Decisions, decisions
It's a perennial hot button issue: leave it to the men in white or let the gadgets take over? We asked around
![]() |
![]()
|
Former South Africa batsman and soon-to-be India coach
For many years I've believed in technology. I know there's a lot of debate on for and against technology, but I just believe international sport is not what it used to be many years ago. It has become highly intense, the stakes are high, there's a lot of money in the game and the umpires are under massive pressure. It's extremely unfair that we as TV audience get four replays and then make a judgement call whereas the umpire one look at fast speed.
Former Australia bowler
The human element in the game has been there from ball one. Technology is at the stage now where it's in the middle ground. For run-outs and stumpings it's quite clear cut. I am not sure if Snicko and Hawkeye get it right 100% of the time.
Former England fast bowler and reputed coach
If it's left to the umpire, he will make mistakes, so the standard of umpiring has to improve. Technology can be used if it reduces the actual errors that are made in umpiring, but at the same time technology should not be the final word, umpires should have that. You can certainly get indications from the technology. We can still stick to the old rule, which says if there is any doubt about the actual decision, the final decision still lies with the umpire and the batsman gets the benefit of doubt.