Technology in umpiring
Who is judging the future?
By Harsha Bhogle
Over the last couple of weeks in Bangladesh the improbable has manifested itself quite dramatically. The home side, hitherto only regarded as hit-and-run guerrilla fighters were just a little bit of self-belief away from beating the world champions in a test match. And a night-watchman, at best an upright defender, hit a test double century and thought it was up there as a fable with Hansel and Gretel!
But sport can do that to you for the improbable is only another boundary to be over-run. Now, off the field, cricket faces another very interesting challenge on its tradition. The game's governing body will hear a proposal from its general manager, Dave Richardson, a fine wicket keeper and a lawyer, that seeks to allow a player to appeal against an umpire's verdict. It is revolutionary.
You can see the lawyer's mind here. The right to appeal is always an integral part of a citizen's rights but even in the legal system the hierarchy prevents appeals beyond a point. Cricket has only had one level of justice and while we sometimes complained about the quality of the judge, sometimes rudely, the game still went on. The umpire's decision was always final and that to us was just that; like Boyle's Law and the multiplication tables, it was one of the facts of life.
The proposal seeks to allow a side the right to appeal against an umpire's decision thrice in the course of a match. The higher authority, the appellate council maybe, is the television replay and while those with a face for radio will acknowledge that the camera never lies, in truth it has inherent limitations. And so, I am quite eager to know what kind of decisions a player will be allowed to appeal against.
Currently the replay is used to judge all line decisions, no-balls, run-outs and stumpings. In addition the TV umpire can, through a walkie-talkie, give his verdict on whether or not the ball has crossed the boundary, on whether a catch was cleanly taken and, in the process of judging that can inform the on-field umpire whether or not the ball hit the bat. That only leaves lbws, bat-pad decisions and thin edges behind the stumps or onto pad. The last of those, on most occasions, is easily spotted by cameras but bat-pad chances are notoriously difficult to pick and the rest require use of specific technology that the ICC has resisted using so far.
The little snick to wicket-keeper requires acceptance of the snickometer and needs to be used carefully. Occasionally, the taking of the edge will occur at the same time at which the bat hits boot or pad and if two sounds occur simultaneously, we might well need to go back to human judgment. On lbws, the most contentious of all, television sometimes uses Hawkeye to predict the path a ball would have taken. The ICC is not convinced that Hawkeye is correct every time and with good reason. Some commentators in recent times have been tempted into thinking that Hawkeye is a diagnostic tool, like an ECG or an X-Ray. It probably gives you a very good idea but often, that is not good enough.
The other, more acceptable, tool with lbws is the mat, or the shaded area seen on television screens connecting one set of stumps with another, which helps determine whether or not a ball pitched in line or indeed, hit the pads in line. It depends on the right alignment of a camera and to that extent, there is potential human error involved, but experience suggests it is usable.
The television camera has been found inadequate in judging low catches as well for what we essentially have is a two-dimensional picture of a three-dimensional event. It has been tried and discarded. There is no other tool that can help an umpire and so I wonder how much of an impact the appeals system can have.
More importantly, there are a couple of areas we need to be wary of. First of all, who has the right to appeal? If a batsman is unhappy with his decision can he appeal against it or will it have to be someone in the dressing room? That is dangerous because they will already have seen it on television and if the process is not instant, will have seen replays as well. There is also the possibility that replays will be inconclusive. If the on-field umpire has already given an out decision, and replays cannot offer a firm answer, will the decision be overturned? And if so, how do we factor in an umpire's instinct?
Remember too that some series, like the one in Bangladesh at the moment, are produced on small budgets that cannot afford all the new toys that television throws up. Cameramen and producers can make mistakes too, sometimes replays can be withheld and that is a very real possibility. The onus on getting a decision right, and maybe the result of the match, could well move from a neutral umpire to a producer and that cannot happen.
Oh, and by the way, the ICC keep sending us e-mails saying their umpires get it right around 95% of the time and truth be told, the umpiring these days is not bad at all. And so, diluting the umpire's position as the ultimate provider of justice for a very limited advance seems to me to be giving up too much for too little.
