Why not use TV technology more?

[Jono]

As noted on the radio this morning, the over rates for the Super Test (when there were unlimited video referrals) were faster than they were for the Test match just completed between Australia and India (where the video was not used). The argument that 'you can't use the video as it slows the game down too much' is absolute dribble.

Lol, so true.

We're already playing such a slow game, where we refer to see if a player's little toe may have touched the boundary line. How about we refer to see if Dravid actually edged the ball on day 5 of a crucial test?

 

[archie mac]

If we do introduce technology without a referral system, and leave it to the umpires to ask for assistance, I think we'll see it become like the 3rd umpire with regards to runouts, where they refer it upstairs all the time just to make sure that they don't look stupid if they make the wrong decision. Which really will extend out the day.

Unless they're Bucknor.

Good, lets get it right, give them two replays if unsure refer it back to the umpire. Fine players for frivolous appeals

 

[jeevan]

Good, lets get it right, give them two replays if unsure refer it back to the umpire. Fine players for frivolous appeals

Actually the over rate fine may take care of the frivolous appealing. Referral time comes out of bowling team's allocations..

 

[slugger]

i dont think time is an is issue in using technology.. think about it this way at the moment..you get a batsmen out. yet hes not given out, but after a couple of replays you discover he was out... if this happens once or twice or god forbid 3 times in an innings.. there is your time wasting a team has to get nearlly 11-13 wickets an innings and this is all because of this lame idea it all evens itself out...
look at australias 1st inn.. alone india had to get ponting twice and symonds 3 times yet he ended not out...the inn closed a 10 for 463 without the aid of technology. yet it should read 15 for 463 or with the aid of tech it would read 10 for 291

 

[Richard]

Take soccer for example, if a player kicks a goal there's nothing stopping the scoreboard person from putting an extra goal on the scoreboard for that team. Whereas cricket, a player can choose to stand his ground.

Another disadvantage of introducing technology would be questioning the existence of umpires. And what about junior/amateur cricketers? No way a local cricket club can afford the proper technology to refer to appeals etc. which makes an amateur cricketer think: "How come we trust umpires in our level of cricket when they can't trust umpires internationally?"

Introduction of technology would also lead to players walking a lot more. An obvious point but nontheless important.

Both of these are something I've thought a lot. Technology should be introduced as far down as can possibly be afforded.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Both of these are something I've thought a lot. Technology should be introduced as far down as can possibly be afforded.

People can afford it, but would it be worth it. I'm sure that Cricket Victoria would much rather spend money on game development than ensuring that all Premier Cricket grounds have video camera facilities available to decide run-outs.

 

[Richard]

Nah, not neccessarily cameras for run-outs. Just basic stuff like no-ball calling devices (something that I've never been sure whether or not might almost completely alleviate other mistakes) and glasses that impose wicket-to-wicket mats for Umpires.

Mind, I've often wondered how important to development correct Umpiring decisions are.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If we do introduce technology without a referral system, and leave it to the umpires to ask for assistance, I think we'll see it become like the 3rd umpire with regards to runouts, where they refer it upstairs all the time just to make sure that they don't look stupid if they make the wrong decision. Which really will extend out the day.

Unless they're Bucknor.

There is a risk, yeah, but given how long is sometimes spent on deciding whether a ball has gone for four (which, when two or three have usually been run anyway, isn't anything like as crucial a decision as a potential wicket) I reckon it must be worth a trial at least.