Can't really agree with more. Great cricket all around, but I can't help but be frustrated at the large part that people other than the players played in the outcome. If you're not for more technology to improve cricket after this, you're on a completely different plane of thought from me.
Coming back to the cricket: Michael Clarke has the voodoo over India. I don't really understand how or why. Fantastic job by him IMO. Symonds just became a permanent member of the Aussie Test side - that sucks for them though.
I totally agree. I am amazed at the illogical arguments offered against using more technology AS AN AID . I highlight those words very intentionally. It is an aid. It does not do any damage to the umpires or to their credibility. It helps them. But so many idiots have been arguing for not having technology since it is not
perfect - whatever that may mean.
Why are we looking for perfection? We are NEVER going to get 100 percent correct decisions irrespective of where technology goes. All we can do is improve the percentage of correct decisions. Surely that will happen. If we could have got 8 out of about ten bad decisions correct in this match would it not have been better for the game ? You dont need to be a rocket scientist to answer that. Of course you can be a mule and be as illogical as you have decided to be.
These stupid ICC bosses have decided to use technology in an area like whether the bowler is chucking and redefined chucking to allow justifying use of technology. No one is concerned that the technology in this case is SO incapable of providing an aid to the adjudicators of the game, right there and then on the ground, when there is a doubt that the law may (or may not) be contravened. Yet we use technology in this dubious manner in the case of chucking. Why? What made ICC use technology in this case. Many people have very strong opinions why so much change was made to the games laws and definitions just to take away the power of the umpires to call a bowler for chucking. For thats what this did.
Okay fair enough.
But then why are you so reluctant to allow the umpires to use some technology themselves as an aid. We are not talking of a computer over ruling the field umpires but a third umpire being an active part of the three man team which officiates in a test. Once they decide to do that they wil find a way to do it without causing as much damage as we hacve seen in this game.
Haven't better decisions on run outs become such an integral part of the game. In fact we take them for granted. Does any one have a clue as to how many we were getting wrong before these were refered 'upstairs' ? Ha s this made the umpires status worse. I dont think so but I dont care if it has. The question to ask is, Has this made umpiring and decision making in the case of run outs better ? and the answer would be an unequivocal YES. Why cant the same thinking go into other areas where we can use some more technology as an aid. THe umpiring team can still be the final arbitrator and decide whether the batsman is out, whether he is not out or whether the evidence presented is inconclusive in which case batsman gets the benefit of doubt as provided for in the laws of the game.
Whats wrong with that.
Mr Sunil Gavaskar who is screaming his head off today because India seem to be at the receiving end has been one of the strongest opponents of technology in the past and its people like him who are in the strongest position to advise ICC on such matters.
I dont even say we more need technology. I am shocked that some people have any argument why it shouldn't be used as an aid to the umpiring team.
