With all the slips
made by the DRS, is technology simply ending up becoming a silly point in
cricket?
BC: Hi, have you been following the England vs Australia test
series?
AD: Sad to see Australia’s journey downhill, but if there's
something that's become a hotter topic of discussion than the Ashes, it's...
BC: ...the Decision Review System.
AD: Absolutely. But I still don't get what the fuss is all
about.
BC: Well, the game was getting along fine without the
intrusion of technology. But now, it’s kicked up a nasty storm...
AD: If you had followed the tests, you would know that there
was human error as well. For instance, if someone forgets to activate Hot Spot
and keeps it in the replay mode, how can you blame technology? Likewise, if the
third umpire makes a mistake in interpreting the DRS, why is it the fault of...
BC: Look, the system was never 100% accurate to start with.
AD: Are you telling me that you will adopt technology only
if it's perfect? So your mobile has never suffered signal drops, your laptop
has never crashed, your hard disk has never...
BC: They do, but I don't let them decide anything for me, the
way DRS is allowed to in cricket. Besides, cricket has this glorious
uncertainty that's getting marred by programming technology into it.
AD: Are you suggesting that we go backwards and remove DRS
from the game?
BC: But if it doesn't work satisfactorily, what's the point in
holding on to it?
AD: Imagine what would have happened had the corporate world
rejected computers in the 1940s because they were the size of a room, or if
households rejected the PC in the 80s because it had less than 30MB of storage
space...
BC: So what's your point?
AD: Technology evolves over the years - we need to give it both
space and time...
BC: But think of the controversies until then - remember the
2011 World Cup? There were so many issues back then too...
AD: Look, DRS is meant to be a combination of various
technologies, including Hot Spot and Hawk Eye, but for various reasons, Hot Spot
was never implemented during the World Cup.
BC: They used super slow motion replays and stump mikes…
AD: How can you expect a system to work if all its
components are not in place? Isn't it our mistake that we don't do things the
right way and then scream blue murder when they go wrong?
BC: I would still maintain that life was simpler before DRS…
AD: Okay, let me put it this way. On TV, you use technology
to get up close and show every little nick and miss, right down to the tiniest
millimetre by which a bowler has overstepped or a batsman has fallen short of
his crease. If you don't use the same technology to determine whether the
batsman is out or not, you will infuriate the fans who will feel hard done by
the umpire.
BC: But that's how cricket has always been played. Besides,
neutral umpires were introduced to get rid of the home team bias...
AD: Instead of complaining about technology, why can't the
umpires and the players be trained to use it better? Besides, technology is
already in use by umpires to determine run outs, no-balls, stumpings and illegitimate
catches caught after the ball bounced – so what’s wrong in extending it to lbws
and other forms of dismissals as well?
BC: You'll have to ask the ICC that. But if the DRS continues,
it might pose a health hazard to the Aussies…
AD: How is that?
BC: They are the ones who seem badly affected by it. And with
all that exposure to infrared technology and heat signatures, the Australian
cricketers may not go home with the Ashes – but they sure could leave with a
lot of rashes.
