Technology Debate: Two conflicting views

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/england...1838367,00.html

Camera-shy cricket is an expensive game for suffering Pakistan

Mike Brearley
Sunday August 6, 2006
The Observer

One of life's chief lessons, no doubt, is that life is unfair. In its own small way, cricket like every other form of life underlines the message, especially in the short term. Pakistan's justified sense of grievance on Friday, when three cut-and-dried decisions went against them before lunch, must have been amplified yesterday with every extra run Kevin Pietersen scored.

It's not only the victim of such mistakes who feels cheated. The more neutral observer is left with a bad taste in the mouth. We all hope for, or dream of, justice. Indeed, love of truth is one factor in the umpire's make-up. I remember Dickie Bird smiling when he gave me out - not sadistically, but from pleasure in seeing it as it was.

To my mind, the fact of injustice is compounded by the failure of the authorities to take the natural steps to eliminate many such cases. I mean, of course, the refusal to use cameras more extensively. I can't for the life of me see why they could be used to judge Andrew Strauss out (caught off bat and boot, sweeping) at Chandigarh (second Test between India and England this year), but couldn't be used an hour later to judge Pietersen not out, when he was given out caught off his forearm, sweeping.

What actually happened in each case was equally, and decisively, verifi ed by the camera, but the rules allowed the on-fi eld umpire (Darrell Hair again, as it happens) to refer only the fi rst (where the issue was whether the ball had touched the ground) and not the second (had the ball hit edge or glove?). On Friday Strauss, Pietersen and Alastair Cook would all have been given out to edges that the umpires failed to detect. Everyone with access to TV knew the truth; the last to know are the umpires themselves.

Unlike football or rugby, cricket is a game of discreet moments and thus lends itself to the use of technology for diffi cult decisions. Personally, I love TV replays. I enjoy judging my own umpiring decisions against them. And, as I say, I like the fact that we get to know what ac tually happened; the truth is valuable and reassuring. What are the arguments against? One is that cricket is a place where you learn to take the rough with the smooth, including wrong decisions. It's part of life's rich fabric, and part of the spirit of cricket. True , but there will be no shortage of bad luck and unfairness in life or in cricket, and we will never get rid of all mistakes, so character will still be formed and revealed, for better and for worse (and one source of character-building is coming to terms with one's own contribution to the bad luck). But it is good to get rid of as many of the wrong decisions as possible.

Another argument against is that cameras lie, even that they can be used to misinform. Like all information, camera evidence has to be assessed. Care needs to be taken with the equipment, its installation and the interpretation of its data. But no one could doubt the veracity of camera evidence for (most) line decisions, and the same goes for questions of whether the ball took an edge or touched a glove. The cameras may at times mislead, but most often they enable a skilful interpreter to get to the truth. Moreover, those who question camera evidence sometimes combine this view with assertions like 'umpires are getting 93 per cent of decisions right'; but do they stop to think how such percentage fi gures are arrived at, if not via camera evidence? It is also said that umpires don't like extended use of technology. But the game's purpose is not to please the umpires. And there will always be a place for the umpire. We can't dispense with the need for human judgment and honesty in face of pressure, nor with the requirement for judgment on a player's intentions, which no camera can on its own determine.

Duncan Fletcher has advocated the use of appeals against umpires' decisions: each team would be allowed three in an innings (upheld appeals not counting). I'm not in favour. The possibility of appeals would lead to extra pressure when star batsmen are in. One wouldn't waste an appeal to get, say,Glenn McGrath given out, but might appeal three times to get rid of Ricky Ponting. Is this fair? And would it not also lead to delays and to tactical shenanigans? For instance, would the batsman have to ask the captain (or even worse the coach) if he may appeal? After all, he may think his dismissal is worth one while his captain may prefer to save the appeals for more signifi cant players. But the main aim is to get things right, not to give people a chance to 'weigh' diff erent possible dismissals in this sort of way.

Pakistan have reason for grievance. But they also made many mistakes; their fi elding was at times inept, the bowling undisciplined and unintelligent, the slips consistently too deep - all this and more compounded and even in part constituted their bad luck and left them up against a score 150-200 runs more than England, for all their undoubted fl air and confi dence, might have settled for in the conditions. Not that it's easy to assess this Headingley pitch. Typically, it exaggerates the quality of the bowling; good bowling looks very, very good, while bad bowling looks horrid.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...2300943,00.html

Umpires’ standing can’t be compromised by technology
DAVID GOWER

England have been blessed by good fortune in this Test, but calls for greater use of television in helping the umpires should be resisted
IF EVER there was an example of a batsman making the most of his good fortune it was Kevin Pietersen at Headingley. Without taking anything away from what was another fabulous innings, full of all the usual Pietersen attributes as he bristled with controlled aggression, it was impossible not to sympathise with Pakistan, who could have had England in all sorts of strife halfway through the first day if some key decisions had gone their way.

