KEY POINTS:
Defending champion Rafael Nadal blamed a computer for knocking him out of the Dubai Open this week. At 5-6 in the first-set tie break, he and the umpire thought a shot from Russian Mikhail Youzhny was out. The ball mark appeared to underline the fact.
But Youzhny challenged and Hawkeye called it in. Guess what? Hawkeye's decision is final.
Hawkeye line-calling technology is integrated and accepted in tennis so much that its judgement must be taken over the umpires'. However, in cricket, the debate still rages whether Hawkeye technology should move from a commentary enhancement to an adjudicator.
There have been perceived failures like this tennis example and also the curious occurrence in a recent Tri-series game between England and Australia when two Hawkeye replays of the same LBW decision predicted two different scenarios - one, the ball just clipping off-stump; the other smashing into middle and off stumps. They will likely ensure Hawkeye will not be readily accepted by the ICC.
The problem is the degree of error we find acceptable from a computer, especially in matters as important as out or not out.
The public and competitors will not accept computer error, yet we will always tolerate a higher degree of human error.
You just have to look at non-sporting situations where computers ride roughshod over humans to see that. Evidence proves beyond doubt that computers are far more accurate than the human brain and so in matters of importance such as our safety and money, we put our trust in computers and technology.
But are we really happy doing this? How comfortable are we that a computer is flying us, even knowing most air accidents are caused by human error?
The fact Hawkeye's word is final in tennis shows technology is incorporated quickly when embraced completely. So if introduced to cricket, its decisions will also carry greater weight than the umpires'.
Already, when reviewing a cricket play for the viewer's enjoyment, the Hawkeye prediction provides the justification/vindication for the umpire's real-time decision.
If we are to put our trust into something that is not human, handing over control to something that in theory is more accurate than us, we can only be truly happy if we can trust it to be 100 per cent accurate. But this will never be the case. After all, it's we error-ridden humans who programme the computers and line up the cameras.
