THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE ZIMBABWE cricket series provides another illustration of the power of an idea whose time has come. Instant replay technology could have helped the umpires to avoid some bad decisions. The ICC by refusing umpires access to instant replays available to everyone else exposes them to ridicule for making avoidable mistakes.
Are today's umpires worse than their predecessors? No! They are simply more unfortunate in that their every decision can be reviewed in excruciating, slow motion detail by anyone. Not many years ago, the umpire had the best view of the action and everyone, had to contend with action in real time. Not anymore, thanks to slow motion instant replays and zoom lenses. Now everyone, except the umpires, can review the evidence repeatedly, in slow motion, before arriving at a conclusion. The big problem is that it is the umpire who makes the decision on the field.
It is difficult to see what useful purpose is being served by withholding from general application a technology which has already proven itself over many years of limited service e.g., in determining run-outs. LBW decisions are particularly thorny as so many fine distinctions separate "out" from the "not out". They cry out for the technology's capabilities.
I don't know whether umpires want the technology, or if they view it as a dimension of their role. I try to picture myself umpiring late on the fifth day of the first Test with the Windies' last pair at the wicket and Zimbabwe throwing everything at them and appealing for everything. Did that take an edge on its way to the 'keeper? Would that ball have really hit the stumps? Then the inevitable questions: what will the viewers be thinking now as they watch the slow motion replay? What will the players think after reviewing the tapes later? Perhaps, more importantly, what will I think after reviewing some of those moments in slow motions?
I would definitely want the help while I am out there.
I am, etc.,
MICHAEL NICHOLSON
8 Liguanea Ave
Kingston 6
