Wicket to Wicket

I'm one of those rare cricket writers who is strongly in favour of the use of technology in umpiring. And yet, I was dismayed by what I saw on view during the recent Super Series. Technology, if it is to serve its purpose well, must be unobtrusive. The experiments during the Super Series were a lousy way to do it. People come to a cricket match to immerse themselves in the ebb and flow of a contest, and that ebb and flow, the rhythm of the game, should be compromised as little as possible.

The fans also want a fair contest, though. They come to watch a battle between two teams of 11 men each (ok, 12 now sometimes), and they want to watch the better side win on the basis of how they do the things they do: bat, bowl, field. The umpires are merely the means to an end: to come up with the right decisions, which alone can do justice to the efforts of the players.

And I feel rather sorry for them right now. In recent years, umpires have come under increasing scrutiny, and their mistakes are highlighted as never before. It is unlikely that umpires are actually making more mistakes than before. It is just that every error they make is far more likely to be exposed to the world. That is because the technology to catch those mistakes exists. So why don't we use that technology to correct them as well? Why not give the umpire a tool that empowers him and enables him to function more efficiently?

I must confess to a gnawing ambivalence over how much room should be granted to technology in umpiring. I am a cricket romantic who also wants to be a realist. It’s not an easy balance to achieve. Cricket is a game of ancient times and it survives the impatience of the modern age because its followers care about its past and traditions and its quirks and oddities. I see umpires as an integral part of this circle. Cricket is a slow and long game in which the real action time is a fraction of the time spent on field. You can argue that spectators don’t pay to watch umpires, but they are part of the whole package that makes cricket the game that it is. They add character and charm. I would hate to see them reduced to hat racks.

But I am not oblivious to the advantages of technology. It’s hard to imagine run-outs and stumpings being ruled without the help of television cameras. Indeed, cricket is a better game for it. But the central question is, how much? At what point does technology become an intrusion, a hinderance, a spoilsport? And why are we seeking perfection in decision making in a game of cricket?

That said, I don’t really mind umpires taking help, if they wish to, over all line decisions, because I believe only in case of line decisions can the television camera provide incontrovertible and visible evidence. So if an umpire is in doubt over the line of the ball while ruling on an lbw decision, he should be able to access the picture that will be used to damn him if he gives a wrong ruling. But there has to be a better way of accessing this information because delays are irritating for everyone and they take away spontaneity. If lbws are allowed to be referred, it is likely that almost every appeal will be referred as it happens for run-outs and stumpings. There are far more lbw appeals. What happened during the Super Series was unsatisfactory and unedifying.