My turn to jump in on the technology debate going on at Cricinfo.
Most of what I would want to say has been covered by S Rajesh.¬ Most surprising to me was Sambit Bal’s (who still remains one of my favorite cricket writers) asinine excuse of life being unfair.¬ Fairness is the one of the foundations of human civilization, and while life may not be fair all the time, we constantly strive to make it so.
Here then is my suggestion of how technology¬ can be used in cricket right away without interfering too much with the flow of the game.¬ The umpire makes all decisions as at present.¬ Any side can appeal (re-appeal?) any decision made by the umpire as many times as¬ they want¬ in a game, so long as the technology favors their stance.¬ If a team ends up twice on the wrong side of the technical analysis, it loses the right to dispute¬ any further¬ decisions.¬ This will keep such re-appeals to a minimum, with it coming into play only when a team is sure the on-field umpire’s decision was wrong.¬ If technology proves to be inconclusive, the on-field umpire’s decision stands.
I am nonchalant about whether the third umpire gets to use Hawk-Eye, Snick-o-meter, and other gadgets.¬ From what we saw in the super series, the third umpire gets the decisions right most of the time without any help from the above-mentioned innovations.¬ This might not be perfect, but should be pretty close to it.¬ And therein I disagree with Martin Williamson that we need to “go the whole hog” were we to tread the techonological path.
I think this is the best solution in light of¬ the concerns expressed¬ on¬ Cricinfo.¬ Let the rebuttals flow in.