DRS may be flawed, but perfect machines will not make cricket a better game

As with any technology, questions about accuracy are often asked. Why do you think traffic law enforcement officers tolerate you for a few kilometers with their cameras and radars? This is not from softness of heart or generosity of spirit; because the accuracy of such machines is not absolute and can be legally challenged. Common sense indeed.

The same goes for RTS (Real Time Snickometer) or UltraEdge. RTS costs less and is easier to install, but has a lower frame rate per second.

The cost of producing cricket can be staggering, especially if the cricket is tested over five days and travels a long distance. Countries outside the top three find it almost impossible to afford Test cricket, and the expansion of Tests is hampered by cost rather than talent.

RTS displays sudden increases in sound waves a frame or two after the video shows an edge. The referees know this and are prepared for the events that will appear on their monitors. The decisions are driven by a combination of high frame resolution video and audio spikes. Traffic police will be pleased with this sensitivity.

The other factor that affects the dismissal is what the umpire perceives on the field in real time and finally whether the batter is a “walker” or a “talker”. The walkers do not wait for a replay or advice from the bowler. Sometimes they don’t even wait for objections. They know they are out there, and they emerge from this fold with an aura of humility and honesty.

Professional sport uses professionals to make decisions. Golf may be the only other sport where players punish themselves. Walkers in cricket are seen as frequently as Yowies. Speakers tell you where to go, even as bellowed calls give way to a squawk.

The batsmen are not expected to walk past anyone except the bowlers, who feel they will be deprived of a hard-earned wicket. As Carey says, if you “feather” a good edge to the goalkeeper with no deflection, then it is ethically safe to hold your ground. If you slice someone to first slip, as Stuart Broad did off Ashton Agar in 2013, then perhaps loitering at the crease is moot.

Carey and Broad had the right to wait for the referee to make a decision. The arbitrator has the right to make a decision as he sees fit. Even the third referee has this discretion. Nothing has changed since television screens came before our eyes and ears.

Whatever the technology, people need to have the final say. I definitely don’t want a chatbot with an antenna on its dongle to decide on a Test.

Loading

To make Twenty20 cricket fascinating, I would like to see a match completely controlled by the sporting version of AI. Tennis rules people without lines, but decisions there follow actual ball paths, not predicted ones, with a simple algorithm.

I thought England’s vision of the Carey moment reeked of desperation. They considered blaming an outside institution for the plight that they had largely created.

Referees and their avatars are often the target of player failures. Sometimes they are right; Most of the time they are not. England goalkeeper Jamie Smith’s feigned anger at being left behind underlined this idea. England may consider changing their philosophy and/or personnel before influencing the path to refereeing decisions.

For all the progress of the sport and its interface with technology, cricket remains a truly organic game of leather, willow, soil, wind, sun and air.

His human strength and fragility make him unpredictable, and that’s a good thing. Perfect machines do not make cricket a better game.