DRS vs Technology?
December 2nd 2011 13:13
Yeah, this is a favourite punching bag alright! But see, nothing prods the good old memory like a repeat occurrence of an already recognized "mistake".
Scenario - 1st Test between Australia and New Zealand, bouncy wicket, Ponting struggling but valiant, New Zealand as always scrappy and resourceful - always punching above their weight.
Incident - Young New Zealand batsman (part time medium pacer) Brownlie trundles in and bowls a slow in-dipper. Ponting with his head falling a shade outside the off stump (actually in better position than usual) has the ball rapping him the inside half of the front pad - a little high but seemingly still plumb in front.
Umpire Asad Rauf shakes his head. Ross Taylor, New Zealand's new captain asks for a review. Hawkeye rules that the ball would have hit the stumps and also rules that the impact was within the stumps. However in the UDRS they have this curious phenomenon called the 'Umpire's call'. Which says that unless the technology in question says that the umpire is wrong by a country mile, his original call stays.
Pray where is the sense in that? If an umpire is wrong and the technology out there is able to highlight that there is indeed a case for reversing the decision, why should the original decision still stay? There is a mitigating cricumstance though, making the whole case even stranger. If Rauf had initially given this decision as 'out' then his decision would have stayed put. Strange does not even begin to describe it.
Without ever thinking of stepping into arguments discussing the potential accuracy of a Hawkeye-like system where it deigns to rule on millimetres, the entire process does seem like it can use an overhaul.
Is it time to empower the umpire who is out there so that he can actually see the technology's representation and then make a call between choosing his original version or the technology-represented version? I think so!
All this apart - Ponting would not mind the existing state of affairs. The umpire's call - in his case - is 'not out'. No matter what the technology says!
Scenario - 1st Test between Australia and New Zealand, bouncy wicket, Ponting struggling but valiant, New Zealand as always scrappy and resourceful - always punching above their weight.
Incident - Young New Zealand batsman (part time medium pacer) Brownlie trundles in and bowls a slow in-dipper. Ponting with his head falling a shade outside the off stump (actually in better position than usual) has the ball rapping him the inside half of the front pad - a little high but seemingly still plumb in front.
Umpire Asad Rauf shakes his head. Ross Taylor, New Zealand's new captain asks for a review. Hawkeye rules that the ball would have hit the stumps and also rules that the impact was within the stumps. However in the UDRS they have this curious phenomenon called the 'Umpire's call'. Which says that unless the technology in question says that the umpire is wrong by a country mile, his original call stays.
Pray where is the sense in that? If an umpire is wrong and the technology out there is able to highlight that there is indeed a case for reversing the decision, why should the original decision still stay? There is a mitigating cricumstance though, making the whole case even stranger. If Rauf had initially given this decision as 'out' then his decision would have stayed put. Strange does not even begin to describe it.
Without ever thinking of stepping into arguments discussing the potential accuracy of a Hawkeye-like system where it deigns to rule on millimetres, the entire process does seem like it can use an overhaul.
Is it time to empower the umpire who is out there so that he can actually see the technology's representation and then make a call between choosing his original version or the technology-represented version? I think so!
All this apart - Ponting would not mind the existing state of affairs. The umpire's call - in his case - is 'not out'. No matter what the technology says!
| 16 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog