Can Technology be Overused?

In cricket, with the luxury of two reviews, in a high-profile, high-tension match between India and Pakistan, yes, technology can easily be overused. How’s this for an example of the tension that surrounds the second semifinal in the Cricket World Cup 2011 series? As of now, 2:30 p.m. local Pakistan time, on the website of the official media channel that is broadcasting the entire World Cup 2011 tournament, there is an enlarged photograph of captains Afridi and Dhoni shaking hands. And this picture was sported on the webpage even as New Zealand and Sri Lanka played out a semifinal match in Colombo. Everything, it seems, has been sidelined for the all-important match between India and Pakistan.   Given the tensions that together both Indian and Pakistani nationals have heaped on the heads of those 22 men who, along with the umpires will descend into the field for a do-or-die, hopefully not literally, match, we, with a lot of help from ICC who really hyped up the match, have ensured that both teams enter the stadium chock-full of stress and nerves that day. In other words, we’ve done everything possible to ensure that players from both teams are on edge, and ready to do anything it takes to take the other team out as soon as it can be managed. This said, it would not surprise me if both teams decided to rapidly use all the umpire replays very quickly also. In hindsight, I may or may not appreciate the likely rapidity with which reviews are called for, but foresight demands that I insist that this tactic does not necessarily have to be the best tactic going.   India’s quarter-final match against the lately invincible Australian team was ample testimony to the fact. Cricinfo.com reported, “Patel to Ponting, no run, loud appeal from Munaf, none from Dhoni.” Anyhow, India went ahead with the review, but it was “wasted”. This was in the 27^th over of the match. Barely ten overs later India called for another review. This time seemed more plausible. The entire stadium, with the exception of umpire Erasmus felt that Cameron White was out. The Indian team naturally went with the general spirit of appeal. For the second time that day, the Indian team might as well have spared the effort of appealing. In the 44^th over however, Indian bowler, Harbhajan Singh, bowling to Ponting made an impressive delivery. Ponting should have been given out; the umpire did not ‘raise his finger,’ and sadly, India had no more reviews to contest the umpire’s decision. Meanwhile, the Pakistani side, emotional and unpredictable as ever, are no better. The 16^th over and with the match barely begun, Afridi called for a review against an lbw decision involving Sarwan. Commentators dubbed it a “ridiculous review for lbw.” Even after wasting that review, it was hard work for the Pakistani side to not call for another review in the very next ball!   The frequent calls for reviews are tempting, exciting, but at the end of the day, were meant to be used to actually give the playing teams a sort of hold over the decisions that were taken concerning their match. Technology was brought into cricket, one of the most popular sports in the subcontinent at least, in order to make the sport clean, and all decisions taken transparent. The third umpire review system, involving a TV umpire who reviews umpiring decisions on-screen from various angles; the Hawkeye technology, a computer-based system to show ‘the path of a cricket ball’ and the Snick-o-Meter, an extremely sensitive microphone located in the stumps to pick up the sound of the ball ‘nicking’ the bat are other instances of the ways in which technology have hitherto supported cricket on the field. As far as the reviews are concerned, both teams should keep calm, and not use all their reviews hastily, just for the sake of using them. And in case you are religiously following the Pakistan-India Semi Final on Twitter, keep an eye out on the following hashtags: #pakcricket and #cwc2011