|
Phil Hughes was given out lbw after the ball tracker showed the ball would have hit leg stump
© AFP
|
|
Enlarge
|
|
|
|
Simon Taufel, the senior international umpire, has referred
Phil Hughes' second innings lbw dismissal in the first Test
between Sri Lanka and Australia to the ICC as a serious question mark
against the accuracy of Hawk-Eye, the ball tracking technology. Taufel
and the officiating umpires Richard Kettleborough, Aleem Dar and Tony
Hill have have also sent the relevant footage of the incident to the
ICC's cricket operations department.
Hughes was given out lbw on the second evening when he attempted to
sweep Tillakaratne Dilshan. Replays indicated that the delivery had spun
appreciably from around middle stump towards off, but the Hawk-Eye
predicted path had the ball going straight on with the angle from round
the wicket to to strike leg stump.
Though he reviewed the decision, Hughes was sent on his way by umpire
Kettleborough after consultation with third umpire Hill who is obliged
to grant significant weight to the original decision made on the field
when he decides whether to reprieve or dismiss a batsman.
In Galle to conduct a third umpire accreditation seminar, Taufel has
observed the first two days of the Test in part to assess the impact of
technology's inconsistent use and accuracy, having umpired in England's
home series against India under vastly different playing conditions and
technological aids.
Taufel told ESPNcricinfo that more needed to be done to prove the
veracity of devices such as Hawk-Eye, HotSpot and Virtual Eye via
independent testing that sits outside the views of broadcasters and
suppliers.
"Why can't we tap into technology if the match official is missing a
piece of information, and is it right that the match official has to
make a decision before technology can be used?" Taufel said. "That's a
fundamental question I think we're still working through. Under the
current system we're encouraged to make decisions and if a player feels
they disagree with that then they've got the right to review. But if
they get that wrong twice, then we can't use technology anymore in that
innings for that particular team.
"They're the parameters we're working with and that's the value we want
to promote within the sport - do we just want to get the obvious mistake
fixed up or do we want to get as many decisions right as possible? What
are the technology tools we have to achieve that, and then how accurate
are those tools? Have we really investigated that from an independent
perspective, and have we got a categorical answer with that? Is it
reliable on the day, rather than just relying on the provider of that
technology to say 'it is x-amount accurate and the result is right' and
we just take that on face value?"
The third umpire's job in particular has become increasingly difficult
as each series brings a different set of parameters for reviewing
decisions, and the technological means by which they may be reviewed.
Taufel said players had also become confused on the field by the
transient nature of rules relating to referrals and technology.
"From the training perspective we did with the third umpire
accreditation module it is very difficult, because there is no
consistency of inputs," Taufel said. "How do I train and develop a third
umpire when I don't know what technology tools are going to be
available on the day?
"From an umpiring perspective, as a third umpire, it is incredibly
challenging here [in Sri Lanka] because the frame rates used by Ten
Sports per second will be different to the ones used by Sky in Britain.
There's ultra-motion available in the UK, there's none of that here. We
have Hotspot in the UK, we don't have Hotspot here. The camera rates
used by Hawk-Eye here would be different to the camera rates used there.
"Therein lies the challenge of consistency - how can you possibly expect
consistent outputs if you've got inconsistent inputs? We've also
noticed the players are somewhat confused as to what they can challenge
and what they can't. In the UK they couldn't challenge lbws, they could
only challenge caught decisions. Here we've gone back to a different
system where you can challenge both.
"Surely that's got to be difficult for the players and the match
officials to keep adjusting from series to series. Our message as
umpires was rather strong at the ICC cricket committee meeting where we
said, we either want to use everything or nothing at all, let's try to
make it consistently easier for everybody. That's what we want to work
towards."
