Interview

'If I was as accurate as Hawk-Eye I'd be a rocket scientist'

The Australian umpire Daryl Harper gives his views on the uses opf technology in modern international cricket

13-Jul-2005
The Australian Daryl Harper, a member of the ICC's Emirates Elite Panel of Umpires, had a close-up view of the technological experiments during the Champions Trophy last month. In this exclusive interview he tells S Rajesh his views on the benefits (and otherwise) to the on-field officials:


Daryl Harper: no technophobe © Getty Images
What was your take on the experiment to have the third umpire call no-balls during the Champions Trophy? Would this significantly improve decision-making as it will allow the umpires to concentrate solely on the business end of the pitch?
I was very interested in the experiment, considering I know first-hand how difficult it is to identify whether a bowler, travelling at high speed, has any minute fraction of his boot behind a line that is so worn by traffic that it cannot be seen. On the field I felt more comfortable in still glancing at the bowler's front foot, preferring not to change my routine too drastically. But I did enjoy the advantage gained in having extra time to see the ball in flight. As the third umpire, I found the task of watching two monitors, focussed on the popping crease, to be more difficult than I had imagined. For some bowlers, that front foot is perilously close on every delivery, and there isn't much time to make a decision. I found myself sitting on the edge of my seat in anticipation of every ball, and my first call to David Shepherd was screamed into the walkie-talkie at the top of my voice. I think I made him jump, and the score wasn't even on Nelson! I look forward to hearing the results of the experiment to see if we can improve our game as a spectacle, any further.
The third umpire calling no-balls means that the batsman loses the opportunity to capitalise on them, as the call would come after the ball has been played. Are you comfortable with that?
Absolutely comfortable. The majority of no-balls are bowled by the pace bowlers, and normally the batsmen have committed to playing the ball before hearing an umpire's call anyway. I can't see a disadvantage in this instance, especially when it applies equally to both teams.
What were your experiences with the earpiece microphone?
My games at the ICC Champions Trophy didn't actually use the earpieces, as they were only available in some of the matches. I did listen in on one game with my custom-made earpieces when I wasn't officiating, and I was impressed with the outstanding quality of the sound. I quickly realised the superiority of communicating with the earpiece technology over the walkie-talkies, which can be more cumbersome.
In many ways, the increased use of technology eases the pressure for the on-field umpires
Do you think technology should play a greater role in lbw decisions? Maybe by using the wicket-to-wicket mat to tell the umpires if the ball pitched in line?
I enjoyed the experiment of calling on the third umpire for clarification on lbw decisions at the previous Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka. I would have given Shoaib Malik the benefit of the doubt in the first game of the series, but the third umpire Rudi Koertzen informed me that the ball had just pitched in line with the leg stump, so Malik was given out. It's just a question of how much technology is appropriate for today's game. That decision is best left for the players to decide, and they are currently divided in their opinions.
What is your view of Hawk-Eye?
I usually take my view of Hawk-Eye from my armchair at home. I believe it is a great form of entertainment for viewers and provides plenty of discussion points for the media.
Has Hawk-Eye made umpires change their views on lbws?
I can't speak for other umpires but it has certainly changed my views on lbws. I watch as many replays of my decisions as I can find, and that includes Hawk-Eye replays. Like most viewers, I am often surprised at the number of replays that show the ball just passing over the top of the stumps, and the deliveries that clip the leg stump. I am not perturbed if Hawk-Eye shows that a ball would have clipped the leg stump, when I gave the batsman the benefit of the doubt. Before striking pad, that ball, travelling at up to 90mph, has possibly swung through the air, pitched outside off stump, struck the batsman in front of middle stump, and had at least another six feet to travel before reaching the line of the stumps. If I could stand at the bowler's end and predict with the accuracy of Hawk-Eye ... well, I wouldn't be standing at the bowler's end! I'd be employed somewhere else as a rocket scientist.


Daryl Harper gives Shoaib Malik out lbw after some assistance from the third umpire in the Champions Trophy in 2002 © Wisden Cricinfo
Do you think that technology slows down the game too much?
The use of technology to assist with decision-making is an accepted part of international cricket. In its current role, very little time is lost in a day that can often involve seven hours of action. With the use of replay screens to display decisions, the calls on technology can actually produce great excitement and enhance the atmosphere around the ground.
Does the increased use of technology put too much pressure on the on-field umpires?
In many ways, the increased use of technology eases the pressure for the on-field umpires. I recall not having the availability of the third umpire when I first umpired in first-class cricket. Judging run-outs, as an example, when batsmen and ball are travelling at high velocity and in opposite directions, is not a simple task. Ask any umpire today who officiates in cricket matches below international level - and that is the great majority of cricket played around the world. Don't forget that in the past everyone at home had the benefit of watching countless replays, while the umpires had no access to slow-motion analysis of any kind. That was pressure. In some ways, however, technology does increase pressure for the umpires. I am an avid watcher of Major League Baseball, and I am constantly impressed with the respect shown to their officials by players, the media and spectators. The game produces all kinds of statistics and is analysed in a similar way to our game. Any decision that is shown to be incorrect is not replayed ad nauseum. It is simply replayed, commented upon, and left behind. The game is the winner, because the skills of the players are the main focus of attention, rather than the inability of the umpires to leap tall buildings at a single bound.
What is the assessment system for umpires on the panel?
There is a close examination of every aspect of an umpire's performance. Both captains and the match referee submit a report to ICC about every game. An ICC assessor then examines every appeal that an umpire is required to answer, and a comprehensive assessment is compiled. The umpire eventually receives a DVD, packed full of replays and accompanied by the written assessment, so every performance can be reviewed and sometimes reconsidered. Umpires are assessed on their abilities to judge decisions, to communicate with players and with each other, to cope with pressure and to apply the laws and regulations of the game. The ICC has a very informative description of this procedure on its revamped website, and more details can be found at www.icc-cricket.com.
Do you think that the elite panel has better rapport with players now that they presumably see much more of them?
Just like the players, every member of the Emirates Elite Panel is an individual, with a unique personality and distinctive traits. The more occasions that an umpire officiates with a team, the more players and umpires appreciate the skills of each other. With only eight umpires officiating in the majority of Tests, teams are seeing umpires more frequently. Umpires know that better rapport will come with respect, and that is largely earned with honest application and better performances. We are all striving to improve, every time we walk onto a cricket field.