Such days give us the chance to revisit the debate as to what we should do to make the job of the umpire easier without compromising the status of the men in the middle, who are still currently the high court judges of the game. We would not in any way wish to see their status diminished to that of commissionaire, solely waving the players on and off the field at the appropriate time.

Pietersen was very lucky when, having scored just two runs, an inside edge on to his thigh pad and then into the wicketkeeper’s gloves was not spotted.

In real time such inside edges are not always easy to pick up, as is evidenced by the number of leg-before decisions given against batsmen who have edged the ball onto their pads. There are noises that can help the umpire make his decision as well as the evidence presented to his eyes alone, but the frequency of such errors show how tricky it is to make the correct call.

What happens next is that television trains all its technology on to the incident and soon comes the verdict that the umpire has erred, as in slow motion the inside edge becomes ever more apparent. Pakistan’s sense of injustice can only have been heightened when, soon after Pietersen’s let off, Alastair Cook was similarly reprieved after the ball found the inside edge of his bat.

It is easy then to back Duncan Fletcher’s preferred solution. The England coach wants to allow teams three referrals per day when they can request that the third umpire be allowed to have a look with the technology available and use the extra information to come to the right decision. To adopt this system would satisfy many people’s sense of justice and it would do much to remove the win some, lose some philosophy that batsmen often seem to live by.

The England and Wales Cricket Board are moving towards this by running with it in next year’s televised games in the C&G Trophy, but the International Cricket Council (ICC) has so far rejected calls for it to be tested.

One country that voted against it was Pakistan. Bob Woolmer, their coach, explained why yesterday. In his view, to have a system that openly questions the umpire’s decision is to risk making them look foolish when a decision is questioned and overturned.

It has always been a basic premise of the game that the umpire’s decision is final. One can argue that they can already be made to look foolish once television has analysed their every move — even though we always strive to sympathise with the instant nature of every decision they have to make.

Woolmer certainly has a strong point. The umpire has to control the game by his skill in making the right decisions and by his strength of personality in dealing with the players.

It is that same strength of mind that comes in handy when backing oneself to deal properly with every decision. Bear this in mind when looking at Darrell Hair’s view of the Pietersen inside edge; he has to be 100% sure that the bat has made contact and, as throughout the history of the game, if there is any doubt it favours the batsman. If he had the slightest doubt, then by definition he made the right call.

Traditionalists would advocate that that is the way the game should continue and I like the sound of that.

Those same traditionalists would also like to return to the days when batsmen walked, and in our commentary box Michael Holding is the man treading that path with a passion. But on that score I am afraid they really have no chance.

Adam Gilchrist apart, I can think of no modern batsman who makes a point of walking. I began my career at a time when many county players did walk and I was the same — even walking once at Edgbaston when the nick was so faint that by the time I had got back to the pavilion I was beginning to doubt that I had hit it.

It only took a few years for that honesty to be driven out of me. In its place was a pragmatic attitude of the sort that let the umpire get on and just do his job. In Test cricket the view was that one should not concede any kind of advantage to the opposition, who were certainly not going to give you anything either. That is how it is still and there are no signs that it will change.

Umpires are aware of this and, though they would of course love players to help them out, the officials know that they are on their own out there.

The fact that ICC statistics show they get 95% of decisions right is heartening and a valid defence against those who would advocate greater use of the toys of television.

It is well worth remembering that umpires are proud folk and that to be part of the elite panel is an honour for them, as much as it an honour for a player to be picked for an international team.

That sense of pride extends to getting it right in the middle with all the attendant pressures of Test match cricket and we should not be undermining that.

Strength of character is what defines the sportsman; it should be a vital part of the player’s armoury and it is what helps them deal with bad days in the game, whether those bad days are self-inflicted — as mostly they are — or brought on by an error of judgment beyond their control.

"It is also said that umpires don't like extended use of technology. But the game's purpose is not to please the umpires. And there will always be a place for the umpire. We can't dispense with the need for human judgment and honesty in face of pressure, nor with the requirement for judgment on a player's intentions, which no camera can on its own determine."

In the football WC, referees were under such tight scrutiny and even FIFA President lambasted the one who gave 12 yellow cards in one game! Don't see why it can't move onto cricket - why make umpires sacred cows - are they doing anybody a favor by umpiring? Are they doing it for the love of it, and free of charge? They are being paid like others, and so should be accountable for their decisions and handling of the affairs. Moreover, technology is there - so use it!

When a cricket player performs badly he is dropped from the team, when captain makes poor decisions the responsibility is taken from him. What makes umpires so special and Mr. Hair who after long series of bad and clearly biased decisions he is still the Elite Umpire?