Use of Techonolgy in Cricket - II : Hawk Eye

First of all I would like to welcome the decision by Simon Taufel to refer the first Kevin Peterson dismissal in the Lords test to the third umpire after giving it out himself. You need to be courageous to put your decision on the line in front of TV cameras. Kudos to Simon Taufel for that.

 

Coming back to our topic of discussion, about the use of technology in cricket for aiding umpiring decisions. I will discuss about Hawk Eye here. Hawk Eye, probably one of the most revolutionary cricket technologies in its time, has also been marred with a lot of controversies. While it has been used extensively by broadcasters to liven up the viewing of cricket, its use as an aid to umpires has been long debated. Infact it has been used in the Wimbledon for decision making, and was also involved in a controversy there. Roger Federer was clearly not happy with the technology being used in the 2007 final against Rafael Nadal (in reference to a line call that was called IN). We have often heard a lot of objections to using the Hawk Eye in cricket officially. A lot of those objections are invalid, and made by either ex players or commentators who have not gone and looked how it actually works. Hawk eye uses the same technology as used for missile tracking. It records the trajectory of the ball at various intervals, using cameras that are far more sophisticated than the cameras used for TV broadcast, as explained in this article. The same applies to the Hawk Eye cameras used in Wimbledon, where the normal TV cameras record 150 frames per second, cameras used in Hawk Eye record 1000 frames per second, thereby recording the trajectory more closely than can be viewed on TV. Hawk eye officials have refuted Roger Federer’s objection here, and stated that the hawk eye decision was not ‘definitely wrong’. This clearly shows how powerful the cameras are, and how they capture stuff that naked eye finds difficult to do. More data about hawk eye is available on its site http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/

 

Coming back to the point, these cameras track the trajectory of the ball before and after pitching, and extrapolate the data to find the path of the ball. The common objections are that it cannot extrapolate how the ball moves in the air, and off the pitch. Both are wrong, to an extent. It can capture what the ball does off the pitch, since it tracks the trajectory before and after pitching. Hence any movement off the pitch will result in that being captured. Swing in the air is the more difficult thing to capture, but so is it for the umpire. I would rather have the umpire’s judgements being based on the technology instead of his own whims and fancies. It can do whatever a naked eye can do, with more accuracy.

 

The bigger objection is that it may replace umpires. I do not know why. Since the beginning it has been said that it should be used as an aid for the umpires, rather than a substitute for the umpires. The final decision has to be made by the umpire. Atleast you can rule out some of those howlers where the umpires miss balls hitting the middle stump. Or at the very least, use it as an aid in deciding whether the ball pitches in line with the stumps. (Though to be very frank, I do not understand this rule of cricket too. If the ball pitches 1 cm outside leg stump, and the batsman pads at it, and it is hitting middle stump, why should that be not out?)

 

If the objection is that the matches would be over far earlier, I think we need to give something here to the bowlers as well. Otherwise, very soon we will have teams playing with 8-9 batsmen, since the rules would anyway not allow bowlers to be of any use. Why make the game longer at the expense of a bowler who has rightly caught a batsman plumb in front? Or if you want the game to be really long, remove this controversial mode of dismissal all together. Lets not have LBWs.

 

I think we need to realize, that the more technology advances, the more it will be used in broadcast, and the more the umpires will be exposed. This is a way of bringing consistency in the game and their decisions. And it is far more accurate than human eye. We have started using the Third Umpire for run-outs and even catches. And that has not replaced the umpires. On the contrary, it has added a lot more fun and zing to the game. Why not use this as well? The umpires will be far more relieved, and if big match stress has anything to do with incorrect decisions, this will also be avoided once they are empowered with technology.

 

Use of Technology in Cricket - I

In the last few years, as technology has evolved, I have been curious to understand why it is not used more in international cricket, to aid umpires thus stopping them from making blunders that change the course of a match. The argument given is a lame one, saying that it evens out in the long run. What a ridiculous explanation for hiding the inconsistencies of umpires? I mean, if someone had given a wrong decision against VVS Laxman in his epic 281 against Australia in 2001, would that have evened out? India would have lost the series, and Laxman would have been fined for questioning the umpire’s decision. (By the way, he was given a rough decision in the first innings of the same match!!). Assume that someone is given a rough decision in a match like a World Cup final? If someone’s career ends because he gets a wrong one from the umpire? How does that even out?

 

We have a whole host of arguments, against the use of technology in assisting umpires in decision making, beautifully explained and negated by Amit Verma in his blog 23-yards. I have been a fan of this blog, and the author clearly states the objections and answers. The author also tries to clear the doubt that technology will replace umpires. What I will do is try and take this a step forward.

 

Over the course of the next few posts, I shall try to reason why use of technology is a must, and why the sooner people realize this, the better it is for the game. But then, cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties, and umpires are the chief sponsors of those uncertainties. When shall we realize that I watch a match to see Sachin bat and Mcgrath bowl, and Jonty field, and definitely not to watch Steve Bucknor give an incorrect decision when it is least required.  

 

I agree that umpiring is a thankless job, but then that is all the more reason why technology should be used to aid umpires. In the next post we shall discuss Hawk Eye, and try to reason why people are against using it in cricket.

The 20-20 team..

So, finally the Trinity of Indian cricket have realized that it is time to pave way for the next generation of cricketers in the next generation version of the sport, 20-20. I would congratulate them on this step. This marks the end of one era and a beginning of another, and the sooner we realize this and take steps to prepare youngsters to fill in those big boots of Sachin, Dravid, Kumble, Laxman and Ganguly, the better it will be for Indian Cricket. So a good step taken by the 3 senior players and a good decision by the selectors to look at 30 youngsters must be lauded. 20-20 isn’t the most pure form of cricket either where you would require the defence of Dravid and the class of Sachin and Sourav. The good decision was to bring back players like Kaif, Raina and Pathan, all of whom were brilliant to begin with, but lost it somewhere in the middle. But then again, didn’t the same happen with Yuvraj? And look at the return of the guy, so much so that now almost everyone relies on him to see India through in ODI chases. I think all the above players have talent, and should be given a chance to prove themselves again. Here again the 20-20 version provides a good opportunity in bringing back the confidence of these guys, without putting too much pressure on them.

However, one thing that baffles me is that Dhoni is expected to captain India in this 20-20 World Cup. Isn’t Yuvraj a better and a more experienced player? Shouldn’t this opportunity be used to groom him as the next ODI captain, given that he possesses the temperament required in ODIs and has a cool head on his shoulders? I think this is an opportunity missed. While I do not take anything away from Dhoni, the fact is that Dhoni is yet to prove himself over a longer stretch, and we do not want Dhoni to follow the Sehwag trail.

Sehwag will also prove to be good here, given that he anyway stays for only a couple of overs, and hits everything that comes his way. Ideal for 20-20!! If only he could show some more application, we would have seen a lot many innings like his Multan classic. What a waste of such class and talent? However, all is not over for him, and I hope he uses this opportunity to get going again, and we see a lot more of him in the days to come. Come on Viru…

Why do we have to appeal in cricket..

Why do people appeal in cricket? Is there any other sport in which people appeal? Not that I know of. A footballer does not appeal after scoring a goal. Not sure what the reason behind this silly rule in cricket is. What it also does is that leads into umpires getting biased in their decision-making based upon the intensity of the appeal. I wonder if the ICC would change this rule rather than bringing in useless rules such as the new no-ball rule, where the next ball after a no-ball is a free hit for the batsman. Give us a break. What more do you want, 500 runs scored in an ODI, and if that is not all, the same being chased also!!  Bowlers will refuse to play cricket one day… or will ask to be paid more.