Technology in cricket - Should players be cited?

Technology in Cricket – Should players be cited?

Much has been said over the last few years about the use of technology to assist cricket umpires in making their decisions. As a former Chairman of the Laws of Cricket Working Party at MCC it is clear to me that technology has an increasing part to play at the top level in televised matches. However there are a number of factors which need to be considered before the game moves forward with the different technologies available.

The accuracy of the technology is vital; technology cannot yet provide all the answers. In an appeal for LBW, for example, Hawkeye can accurately show where the ball has travelled and where it has hit the pad, but the path that the ball would have taken after that is less certain. Using Hawkeye, in conjunction with a coloured zone superimposed on the pitch and with ultra-slow-motion replays, it is likely that a television umpire would have a good idea whether the batsman was out LBW. However there are still occasions when there is doubt, in which case the batsman would normally have the benefit of that doubt.

There was a trial in County Cricket in England and Wales in 2007, whereby the players had the right to appeal to the television umpire against a decision made by an umpire on the field. Although there were restrictions put in place to prevent this right being abused, it was not seen as successful or helpful and the trial has been abandoned. I am delighted that this idea has been cast aside. It goes against the Spirit of Cricket. The Preamble to the Laws states "It is against the Spirit of the Game to dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture". The players have an appeal in the first place to ask the umpire to make a decision. To have another appeal was always ridiculous. However, there has never been any reason why the umpire at the bowler's end, to whom most appeals are addressed, should not refer to either his partner on the field or the television umpire, if he believes that they can help his decision.

Perhaps the most important difference between Cricket and other sports is that it is stated in the Laws that "The Captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws". NB The Captains and not the Umpires. The umpires should expect the highest standards of honesty and integrity from the players and technology, where available, should be used to help the players maintain their standards.

Although this might sound naive, there are ways in which a player's actions can be reviewed in ultra-slow-motion and, as in the case of Rugby Union, a player can be cited after the event, if it transpires that he has cheated or fallen below the required standards of conduct.

There are two areas of the game which can frustrate and enrage players: fielders claiming catches when the ball has bounced first and batmen nicking or gloving the ball to the wicketkeeper or slip and standing their ground. In both cases I believe that, initially, the umpires should rely on the honesty of the players. A catch should only be claimed if the ball was caught cleanly - I believe that a player always knows! If a catch is claimed, the batsman should "walk" if he has hit the ball - again I believe that the player always knows whether the ball has touched the bat or glove! Of course, if there is doubt then the fielder or the batsman is entitled to say so, in which case the umpire is called to make a decision and may refer it to the television umpire. The television umpire should be in a position to review all such incidents and, after the match in conjunction with the other umpires, a sanction should be recommended, if a player is cited for not acting in the Spirit of the Game. That sanction, available to the Match Referee, has to be sufficiently severe to have any effect - perhaps a ban for a number of matches or the rest of the series. This threat of being cited ought to act as incentive for the players to act within the Spirit of the Game and should make the life of an umpire easier.

It is important to allow the umpires to retain their authority, whether they are the on-field umpires or the team of four that now plays a part. That is why the umpires must have access to technology, as it becomes available. Viewers on television, including, of course, the team in the dressing room, see the ultra-slow-motion replays, even if the spectators at the ground do not. Often the only men not to have the benefit of this technology are the umpires who are making the decisions on the field. The use of this kind of technology is currently only available in televised matches. It should be used and perhaps a trial could be conducted over a series of matches either in English domestic cricket or in an international series.

To see players at the top level competing hard but fully within the Spirit of the Game would be a great example to players at club or school level. Instead of Adam Gilchrist being one of a minority of players who show the way now, we would see many more of the top international stars showing what should be done.

Roger Knight