You need eyes like a hawk

Well what do you guys reckon? How have you viewed the innovation of further use of technology?

My assessment so far is that after a hick-up or two on the first day, it has been a success and it has added extra spice to the game. The hick-up I am referring to (pardon the pun) was concerning the use of the LBW mat not being lined up sufficiently. I won’t go into it again as it was well chronicled on both Extra Cover and Super Saturday last week. In essence the mat was positioned about 6 inches further to the leg side than it should have been, giving the impression that the ball pitched inside the line of leg stump.

Thankfully this was rectified for the remaining games but it got me thinking. Quite simply this technology cannot be used for referrals if the standards are not met and consistency is not maintained.

Lets look at other situations that could influence a decision.

Firstly I would like to address the Hawk-Eye that Channel 4 in the U.K. have developed and used so superbly. Now Hawk-Eye is a revolutionary and technically advanced ball tracking system that relies on six strategically placed cameras. The cameras around the ground follow every ball in flight and track it as it leaves the bowler’s hand and as it continues on its path. Following this, the resulting 3 D images are processed. Factors such as swing, variable bounce, trajectory and deviation are all taken into account to determine exactly how each delivery behaves.

It is apparently 99% accurate if all the components and specifically cameras are lined up perfectly. I personally think Hawk-Eye is outstanding and has enhanced cricket viewing enormously but as you can imagine there are some variables and it is a costly innovation.

Secondly, this will surprise you. The Snickometer falls into a similar category. Once again it is a ‘beauty’ for the cricket fan but check this out for variables. Imagine the picture you are presented with on the screen, that for instance confirms the snick. Roughly on one half of the screen you have the visual of the batsman playing at the ball and on the other half of the screen you are presented with the graphic of the sound waves. Have you ever wondered why it takes a couple of minutes, sometimes an over for you to witness the Snicko? Well the answer is that the technical guys entrusted with this ‘add on’ have to synchronize the noise of the ‘snick’ with the visuals. In essence they have to manipulate the two components so that it appears instantaneous. Are you confused? Let me explain further. The audio equipment utilized is so advanced that distances are key. For example the noise is picked up by the stump microphone at the base of the stump and the actual nick happens some distance away, be it glove in front of the batsman’s face or wide outside the off stump. Sometimes the distance is as much as 6 foot. As you can imagine in a highly technical environment the time delay produced between the recorded sound waves and the visuals produced is never perfectly synched at the instant of impact.

Hence the frantic work that goes on in the production van to ‘marry’ the two.

Makes you think doesn’t it?

Don’t get me wrong for one moment. I love the idea of the third umpire or television umpire being given further responsibilities but variables will always exist.

I can’t help thinking that the answer is simply to provide the third umpire with replays of various speeds, without the likes of mats, Hawk-Eye and LBW zones to assist him making his assessment.

Just a thought. Why not put microphones on the umpires so that we can all hear the communication between the officiating ‘men in white’. It works with the tele-ref in rugby!