ഞാൻ യഥാർത്ഥത്തിൽ ഈ ലേഖനത്തിന്റെ രൂപരേഖ ആരംഭിച്ചു 2 ആഴ്ചകൾക്ക് മുമ്പ്. അതിനുശേഷം ഞാൻ വിദേശത്താണ്, അതേസമയം, ഡിആർ‌എസിന്റെ വിമർശനങ്ങൾ കൂടുതൽ ഉച്ചത്തിലായി. എന്നിൽ നിന്ന് വേലി ഇരിക്കില്ല - ഞാൻ ഡിആർഎസ് സിസ്റ്റത്തിന്റെ വലിയ ആരാധകനാണ്, 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 3rd 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 3rd 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.
അതുപോലെ, 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 (മാധ്യമങ്ങൾ സ്നേഹം, അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ അവർ എന്തുകൊണ്ട് ചെയ്യുന്നത്!) 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.
- ഒരു ടീം അവലോകനങ്ങൾ എങ്കിൽ, 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 എൽ.ബി.ഡബ്ലിയു, അവർ ഇപ്പോഴും പുറത്താണ്.
- Control of the technology should not be managed by a TV company, എന്നാൽ നിലത്തു ജോലി മറ്റൊരാളുടെ, ഐസിസി അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ഹോസ്റ്റ് അസോസിയേഷൻ.
- 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.
- The 3rd umpire should be provided with a large high quality screen, fed from a high speed high resolution camera for run out/stumped decisions.
- All 3rd 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.
“ചുവപ്പ് / പച്ച കുറവുള്ള കാഴ്ചയിൽ പിങ്ക് ബോൾ ചാര / നീലയായി കാണപ്പെടുന്നു, അതിന്റെ കാഠിന്യം അനുസരിച്ച്. കളർ അന്ധത ഉപയോഗിച്ച് ഞാൻ ഒരു സിമുലേഷൻ ചെയ്തു…”