The recent controversy surrounding the Decision Review System (DRS) technology during the first test of the Ashes 2013 series made me think about the future of the game. Not many debated that it was a howler of a decision by Aleem Dar to not give Stuart Broad out and it is the much espoused ‘human element’ which was to blame for the mess. So how about players looking up straight to the giant screen to confirm a boundary, run or a wicket? The third umpire can adjudicate using these technological aids and decide on a wicket. Maybe it can beep every time a no ball is bowled. In short, give the good ol’ umpires a break for good and let technology help the third umpire take over the decision making process.

The DRS system used in cricket allows each team to appeal twice against the umpire’s decision. Hawk Eye adjudges LBW decisions by predicting the trajectory of the ball after pitching, Hot Spot highlights the area where the ball hit the bat or pad for detecting tiny nicks and Snickometer (not used anymore) detects the sound of the ball on the bat or the pad. So, when much of technology already exists, what is the whole argument against it?

Contrary to what everyone believes, after DRS, the accuracy of decisions has increased from 90% to 95%, as proved by this study. The system is not fool-proof and we all have seen Hot Spot missing obvious nicks and cameras failing to detect catches held nano-inches from the ground, but does that say anything against the technology? Sure it is no exact science but haven’t we seen umpires making wrong decisions from time immemorial? Remember Steve Bucknor on the India’s tour to Australia, five years go?

Purists and critics argue in favour of on-field umpires. They want technology which gives 100% accurate results but are fine with humans yielding only 90% accurate results. Why is the benchmark so high for technology and so low for humans? Technology is always work-in-progress and it can be improved but can decision-making capabilities of humans be greatly enhanced? Agreed, the pivot to use more technology might not be smooth and even look drastic. But heck, even the suggestion of T-20 cricket would have been dismissed 15 years ago!

Maybe looking up to the screen every time will elongate the game by a little bit. But a balance can be struck with lesser time for breaks in-between. Accuracy of decisions, which ultimately have a bearing on the game is more important than sticking to traditions. Knowing that more times than not unbiased, fair and error-free decisions will be made will add to the players’ comfort levels and also eliminate ugly incidents that usually occur after umpiring howlers. If something improves the game, why not welcome it?