Stop this nonsense!
January 16th 2010 16:44
Stop it, ICC! Immediately. ICC or whoever it is that controls world cricket at the moment, that is. Stop what is happening to cricket in the name of technology. Stop it before cricket becomes a laughing stock in the world of sport for being the tail that wagged the dog.
Why all the bile, you ask? Anybody who saw Andrew Strauss declared 'out' on an LBW appeal today in the 3rd Test between England and South Africa will understand. Let me walk people through the moment - or at least those of you who did not have the misfortune of watching this live. Wayne Parnell - arguably the best young fast bowler that the cricket world has seen in a long, long time (not to mention that he is left handed) charged in and bowled an indipper at a good length at Strauss. Andrew Strauss played all over that ball which struck him high on the flap of his pad. Initial impression of yours truly - NOT OUT (Ball was going above the stumps. Too much doubt involved.) What played out on TV was slightly different. Umpire Tony Hill wasted no time in declaring Strauss out, leading to the English captain bring his bat down horizontally on his glove covered index finger in the universal symbol of 'Time out'. Time for a referral - Hawkeye style.
Predictably, Hawkeye has the ball pitching just outside the line of the stumps, hitting the batsman in line at around the flaps region of the pad and the ball kissing the top of the bail resting on the middle stump. Astoundingly, the 3rd umpire, Daryl Harper if any of you were breathlessly waiting to know, upheld the decision. What does that mean? That reasonable doubt, a concept that has been the tradition, conscience, common sense and driving force of cricket decision making for ages is now headed to the garbage heap? And does that also mean that the ICC asserts that Hawkeye is accurate down to the millimetres and even less? Where is it going to stop? While on the run, let me pose the ICC or whoever it is that seems to mysteriously make all these decisions, another question. What if Tony Hill's original decision had been 'not out'? Would Daryl Harper still have given Strauss out considering the evidence shown by Hawkeye? If the answer is 'yes', where does this take cricket?
Let me take the liberty to try and answer my own question. It will take cricket into a new age. An age where it would be improper to make any comparisons between cricketers of this era and those of years gone by. It is simply irrelevant. Cricketers of yore were not given out when the ball could have possibly been clipping the top of the bail then! Now, they are going to be. So, where is the sense in comparing?
Now, it would be easy for a proponent of Hawkeye (for I would not call somebody a proponent of technology if he/she proposes Hawkeye!) to say that I seem to be against the game moving on. Not at all. Physically the game is no longer the same that somebody like Bradman played or even the same game as somebody like Sunil Gavaskar who played relatively recently as compared to the Australian legend. Yet, comparisons still take place and in most cases, we dont come off dissatisfied in the extreme. But with Hawkeye it is all set to change. You never know when a batsman is going to get a marginal decision thanks to Hawkeye!
If this is the ICC's plan to empower the bowlers, by any stretch of the imagination, it is dastardly, not to mention - quite misplaced and misconceived. To empower the bowlers, we need good quality surfaces. Not a touchy system like Hawkeye which under the synonym of technology is running riot in cricket today.
Let me add some fuel to the already burning fire here. Here is an article which tries to explain the Decision Review system wih specific reference to Hawkeye.
Really Long Link
Relevant quote from the aforementioned article:
"The idea is that there are different degrees of “outness”. If Hawk-Eye suggests that the ball would have flicked the outside part of the stumps, then that is seen as an open verdict. In these situations, the third umpire’s advice is to let the onfield decision (whether “out” or “not out”) stand unchallenged".
"But if the CENTRE of the ball would have hit the stumps, then the third umpire is advised to give the batsman out, no matter what the onfield umpire said. The appeal is then said to be within the “Zone of Certainty”".
So, going by this, what the duo of Tony Hill and Daryl Harper did today in the case of Strauss was patently wrong. Now before we hasten to add the blame to the already beleaguered umpires, lets consider this. Was Hawkeye perfect in representing that the ball would have clipped the top of the bail? What percentage of certainty would Hawkeye attest to concerning that verdict? Where are the testing data to back any claims of accuracy up?
Once you have chewed this much, mull this one out too. Whose bright decision could it have been to allow the TV umpire to also view the predictive path as determined by Hawkeye? And if such is the decision taken by the powers that be, then why have that poor sod sweating it out in the sun hampered by such infernally poor technological devices as a pair of human eyes - aged too, that is (in most cases)? Why not pull that guy out of the field and have the TV umpire run it all by remote control?
I will go back to the premise of introducing technology into cricket. The premise of introducing technology into cricket, as spouted by most ICC officials starting with Dave Richardson was, 'to eliminate glaring mistakes (read 'decisions'). What they are doing now is introducing coefficients that alter the delicate balance that cricketers know as 'doubt' and therefore allowing more mistakes to creep in. The fervour to stop glaring mistakes is gone now. Replaced by an overruling desire to have technology supplant humans in the decision making process on the cricket field.
I dont know about others, but I am yet to come across technological inventions which successfully substitute or even supercede human intuition, intellect and estimation - all of which are involved in this decision making process.
PS - This is by no means the worst decision I have seen during the Hawkeye-Decision Review System regime. But this is the proverbial straw on the camel's back!
| 59 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog