Video debate hots up
By Robert Craddock
October 15, 2005
TEST cricket's open technology trial is only a day old and already a tangible fact has emerged - cameras can create as many problem areas as they solve.
You get nowhere in life if you don't experiment so you can't blame world officials for trialling the use of cameras in all decisions.
But neither could they be blamed for deciding it may be a leap too far.
Cricket has to be careful here.
The experiment has merit but the worst-case scenario of using it on the last day in a Test in India or Pakistan where there might be an appeal every other over would turn the game into a slow-fused farce.
Yesterday, at least, it had novelty value.
As umpire Darrell Hair sifted through countless replays of Michael Clarke's bat-pad catch, people in offices around Australia gathered around televisions to debate not simply the catch but whole issue of cameras in cricket.
Umpire Rudi Koertzen initially thought Clarke was out and started to raise his finger before he remembered the man upstairs which he decided to use.
Hair said he was unsure so he handed the decision back to Koertzen who went with his gut feeling and gave Clarke out.
Some pundits asked the fair question ... if there was enough doubt to go to the third umpire, do you need any more doubt to give the batsman not out?
This technology decision is huge because it will reshape careers and eras.
Australia probably would have won the Ashes if it was in in England because Michael Kasprowicz would have been given not out on the last ball of the Edgbaston Test which hit his glove when he was not holding the bat.
Damien Martyn would still have been playing Test cricket if two poor lbw decisions had been changed by the camera.
Even yesterday, Matthew Hayden, on 29, would have been left with his career in limbo if a confident lbw appeal that went upstairs had not revealed that the ball from Steve Harmison might just have cleared the stumps.
Hayden instantly thought he was "dead".
The sad thing about the use of cameras is that it could make umpires lazy.
Also, with "Big Brother" watching, umpires are all but obliged to perform as if they are motorists with a policeman on their tail and will start second- guessing obvious decisions such as Shane Watson's lbw last night.
Umpires will become machines just like tennis umpires who are basically glorified robots.
Cricket fans enjoys the human side of umpiring to the point where the game's top selling book was written not by Sir Donald Bradman or Sir Garfield Sobers but umpire Dickie Bird.
If Hawkeye ever put out its life story it would be lucky to sell 10 copies.
Some of the greatest minds in sport are split on the technology issue.
American sport is divided by it.
Baseball wants no part of it and lets the human eye play god. American football has gone completely the opposite way to the point where coaches are allowed to use the video to appeal against a decision but they sacrifice a time out if they are wrong.
Cricket, at the moment, is somewhere between and the balance seems just about right.
The Courier-Mail