LET'S face it disgruntled cricket fans, the use of technology in the sport is here to stay.

The role technology plays in the game is a hot topic this summer, mostly because of the amount of times it seems to have provided little, if any, help to the umpires.

The referral system, in which the opposing teams get the chance to question at least two dismissal decisions in each innings of a Test match, seems to have created as many problems as it has solved in recent series.

Some of that is due to the human factor.

To prove that point, show two people the same footage, from the same vantage spot on the couch, with the same amount of brews under their belts, and you can have two completely different interpretations of what was seen.

The human element was best evidenced by South African umpire Rudi Koertzen’s initial decision to give Australian batsman Nathan Hauritz not out to a leg before appeal by the Pakistanis in Melbourne yesterday.

The Pakistanis successfully had the decision reversed after video replays showed Koertzen’s call to be a clanger even the tragically near-sighted Mr Magoo would be ashamed of.

But a lot of the problems are also due to the limitations of the technology.

Hawk-Eye, the system used to track the path of the ball, could just as easily have been named Nostradamus, as it is purely predictive.

It provides commentators and fans with what is essentially its best guess. We wouldn’t accept that from our doctor, mechanic, or a politician, but we’re generally happy to side with the machine on its calls.

Have your say. Do you think technology has helped or hindered cricket? Post a comment.

But whatever your take on the credibility of the technology in use in international cricket, you had better get used to seeing more of it.

The genie is out of the bottle and, despite the best efforts of the Luddite movement in early 19th century Britain, once technology is introduced it is rarely cast aside. It cannot be uninvented.

Which means, rather than wasting words and energy in pubs across the land on the merits of the technology, time would be better utilised discussing how best to apply the tools at hand.

As someone who was all for the introduction of the referral system, I have to admit that the process, as it exists, is not helping the game.

The admission by Australian skipper Ricky Ponting and his West Indies counterpart Chris Gayle that they would exploit vulnerabilities in the system if the situation warranted it, was a further blow to the integrity of the process.

As was the fact that the third Test of the series ended with colourful umpire Billy Bowden sticking with his decision to give the Windies’ Kemar Roach out, despite video evidence being inconclusive.

The referral system is putting umpires under more pressure than Arjuna Ranatunga’s shirt buttons, and not easing their duress as originally planned.

Perhaps it’s time for a change of tack, with third umpires using the technology simply to review decisions which appear blatantly wrong, such as the one yesterday.

Fans the world over are waiting to see where the International Cricket Council goes with the referral system. They may soon feel the same pressure to perform as those officiating on the field.

Share this article