You are like the people Darwin had trouble convincing.FaaipDeOiad said:Quite simply, I favour the human element of umpiring over using technology. Firstly, technology at this point is still flawed. Umpires judgement can be innaccurate, but personally I trust an impartial umpire a matter of metres from the action more than technology which may be completely off, camera angles which can lie etc.
There are some elements of the game where technology could be implemented and solve more problems than it would create. Examples are for the calling of no-balls (like in tennis), run outs and stumpings etc.Using technology for things such as determining whether or not the ball hit the edge of the bat, whether or not the ball carried to a fielder for a catch or whether or not the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps in an lbw appeal is more problematic than helpful and should be avoided.
In all the times you have seen catches referred to the third umpire, how many times has a still camera shot been able to determine conclusively whether or not a catch was taken? How much do you trust HawkEye to determine the trajectory of a ball when the pitch is seaming or turning a great deal and it hit the pads on the half-volley? How many times can you tell just from looking at video whether or not there was a thin edge on a ball through to the keeper? Sorry, but using technology will not solve any of these problems, and we should instead put our support behind the umpires and offer them the assistance they need to make the best judgement they can.
In the case where even the technology is inconclusive then you go back to the old doctrine of "benefit of the doubt" to the batsman.