cricket betting betway blog banner small
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Where is technology taking us?

  1. #1
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    The Castle

    Where is technology taking us?

    It started with a stump mic, morphed into referrals for run outs, then grew into Snicko, Hot Spot and Hawkeye. Now, with player referrals to be trialled, it's fair to ask "Where is technology taking us?"

    In 1995 I spent a goodly number of early morning hours watching Australia play the West Indies in the Caribbean. The coverage of that tour included what was then known as "spin vision", aka the super slow mo camera. It was wondrous. No longer were there fuzzy replays of deliveries and guess work as to the type of ball which had been bowled or whether there was an inside edge, now we could see in crystal clear vision the various subtleties of Shane Warne as he set out to bamboozle the then world champions.

    In his most recent tome, Gideon Haigh opines that at least part of Warne's appeal as a cricketer could be put down to this piece of technology. That, for the average punter, the super slow mo went some way to unravelling the intricacies of the wrist spinner's art. That it made the game somehow more accessible.

    Fast forward 13 years. It's Australia v Sri Lanka at the WACA in a one-dayer, and Andrew Symonds at cover throws himself full-length to his left to pull off a stunning catch to dismiss Chamara Silva from a full blooded cover drive. It's one of those amazing catches which turn games and end up in highlight reels for a few seasons. Or so it seemed.

    Silva stood his ground and looked at Symonds, who at the time was celebrating his athletic prowess with team mates. Then the super slow motion replay was shown, and it appeared that the ball had hit the ground as Symonds took the catch. It seemed the batsman may not have been out, though there was only one angle with the benefit of the super slow mo replay.

    The same piece of technology, along with "Hot Spot" (an infra red camera which shows whether the ball has hit the bat) has also illustrated myriad incorrect LBW decisions since its introduction. Hawkeye (a computer graphic which tracks the ball's path until it hits the pads, then estimates whether it would have hit the stumps) is also used in coverage of international matches to allow commentator scrutiny of the umpire's LBW decision, despite its inventors admitting it is not completely accurate.

    Improved technology has also led to certain players' honour being questioned when it comes to catches which have been claimed in matches where the technology is available. Just this Australian summer there were two controversial incidents involving Michael Clarke (against New Zealand and India respectively) whilst Symonds, Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey all came under scrutiny for not walking when apparently caught behind. Each was given not out by the field umpire, despite "Snicko" (a sound recording as the ball passes the bat) indicating they may have hit the ball.

    The upshot of these technological developments is that those watching the game on television get a clearer idea of whether a decision was correct than either the spectators at the ground or in some cases the players themselves. The down side to the development is that those TV spectators have a habit of imbuing the players and umpires on the field with the knowledge which the technology has revealed.

    In the 2003 World Cup, Sourav Ganguly claimed a catch at slip off Adam Gilchrist from the bowling of Harbhajan Singh, which was given not out. Replays indicated the ball bounced well in front of the fielder, prompting a deal of teeth gnashing in the commentary box at the time. When the replay was shown on the big screen at the ground, the crowd booed loudly. The inference in that case, as with Clarke's this summer, was that the fielder must have known the ball had bounced. But must they? Gilchrist himself put that incident in perspective when, in the midst of the booing, he turned to Ganguly with a smile and said "Easy game with the replay, isn't it?"

    Therein lays the danger with the emphasis on technology. It can show us what has transpired, but not what the players and officials know is transpiring before them, in real time. For that reason, spectators must be careful not to jump the gun in accusing players of taking liberties on the field.

    The ICC is soon to trial player referrals to third umpires, though the manner in which the referrals are to be utilised, and the number available to each team, is yet to be determined. Moreover, will the third umpire be able to demand certain camera angles from the host broadcaster, or will a television producer determine which information is passed on to the match official? An even more important issue is whether the use of this technology will remove the controversy, or simply move it from the field to the third umpire?s room.

