Use technology, please

They say that cricketers should not protest bad umpiring decisions (if they are allowed to, that is) because sometimes a bad decision too goes in their favour, and it works out pretty much even in the wash. Sachin Tendulkar might dispute the existence of such a law of averages, given the record of umpiring decisions against him during the England tour that has just ended, but that is not the point. The correct and far more important question to ask is: How many cricket matches have their outcome determined by wrong calls by umpires? In other words, how much of a swing factor is an umpiring mistake? In the case of an individual player, wrong decisions that go against and in favour of him may well even out over the long term, but two wrongs do not make a right when it comes to how those decisions impact match outcomes. The England tour may or may not be a good example, but it is a fact that the wrong decisions have tended to get taken against the top batsmen (perhaps because they usually occupy the crease longer), not the tail-enders "" so wrong decisions have definitely been a significant swing factor: who can tell how many runs the Indian team may have scored on Saturday, if Tendulkar had not been given out at 30? While that rests in the arena of idle (and pointless) speculation, it may well be that about half the matches on the England tour were significantly influenced by wrong umpiring calls "" including some cases where the batsman was wrongly given as not out. If true, that would be a horrific admission to make. A proper study of other series will show whether this is a representative sample, or not.

Cricket cannot continue to be the only game that refuses to recognise the role technology can play in administering the game. To be sure, we have seen the introduction of a third umpire for run-out decisions, but that is as far as it has gone. "Hawk-eye" may tell millions of viewers whether a leg-before-wicket decision was right or wrong, and the invention of the super-close-up lens and the "snickometer" helps catch the most minor touch of bat to ball; together, they make umpires look stupid when they are shown to have been wrong. It is not enough to say that it is human to err and that everyone makes mistakes; if the technology exists that can prevent such mistakes, and if the occasion is important enough for the organisers to make sure that mistakes do not mar it, then the technology should be used.

Another tradition-bound sport, lawn tennis, has shown the way. In the US Open, players have been allowed to challenge umpiring decisions, and the matter is decided by using technical aids that tell you whether one tiny part of the ball has ended on the line or not "" a level of detail on a ball travelling at more than 100 kmph, which a line judge or chair umpire cannot reasonably be expected to get right all the time. Umpires who have had the experience of their calls being overturned through this process say that they do not feel belittled or humiliated, precisely because everyone knows that you cannot be right all the time. And since each case becomes a dispute only if the player involved challenges a call, too much time is not lost in the process. This approach can easily be adopted in cricket. Players, umpires, the audience and the game will all benefit. So what is holding it up?