Oliver Brett has called for more use of technology in his comment on the BBC website

BBC - 606 - - A30596222 - Bucknor error spoils the Symonds show

He concludes:-

However, he quite rightly points out that one of the errors, by Bruce Oxenford, was done whilst using technology!!

So I am confused, if technology is the answer, how come it did not work with regards to that case?

He also points out the Ponting was not out when he should have been out, and given out of a ball that he should not have. Maybe we just have to accept that these things do even themselves out?

Even themselves out? Tell that to us, the Indian supporters if and when Symonds gets out.

But then cricket is supposed to be a gentleman's game. As long as all the upper lips are properly stiffened, the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed, it does not really matter if a few mistakes occur, what? What's the big deal if a batsman is given not out when he was in fact out? Things will even out the next time when he is given out when not out and we can forget about the whole thing and start again. More important to have the proper image than to worry about fairness and all that sort of thing.

Now we know what people really mean when they say "That's not cricket!"

Any more technology will be the end of umpiring as we know it, or at least what I grew up to believe in.The last thing cricket needs is yet more technololgy.Mistakes will happen, and have always happened - and yes they do even themselves out.Dickie Bird was claimed to be thee best umpire, no one doubts he was not impartial, but I would bet TV replays would have shown he made mistakes like all the rest.

__________________
Ern

Your post makes it clear that you do indeed know what it means, Nostromo! It's not cricket to argue with the umpire, or to wait for a ruling when you know you nicked the ball, or to stand your ground when you know you missed the ball but the umpire thought otherwise, or to appeal when you know the batsman missed the ball ...

In short, anything which smacks of unfair play or failing to trust the umpire is "not cricket". Long may that continue! The introduction of technology at any level reduces trust by requiring proof to be shown. That is "not cricket".

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

I am not sure I agree, OF. At international level, there is hardly any trust left between opposing teams anyway. A few captains, eg Ponting, Lara and Inzi, tried to revive some aspect of it, by entering into pre-series agreements to trust the fielder's word on 'bump catches'; this experiment ended when others, in particular Michael Vaughan, refused to play ball. Hence, technology would in fact be replacing mutual suspicion and uncertainty with a degree of certainty that has hitherto been lacking; sure, it doesn't offer complete certainty, but it would be a significant improvement on what precedes it.

Technology, in effect, replaces blind (and often absent) faith in an umpires' infallibility, with a measured respect for the umpire's human frailties, and an acknowledgement that he is being assisted by the best available tools. That's what technology is, after all; simply a tool to allow the umpire to do a better job. You and I would expect no less in our chosen profession, would we? Unless you recommend we bin our calculators and invest in an abacus.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Cricket has become a game of bad sportsmanship, enforced umpiring errors and outright lies by the players when they claim catches that they did not hold or pretend that they nciked the ball for lbw decisions or missed for caught behinds. There should be a certain leeway to fielders behind the wicket - particularly the keeper - appealing for close calls because they may not know themselves and it does not hurt to ask once, as long as they don't make a song and dance about it - which they now seem to do.

The problem is that the situation has become a vicious circle. Like the proverbial chicken & egg, we don't know who 'started' it, but there is this ongoing saga of players vociferously appealing until the beleagured umpire cracks and makes a mistake. If that turns out to be a wrong dismissal, the aggrieved batting side are more than likely to have a go themselves when it is their turn to bowl & field. Furthermore, the media and critics will point out the umpire's errors so that the poor man could end up being pressurised to go too far the other way the next time around. There is no way you can ban the entire replay apparatus and any attempt to do so will only give rise to even more controversy in the long run.

Covering this sort of situation in gloss and pretending all is well with the world is certainly not the answer. All that will do is paper over mistakes and eventually lead to loss of whatever credibility the game has left...indeed if it has any. If there is anything worse than mistakes on the field, it is those who seek to cover them up in a sheen of pseudo-sophistication and talk of "eventual evening out" or "swings and roundabouts" and such meaningless nonsense. Introduction of all out technology will certainly not be easy, but in the end it will at least make the game fair and eventually players will realise that they cannot get away with the old misdemeanours. A batsman who knows that his 'nick' will be spotted and given out is more likely to walk and likewise a fielder who knows his lie will be shown-up is less likely to claim a catch that he did not take.

Those who belive that umpiring errors eventually "even out" or talk about "swings and roundabouts" (whatever they are supposed to be) are almost saying that two wrongs would make a 'right'. Let us suppose that in the current Oz-India Test, VVS Laxman was clearly caught early but got the benefit of doubt and then went on to get a big hundred that enabled India to draw the match and keep the series alive. Does that mean "justice is done and all is well"? No way! All it means is that there have been TWO glaring umpiring mistakes - mistakes that need not have happened - and in the eyes of a neutral observer reduce the credibity of the match even further. One cannot protect the interests of the game by covering-up loopholes and pretending that they don't matter. Just because our predecessors had no means to know any better does not mean that we should turn a blind eye.

The whole point in the entire game of cricket - as opposed to almost every other sport - is that the rules are so unforgiving; for example, there is a chance that a well set batsman may be out after his first error, like the first uppish stroke being caught. That is what makes the game so unpredictable, different from all others and in short....great. IMO, anything that compromises that should be avoided and equally, anything that is likely to help in upholding those principles should be embraced.

I'm with you Nostromo. Even if things do "even themselves out," by the time that happens the batsman could have gotten a double-century which results in their team winning. Thus the umpire's incompetence may well have had more of an impact on the game than the players!

You're right in that we don't know whether the bowlers started it or the batsmen - but one thing's for sure: it wasn't the umpires. Umpires make mistakes - that does not make them incompetent as Aurelius would have it. If you're incompetent, you don't get to the elite panel. Period. Nostromo is arguing effectively for better behaviour and more sportsmanship from the players. That gets my full support. And I'm not arguing for the elimination of the replay apparatus - far from it: my sight is so awful sometimes that I need to see the replays on TV in order to understand what is happening! But it doesn't need to lead to outright criticism of or disrespect for the umpires. Listen to Agnew on the radio and you won't hear him undermining the umpires - the most you'll hear is that a decision was "close", "questionable" or "might have gone another way on another day", which is exactly what we argue about here and in our pavilions all the time! Benaud on the TV seldom gives more than a mild "Hmm", which says enough without ever being close to undermining the umpire.

Have players exhibit sportsmanship rather than gamesmanship and the media behave responsibly and in the interests of the game rather than of one team or the other and the problem is solved: technology is not necessary.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

But my point is that a mistake is a mistake even if every one of the players involved takes it lying down and don't raise a finger about it. Even if no one on the field had protested against Symonds' decision yesterday and play had gone on as usual, I would have found it completely unacceptable - NOT because I am an India fan, but because it is just another nail in cricket's coffin. Bad player behaviour is only one of the things that is affecting cricket these days, but there is no question that this is an offshoot of their awareness of their opponents' gamesmanship and enforced umpiring errors. It is too late now to put the lid on everything...that was never the answer anyway. That is like a regime where all crime is covered up so that the world believes that the country is a peaceful utopia with everyone smiling and shaking hands.

As I said before, cricket is a game based on correct interpretation of the game's rules and if you are prepared to make a mockery if it - and that is exactly what wilful acceptance of mistakes for the sake of diplomacy will be - then there is no point in playing the game at all. All you 'll have is 22 players, a few officials and thousands of spectators deluding themselves on a sham.