Who is judging the future?
By Harsha Bhogle
Over the last couple of weeks in Bangladesh the improbable has manifested itself quite dramatically. The home side, hitherto only regarded as hit-and-run guerrilla fighters were just a little bit of self-belief away from beating the world champions in a test match. And a night-watchman, at best an upright defender, hit a test double century and thought it was up there as a fable with Hansel and Gretel!
But sport can do that to you for the improbable is only another boundary to be over-run. Now, off the field, cricket faces another very interesting challenge on its tradition. The game's governing body will hear a proposal from its general manager, Dave Richardson, a fine wicket keeper and a lawyer, that seeks to allow a player to appeal against an umpire's verdict. It is revolutionary.
You can see the lawyer's mind here. The right to appeal is always an integral part of a citizen's rights but even in the legal system the hierarchy prevents appeals beyond a point. Cricket has only had one level of justice and while we sometimes complained about the quality of the judge, sometimes rudely, the game still went on. The umpire's decision was always final and that to us was just that; like Boyle's Law and the multiplication tables, it was one of the facts of life.
The proposal seeks to allow a side the right to appeal against an umpire's decision thrice in the course of a match. The higher authority, the appellate council maybe, is the television replay and while those with a face for radio will acknowledge that the camera never lies, in truth it has inherent limitations. And so, I am quite eager to know what kind of decisions a player will be allowed to appeal against.
Currently the replay is used to judge all line decisions, no-balls, run-outs and stumpings. In addition the TV umpire can, through a walkie-talkie, give his verdict on whether or not the ball has crossed the boundary, on whether a catch was cleanly taken and, in the process of judging that can inform the on-field umpire whether or not the ball hit the bat. That only leaves lbws, bat-pad decisions and thin edges behind the stumps or onto pad. The last of those, on most occasions, is easily spotted by cameras but bat-pad chances are notoriously difficult to pick and the rest require use of specific technology that the ICC has resisted using so far.
The little snick to wicket-keeper requires acceptance of the snickometer and needs to be used carefully. Occasionally, the taking of the edge will occur at the same time at which the bat hits boot or pad and if two sounds occur simultaneously, we might well need to go back to human judgment. On lbws, the most contentious of all, television sometimes uses Hawkeye to predict the path a ball would have taken. The ICC is not convinced that Hawkeye is correct every time and with good reason. Some commentators in recent times have been tempted into thinking that Hawkeye is a diagnostic tool, like an ECG or an X-Ray. It probably gives you a very good idea but often, that is not good enough.
The other, more acceptable, tool with lbws is the mat, or the shaded area seen on television screens connecting one set of stumps with another, which helps determine whether or not a ball pitched in line or indeed, hit the pads in line. It depends on the right alignment of a camera and to that extent, there is potential human error involved, but experience suggests it is usable.
The television camera has been found inadequate in judging low catches as well for what we essentially have is a two-dimensional picture of a three-dimensional event. It has been tried and discarded. There is no other tool that can help an umpire and so I wonder how much of an impact the appeals system can have.
More importantly, there are a couple of areas we need to be wary of. First of all, who has the right to appeal? If a batsman is unhappy with his decision can he appeal against it or will it have to be someone in the dressing room? That is dangerous because they will already have seen it on television and if the process is not instant, will have seen replays as well. There is also the possibility that replays will be inconclusive. If the on-field umpire has already given an out decision, and replays cannot offer a firm answer, will the decision be overturned? And if so, how do we factor in an umpire's instinct?
Remember too that some series, like the one in Bangladesh at the moment, are produced on small budgets that cannot afford all the new toys that television throws up. Cameramen and producers can make mistakes too, sometimes replays can be withheld and that is a very real possibility. The onus on getting a decision right, and maybe the result of the match, could well move from a neutral umpire to a producer and that cannot happen.
Oh, and by the way, the ICC keep sending us e-mails saying their umpires get it right around 95% of the time and truth be told, the umpiring these days is not bad at all. And so, diluting the umpire's position as the ultimate provider of justice for a very limited advance seems to me to be giving up too much for too little.