Cricket: Umpires could soon be needed only to keep the peace

Former England international DEREK PRINGLE reports on how virtually all umpiring decisions could soon be made by technology.

It used to be the batsmen who got the benefit of the doubt in cricket. Now it is umpires who need it.

Under increasing pressure from television technology to get decisions right, the men in white coats have found the scrutiny nerve-racking.

But it does not have to be this way and the very gadgets that now make their lives misery could, in fact, help them.

Players, like the spectators who watch the game, want accuracy, not subjective judgment.

In the second test against Pakistan this month, the England captain, Nasser Hussain, was twice given out in error, mistakes that television replays could have rectified without ambiguity.

When a huge television audience tuning in to matches sees these errors, umpires become figures of ridicule rather than respect.

The technology versus tradition debate is not new.

The latest generation of slow-motion cameras and super computers that allow replays and innovations such as the red zone (the virtual carpet between the stumps that aids leg-before decisions), as well as the "snickometer," to detect catches behind the wicket, can be set up within seconds.

So far, most of the dissenters object to the time-wasting aspect of replaying incidents, claiming an already tardy over-rate would be further slowed if they were used frequently.

But, as one of Sky's commentators pointed out, after another talking point arose during England's innings at Faisalabad, eight replays were able to be shown before the next ball was bowled.

Of course, replays via the third umpire are already used to rule on run-outs and catches where there is some question about whether the ball has carried, but these, ironically, have occasionally been ambiguous and need refining.

Where money is involved - and television has pumped millions into sport over the past 10 years - technology does not stand still.

There are already plans by Channel 4 to use something called the Hawk-Eye flightpath in next year's Ashes series.

The system will be used to track the ball for leg-before decisions, arguably the most contentious of all.

The Hawk-Eye technology is already there and Sunset and Vine, the production company behind test coverage in England, has given £250,000 to Roke Manor Research to refine it.

The Sunset and Vine managing director, Jeff Folser, believes it will provide "something for our viewers and help the authorities, too."

The system uses six cameras mounted around the ground.

Two are situated behind one set of stumps, two behind the other set, while the other cameras are set square on to the stumps.

Apparently, those configured behind the stumps work out the line, movement and speed of the ball, while those square-on assess the height to which it has bounced.

Apparently, the necessary calculations will be fed into a computer programmed with the leg-before laws, which will then make a judgment that will appear on a pager in the umpire's hand within seconds.

It could be, unless the snickometer can suddenly discern between woody noises from those made by pads, that the only decision involving human judgment at any stage will be catches behind the wicket.

Trusting a machine could be the way forward, but scores could plummet.

Bowlers would agree that where leg-befores are concerned, batsmen are given in far more often than they are given out.

For that reason, batsmen will probably come to fear Hawk-Eye far more than the most trigger-happy umpire.

Naturally, not all appeals can be scrutinised, but with the third umpire allowed to intervene, mistakes could be minimised.

For those like former test umpire Dickie Bird, who fear that umpires will be reduced to little more than men who count pebbles and call "over," the march of technology is probably not welcome.

Yet, for those players earning their living through the sport, neither is human fallibility.

The adage used 20 years ago was that umpiring decisions had a habit of evening themselves out.

While that may be true over a 100-test career, it is not much use to the marginal player trying to cling on to his place in the side.