The current Ashes series has been under fire. This comes on the heels of some similarly controversial calls to use technology to decide dismissals in the recently completed third Test match between England and Australia in Adelaide. The Snickometer, a technology developed to detect wrinkles, is at the heart of the debate. Players and commentators alike have taken to task this controversial device.
During the opening day of the test, Australian wicketkeeper Alex Carey was subjected to a D.R.S. review resulting in his dismissal. The call? He was called not out! It was operator error by the company operating this Snicko technology that led to this decision. It was just unfortunate technology not being able to recreate the time of contact correctly. That Australian players were not even happy with that behavior set an early tone of ill-will that would go on to sour the second day.
Day two proved even more dramatic as Jamie Smith not only found himself in the middle of two key decisions. At first, he lived a close call for a catch, with the new Snicko technology revealing no clear evidence of an edge. But that wasn’t the case, as later in the innings he scored just 22 runs. Analysis revealed a definitive spike on the Snicko as the ball went past his bat, forcing his wicket. It’s as if the Australian fielders had a real difference to remit and were happy to show visible frustration. As one player sang into the stump microphone, “Snicko should be sacked!
That’s when the role of third umpire Chris Gaffaney turned critical, as he looked at the possible dismissals one-by-one. As a match referee, his duties would extend beyond confirmation of the dismissal of Smith, to determining any possible no-ball breaches. After looking at video of Carey’s ejection, Gaffaney commented, “There’s nothing glaring here.” This ambiguity, he said, is dangerous due to the lack of clarity in the technology’s output.
Now Nathan Lyon is calling out England cricketer Ben Stokes. He wanted to know if there had been any music during the decision-making process. Widespread uncertainty around these calls have undermined confidence in the Snicko system’s accuracy. Marnus Labuschagne expressed his anger at the faulty calls. Nitin, this is absolutely appalling, which was sort of indicative of all Australian players’ disbelief and frustration.
Former Australian cricketer Glenn McGrath spoke out in defense of the decisions made not to protect Smith. He even proposed that, in the face of public outcry, “the only right decision was likely made” in both cases. The contrasting opinions offer alternative perspectives on technological assistance in cricket, promoting fairness or revealing game-determining complexities.
According to International Cricket Council (ICC) Playing Condition 31, the third umpire must decide whether a batter is out caught. This is so that important calls are correctly made during the match. With technology failing to provide clear answers in these instances, many are calling for a reevaluation of its implementation.
Menon, who was integral to the decision-making process, had this to say about the deliberation. He’s like, ‘We looked at fair catch because we thought it was off the glove, but he says it hit helmet. This very serious statement attests to the lack of clarity and extraordinary levels of misunderstanding and interpretation during this Ashes Test.
‘ Snicko-gate ’ should be a warning that the best laid (tech) plans often go awry when you seek to add technology to sports. Players, fans and activist movements like Black Lives Matter are putting their concerns front and center. It remains to be seen how cricket administrators will address these problems down the line.
Leave a Reply