So I am watching more Cricket today. Test match (5 day!) cricket that does NOT involve India. USA vs. Mexico! OK I am kidding :) It’s the Aussies vs. West Indies (a.k.a Caribbean for all my American friends). I don’t follow cricket as closely (I mean every game :)) as I used to before I started traveling. I didn’t realize that until just now. I just saw something on TV that I have always wanted to see in cricket. Actually for all sports. Decision Review System!

Here’s what happened. Windies are chasing 359 runs in the second innings. 5 wickets down. Probably down to the last two batsmen that can make a match of it. Ramdin is given leg before wicket on a Ball that clearly is going down the leg side!! Back in the day he would have walked away grudgingly shaking his head and the Aussies would go on the wrap the tail within the next hour (they still might!). But wait a second! He appeals against the decision and the third umpire rightly overrules the Original Decision of asking the batsman to walk. Isn’t that great?? I have always thought the argument against Technology in sport (holds the game up, takes out the human element, blah, blah, blah) is a truckload of bullshit! What really matters is ensuring that the best team / player wins fair and square. American football (from whatever I understand of it!) uses television replay. Among the more globally watched sports, tennis was an early adopter and I think it’s become a whole lot fairer!

The one sport that really needs to do more is football or soccer. It my favorite sport and honestly FIFA’s attitude towards technology and any form of experimentation leaves much to be desired. Why am I being nice to them?? Stepp Blatter and Co. are a bigger ‘bunch of jokers’ than the much maligned (right so, may I add) Indian cricket team selectors. Of course I am going to use the Thierry Henry incident as a case in point (very original huh?? :)). It’s as good an example as there is to show how a little bit of technology (that already was in place!) would have made sure the deserving team went through to the World Cup. There are hundreds of other instances, minor in comparison to the incident I just described but significant in the context of the game, where existing technology would have ensured fans who pay to watch the game are not going back home with a bitter taste in their mouth (I am not referring to the stale lager!). Think about it. If you follow soccer how many times have you seen a faked dive in the penalty box, a ball that crossed the goal line but was allegedly ‘cleared’, a punch in the face without provocation when the ball was not in play or a howler of an offside decision. Hundreds of thousands of time. It can be argued that the cameras don’t cover all angles and the ‘TV umpire’ may not be in a position to decide. Fair enough. Then let the original decision made by the umpire on the pitch stay. All I am trying to say is that if technology makes it fairer than what it is today I don’t mind waiting a couple of minutes extra while the game is held up. I don’t think most people do (I won’t vouch for the French:)). Here’s hoping for a fairer and cleaner World Cup winner.

******************

In case you needed proof:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/06/fifa-rejects-goalline-technology