Lately there has been lot of heated debate on 'DRS' at every level.
It seems pretty illogical on behalf on one cricket board to oppose this system when it can help umpires making whole lot of decisions much better, particularly the pretty obvious ones.
In general the debate is mainly focused on the accuracy of the technology. Though I think it is much more than that. It is more about "‘technology policing’ which should be the requirement if the system comes into place at a full scale.
The decisions taken on a cricket field are a result of a split second judgement which brings about the human error factor. Any delay to that decision and help of a technology would certainly reduce those errors but it will also allow another grim aspect to sneak in.. which is manipulation of technology.The time taken from the moment a team appeals till the third umpire takes a decision seems like an eternity which does open a sufficient window in which the technology can be manipulated ( I am not saying that it is being done, but there is a certain possibility of it happening if the proper safeguards are not in place).
Third umpire is dependent on a particular footage to be able to decide on a judgement.
1. A technician sends a video clip of a ball to the third umpire to check if it is a no ball or not. Who will ensure that the clip is from the previous ball ? Another human error scope ? Even though the technology is so new, there are already some incidents questioning the whole process:
http://www.supersport.com/cricket/blogs/mike-haysman/Dhoni_noball_outrage2. How accurate is the Hawk eye? Is the ball projection is always correct and can't be manipulated? . Also the qustion is how to ensure that it won't be manipulated ? As it does open a new angle for controversies..
3. Same goes for hotspot
In my view, the technology should be used only for the blunders made by the on field umpires.
No referrals, only that the third umpire should have the power to overturn the decisions which are blunders by an on field umpires.
The blunders should fall under following category:
1. Which are so obvious that they can be judged and conveyed within 10 seconds to on field umpires.
2. No LBW overturn by third umpire, with the only exception of an obvious inside edge.
3. No more microscopic run out decisions which they take ages to make. ICC should change the rule and if the batsman is touching the line he should be fine, same should be for the no balls. It seems ridiculous to spend so much time to decide if the bat has crossed the line.
4. Only obvious nicks.
The idea should be to avoid the blunders and not to make the whole decision making full proof. In my opinion in trying to make it 100% correct they are opening windows to new areas of error.
Sure this seems heavily tilted in favor of batsmen but it can be easily balanced if the pitches can be made more sporting ( favoring both batsman and bowlers.)
Author
Topic: DRS (Read 13717 times)