The technology debate - again

Once again, the issue of the use of technology in umpiring has been badly misunderstood. Or, more accurately, the interpretation of it has continued to be approached from the wrong standpoint.

Following the umpiring conference in South Africa last week, the forthcoming experiment with third umpire assistance on lbw decisions in September's Champions Trophy, expected since March when the ICC's Cricket Committee-Playing first agreed to it, attracted some belated media attention.

Former Australian captain Allan Border was among those concerned at the experiment. "I believe technology should be limited and I think this is dangerous because it is changing the values of the game," Border told the Brisbane Courier-Mail. "I can see this going further and further to where we won't have umpires. It's almost got to the stage where the easiest place to umpire is an international game. The occasional human error has been part of the beauty of the game for as long as it has been played."

Border is not alone in these sentiments, but they represent a facile argument which has its priorities misaligned.

The debate over the increased use of technology in umpiring is an exceedingly simple one. There is really minimal room for procrastination, if we're serious about it. The primary question to be answered is which is more important: The future of umpiring or the future of cricket? Busier umpires or better-umpired matches? More correct decisions or the maintenance of existing formalities?

Glenn McGrath appeals for a LBW decision.

Pose it any way you wish, the principle remains the same: are we aiming for a better standard of decision making, or the preservation of traditional methods for producing decisions, the standard of which could be improved? Once this question is actually decided, the rest should be relatively painless. Controversy involving technology mainly exists at present because cricket has not resolved which direction will ultimately serve it best.

Those in favour of restricting the third umpire to deciding run-outs and stumpings argue against technological encroachment with terms like "glorious uncertainties," "tradition," the "culture of cricket," "beauty of human error" etc. Applied in context, those features are all very well. None of them, however, should really be relevant to umpiring.

The point overlooked is that the current role of the umpire is not an intrinsically essential element of the game. The purpose of umpires is to facilitate the playing of the game by the players; their function should be adapted to best suit the ideal structure of the game, rather than it being structured to suit them. In the recent Rediff chat, Prem Panicker paraphrased WG Grace in this regard. The doctor once said something along the lines of "they've come to watch me bat, son, not you bowl." The sentiment applies similarly to umpires and their jobs.

This is not an argument for an indiscriminate reliance on technology or a polemic against umpires, who are and will continue to remain valuable in their own right. On the contrary, cricket could be immediately benefited by withdrawing the role of the TV umpire in deciding catches, pending a review of the system.

As has been argued here before, the current application of technology to catching decisions is flawed. Unlike fixed-position cameras determining whether a bat has crossed the crease before the bails have been dislodged - with even that relatively straightforward process proving subjective and controversial enough over the years - the use of replays to determine whether a ball touched the ground before being caught has proved utterly unworkable. Virtually without exception, batsmen are given the benefit of the doubt due to the inherently inconclusive nature of replays, fielders are thus made to feel like cheats, batsmen are encouraged not to walk, umpires have their confidence to rule eroded, and generally the game has been diminished.

That, however, should not be seen as the fault of technology per se; merely the way it has been applied. There is a better alternative, addressed in the same column last year (http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/oct/25dan.htm).

One question that can be justifiably posed, though, is why now? Why, so soon after introducing the elite panel of umpires, would we not first wait to see whether these umpires improve the standard of decision-making? So far they have not, but it would have been understandable had the ICC waited. Credit, though, for trialling something new.

The frustrating aspect of the debate has been that the range of opinion has been consistently misguided alone the lines detailed above. Quite possibly this is because the experts quoted every time the issue arises, having grown up and played the game with the immutable role of umpires, have come to view their function as being as permanent and unalterable as a set of stumps. From a more detached angle, we can put this in its proper perspective.

If one were to get pedantic, one could say the advent of pads, gloves and helmets are "technological intrusions" not originally part of the game. They too, at one time, "changed the values of the game," in Border's words. The introduction of helmets had its critics, yet ultimately has been beneficial. Similarly, it is not credible to argue against assistance for umpires, who are not even directly involved in the action, on the grounds of tradition or the danger of making umpiring "easier" - that should be the goal!

To be sure, there are questions over the experimental system, as outlined in March (http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2002/mar/20dan.htm). Will the TV umpire become the sole de facto authority, and if so how will that affect the ability of the field umpires? Will the TV umpire view a sufficient number of replays to reliably advise the field umpire? Can the third umpire be consulted on enough aspects of a decision to make the system consistent?

That is all to be determined, and will remain a matter of conjecture until we have some trials on which to more accurately form opinions. And that is exactly what has been introduced - a trial period during the ICC's baby World Cup, the Champions Trophy. It will remain an interesting experiment to observe, as it was when first announced.

Today, no one would think of rescinding the third umpire's role in run-outs and stumpings. Who is to say we won't feel the same way regarding lbw decisions in 10 or 20 years?

Also read: All about the Hawk-Eye

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw