Say no to UDRS
Chennai, Fri, Jun 24 2011 , by
Avinash Subramaniam
Text Size
"Hawk-Eye to me is just a cartoon and I'm yet to work out how that graduate can work out where the ball is going to go. You cannot possibly project where it's going to go," said former Test umpire **** French on the increasing use of technology way back in 2005. Yet, it continues to be used, even though it hasn't been improved in any perceptible manner, let alone perfected. How does that make any sense and would we be as tolerant with an on-field umpire?
"It's a nonsense that those watching on TV are in a better position than the umpires," ICC president-elect David Morgan said in 2008. What has changed? Why the clamour for technology now? Cricket has survived and thrived for many decades without it. And so has the number one sport in the world, football.
"The batsman is not out when the umpire says he is out. The batsman is out when Mark Nicholas or Tony Greig or Ian Chappell or Ravi Shastri say he is out," said Dave Richardson, former South Africa keeper and the ICC's cricket manager, on the umpires' plight in the era of Hot Spot, Hawk-Eye and Snicko in 2009. That said, most of the cricket world is thoughtlessly putting its weight behind the technologies, which begs the question - why? One suspects it has more to with how they feel about the BCCI than the merits of introducing technology per se.
"You have two gentlemen as umpires who are professionals. They also have the support of the third umpire. There have been a few mistakes and it's surprising to see the umpires making those mistakes. They could have been avoided if UDRS was there, but does that give the umpires the liberty to give bad decisions?" said the Indian skipper MS Dhoni in 2010. And he's right, isn't he? If three qualified professionals cannot do a job they have been put in place (and paid handsomely for) to carry out, isn't it time to find and appoint people who can, rather than introduce an imperfect system to help incompetent people keep their jobs?
And while on the coolest man in world cricket today, here's another one of his candid gems, "I personally feel it's not a cent per cent thing. I don't think it gives a cent percent result. It's not always correct. If I am going to buy a life jacket which does not come with a warranty, that's a bit of a hassle for me - especially with the huge amount of money you have to spend for the UDRS system coming into the game. I would prefer some kind of warranty behind it. The moment it comes, I would be happy [to go] for it," Dhoni had said when asked for his views on the system. Put simply, would you buy an automobile knowing full well it has bugs in it? Answer: Only if you don't have a choice. Fortunately, there is a better option and it's called appointing better umpires.
"If a majority of the ICC countries believe that the UDRS is a good improvement for international cricket, they should vote for it and say, 'Sorry India, you are in a minority.' It's supposed to be a democracy around the world, where the majority takes precedence," said the always engaging, but not always right, Sir Geoffrey Boycott last week. Who is being browbeaten into accepting it now? Make no mistake, the BCCI is not preventing other countries from employing the flawed system in series not involving India. All it is saying is that since the technology is not foolproof, we don't want to use it because it is not in any way better than what a good umpire can do.
If looked at dispassionately, what UDRS really does is undermine the authority of the on-field umpires, put more pressure on them and make them lazy. An imperfect system is being championed for reasons that are impossible to justify. Furthermore, in order to overcome its known imperfections, rules are being put in place that confuse the players, waste time and make a mockery of the purity of sport. Cricket does not need UDRS, what it needs is more umpires like Aleem Dar and Simon Taufel.
