Technology in Cricket? Where is it?

Cricket is such a wonderful game. Most of the Americans feel it vapid and such a drag. I don't entirely blame them because most of the American sport like football and basket ball are time based and much more fast paced. But we, from the Sub-continent in particular and the British occupied colonies in general are fond of cricket. Fond might be an understatement. At least in India the passion towards the game easily reaches maniacal proportions. Sometimes, the aftermath is startling and even horrendous. Anyways, the point being, cricket is a religion for most of us.

Cricket is a game of "glorious uncertainties" they say. But when the uncertainty is because of poor umpiring decisions it is hard to accept it. There's nothing we can do except moan at the umpire's blunder. The player cannot even do that lest he get fined for a level 1 breach of conduct: "Showing dissent at an umpire's decision by word or action." It is not the umpire that we can or should blame for he too is human.

There is so much technology involved in the game today. The advent of the third umpire has helped address the issues of run-outs and stumpings but what irks me is the abstinence from the ICC to use the existing technology for LBW's and caught behinds. The purists say that to keep the tradition of the game the technology should be minimal. But I'd say to maintain the sanity of the game, to keep it on an even keel, to keep it as a true battle between the two teams we need to use the technology. We don't want the umpire to be the monkey holding the scale. I'm not amongst those who say that it has to be all electronic gadgets which replace the umpire (Whom will the players appeal to if that's the case :-)?). No, I'm not saying that. But when you see videos like this you feel so aghast.

The 'Hawk-Eye' and the 'Snicko' are consistently used by the commentators on television to prove or disprove the umpires. But what good is it other than having an inutile debate over lunch. The Hawk-eye, which is mostly used for LBW decisions, I'm not an ardent fan of. Only because it works on predictability. Something which is yet to happen, kind of acausal. It analyzes the trajectory of the ball and predicts whether the ball would have hit the stumps. I'm not against it per se, because most of the times it is correct but just to appease the purists I'd say let the umpires stand by their judgment. But the 'Snick-O'. Such a handy technology which can be put to pragmatic use. Simple. Use it for caught behinds. When in doubt use the Snicko.

For caught-behind's the ball passes the bat at around 70-100 mph and before u know the ball is past the bat. Now if it were just the players ad no spectators the umpire could trust his sense of hearing along with sight but that's t not the case. The noise from the crowd reaches clamorous proportions. The umpire ends up trusting only his eyes and that is when disaster strikes. Yama cracking his whip :-) . What if that fatal decision stood between the World Cup or a rare win as seen in Australia.

Anyways, I think I've put my point across the table. All I can do is hope that the ICC implement a few rules and with hold the respect of the game. They should at the least implement a few of these in 20-20 games and then take it from there. There has to be some beacon of light pointing in the right direction. We'll enjoy the usual debates over lunch till that day...till that day...