Negatives of a positive

About a couple of days ago the first cricket test match between India and Sri Lanka started. These two neighbors have played each other before. What's unique about the current series is that it is the first where ICC is trying out referral system for umpiring decisions.

The concept is simple. Any player from either side can question an umpire's decision. The decision is then reviewed based on the slow motion video and hawk-eye trajectory estimation. 22 cameras are placed in precise locations to give best possible angle as well as multiple angles. The third umpire sitting in front of state of art screens decides whether the decision was correct or not. Of course, no one should do this ad infinitum - hence there is a reasonable limit of 3 referral per team per innings. The idea is that the worst of three decisions will be reviewed in more detail. Of course there is no guarantee of the decisions being better, but it will mean that some of the borderline decisions will be reviewed for much longer time than the split second that a typical umpire gets to officiate.

There has been a dire need to technological assistance to make more accurate decisions, more often. A human umpire, with all his wisdom and experience, is still limited by the human equipment - the eye and the brain. They do excellent job and are accurate most of the time. Still, when the decisions can be easily controversial leading to various results like spectators burning effigies of umpires. Blaming umpiring errors for loss in a series is very common.

There has been immense progress in the technology with super slow motion, hawk-eye, sneakometers, and hot spot. Sure, none of these are fail safe, but they clearly provide extra information to those whose job it is to decide who is out or not.

Some progress has been made in this direction already. For examples, most close run out decisions are referred to the third umpire by the umpire on the ground. We have seen some impressive results where the batsmen are millimeters in or out of the line. All these decisions would have gone in favor of the batsmen - due to the benefit of the doubt. Batsmen, in turn have improved their running between the wickets and technique of planting the bat first.

With all these improvements, clearly for better, people still find arguments to somehow convert a positive into a negative. They look at the half filled glass, watch some water being poured into it, and still say "oh, but what about the remaining 10%? That emptiness is going to cause a big problem!" They forget that it was empty to begin with.

Take example of Ian Chappell, a former cricketer of note. He has opposed the referrals, points out, the system would bring justice for some but not for all. "If three referrals are deemed fruitless," Chappell wrote, "under the recommendations of the proposal a team would then have no further opportunity to ask for assistance from the third umpire. Consequently, the biggest howler ever perpetrated could then enter the score book unhindered. This would be classic ." What Mr. Chappell forgets is that these decisions which will go unchallenged after the third referral would have gone unchallenged any way.

There are others who remind us that "technology is neither foolproof nor 100% conclusive. Two catches, or non-catches, in the recently-concluded Headingley Test highlighted the problem. Both AB de Villiers and Michael Vaughan claimed catches that were referred to the television umpire. In the first instance, the ball was conclusively grounded. In Vaughan's case, two camera angles presented different pictures and the batsman was given the benefit of the doubt. The next day, Nasser Hussain demonstrated with the help of the Sky television crew how the camera could lie."(from cricinfo article http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/slvind/content/current/story/362176.html)

All this is valid, all it says is that all experts who judge borderline decisions are fallible - be them umpires, or be them technology or a combination. The referral system is going to simply improve the chances of some potential wrong decisions may be reversed.

Indian cricket team of the 70s was once called "capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory", and sometimes the description seemed apt. In the same vein, I find some thinkers "capable of snatching negative from the jaws of positive"