Is technology good for cricket?
Cricket, being such an enormously complicated game, from tactics and rules, to technique and training, would seem to be one of the most obvious sports to apply modern technology to, at first glance anyway. This essay will look at the past introductions of new technology, as well as those current issues being experienced today.
While different forms of technology have been intertwined with cricket since its birth, perhaps the most publicized intervention by technology came in 1978, when Graham Yallop became the first man to wear a proper cricket helmet in a Test match, although Tony Grieg and Dennis Amis had both worn motorcycle helmets earlier on. This was of course in response to the Brocken Jaw suffered by David Hookes, from the bowling of Andy Roberts in a 1977 Supertest (WSC). At first, and this will become important later, players expressed a dislike, even a hatred of the newfangled helmets that were being worn, but gradually, mainly due to the extra strain place3d on the neck during long innings and the restrictions they place on visibility, as they were educated in the benefits of wearing helmets, they began to see them as a necessary evil of the modern Game, and adjusted their techniques to accommodate the wearing of helmets.
The next major technological advance in cricket actually had nothing to do with the game at all, but its transmission. The introduction of slow motion and Super Slo-mo replays, Stump-cam, Snicko and Hotspot to television broadcasts of cricket have seen the viewer and the coach gain a greater understanding of events happening on field, and also the double edged blade of the ability to criticize umpires and have empirical proof of a decision’s correctness. While this is all well and good for the average television viewer, one must look at it from an umpires point of view: since time immemorial, players have accepted an umpires decision, even if they didn’t necessarily agree with them, they accepted it as it was one man’s opinion versus another, better sighted man. Now, the player could look up to the scoreboard and see, for instance, the ball clearly nicking the edge of the bat, and wonder why he was given not out when he was. This will make the bowler angry, leading to further conflict later on, which would never have happened 30 years previously.
The next and perhaps most controversial, technological innovation is of course the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS), perhaps better known as Hawkeye. Nearly all of modern cricket telecasting has been built around Hawkeye since the early part of the 2000’s, when it was first introduced. Hawkeye is the name given to a process carried out by no less than 6 high speed cameras, and a powerful computer that generates an incredibly accurate 3D image of the path the ball has taken after leaving the bowlers hand, incorporating any swing, seam or spin that the ball may have, as well as any deviations it takes after pitching. Newer versions of the software also track the ball after impact with the bat, allowing commentators to have accurate 3D wagon wheels, breaking down the runs scored into 1’s, 2’s etc, and their exact flight through the air. None of this is particularly controversial, as all the cameras are doing is taking pictures, working out where the ball is, then taking more, gradually “joining the dots,” if you will. What is controversial is the second part of their purpose: Predicting the flight of the ball after impact. While the flight up to impact is nigh on irrefutable, the predicted path is not a perfect representation all the time. While it is fine for a ball that has hit a batsman stuck well back on his crease having pitched on or just short of a good length, it is nowhere near as accurate for a swinging Yorker hitting the batsman’s foot on the full right on the line of off stump. As the computer has no data to use after pitching, it has no way to account for irregularities in the pitches surface such as cracks, ridges and so forth. This is where players, commentators, administrators and spectators begin to argue as to the relevance of the system. “If it can’t be accurate 100% of the time”, say the players,” why have it at all?” “But it is there to eliminate the howlers,” say the administrators. “It livens up the game,” say the commentators. But what about the spectators? Most would say they enjoy having it there, while others would say it destroys the confidence of umpires to make the snap decisions they used to. My personal opinion is that the power to refer decisions should be in the hands of the 3rd Umpire, and only allow each team 1 incorrect challenge per match for a decision that they believe should have been reviewed by the 3rd umpire in the first place.
Having had the technology in place as a part of all forms of international cricket for several years now, players, unlike those of the 1970’s, have failed to take on board the changes to the game, right or not, especially those from India, whose governing body flat out refuses to have the UDRS in series it is involved in, especially home series.
My belief is that in the future, once the accuracy of the system is improved, and a solution is found to the full toss problem, the system will flourish, as it will always be part of the game now it has been introduced.
No comments:
Post a Comment