Sydney: Chief Executive officer of the International Cricket Council (ICC) Malcolm Speed was witness to the mayhem caused by umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson in the ongoing second Test match between Australia and India at the Sydney Cricket Ground.Their dismal performance continued on day two and three also. A huge outcry has broken out in both in India and Australia over the horrific standards of umpiring forcing Speed to indicate that the ICC may go in for referrals on appeals by players in the forthcoming ICC Champions Trophy scheduled to be held in Pakistan.“A player on either team could appeal up to three decisions in an innings and they would be referred to the television umpire. I don't think it will be trialled in Tests," Speed told the ABC.He however clarified that Hawk Eye and Snickometer will not be used to aid these decisions.The use of technology for umpiring has been a hotly debate issue with the ICC cricket committee veering towards the conservative side while trying to bring in aides to help on field umpires. In 2006 The ICC Cricket committee had passed the appeal system but the proposal could not be implemented after a division in vote amongst the presidents of the full members of ICC. "Let's see if it works, then have the debate," Speed said."I'm not concerned about the credibility of cricket. Generally there's a sense the decisions even themselves out. The dilemma is the technology has got better and what do we do with it?"Interestingly, in that 5-5 drawn vote Pakistan and Australia vociferously voted against it. Now, after watching both India and Australia becoming victims of erroneous decisions by the white-coat men , CEO of Cricket Australia James Sutherland has expressed his willingness to bring in more technology for decision making during matches In the leading national daily - The Australian he was quoted as saying."I think there is a strong argument on the technological side. In tennis it works where a player can make only two or three [incorrect] appeals in the course of a match. That may be something that makes people think twice about using the appeals at the right time."Sutherland however expressed concerns over the delay TV referrals cause in the game making it less viewer friendly and discouraging for broadcasters.”There is also a sense of delay when there is this use of technology," Sutherland said."We see that at the moment with run-outs, and people may argue that the game of cricket doesn't need any more delays than it already has.”Broadcasting companies though have not shown open dissent to the possibility of introduction of appeals. According to Channel 9, technology is not 100 per cent fool-proof either. Besides, broadcasters are averse to getting TV technology involved in crucial decisions."I'd hate us to be involved in the judicial system of cricket," said Steve Crawley, executive producer of Channel 9."We've only got one thing 100 per cent backed up by science and that's Hot Spot; the others aren't 100 per cent."Snicko is very well informed but it's not 100 per cent, and Hawk-Eye's not 100 per cent. Its a long, dour game as it is but if the ICC decides to go down that path, we'll co-operate."Friday, January 4, 2008
Dismal calls pave way for new technology
Sydney: Chief Executive officer of the International Cricket Council (ICC) Malcolm Speed was witness to the mayhem caused by umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson in the ongoing second Test match between Australia and India at the Sydney Cricket Ground.Their dismal performance continued on day two and three also. A huge outcry has broken out in both in India and Australia over the horrific standards of umpiring forcing Speed to indicate that the ICC may go in for referrals on appeals by players in the forthcoming ICC Champions Trophy scheduled to be held in Pakistan.“A player on either team could appeal up to three decisions in an innings and they would be referred to the television umpire. I don't think it will be trialled in Tests," Speed told the ABC.He however clarified that Hawk Eye and Snickometer will not be used to aid these decisions.The use of technology for umpiring has been a hotly debate issue with the ICC cricket committee veering towards the conservative side while trying to bring in aides to help on field umpires. In 2006 The ICC Cricket committee had passed the appeal system but the proposal could not be implemented after a division in vote amongst the presidents of the full members of ICC. "Let's see if it works, then have the debate," Speed said."I'm not concerned about the credibility of cricket. Generally there's a sense the decisions even themselves out. The dilemma is the technology has got better and what do we do with it?"Interestingly, in that 5-5 drawn vote Pakistan and Australia vociferously voted against it. Now, after watching both India and Australia becoming victims of erroneous decisions by the white-coat men , CEO of Cricket Australia James Sutherland has expressed his willingness to bring in more technology for decision making during matches In the leading national daily - The Australian he was quoted as saying."I think there is a strong argument on the technological side. In tennis it works where a player can make only two or three [incorrect] appeals in the course of a match. That may be something that makes people think twice about using the appeals at the right time."Sutherland however expressed concerns over the delay TV referrals cause in the game making it less viewer friendly and discouraging for broadcasters.”There is also a sense of delay when there is this use of technology," Sutherland said."We see that at the moment with run-outs, and people may argue that the game of cricket doesn't need any more delays than it already has.”Broadcasting companies though have not shown open dissent to the possibility of introduction of appeals. According to Channel 9, technology is not 100 per cent fool-proof either. Besides, broadcasters are averse to getting TV technology involved in crucial decisions."I'd hate us to be involved in the judicial system of cricket," said Steve Crawley, executive producer of Channel 9."We've only got one thing 100 per cent backed up by science and that's Hot Spot; the others aren't 100 per cent."Snicko is very well informed but it's not 100 per cent, and Hawk-Eye's not 100 per cent. Its a long, dour game as it is but if the ICC decides to go down that path, we'll co-operate."