The story so far...
The DecisionReview System (DRS) has captured the attention of everyone who has anything to do with cricket. From the administrators and players, to fans around the world, people have been discussing and debating the utility of DRS and accuracy of the technologies available.
The issue created headlines quite often through the summer. On a few occasions during India’s tour of England, Hot-Spot went cold. Before this series, Hot-Spot was considered 100% foolproof. It also had BCCI’s stamp of approval. However, it regularly failed to detect fine edges, and was later dumped for India’s home series.
Then we had the Phil Hughes’ LBW in Sri Lanka. Anyone who saw the incident could tell that the ball would have missed off stump. However, Hawk-Eye made a ‘tracking mistake’ and showed the ball to be hitting leg stump. Based on this erroneous Hawk-eye tracking, the batsman was adjudged Out. The matter was then referred to the ICC by the officiating umpires.
The Disagreement
The biggest point of contention here is the use of Hawk-eye, which not only tracks the ball’s actual trajectory until it hits the bat or pad, but also attempts to extrapolate the ball’s path after impact. The BCCI has maintained strong reservation about the accuracy of this Hawk-eye projection.
To complicate matters, the creators of Hawk-eye have confessed that the projection may be inaccurate beyond a distance of 2.5m. In other words, if the ball hits the batsman’s pad at a distance of over 2.5m from the stumps, Hawk-eye cannot accurately predict whether the ball was actually headed for the stumps.
Technology vs Umpires
Technology has been increasingly (and successfully) adopted in cricket for decision making and for an enhanced viewing experience. However, the ICC needs to define and articulate the precise role of technology in cricket. There needs to be a clear distinction between the role of the umpire and the role of technology. Should we use technology to assist the umpires, or should technology be allowed to take over?
While we all want umpiring decisions to be 100% accurate, if we allow technology to take over completely, then the on-field umpires will soon become redundant. Steve Waugh in his autobiography wrote that leg spinner Stuart MacGill once said to an umpire, “Your job is to hold my sweater and count to six.”
Does cricket want its umpires to be reduced to such menial existence? Thankfully, cricket lovers all across the world consider the umpires to be an integral part of the game.
Drawing the line
So, where do we draw the line between the role of technology and the role of the umpire? This, in my view can be laid down by adopting a simple philosophy. “Technology should provide factual evidence and the umpire will make the judgement.”
This statement has the potential to clear all confusion around the DRS. The key phrase here is “FACTUAL EVIDENCE” i.e. evidence of an event that has definitely happened.
If we look closely at all the moments when the (technology-aided) 3rd umpire is called for (stumpings, run-outs, doubtful catches, etc), we notice that, in all these cases, the cameras only show factual evidence. In the case of Hot-Spot, the evidence of an edge is factual, i.e. appearance of the hot spot suggests contact between the bat and ball. Based on this factual evidence, the 3rd umpire makes an Out/ Not-out judgement. The same philosophy should be applied to the use of Hawk-eye by the 3rd umpire.
The Way Forward
Let’s look closely at the proposed use of Hawk-eye for an LBW decision that has been referred to the 3rd umpire. From the moment the ball leaves the bowler’s hand till it hits the batsman’s pad, hawk-eye gives factual evidence of the ball’s trajectory, and its point of contact with the pitch and with the batsman (height and line of impact). This is where Hawk-eye must STOP.
Beyond this point of impact, the hawk-eye gets into prediction mode and extrapolates the path that the ball would have taken had the impact not occurred. This extrapolation goes beyond the limits of “factual evidence” and technology transgresses into the jurisdiction of the umpire. Based on factual evidence of the actual trajectory of the ball, point of impact, distance from the stumps, etc., it should now be the 3rd umpire’s role to adjudicate whether the ball would have hit the stumps, and whether the batsman should be adjudged LBW.
An obvious counter-argument here would be: “How do we guarantee 100% accuracy from the umpires in such situations?” While 100% accuracy can never be guaranteed, the umpires can always be trained to make LBW decisions based on “factual evidence” provided by technology. Perhaps, umpires can make use Hawk-eye simulations to enhance their judgement of a ball’s trajectory. That is the ideal scenario – where technology will help umpires make better decisions. And both will live happily ever after.
Posts
