Cricket, often referred to as a gentleman’s game, has long been celebrated for its traditions and human element. Over the years, however, technology has increasingly found its way into the sport, transforming how the game is played, officiated, and even perceived.
Tools like ball-tracking systems, the Snickometer, and UltraEdge have been pivotal in assisting umpires with difficult decisions, but their integration has also sparked debates about whether technology has complicated the game.
The Flip Side: Complexity and Controversy
Despite its advantages, the use of technology has introduced complexities. Decisions once left to the on-field umpire are now subject to lengthy reviews, often disrupting the natural flow of the game. The Decision Review System (DRS), while designed to correct errors, has occasionally led to contentious outcomes due to its reliance on umpire’s calls, which can leave fans scratching their heads over inconsistencies.
Moreover, the partial implementation of technology has led to disparities. For instance, while ball-tracking and UltraEdge are widely used, they are not universally adopted at all levels of the game, creating an uneven playing field. This half-measure approach can undermine the very fairness technology aims to uphold.
Balancing Technology with the Human Element
Cricket is inherently a human game, with its charm often rooted in unpredictability and the fallibility of players and umpires. Over-reliance on technology risks eroding this human element, turning cricket into a science rather than an art.
Striking the right balance is essential. Technology should complement, not overshadow, the umpires’ role, providing assistance without diminishing their authority.
The Hazards of Half Measures: Technology’s Dilemma in Cricket
The integration of technology in cricket to assist on field umpires started in the 90’s. It was meant to bring clarity and dilute controversy in the game. But their inconsistent application led to contentious outcomes.
One cannot deny the benefits technology brings to cricket. Systems like Hawk Eye, which tracks the trajectory of the ball, and Ultra Edge, which detects subtle edges off the bat, provide accurate insights that the human eye might miss. These tools have minimized blatant errors, ensuring that crucial matches aren’t decided by incorrect decisions.
For players and fans alike, the assurance of fairness adds credibility to the game.
But then sometimes things turn sour. As it happened at Melbourne during India’s most recent tour to Australia, circa winter 2024.
What exactly happened?
A ball appeared to have caught the edge of Jaiswal’s bat, and the wicket keeper
appealed for a catch. In this case, the on-field umpire gave Jaiswal not out. Australian fielders referred to the 3rd umpire.
The third umpire, who had access to various technologies including UltraEdge and Snickometer, began the process of reviewing the decision.
However, upon review, the third umpire overturned the decision based on a visible deflection of the ball, even though snicko showed no spike indicating a nick.
Further complicating the matter was the absence of Hotspot technology, which might have offered additional clarity.
Hotspot wasn’t available because it wasn’t included in the broadcasting package for the Melbourne Test—a decision driven by logistical and financial constraints rather than fairness.
This selective application of technology raises the question: can the sport justify critical decisions without the full suite of tools?
The possibility remains that the visible deflection observed in Yashasvi Jaiswal’s
dismissal was due to late swing and that the ball might not have touched the bat or the glove at all. The ball’s movement through the air, especially when there is late swing, can sometimes cause what appears to be a deflection without any actual contact with the bat or gloves.
But Yashashwi walked back at a crucial juncture and India lost the match. The rule books clearly states that when there is reasonable doubt the batsman has to be given the benefit of the doubt.
That’s how the game has been played. So how can you fall back on technology for aid yet when there is inconclusive proof to the naked eye and when even technology has no distinct solution you make a complete U-turn and return to human eye sight to make your final decision? Just what you thought wasn’t good enough!
That’s unacceptable isn’t it? But Yashashi walked back and India lost the game. That’s it. Who knows what would have happened if Jaiswal wasn’t adjudged out!
The Case for Full Utilization
If technology is to be used in cricket, it must be employed comprehensively and consistently across all matches. Partial reliance, as seen in Jaiswal’s dismissal, not only undermines the credibility of decisions but also shakes the confidence of players and fans.
Tools like Hotspot, Snicko, and UltraEdge are most effective when used together, providing complementary evidence. Omitting any one of these due to broadcasting limitations creates an uneven playing field, where decisions may depend more on circumstance than on fact.
Broadcasting Constraints and Fairness
The absence of Hotspot in the Melbourne Test reflects a deeper issue: the disparity in technological resources across venues and broadcasters. Is it fair that a player’s fate in a critical match hinges on the availability of technology dictated by external factors?
Such inconsistencies highlight a fundamental flaw in the current system. If cricket’s governing bodies are committed to using technology for decision-making, they must ensure its uniform availability, regardless of the venue or broadcast agreements.
The Human Element vs. Technological Precision
Cricket’s charm lies in its human element, where players and umpires alike are fallible. Yet, technology was introduced to minimize human errors—not replace human judgment entirely. The challenge is to strike a balance: using technology to assist rather than dictate decisions. However, as seen in Jaiswal’s case, this balance is delicate and often mishandled, especially when the tools at hand are incomplete.
The Need for Consistency
Half measures are hazardous. They confuse stakeholders, tarnish the sport’s spirit, and create inequities. Cricket needs clear protocols that ensure all tools are available for decision- making, irrespective of external constraints. Either embrace technology fully or limit its use to preserve the human element—anything in between risks controversy and undermines the game’s integrity.
Conclusion
Yashasvi Jaiswal’s MCG dismissal raises the question whether to fully integrate technology or return to a simpler, human-driven approach. Until then, cricket risks being caught in a no- man’s land where neither tradition nor technology truly triumphs.
The integration of technology in cricket has undeniably improved the accuracy of decisions, but it has also introduced new challenges. As the game continues to evolve, stakeholders must address these issues to ensure that technology enhances rather than complicates the sport.
After all, cricket’s enduring appeal lies in its blend of tradition and innovation—a balance that must be carefully maintained to preserve the magic of the game. And its human errors.
