Role of technology in crucial cricket decision making
One way of thinking says that any place innovation can help umpires it ought to be utilized. Awful choices become a relic of days gone by and the genuine 'clangers', which happen time after time for comfort, are dispensed with.
In resistance are the individuals who declare that the utilization of innovation delivers long and frequently pointless deferrals, that human blunder is a piece of life and game, that innovation is additionally flawed and along these lines we should carry on as we did previously. Among this gathering one will discover a few players and umpires.
To me it appears that the controlling light ought to be that factor which is to the least extent liable to be utilized by the ICC, sound judgement. Right off the bat, choices by the umpire ought to be taken rapidly. Right now there is a recommended calendar of steps - check no ball; check problem area; check snicko; check hawkeye and so forth and so on. The umpire should comprehend what he actually needs to see, if the batsman watches out, check the no ball and give the choice. Lamentably, it isn't just innovation which some of the time seems flawed, as time and again by umpire has inspected the episode from each conceivable edge more than a few minutes and afterward settled on a clearly over the top choice.
For me and for some others, hawkeye cricket technology and the manner in which it is utilized stays an issue. While gets off an inside or outside edge are given out by the umpire, if contact shows up on snicko or hotspot and a run out or befuddling is either in or out, for some unbelievable explanation, lbw, whenever given not out by the umpire, is possibly out if the greater part the ball is anticipated by hawkeye to hit the wicket. Whenever given out by the umpire, at that point the merest brushing of the wicket by the ball is adequate to win a ruling for the bowler. This is clearly strange. Most likely, one doesn't utilize innovation except if one believes that it is totally solid. It at that point pursues that if hawkeye shows that the ball would have hit the wicket and every single other condition are set up for a lbw claim to be fruitful, at that point it is out, paying little respect to the first choice of the umpire.
Sadly, for those of us who long for 'past times worth remembering', innovation is digging in for the long haul yet it requires to be utilized rapidly, proficiently and with a far more prominent level of presence of mind.
In resistance are the individuals who declare that the utilization of innovation delivers long and frequently pointless deferrals, that human blunder is a piece of life and game, that innovation is additionally flawed and along these lines we should carry on as we did previously. Among this gathering one will discover a few players and umpires.
To me it appears that the controlling light ought to be that factor which is to the least extent liable to be utilized by the ICC, sound judgement. Right off the bat, choices by the umpire ought to be taken rapidly. Right now there is a recommended calendar of steps - check no ball; check problem area; check snicko; check hawkeye and so forth and so on. The umpire should comprehend what he actually needs to see, if the batsman watches out, check the no ball and give the choice. Lamentably, it isn't just innovation which some of the time seems flawed, as time and again by umpire has inspected the episode from each conceivable edge more than a few minutes and afterward settled on a clearly over the top choice.
For me and for some others, hawkeye cricket technology and the manner in which it is utilized stays an issue. While gets off an inside or outside edge are given out by the umpire, if contact shows up on snicko or hotspot and a run out or befuddling is either in or out, for some unbelievable explanation, lbw, whenever given not out by the umpire, is possibly out if the greater part the ball is anticipated by hawkeye to hit the wicket. Whenever given out by the umpire, at that point the merest brushing of the wicket by the ball is adequate to win a ruling for the bowler. This is clearly strange. Most likely, one doesn't utilize innovation except if one believes that it is totally solid. It at that point pursues that if hawkeye shows that the ball would have hit the wicket and every single other condition are set up for a lbw claim to be fruitful, at that point it is out, paying little respect to the first choice of the umpire.
Sadly, for those of us who long for 'past times worth remembering', innovation is digging in for the long haul yet it requires to be utilized rapidly, proficiently and with a far more prominent level of presence of mind.
Comments
Post a Comment