few times faster) and a few seconds to produce a verdict.

As I said ( well..implied ), this is where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

fair enough but i honestly dont think 5-15 minutes increased timeframe would be a small price to pay for making the credibility of dismissals virtually uncontestable.
Plus i am not advocating a total removal of umpires- i just want the not-so-straightforward ones- like lbws or very faint edges to be referred to this device. Straightforward catches/bowled/stumped etc. can be officiated by field umpires.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The other point that doesn't get mentioned enough is that the more technology that gets used, the more difference there is between the game played at the top level and that played in your neighborhood park each Saturday which I think is a huge shame.

That's another completely valid reason to oppose the introduction of technology in replacement of human umpiring decisions as well. As it is, the system of umpiring (although perhaps not the quality) is roughly the same from local grade and junior cricket all the way up to test level. If the umpire is replaced with a machine, as is being proposed relentlessly on this board, exactly how far does this stretch? Does said machine become requisite for a game to be considered a test? How about for first class and list-A cricket? Hell, Pura Cup cricket in Australia isn't even filmed with a camera directly behind the stumps at this point in time, there's a big step up from that to having Hawkeye making the decisions for the umpire.

The first thing you are taught when playing competitive sport (in all sports) as a kid is that the umpire's decision is final and you should respect it. Every other sport in the world relies primarily or entirely on human judgement from the officials, from every football code through to tennis, basketball, hockey etc. Effectively replacing our umpires with a computer because we deem them incapable of doing what umpires in every other sport in the world do, AND creating massive differences in organisation and rule enforcement between grassroots cricket and ICC-sanctioned international and first-class cricket would serve to further alienate the game from the general sporting public.

And of course there is the fact that the technology that C_C is talking about using simply does not exist at this point, since the Hawkeye system we see on television today is a long way from reliable enough to base a game on, and there are constantly inconclusive verdicts offered by snickometer and video replays for catches and lbws.

So, even ignoring the arguments related to the spirit of the game and retaining the human element, there are plenty of other issues that would arise with the introduction of technology.

 

[C_C]

That's another completely valid reason to oppose the introduction of technology in replacement of human umpiring decisions as well. As it is, the system of umpiring (although perhaps not the quality) is roughly the same from local grade and junior cricket all the way up to test level. If the umpire is replaced with a machine, as is being proposed relentlessly on this board, exactly how far does this stretch? Does said machine become requisite for a game to be considered a test? How about for first class and list-A cricket? Hell, Pura Cup cricket in Australia isn't even filmed with a camera directly behind the stumps at this point in time, there's a big step up from that to having Hawkeye making the decisions for the umpire.

I see no problems with this.
Most sunday-park matches are considerably different than international cricket and there are several sports where the highest level uses technological expertise ( Ice Hockey, basketball, etc. for example) that the lower levels dont and it certainly doesnt compromise the quality of players emerging or alienate the players. If anything, it further hones the sense of professionalism as it reduces the margin of error nd thats what an international sport should be- far more accurate and reliable than the local games.

The first thing you are taught when playing competitive sport (in all sports) as a kid is that the umpire's decision is final and you should respect it. Every other sport in the world relies primarily or entirely on human judgement from the officials, from every football code through to tennis, basketball, hockey etc. Effectively replacing our umpires with a computer because we deem them incapable of doing what umpires in every other sport in the world do, AND creating massive differences in organisation and rule enforcement between grassroots cricket and ICC-sanctioned international and first-class cricket would serve to further alienate the game from the general sporting public.

Incorrect.
Almost every goal in Ice Hockey is ruled by technological evidence, not umpires.
And it certainly doesnt create any friction amongst hockey players-infact they encouraged it.
ANd no one is talkin about challenging the umpire on field. However, that doesnt mean one shouldnt question the judgement of the umpires.

And of course there is the fact that the technology that C_C is talking about using simply does not exist at this point, since the Hawkeye system we see on television today is a long way from reliable enough to base a game on, and there are constantly inconclusive verdicts offered by snickometer and video replays for catches and lbws.

an absolute and blatant lie.
People who propagate this understand very little about the functionality of these devices.
Infact the few times i've talked to the players, they said that they know when they edged the ball or not and the snickometer is FAR more accurate than umpires.
And the hawkeye is not perfect but its projections are FAR more accurate than that of an umpire.
As per inconclusiveness of catches from video replay, that is not the fault of technology but rather the implimentation of it, as in many cases, not enough thought is put forward as to the positioning and view of these cameras.

