It is not often on the show or this website you will find us quoting the founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates. However when he hits the nail firmly on the head in terms of talking about technology and having it help you there is probably no one better.
Gates is quoted as having said, “The first rule of any technology used in a business is that automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency. The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency.”
As we all know sport is now regarded as a business whether we like it or not. The amount of revenue it generates and jobs that result from sport are huge.
With so much at stake financially in many sports we have seen the advent of video technology to ensure that the decisions made in real time by the referees and umpires are correct. No longer can we accept the ‘rub of the green’ that some days decisions go your way and others don’t, but over a season they tend to even themselves out. Why? That is simple, there could be millions, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars impacted as well as share prices if a wrong decision goes against a team.
It is fair to say that most sports have now found a system that works for their unique requirements. However to work well and give the right outcomes there is a need for a large investment in the technology. Suddenly in sports where revenue is tight this investment becomes an issue. Then you are faced with the question as to whether to abandon it completely or run the risk of backing up Bill Gates quote that “automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency.”
Sadly, as witnessed at the recent FIFA World Cup in Qatar, some VAR decisions after closer analysis appeared to be incorrect, despite a gaggle of referees sitting around monitors analysing the action.
The other aspect that infuriated fans was the inconsistency when it came to the use of VAR. For in some games it was used for an infringement, but the next day it was not used for a virtually identical infringement. As Bill Gates stated “an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency.” That was never more evident than in Qatar.
Yet there is another sport where technology seems to be looking to give outcomes that at times defy logic. Yet the broadcasters and the commentators never seem to question the technology, simply accepting that it must be right.
The sport in question is cricket. The decision being determined by technology that at times is baffling is when there is a referral to DRS for an LBW. (Leg Before Wicket – for non cricket followers) In simple terms this is when the batter’s pad or body has prevented the ball hitting the stumps.
Watching the game viewers will frequently note that the wicket keeper is standing approximately 10-15 metres back from the stumps. When the batsman lets the ball go, or plays and misses the wicket keeper takes the ball around waist height. The ball is beginning to drop as the wicket-keeper gathers it in their gloves.
Yet when we see a decision reviewed, the ball tracking technology employed frequently shows the ball as not still rising, but instead already arcing down having presumably already reached the peak of its trajectory. Meaning that it would have bounced a good ten metres in front of the wicket-keeper had they remained in the same position where they have been taking the ball waist-high.
Has no one else noticed this? Have not batters noticed it and questioned how a rising ball that strikes them on the pad for some reason will no longer continue to climb at the same angle but instead starts to dip?
Cricket is a game for mathematicians and statisticians; this writer freely confesses being very poor at both, and having had to take his Math’s O’level a second time before passing, so is maybe not a reliable source on such matters.
However, after consulting a scientist with a far greater understanding of such matters they explained that a cricket ball after it pitches goes on a parabolic path. If the ball is not played by the batter and goes through to the wicket-keeper the ball is only affected by gravity. The same would apply to a ball up until the point of contact with the batter.
It was explained that essentially a projectile has an initial velocity that goes either upward at an angle or horizontally. A Cricket ball after pitching has an initial velocity that sees it go up at an angle. This means that the issues that have to be taken into account are the vertical component, the horizontal component, gravity and crucially in cricket the starting point – where the ball pitched. The parabola of the ball’s path is impacted by the velocity – the speed of the delivery, – the angle at which it climbs and the distance it will travel horizontally, as well as gravity.
Having shown our learned friend an example of ball tracking from the recent test series between Australia and South Africa a smile broke across their face when they saw the very same arc that this writer has been questioning on his sofa for months. This was followed by a shake of the head and them stating that in their opinion it was very unlikely that the ball based on the speed at which it was being delivered would start dipping until it had gone well past the stumps.
Now clearly some batters are struck by the ball very close to their crease meaning that the ball would not have the distance to climb and go over the stumps. They should, and usually are correctly given out.
The Third Umpire cannot be blamed for making the decisions that they do as after all they are making what they believe is an informed decision based on the technology available. Yet is that technology truly reflecting the path of the ball?
Is this another example of as Bill Gates put it, “automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency?”
Some have even asked whether this technology is in fact being used to give bowlers wickets in an era where the wickets on which Test matches are played heavily favour the batter? This would not be cricket!
Technology failing the game when it is supposed to be helping it, well that is a completely different matter.
