The recent Test series against India gave us all cause to revisit the assumption that technology is a necessary part of modern sporting adjudication.
Let’s forget, for a moment, that India’s refusal to use the DRS is a ridiculous and arrogant use of their power in the game, and focus more on the outcome: four games of cricket without a review system, some bad calls, a lot of great calls, and we all just got on with our lives.
I’ve long argued that the pervasion of video referees and third umpires into our most loved sports has taken away more than it has given.
The great promise of technology was simple: to get rid of the ‘howler’. Now, it is patently clear that the howler is still well and truly a part of most sports, and that technology has done little to eradicate this. Supporters of technology’s use will opine that if it’s available, we should use it, but I’m not sure that holds water any more.
Video technology has created a beast, and that beast is us. Fans now have an expectation of perfection, an expectation that every decision should be correct, which is simply impossible with or without 13 super-slow motion replays. This expectation leads to days of handwringing in the media, an almost monotonous weekly outcry about how we “can’t believe they stuffed it up again!”
Television replays have contributed to this, as we now all have the best seat in the house to judge how well the officials have performed. If an on-field referee made a call in the heat of the moment, and we could see that it was wrong, we would swear, we would kick the cat and throw the remote, but that we would get over it. We could understand it. The Test series showed this to be the case.
That understanding doesn’t exist in some modern sports. We whinge and moan for weeks, because we were looking at the same replay as the referee, and they still couldn’t see what I could see!
Well this whinging has worn me down. We analyse these decisions to death, we come up with new systems to make sure it doesn’t happen again, and we go through the same routine the next week. It’s not solving the problem. It’s not even helping at all.
I am not naïve enough to think that we could ever go back to the way things were. And even I can acknowledge that there are aspects of some sports that are perfectly suited to a black-and-white, yes-or-no decision that technology can help with.
But that doesn’t mean I can’t pine for a better time.
A time when the greatest moments of the greatest games weren’t destroyed by countless replays. A time when you could jump to your feet to celebrate a try without wondering if someone in the box would stuff it up. A time when I would kick the cat, throw the remote, then get on with the game.
Jerry
Guest
The things is that it's simple and quick to check via the 3rd Umpire and significantly harder to do live. Plus the umpire is more likely to make a correct call with things like LBW and edges when he doesn't have to readjust his gaze - line umpires in tennis don't follow the ball as it makes it much harder to judge. Leave all no balls to the 3rd Umpire (have him check every ball after the fact, will give him something to do) I say.
Kev
Guest
I don't deny that it's a difficult job but if you're good enough to umpire at test level, I expect your decision making abilities to be at a very high standard. If they are constantly second guessing themselves and referring to the third umpire then maybe they shouldn't be umpiring at that level anymore. It goes without saying that Channel 9's coverage should shoulder a large portion of the blame given that they keep scrutinizing every umpiring decision in minute detail. As for checking for run outs, yeah you're right it doesn't take long but if they are referring decisions that 5 years ago, they would have a made a call on themselves, then I ask again, what's the point in having umpires on the ground if they are hesitant to make any calls themselves? If the batsman was in or out by a foot, surely the umpire on the ground should be capable of making the call.
Paul D
Roar Guru
It's actually quite difficult to pick up on exactly where the back of the bowler's front foot is, particularly when - like Mitchell Johnson was - only a fraction of his foot was behind the line. The bowler's other leg often gets in your way, and you have to quickly look up and focus on the batsman as well. Primarily the umpire is there to adjudicate on decisions and what occurs at the batsman's end. I don't have a problem with them reviewing it if they're not sure, but I'd like the front foot no-ball law changed so that it's easier to rule on in real time. Run outs - again, if they're not sure, check. Only takes a few seconds. I admit some of the umpires are very conservative about sending it upstairs though, but it doesn't take long.
Jara W
Guest
+1 This is a perfect example of how technology is being misused. How easy would it be to have a tracker on the bowlers foot. Or even a no-ball umpire working in real time on every delivery. Also agree with other posts wanting to take ball tracker out of contention. But I would go one step further and remove LBW reviews. They never sit right with me. We all know ball tracker is bogus. And how often is the decision changed due to where the ball pitches or strikes? We need to leave the umpires with some respect!! Only review disputed edges. It's the only time the fielder or batsman may be in a more advantageous position to the umpire.
