Unleash technology and improve the game

I remember Ken Palmer (a former international umpire – and a good one) giving me out at Taunton caught behind. I knew categorically that I had missed the ball; in fact I was in the process of leaving the ball and as the bat hit the top of my pad and there was a noise. Noise brings appeal, and unfortunately for me Ken gave me out. I walked off pretty disappointed, especially as I was having a tough season with the bat. In the bar afterwards Ken said to me “What’s going on Bob? I thought you were a walker?” I said to Ken: “If I had hit it I would have walked.” “Not to worry,” he said, “it is all part of the game.”

This was long before technology, and players accepted the umpire’s decisions and there was an unwritten code for all players to walk when they knew they were out. Ian Chappell changed that mindset when he announced simply that the umpire is there to do a job and therefore let him make the decision. In an ideal world we would not need technology in cricket, but as Martin Williamson quite rightly said we do not live in an ideal world.

Since technology has slipped into cricket, the batsmen seem to have decided – subconsciously or consciously – “surviving a run-out appeal is now more unlikely, so I will hang around to see if I can get away with the others”. The majority of Australians would only have walked, as Eddie Barlow used to say, “when they ran out of petrol.”

Personally I believe Hawk-Eye is a wonderful advancement and the snickometer is pretty good. Hawk-Eye is simple in its operation. Three cameras merely check the flight of the ball and a computer is calibrated to follow that calibration. I enjoy the graphics on TV too.

There is absolutely no doubt that the game is about the players. Therefore Hawk-Eye makes complete sense - if I was umpiring I would love Hawk-Eye to be available, if only to confirm my decision. As a player I know I would make more use of the bat and less use of the pad whenever I could. Ultimately that would be the result of using Hawk-Eye.

I remember Geoff Boycott saying to me if the ball hits the pad you have a 50% chance of being given not out so use it. He wouldn’t be able to say that if Hawk-Eye was brought in for lbws. It would also mean that the human difference between one umpire and another over lbw decisions would vanish. It is particularly difficult when one umpire is seen as an “Outer” while the other is a “Not-outer.” The same appeal would solicit a different decision.

Technology has to be used for all lbw decisions. The game might finish quicker to start with, but soon batsmen will adjust and get that front leg out the way, as they should do. It will be a temporary blip.

The snickometer is less accurate, and I believe that we should revolutionise cricket by providing a computer microchip in both bat and ball that immediately registers a hit. Frankly, the only two contentious decisions are the lbws and catches around the wicket: bat-pad and caught-behinds. I know if I was an umpire I would cry out to make the best decision for the player. I truly believe that players will eventually have to start walking, certainly at Test level, when the technology (paid for by the TV companies) can be made available for all decisions.

It is nice to see the ICC experimenting with technology but unfortunately they made an error on how it should be used. I hear umpires worrying about the role they play and that is natural. However, technology can be advanced at an extremely rapid rate and time-wasting would be minimal if the scientists were let loose on the problem. Hawk-Eye, for example, is available almost immediately after the ball is bowled and would take far less time than the time taken to see if the ball has crossed the boundary.

I agree that a lot of newspaper copy would have to change but there is still much to pontificate over during a five-day Test match. Duncan Fletcher proposed that the batters can have an appeal but for me all umpires faced with a problem should immediately refer it to the TV van. The third umpire would then have more sleepless nights than the on-field umpires.

There is a long way to go but I believe we should have a specific tournament arranged where the whole technology package is available and can be experimented with so that we can advance the way it is used.