The question is, how much?

Earlier posts: Introduction.

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.

Hawk-Eye? Snickometer? Super-slow cameras? They are great television accessories, let’s leave them at that. Snickometer and super-slow cameras have not been able provide foolproof evidence in case of nicks and catches close to ground and there is still a degree, however miniscule, of conjecture about Hawkeye. If there is any doubt, I would rather accept a human error than a computer error. As Michael Atherton once said: life is unfair, why must cricket be fair?

Amit Varma states his stand next, coming up on October 21, morning India time.