Kev
Guest
You only need to go back to last years Ashes and umpires were constantly doing a no-ball check of Mitchell Johnson every time he took a wicket which was ridiculous. There's an umpire standing behind the stumps, if he isn't there to check for no-balls then why is he out there at all? This though, is nothing compared to my hate for umpires who signal for a video review of a runout while nodding their head that they think it's out. If you think it's out, then make the call. That's your job.
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
I like the notion of "technology within limits". Let's focus on the changes I'd make to the current DRS system in cricket: 1) For fielding reviews, the captain decides to review. For batting reviews, the non-striker decides to review. This is the only way to enable more judicious use of the system. For an example how to use it terribly and self-indulgently, look no further than Shane Watson. 2) I feel lbws is the one area that should not be subject to decision reviews, given it is entirely based on probability. It is not an outside edge that can clearly established or not. Even the most plumb of lbws is still an estimation. 3) Front foot no balls should be reviewed solely by the third umpire. Similar to how they used to use the red and green lights to indicate if a batsman was out (ah, the good old days), that same system could be used to determine a ball's legality. Leave the on-field umpires to review what is in front of them 22 yards away. 4) In the event of India or other countries that refuse/ cannot apply DRS technology, then the umpires reserve the right to revoke any original decision that may be proven to be incorrect via the 3rd umpire. Eg. If a batsman is given not out after outside edging a delivery, then the 3rd umpire can tell the onfield umpire he has nicked it and be given out before the next delivery is bowled.
Paul D
Roar Guru
DRS needs to be taken out of the hands of the players and put into the hands of the umpires. Remove predictive ball tracking from the grab-bag of tools, which is the one element that is in dispute and is prone to malfunction. The umpire is an expert and we should respect his decision with regard lbw calls. If he believes it was going to hit the stumps or not, back that decision. Use slow-mo replays, real-time snicko, hotspot where available.
Monday's Expert
Guest
Technology certainly seems to be becoming more important than the game and there's no way to get rid of it. The 9 commentators certainly contributed to the introduction of it with their endless forensic analysis of every umpiring mistake made, which they continue to do, which as you say led to us, the punters, calling for assistance for the umps. One way of simplifying the issue, imo, is to take it out of the hands of the players. Use the 3rd umpire to review each decision that isn't blindly obviously out (or not out).
Another Pom in Oz
Guest
To me the problem with DRS is with the players. You hit the nail on the head when you said DRS was introduced to get rid of the howler. If you're a batsman and you know you didn't nick it, or a keeper / bowler who knows damn well they nicked it, then use the DRS. The problem we have is that the players push the system to its limits, hence quickly running out of reviews and we go back to having howlers. If players only used DRS for obvious mistakes the system would be fine. I like the England team's approach (well I would, wouldn't I), whereby the bowler, keeper and skipper must all agree before going to review. I don't like Shane Watson's approach whereby he reviews every time he's given out plumb LBW! Stuart Broad was castigated by the Aussie public for not walking after an obvious nick that proceeded to clip Haddin's gloves and went to first slip. Well, if the Aussies hadn't wasted their reviews they could have reviewed that one, which was the whole point of the system. Don't blame Broad for being the 1 millionth batsman not to walk, blame the DRS wasters. My other bugbear nowadays, is the checking for no balls after a dismissal. To my mind that means the umpires are simply not doing their job. Some of them are 4 inches behind the crease for crying out loud! It also begs the question about how many no balls they're missing...
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
My biggest issue with the tv review is, that in rugby league is that we are now in a position where referees are so incapable of making a decision on their own that they may as well replace them with bouncers and just have them there to stop the players from ripping each other's heads off. In cricket, the whole challenge system is against one of the fundamental laws of cricket in that you must respect the umpires decision. Any challenge is an affront to this law and brings into dispute that slightly less tangible quality of the spirit of cricket. And that's my ten cents worth.
Cam Stokes
Roar Pro
Completely agree with your sentiment Brian, in fact I acknowledge in the article that the argument is bogus. I was referring to the unlikelyhood of administrators ever admitting they were wrong and moving away from technology, which I maintain is an unrealistic expectation. We can always hope though!
Brian M
Guest
You write the whole article arguing against video review, then end by saying there's no way we can get rid of it. I disagree. Of course we can and should get rid of a bad idea. I have always been against video review in most sports. So long as the on field officials are not deliberately making calls for or against a particular team, any bad calls will even out over the course of a game or certainly a season. The officials word should be final. The "argument" that "technology exists so we must use it" is bogus. Why not really use technology and create robots to play the games then? Why have sports with real humans at all, since we can create robotic players. Why have sports at all, let's just play video games.