    The game's governing body needs to be careful in determining which technology is used to alter a decision. For example, will a noise picked up on Snicko be sufficient grounds to reverse a "not out" caught behind decision, or will there need to be some other supportive evidence, such as the super slow mo revealing an alteration in the manner in which the ball was spinning as it passed the bat, or Hot Spot showing an edge? If no corroborative evidence is available, will the original decision need to be upheld? Will Hawkeye, which Kerry O'Keeffe says gives everything out after lunch because it's been drinking, be sufficient evidence to decide an LBW decision? Will the playing conditions stipulate that the original decision stands absent compelling evidence, or will the time honoured tradition of the batsman getting the benefit of the doubt finally be enshrined into the Laws of Cricket? It is not enough to simply stipulate that technology be used. There must be parameters established so players, officials and broadcasters all know where they stand in its use.

    The use of technology in cricket will no doubt remove some controversy from the game, and for that reason it ought to be implemented. We must remember, however, that it will not be a panacea to the problems associated with contentious dismissals.

    Thoughts please.
    Last edited by Burgey; 01-04-2008 at 09:33 PM.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
    - JK Galbraith
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**** over your head and get a woolly bull to f**** some sense into you.

    "Do you know why I have credibility? Because I don't exude morality." - Bob Hawke

    #408. Sixty three not out forever.

  2. #2
    State Vice-Captain slugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    after reading your thread i came to the conclusion that it became only possible for you to argue a decision or a non decision, because of the use of technology, without technolgy youve got nothing but his word against his, thts why you have an umpire where is word is final. but a hundred years have been and gone and technology has tapped the umpire on the shoulder and said "sorry mate.. your decision is actually incorrect"

    ever since the run out camera was introduced there has been a skill increase or a focussed development on fielding and throwing the stumps down, im sure if someone did the calculations i bet you get an increse % wise on run outs compared to prior tech. with this technology availible very few umpires rarely make a decision out in the middle they more often refer it. reason is simple technology will give the best decision..

    i rarely hear about people complain about a run out decision made using technology..

  3. #3
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    I think one's views on the merits of technology are bound up, inextricably, with what you expect it to deliver. For mine, I'm not one of these people who think that technology should not be used unless it makes everything clear cut and solves all bordeline decisions. Rather, technology is a tool in the decision making armoury of the officials - sometimes it will make things clear cut, other times it will confuse. And that's OK, so long as decisions are still underpinned by the principle of the batsman getting the benefit of the doubt. And for god sake, if the 3rd umpire, while using technology, makes a bad decision, then blame and get rid of him and not the technology.

  4. #4
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    The Final Frontier
    The future says technology. A hundred years from now, technology will not just tap the umpires shoulder, it will elbow it's way in further. The thinking being that once you allow it in the decision making process (run-outs), it's only a matter of time before the next logical step is used for other forms of dismissal. That's the way it works in the real world. Gradual implementation to allow for public acceptance. Right now, I am ready to accept it for contentious catches and LBW's.

    After all, what is the objective here ? It is to allow for as fair and transparent a contest as possible.
    And with the ever rising stakes of international competition, a wrong umpiring decision at a crucial moment could make all the difference between mass celebration or riotous reactions.

  5. #5
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Exactly. The objective is to have as fair and transparent process as possible. If it overturns just 10% of incorrect decisions, thats a huge step forward. It is so illogical to say 'wait till its perfect'. Because it'll never be perfect and its like saying no one should umpire a game unless they are perfect. It makes no sense. All you can do is get better. Not perfect, just better than you are today. Keep doing that and hopefully we'll eventually see a game with such contentious decisions being a rarity rather than a fairly regular occurrence.
    Last edited by silentstriker; 02-04-2008 at 10:30 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Technology in Cricket
    By robmcmenamin in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 27-03-2008, 04:24 AM
  2. Why not use TV technology more?
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 07-01-2008, 01:29 PM
  3. Technology In Cricket
    By James in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 28-08-2007, 02:52 AM
  4. the use of technology in umpiring
    By jagaways in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-12-2003, 10:44 AM
  5. Technology
    By Kimbo in forum World Cup 2003
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17-02-2003, 03:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts