Over ‘should we have technology in cricket? Technology

Over many years, the game of cricket has utilized modern day technology. In fact, it has got some of the latest technological advances that you will find (Wood, 2008). This technology was put in place to create more accurate results in the sport. But, for every positive a negative exists (Walke, n.d). A big debate has been ongoing throughout the public ever since technology was introduced in the sport, ‘should we have technology in cricket? Technology is used in the game of cricket because it aids the umpires and gives evidence for the correct final decision in many different circumstances (Munagavalasa, 2015). On the other hand, use of technology in cricket is an issue because there are many faults that may occur which can impact the game in a negative way.
The Decision Review System (DRS) allows players to review a decision made by the umpire if they think it is the wrong call. This consists of 3 parts; The Hawkeye, technology that shows the passage of the ball after a delivery and is used to determine if it will hit the wickets or not (LBW). Hotspot, two infra-red cameras that pick up the small amount of heat from when the ball hits the bat, this determines if the ball has contacted the bat, used to see if a catch by the wicket keeper should be out or if the ball hit the bat before hitting the pads for a leg before wicket (LBW) call. Snicko-meter, an extremely sensitive microphone found in the stumps which can pick up sound if the ball snicks the bat.
It often happens where an error can change the game, an example of this is the series in Sydney where India lost the match due to umpiring decision errors (Waris, 2014). This is where technology comes in, that could have saved the match with the Decision Review System (DRS).
This technology was put in place after India’s trip to Australia experienced 11 decisions go towards the hosting team. The board of control for cricket in India (BCCI) charged the Aussies for cheating and the umpires of being biased for the hosting side (Waris, 2014). Technology was brought in to the game to eliminate umpiring errors like this, allowing fair matches to be played for both teams (Waris, 2014).
With all these technological advances accepted into the game, there have also been some rejected, such as the aluminum cricket bat (Wood, 2008). This occurred when Dennis Lillee took out an aluminum bat to the pitch inspired by the change from wood to aluminum baseball bats (Sengupta, 2015). The aluminum bat damaged the shape of the ball, having an impact on the match condition.
Having the help of technology to positively impact the game doesn’t just happen, and it comes with a great cost. To use the decision review system, the host country is paying approximately $78,000 per match (Waris, 2014). This has caused several protests from board members that have blamed the International Cricket Council (ICC) for coming up with this technology because the money comes straight from their own wallet (Waris, 2014).
Indian board members believe that the hawk eye is unreliable after the experience of a review of an LBW was originally called not out and the hawk eye showed the ball still had 40cm to the stumps and wasn’t accurate that it was hitting (Waris, 2014).
All this information is mostly unbiased as the writers of these sources spoke for both sides of the debate and clearly backed up their information with reliable stats and real-life scenarios. This makes the information a lot more dependable as the authors did not pump up their point of view and eliminates them possibly making stuff up to support their own view. But there are limitations to this research because in many circumstances we cannot exactly know whether the technology is having good or bad effects in the game.
Based on the research I have done and the information I have found, I believe that technology is having a negative effect on the game of cricket. There are a similar number of positives and negatives that are shown but the negatives seem to have a bigger impact, such as the cost of the technology for just one match. This is not a good use of resources when you think of what else we could be using the money on, such as medical technological advances.
I recommend that we limit the amount of technology that is used and only use what we really need, this will drop the price of $78,000 per match and keep the game flowing well. I don’t believe we need to wipe out all the technology in the game, just the things that aren’t needed and won’t have an effect with or without it.


I'm Gerard!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out