Mucky Beats
07-09-2007, 06:44 PM
googled the techno experiment and found this .....
Cricket world braces itself for techno experiment
Charlie Austin
September 11, 2002
For techno lovers the ICC Champions Trophy will offer a glimpse of cricket's brave new world.
But romantics are less enthused as the game braces itself for a radical and controversial experiment with television technology.
For the first time field umpires will be allowed to refer a multitude of decisions to the television umpire, including lbw and bat-pad appeals, as well as suspected bump balls and even catches to the wicket-keeper.
Despite some opposition, the International Cricket Council (ICC) has identified the tournament as the perfect opportunity to move the "technology" debate forward.
ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed said when announcing the plan: "The ICC is going about it with an open mind. We don't want to make umpires robots, we are only offering the best use of technology to assist them in their decision-making. Everyone wants to see the right decisions are made. If it is not successful, we will discontinue it."
In consultation with the broadcasters and umpires, the ICC has drawn up guidelines, detailing what aspects of particular decisions can be referred.
The ICC cricket operations manager, Dave Richardson, said: "We have prepared a detailed guide on which aspects can be referred and the television producer knows what replay will be required for different decisions."
"For lbw decisions the third umpire is not there to decide whether the ball is going to hit the stumps, only to judge whether the ball pitched outside leg or whether the batsmen nicked the ball," he said. "This will help eliminate most of the mistakes made."
For catches at the wicket, the umpires should only refer when trying to decide whether the ball touched bat, body or clothing. If they don't believe that the ball hit anything then they should rule 'not out' without recourse to the television umpire.
The one area where television has proven limitations is catches close to the ground. Even with super slow replays it's often impossible to tell whether the ball has kissed the ground. The ICC now wants the field umpires to be the sole judge of whether such catches are cleanly taken.
The experiment is welcomed wholeheartedly by the South Africans, the pioneers in the use of television replays.
Captain Shaun Pollock argued: "At some stage we have to try it and see how well it works. From the players' perspectives we want to see the best decisions made and if technology can do that without taking too much time, I'm all for it. This is a good chance to find out."
But other players and captains have concerns. "Now it's 'howzat!' - it will become just a plain 'how is that?' The beauty of appealing, that will be gone," worried Wasim Akram, one of the world's great appealers.
"Guys like Shoaib (Akhtar), Brett Lee, going up in full flow, that will finish."
West Indies captain Carl Hooper is troubled about its effect on the umpires.
"In lbw decisions, I want umpires to have a say. I hate to see umpires being pushed to one side. We should not be totally dependent on technology."
The ICC, though, argues that the umpire remains in charge.
"They cannot shirk responsibility and become dependent upon the television umpire. When they refer they should be 90 per cent sure that the batsman is out and when replays are inconclusive they will have to make a decision."
Moreover, Richardson envisages a time when viewers could listen in to the communication between the umpires, adding another dimension to the cricket watching experience.
"The umpires would be happy as people would gain an understanding of the thought processes that went into the decision," he said.
Australian skipper Ricky Ponting and Pakistan's Waqar Younis are concerned that the increased use of the third umpire will slow down play even further.
"As it is, it's hard to get through 50 overs in time," Ponting said.
The ICC realises that there is a danger of slowing down the game and is demanding that decisions are made quickly, requiring a maximum of two replays and 20 seconds.
Richardson denies that the time scale is ambitious.
"We think it is pretty realistic now that we've worked out exactly what aspects of particular decisions can be referred and what camera angle to use."
Even if successful during this tournament, Richardson believes such a wide use of technology would be difficult outside of ICC managed tournaments.
"I have my doubts over whether it will be feasible or practical throughout international cricket. During this tournament we can do it because we control the broadcaster but what happens during a series where there are only three cameras?" he said.
Likewise, he does not expect the use of technologies such as Hawk Eye in the near future.
"Hawk Eye is a great coaching aid for the umpires and provides excellent entertainment. It's probably more accurate than a person but it's very expensive and you have to draw the line somewhere - we still want the skill of the umpire to come through."
Richardson is hopeful that the experiment proves successful but warns against unrealistic expectations.
"We are not going to solve the problem for those who want definite answers all the time - they will not be satisfied. But the crux of the matter is whether the umpires came to the right decision."