Like i said, the way i see some people resist a change for the better, it almost makes me think that they are too scared to lose the 'mental' advantage that they might posess.

 

[biased indian]

what woolmer said is an intresting thing he said that he will make the appeals of pakistanis more louder and longer so that they get the decisions in their favour

 

[telsor]

there are enough accurate sensors in the market today. This wont be a problem.

I'm still not so sure there are many that can pick up a ball moving that fast at that distance with sufficient accuracy.

actually you are right- the data transfer protocols would mean it would require a server level computer with Error correction RAM and stuff but it definately wont cost tens of thousands of dollars.
The average server computer sold in the consumer market of Canada(where i live) costs around 4000-5000 dollars( minus input/output devices)....at this point, i am in favour of introducing it in international cricket. Since international cricket doesnt involve more than half a dozen venus active at any given time, around 5-10 of these processing computers would be sufficient to meet the needs of any nation, even during world cup times.
Since the input feeds ( the audio-visual sensors and the optical cables) are not that expensive ( you are talkin about 1000-2000 dollars per ground) and can be left in place, its just a matter of shutting around this computer.....until over a period of time every ground can afford one.

I went to the HP site and checked their base level server, with a few modifications ( zero disks, dual processors, 2GB RAM and better I/O mostly, all of which I would think necessary for such a high I/O task ) and it came to ~$31,000. Obviously the details of cost would depend on the exact requirements but this is hardly extreme. You would also need to cable the ground with fibre optic cable from the cameras at each end to where the server was ( although you can probably use the TV companys cabling for much of this ). Who knows what the software would cost, but I'm guessing it would be fairly substancial as well, considering their very limited market. I wouldn't be surprised if total cost per installation was $100K as a _very_ rough ballpark figure with at least 1 installation per country ( to save having to make too many changes for different domestic technologies ).

Okay but if it is gonna be recalled automatically inside a computer, you are talking a few seconds to open the required program and load the stuff ( remember-this stuff doesnt have to run on windows and unix/linux is a few times faster) and a few seconds to produce a verdict.

I was actually assuming dedicated server with the application constantly running, so no need to open the required program.

For what it's worth, professionally I'm a computer geek who has been involved in some pretty major infrastructure projects ( what we're discussing here is on the small side for my experience ).

Plus i am not advocating a total removal of umpires- i just want the not-so-straightforward ones- like lbws or very faint edges to be referred to this device. Straightforward catches/bowled/stumped etc. can be officiated by field umpires.

If all they're there for is to make the decisions that are obvious, why have them at all? Leave them upto the players and if they disagree, refer it to the tech. The only thing remaining is player behavior and you can leave that upto the referee in the stands listening to the microphones.

 

[C_C]

I went to the HP site and checked their base level server, with a few modifications ( zero disks, dual processors, 2GB RAM and better I/O mostly, all of which I would think necessary for such a high I/O task ) and it came to ~$31,000. Obviously the details of cost would depend on the exact requirements but this is hardly extreme. You would also need to cable the ground with fibre optic cable from the cameras at each end to where the server was ( although you can probably use the TV companys cabling for much of this ). Who knows what the software would cost, but I'm guessing it would be fairly substancial as well, considering their very limited market. I wouldn't be surprised if total cost per installation was $100K as a _very_ rough ballpark figure with at least 1 installation per country ( to save having to make too many changes for different domestic technologies ).

You can get a 1 Gb RAM (error correction) with 3 Ghz processor and stuff for a few thousand dollards here.
Buy the products from competent third world technological firms(India or China) and you can halve the price.
but lets just say for argument's sake that it does cost 100K per installation.
if there are 10 installations per country( some countries dont even have 10 international venues) thats a million dollars per country. Aggregate of 10 million dollars.Even if the software costs a few million dollars, thats 15 million grand total.
Considering the profit ICC turns over yearly, thats chump change really.

For what it's worth, professionally I'm a computer geek who has been involved in some pretty major infrastructure projects ( what we're discussing here is on the small side for my experience ).

good to know i am talkin to someone who actually knows his shyte for a change- i am an electronics engineer.... while i may not be extremely good with nitty gritty computer details, i do know my stuff when it comes to sensors.

If all they're there for is to make the decisions that are obvious, why have them at all? Leave them upto the players and if they disagree, refer it to the tech. The only thing remaining is player behavior and you can leave that upto the referee in the stands listening to the microphones.

meh. players agreeing is a recipe for disaster and ill will. Lets not go there.