Should we use more technology in cricket

[Ian J]

I don't know why everyone seems to fight shy of using technology in umpiring decisions as it must be to the overall benefit of the game. I know that technology isn't perfect as low catches for example aren't too clear but in many cases it would work well.

Apparently England and SA were offered the opportunity to trial a system where each side is allowed to refer two decisions to the third umpire and both sides rejected it.

One of the arguments is "swings and roundabouts" but that isn't always a valid argument. Bell and Collingwood went into the first test against South Africa with the media on their backs for a shortage of runs this season. As I write Bell is currently 118 not out and his place in the side is probably now secure for the rest of the season. Collingwood was out for 7 to an appalling umpiring decision by the idiot Billy Bowden and who knows what effect that will now have on his international career. England have only lost five wickets so far and two of them were dodgy decisions as Strauss was also given out LBW to a ball that pitched outside leg stump.

The umpires complain that if more decisions were made using technology they would just become glorified hat stands. In all honesty who cares as I go and watch cricket matches to see the batting and bowling and not the umpiring

[leej]

Originally Posted by Ian J

Apparently England and SA were offered the opportunity to trial a system where each side is allowed to refer two decisions to the third umpire and both sides rejected it.

They shouldn't have been offered the choice. The authorities should have told them they was going to use technology. Only two referalls seems a bit low unless that was per innings but four would seem a better number.

Don't know what decisions the technology would be used for but it would have been interesting to see the decision when snicko showed that Smith got a faint edge through to the keeper. Or did he?

[Ian J]

He did get a faint edge to the keeper but the umpire can't give him out unless someone appeals and no-one did.

There is nothing wrong with the umpires using the technology by requesting a referral. Strauss was given out LBW to a ball that pitched outside leg stump and if there was any doubt in Bowden's mind he should have been able to ask for a referral himself.

Why don't they use technology for front foot no balls as it can't be easy for an umpire to have to watch that someone like Dale Steyn doesn't overstep the line then look up and adjust his eyes to see what happens to the ball that he is bowling at 95mph

[leej]

It's happened a few times in recent times where their hasn't been an appeal. I think just Collingwood appealed about Smith, although I could be thinking of another incident during the game.

The umpires complain that if more decisions were made using technology they would just become glorified hat stands.

I wonder how much not using technology is down to the umpires. I wouldn't be surprised if behind the scenes they are the ones most against it and not the players. The umpires get stick as it is when they get it wrong and it would only get worse if their decisions were overturned on the field.

England could have done with technology being used in the final innings for LBW decisions. Panasar would have got them all out.

[LFC_SL]

This reminds me of my PM to you about Collingwood being called out Of course when I expressed my suggestion of hawk eye to my flat mate he quickly rubbished my idea as nonsense and told me as a non-expert I should stick to what I know

Realising my mistake, I then remarked a video replay should have been used. Its not like cricket is a fast-paced game anyway. Again that was shot down as he said it would interrupt the flow. Well so has 20-20

"glorified hat stands"

[Ian J]

I guess that your flatmate is a youngster which is why it's so surprising that he is resisting change. I'm one of the old buffers that are supposed to respect the traditions of old but I like to see the outcome of cricket matches decided by the standard of cricket and not by dubious umpiring decisions.

In the current Test Match we have already seen our promising opening partnership cut short by Billy "Blind" Bowden giving Alistair Cooke out caught behind with a ball that came off the top of his thigh plus dubious LBW decisions given against Monty Panesar and Hashim Amla.

[LFC_SL]

Originally Posted by Ian J

I guess that your flatmate is a youngster which is why it's so surprising that he is resisting change.

He told me cricket is sophisticated and is about so much more than pandering to current trends and flavour of the months like tennis. He also bemoans the spread of 20-20 to cater for those who cannot sit still for longer than 90 minutes... or however long a Wimbledon final is I should add

Personally I do not see a reason why a simple video replay cannot be used. In the time it takes for the ball to be returned an official standing next to a Sky employee could have relayed the correct call to the umpire via an earpiece

I point out umpires in tennis matches do not have such a complex

But I do think change needs to come from the very top and implemented universally. It cannot be at the behest of two teams in a single match on the odd occasion

[The Dude]

Cricket is such a stop-start game anyway, that I don't see how video replay can really interrupt the game to any significant degree?

From my point of view, every single appeal should be referred to video review / snickometer.


With the technology available today, there's no reason why umpires shouldn't be reduced to glorified coat stands.


Being serious, they can still run the game, they can still check on the match ball, they can still enforce fairplay and adherence to cricket's rules..... but they shouldn't be making critical decisions based on their opinion of events.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

He told me cricket is sophisticated and is about so much more than pandering to current trends and flavour of the months like tennis. He also bemoans the spread of 20-20 to cater for those who cannot sit still for longer than 90 minutes...

It is very sophisticated and complex but still has to keep up with the times otherwise it will wither away completely. A couple of years ago I was outraged at the introduction of the ridiculous 20/20 game that was about to ruin cricket and refused to watch any of the games but this year I was panicking that I might not get any tickets to see next year's 20/20 World Cup.

It's not "real cricket" but it's still good fun.

I used to love listening to Test Match Special on Radio 4 but now don't listen very often as they are rooted in the past. At long last they booted out people like Fred Trueman whose sole contribution seemed to be that nothing was as good as in his day but then they replaced him with people like Angus Fraser who just seems to be a younger version.

Cricket must move with the times and that means using the technology that is available.