Cricket world braces itself for techno experiment
Charlie Austin
September 11, 2002
For techno lovers the ICC Champions Trophy will offer a glimpse of cricket's brave new world.
But romantics are less enthused as the game braces itself for a radical and controversial experiment with television technology.
For the first time field umpires will be allowed to refer a multitude of decisions to the television umpire, including lbw and bat-pad appeals, as well as suspected bump balls and even catches to the wicket-keeper.
Despite some opposition, the International Cricket Council (ICC) has identified the tournament as the perfect opportunity to move the "technology" debate forward.
ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed said when announcing the plan: "The ICC is going about it with an open mind. We don't want to make umpires robots, we are only offering the best use of technology to assist them in their decision-making. Everyone wants to see the right decisions are made. If it is not successful, we will discontinue it."
In consultation with the broadcasters and umpires, the ICC has drawn up guidelines, detailing what aspects of particular decisions can be referred.
The ICC cricket operations manager, Dave Richardson, said: "We have prepared a detailed guide on which aspects can be referred and the television producer knows what replay will be required for different decisions."
"For lbw decisions the third umpire is not there to decide whether the ball is going to hit the stumps, only to judge whether the ball pitched outside leg or whether the batsmen nicked the ball," he said. "This will help eliminate most of the mistakes made."
For catches at the wicket, the umpires should only refer when trying to decide whether the ball touched bat, body or clothing. If they don't believe that the ball hit anything then they should rule 'not out' without recourse to the television umpire.
The one area where television has proven limitations is catches close to the ground. Even with super slow replays it's often impossible to tell whether the ball has kissed the ground. The ICC now wants the field umpires to be the sole judge of whether such catches are cleanly taken.
The experiment is welcomed wholeheartedly by the South Africans, the pioneers in the use of television replays.
Captain Shaun Pollock argued: "At some stage we have to try it and see how well it works. From the players' perspectives we want to see the best decisions made and if technology can do that without taking too much time, I'm all for it. This is a good chance to find out."
But other players and captains have concerns. "Now it's 'howzat!' - it will become just a plain 'how is that?' The beauty of appealing, that will be gone," worried Wasim Akram, one of the world's great appealers.
"Guys like Shoaib (Akhtar), Brett Lee, going up in full flow, that will finish."
West Indies captain Carl Hooper is troubled about its effect on the umpires.
"In lbw decisions, I want umpires to have a say. I hate to see umpires being pushed to one side. We should not be totally dependent on technology."
The ICC, though, argues that the umpire remains in charge.
"They cannot shirk responsibility and become dependent upon the television umpire. When they refer they should be 90 per cent sure that the batsman is out and when replays are inconclusive they will have to make a decision."
Moreover, Richardson envisages a time when viewers could listen in to the communication between the umpires, adding another dimension to the cricket watching experience.
"The umpires would be happy as people would gain an understanding of the thought processes that went into the decision," he said.
Australian skipper Ricky Ponting and Pakistan's Waqar Younis are concerned that the increased use of the third umpire will slow down play even further.
"As it is, it's hard to get through 50 overs in time," Ponting said.
The ICC realises that there is a danger of slowing down the game and is demanding that decisions are made quickly, requiring a maximum of two replays and 20 seconds.
Richardson denies that the time scale is ambitious.
"We think it is pretty realistic now that we've worked out exactly what aspects of particular decisions can be referred and what camera angle to use."
Even if successful during this tournament, Richardson believes such a wide use of technology would be difficult outside of ICC managed tournaments.
"I have my doubts over whether it will be feasible or practical throughout international cricket. During this tournament we can do it because we control the broadcaster but what happens during a series where there are only three cameras?" he said.
Likewise, he does not expect the use of technologies such as Hawk Eye in the near future.
"Hawk Eye is a great coaching aid for the umpires and provides excellent entertainment. It's probably more accurate than a person but it's very expensive and you have to draw the line somewhere - we still want the skill of the umpire to come through."
Richardson is hopeful that the experiment proves successful but warns against unrealistic expectations.
"We are not going to solve the problem for those who want definite answers all the time - they will not be satisfied. But the crux of the matter is whether the umpires came to the right decision."