Fouling Up Technology... again!

 

 

Ashes 2013

 

Using Technology Badly… Again!

 

July 12^th

 

[08:45 CEST] What is needed today is a day of sensible batting. Nothing more, nothing less. Yesterday, the majority opinion seems to be that England lost their heads under pressure. In similar circumstances most sides would have struggled to cope, particularly a side that had only two seamers available (remember Australia at Headingley in 1981?) However, with parity established and two increasingly well-set batsmen at the crease, it is quite reasonable to expect them to dig in for a large partnership. Certainly, were Cook and Pietersen still together at lunch, the pressure would be very much on the Australians.

Yesterday the headlines were for with Ashton Agar’s astonishing performance. He looked so promising in India that you wondered if he might not get a game with the series lost. Certainly he has made one of the more remarkable debuts in recent Test history. Poor Nathan Lyon! Having seen off the challenge of Fawad Ahmed he must have expected a free run this summer with only a nineteen year old as a rival; now he must be wondering if he will play at all in this series. However, as Agar so far has managed 16-4-53-0 in his day job against a side perceived to be vulnerable to left arm bowling, the Lyon may yet obtain a reprieve.

On a less welcome note, the fact that DRS – or rather, poor use of DRS – has been in the spotlight again has soured things a little. To have two very marginal decisions in consecutive balls was unfortunate. On another day, both might have gone in favour of the batsman. Yesterday, both went to the bowler. Add to it that these came after a very tight stumping appeal went against England that would have given them a lead of around 80 just added to the frustration. To have the side-on hotspot view not available because the frame was being held-over from the previous ball, which Root had not reviewed (had he done so the decision might well have been reversed), meant that the TV umpire was being asked to overturn a decision without being able to review all the evidence. DRS is not supposed to be used to judge highly marginal decisions where the human factor is far more important than the technology because it is a human who is deciding what constitutes proof.

The way that the question is phrased also tends to be critical. Take the Ashton Agar stumping early in his innings:

1.       Was there any evidence that any part of Ashton Agar’s foot was behind the line in the stumping appeal when he was on 6? Answer: No. He was out!

2.       Was there enough evidence that Ashton Agar was out of his ground to be able to give him out? Answer: No. He was not out!

Question 1 is being used by England fans to say that an injustice was done and that he should have been given out. Question 2 is being used by the Australian fans to say that the decision was correct.

If, with the available technology, you simply cannot tell clearly, then there should be only one decision: Not Out!

Line decisions were not designed to be decided with millimetres in mind. Thirty years ago players were  satisfied that if there were six inches (15 centimetres) either way, that was reasonable doubt to the naked eye. Now though we are getting to levels of application of line decisions where the thickness of the chalk line and the way that it is marked and any irregularities in the marking are now the difference between a batsman being in or out or a wicket being legitimate or being ruled not out because of a no ball.

In the Trott decision, the umpire believed that there was an inside edge. The decision was overturned because the TV umpire could see no proof of one. However, there was also no proof that there was no edge (no side-on Hotspot available) so he should have applied the same criterion: in the absence of proof that the batsman was out, it should have been not out.

Since that decision was made I have seen both claims that it was definitely an error (Trott hit the ball, there was a big deflection, end of story) and that the decision was correct (no evidence of an edge from snicko, or from TV replays). That is what happens when human judgement gets involved.

All that DRS needs is some common sense in its application. It makes no sense at all to use technology and then apply it in such a way that it re-introduces the factor of human error. If there is significant doubt, the batsman should benefit… the problem is that it is a human that has to decide what constitutes “significant doubt”.

Of course, the fact that there has been a subsequent ICC apology for Marais Erasmus not following procedure correctly in overturning the Trott dismissal has done nothing to make things better.