For all the defective, inefficient systems used today to officiate the game of cricket, the traditional umpire standing behind the stumps will never likely change. New tools, like DRS technology, are certainly aids and, if anything, a larger priority may be improved safety or even a helmet to keep them out of harm’s way — but that is to stop a hard, red ball travelling at 150kmph plus from injuring them.
The furore over recent decisions in Test matches played across the globe mean that more pressure is on the officials than ever before; an increase in the pressures on the way crucial decisions are made but not from the usual sources. Not from close-in fielding players, who have always been a vocal, as much visible protagonist on the field. No, this threat is technical in nature and invasive by design. It is the call to digitize the decision-making process with new technology. Sounds easy enough, but how can it be in such a subjective game played at incredible speeds, and with lightning speed action?
DRS (Decision Review System) and its utilities Hawk-eye, Hot-spot and Snicko are but a few new names we recognize; in most international matches. And following those advances in umpire calls, there are two arguments: the fact that technology should be able to judge it better than a human eye and the assumption that spectators have time for officials to consider these options during a game.
The human eye is accurate to a fault — that fault being how fast we can follow a bright red or white ball; or a pink ball now. The human reaction time is certainly something that a computer will be faster at. But when all you want to do is then apply slow-motion footage down to a millisecond, then the first point should be: who is benefiting most from this Technology of DRS?
ESPNcricinfo.com reported that BCCI vice-president Niranjan Shah criticised DRS in its present form, saying it offers marginal gains for a technology that is exorbitant and not error-free. “The system requires about $60,000 per match,” Shah told ESPN. “Last year, about 65 Tests and 170 ODIs were played around the world. Multiply those numbers with $60,000. It would be a staggering amount for one or two decisions in a match.”
Change can often cost more than the current system. It means upgrading and more often, new tools and practices. In any ball sport, you require the right equipment and teams would hope that a national sports body has a hand in directing the resources provided for it and in the support and infrastructure afforded the venue. Right now, will cost also be a diminishing value of the available technology?
If India and smaller nations continue to hold-off on implementing change, then how likely are the remaining international sides able to continue to look at such a high risk factor alone? The officiating errors are now so elevated that a minor misjudgement or a bad call create the indecision in supporters’ minds that will defy rational explanation.
Change is important, but cost will restrict any change. A budget for live broadcasting is more than always a set figure, while technology is only implemented as policy that covers all Tests, every game. With India digging their toes in, and with an expensive infrastructure required, the technology does not cover all games and does not include all participating nations (let alone how accurate the decisions are).
The decision in the latest Test match played in Adelaide has escalated the logical responses, but that is not commenting on the latest Test match played in India. No technology was used in this encounter even if the ground and pitch conditions will be fondly recalled as more than likely influencing a flood of wickets taken over four days.
No argument has been made by the visitors though, whether they are aware of any calls relative to the lack of technology at Nagpur, or any other Indian Test match venue this summer. The LBW law may have been tested, but under the noise and beating sun of the continent, calls can go for or against the hosts.
Only time and high investment in a dedicated international infrastructure may see every major nation have at least one home venue which has the exact same standard DRS technology in place that allows both consistent officiating and the positive inclusion of the third umpire. With more games and venues available, it could become commonplace and best practices can be developed for the basic role. It’s not rocket science.
And as much as cricket is about practice, about a lifetime of dedication, two decisions need to be made by this well supported game: that every Test nation agrees to having the right technology or not; and the introduction of said technology is reliable and has a degree of accountability where umpires are not victimized publicly for bad decisions.
In that bent, we then become engaged in human nature, bad mouthing individuals: not scientific function or an algorithm. Organisations are now questioning the costs and outcome. If they can be confident in the decisions made, then so too can fans. Win the supporter base and the ICC and its member nations will make wise decisions off the field as well as on.
The naked eye can see a lot, but can be limited in its ‘maximum’ ability. If umpires on the field feel the need for replay, is that decision taken by another human being or a computer? The umpire may need to make a decision after watching a replay on a big screen, like in Rugby more and more today. The technology of DRS has a future, but the most fundamental case the authorities must conclude that the spectators need this technology to be immediate.
Is technology getting in the way? Sometimes we believe it is, and it may take away from the tradition. The ‘pink ball’ only adds in more unknowns and intrigue. If it is changed too much, it might drive the spectators back to their TV rooms. And then the game in its entirety would be at a loss. So the authorities need to act positively, act quickly and act soon.
