The Need for Technology in Cricket: Human Nature Not Just Human Error

In cricket, the case for the use of technology to aid umpires is often couched in terms of minimising human error. While this is certainly an important contribution of the use of technology, it is far from the only important benefit. Indeed, more than just simple human error, the use of technology will eliminate the biases that results from human nature.

Umpires are, needless to say, human beings. Being so they are fallible to various pressures that arise from other human beings, from circumstance, from history, etc. In turn, these pressures can lead to erroneous decisions that can alter the result of a game, just as a plain vanilla error can.

One source of "pressure" is the players on the ground. In recent years, players have become much more adept at "working" umpires on the ground. Through the sly use of conversations, questions or even a passing remark within earshot, players seek to apply pressure on umpires so that future decisions go in their favour. The Australians, at one point, were masters at working the umpires.

When Messers Warne and McGrath were in full-flow..."Oooh that must've been real close...tough one to give not out." "Ball seems to be keeping low today. Wouldn't want to give it not out just because it hits him above the knee roll." No doubt umpires today are also much more aware of these 'tactics' but that doesn't automatically eliminate their impact.

Another source of pressure is plain old fear. Recall, first, what happened in Sydney 2008. India suffered a series of poor calls and lost a test match by the thinnest of margins. The umpires were crucified by the Indian Board and the media. Umpire Steve Bucknor was removed from the next match and, to my memory, never stood in an India game thereafter. Indeed, the criticism of his performance in this test probably began his slide to retirement.

Now move forward to Mohali Oct-05 2010, and put yourself in Billy Bowden's shoes. India needs 6 runs to win. Australia needs one wicket. The ball raps Pragyan Ojha on the pads. Billy knows that if he lifts his finger the test is over. He might think to himself, "Geez what if I get this one wrong? Already the Indians have been on the wrong side of a couple in this match; imagine the furore if they lose the match on a questionable call. What'll happen to me, and my career?"

This is a natural human emotion. Umpires feel it. Hawk-eye does not.

Nowadays, umpires are also made aware, almost immediately, about whether a decision they just made was correct or not. And, if they learn that they've erred, they may, even subconsciously, try to correct for this by not paying a close one in favour of the team that was previously wronged. This is another human proclivity eliminated by use of UDRS.

Finally, what about the relationship between umpires and players? Players and umpires spend a lot of time with each other over the months and years and, obviously, get to know each other as people. What if an umpire and a team develop a particularly sour relationship? It is widely understood, for example, that Steve Bucknor and many Indian players got along very poorly with each other. Even if true, perhaps that didn't affect the way Bucknor umpired India's games. But who's to say this will always be the case?

This is yet another human characteristic that may potentially lead to bias which can be eliminated (or at least minimised) by technology.

So, readers, if it's not clear yet, then what I'm saying is: the case for technology is about much more than just random human error. If errors are random and unbiased then, yes, they will 'cancel out' over time. But umpires are humans and are prone to various doubts and pressures - beyond just the human tendency to err. This is why proven technologies— i.e. those meeting a certain error threshold—need to be implemented.

Here, the BCCI's stubbornness is frustrating. Just because India did not use UDRS well during that one series in Sri Lanka does not mean they cannot learn. The technology is available, and it works well. The ICC needs to step in and enforce universal usage. Either everyone uses it or no one does. Otherwise we have yet another silly situation where fundamental standards governing play are not uniform.