Technology is not fool-proof: Gavaskar

[King]

London: Umpiring was under scrutiny during morning?s play in the seventh and final NatWest one-day international cricket match at the Lord?s here on Saturday. Both the decisions involved Aleem Dar, considered one of the ... More... Technology is not fool-proof: Gavaskar Special Correspondent London: Umpiring was under scrutiny during morning’s play in the seventh and final NatWest one-day international cricket match at the Lord’s here on Saturday. Both the decisions involved Aleem Dar, considered one of the better umpires in the ICC Elite panel. In the first instance, Dar ruled Rahul Dravid out, caught by the wicketkeeper off Andrew Flintoff. In the second, he upheld Flintoff’s vociferous appeal for another caught behind verdict, this time against the in-form Sachin Tendulkar. These were two massive decisions involving India’s two foremost batsmen in a series where the standard of umpiring has been, to put it mildly, ordinary. Both Dravid and Tendulkar were distinctly unhappy although the television replays suggested that the Indian captain might have got the thinnest of edges. Unlucky Tendulkar, though, was very unlucky to be walking back. Dar might have been misled by the sound of the bat hitting the pad. The dismissals once again opened up the question — should technology be used for the caught behind rulings as well? Sunil Gavaskar, among the greatest batsmen of all time, said technology was “not fool-proof.” Gavaskar told The Hindu: “in run out decisions, technology is very useful and does give you the right picture. But this is not true in the case of the snickometre when it comes to assessing caught behind decisions or the Hawk Eye, on the leg-before decisions. I personally think, they don’t, as of yet, tell you the complete story. They give you a fair estimate, but need not be entirely correct.” Limitations The former India captain added technology had its limitations. “I will give you an example. You ask any batsman and he will tell you that the short-pitched delivery from a fast bowler is often the quickest delivery he has to cope with. “However, the speed gun will show it as one of the slower balls. The reason being, the fuller you bowl, the faster it is according to the speed gun. Perhaps, that is how it has been programmed. I was an opening batsman and I can tell you, that was not the case,” Gavaskar said. What then is Gavaskar’s verdict? “If the technology is not fool-proof, leave it to the umpires.”

[Anakin]

Even the run-out isn't 100% fool-proof. Combination of snicko-meter, hawkeye and the new one with thermal imaging is as good as what we have for run-outs or catches. Besides the technology will be same % wrong for everyone unlike the human umpires.

[yoda]

Gavaskar represents the ICC.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Chandan]

I think Gavaskar and Dravid are apprehensive about technology for decisions as Dravid got where the batsman felt he didn't nick it but the technology showed that he had indeed nicked it!

[Bumper]

^But with the technology the decision couldnt have been any worse. Except hawk eye, almost every other technology in use today is far more accurate than the field umpires As for LBWs the hawk eye can simply be used to deny LBWs (for ones declared out by field umps) instead of giving them. Even the most competent umpires today give several nonsensical LBWs which hawk eye can overturn

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --