আমি আসলে এই নিবন্ধটির রূপরেখা শুরু করেছি 2 সপ্তাহ আগে. তখন থেকে আমি বিদেশে আছি, যদিও ডিআরএসের সমালোচনা সবেমাত্র আরও জোরে পেয়েছে। আমার কাছ থেকে কোনও বেড়া বসে থাকবে না - আমি ডিআরএস সিস্টেমের একটি বড় অনুরাগী, and I intend to deal with all the criticisms I’ve heard and put forward a solid case for the use of technology in cricket.
Let’s start by being clear — there have been some terrible DRS decisions this summer in England, all of which are due criticism. However, there is a clear case of confirmation bias going on with some commentators and pundits, who notice every time the DRS system fails, but aren’t noticing the large majority of cases where it is working exactly as it should do. Further — most of the terrible decisions have been just that — terrible decisions, by the 3য় umpire, and not a fault with technology. There has also been at least one case where the rules have been absurd. The technology can’t take the blame for failings of 3য় umpires and the rules of the game. How many “mistakes” has the technology made? Arguably one — where Sky failed to have a HotSpot camera available as they were showing a replay. Again though — I would argue this is a failure of Sky to use the technology properly — or rather a poor decision by a TV editor or producer — in other words — a human.
সুতরাং, the technology itself is excellent and works very well, but the system as a whole is sometimes failing. It also adds to the entertainment and excitement of the game. Rather than highlighting its weak points to generate a controversy (যা মিডিয়া প্রেম, অত: পর কেন তারা এটা করছেন!) we should ask if is there anything that can be done to improve the system as a whole? The answer is of course there is…
- The HawkEye ball tracker is 99.9% accurate — so reduce the “umpires call” error margin — so there are far less umpire’s calls.
- যদি একটি টিম পর্যালোচনা, and is unsuccessful because it is given “umpires call” the team should not lose a review.
- Whenever a review is used, it should automatically be used to check all reasons for being out or not out. So even if a player is given out caught, and they are actually এলবিডব্লুর শিকার, তারা এখনও বাইরে.
- Control of the technology should not be managed by a TV company, কিন্তু কেউ দ্বারা স্থল দ্বারা নিযুক্ত, আইসিসি বা আয়োজক সমিতি.
- Snicko and Hotspot should be used together — clear evidence with either is sufficient to make a decision, if the evidence is inconclusive the decision stays with the onfield umpire.
- দ্য 3য় umpire should be provided with a large high quality screen, fed from a high speed high resolution camera for run out/stumped decisions.
- All 3য় umpire decisions should be explained when the replay is shown on the big screen. Either via text on the screen or via the stadium PA system. This is already done in text form when the ball tracker is used.
- The onfield umpires should be able to call for a review themselves of anything at any time.
In addition to these changes, all ICC umpires should be given some additional training on the use of DRS, a suggestion made by John Holder.
The only difficult issue not resolved by these changes is the issue of bat tape reducing the utility of HotSpot. The use of Snicko will partially alleviate the problem, but it is likely some nicks will remain undetected. I would argue that even if some go undetected, the use of technology will pick up more nicks than not using technology, and although not every decision will be correct, more decisions will be correct than without technology. This can only be a good thing.
“লাল / সবুজ ঘাটতি দৃষ্টিতে গোলাপী বলটি ধূসর / নীল প্রদর্শিত হয়, এর তীব্রতার উপর নির্ভর করে. রঙ অন্ধ হয়ে একটি সিমুলেশন করেছি ulation…”