Technological failure?

Surely the time has come to agree that the introduction of technology into sporting decisions has been a failure.

It came from a good place - the need to get the right decision all the time - but IMO it has dismally failed in that goal.

DRS in cricket is a disaster, and that has clearly been demonstrated the last few days. No wonder the Indians hate it. The introduction of the VAR at the World Cup wasn’t much better. And that’s not to say anything of the unmitigated disaster that is the AFL score review system, with or without a dedicated ‘bunker’.

Our search to always have the right decision and avoid controversy hasn’t given us any more certainty and had only succeeded in creating more controversy.

If it was me - I would junk all of it, go back to the human umpire, and respect the decision that’s made - accepting that there will be errors, but that those errors are part of the game.

I have a strong memory of my primary school PE teacher and her opinion of umpires. She used to say “the umpires are always right, even when they’re wrong”.


1 Like

VAR has been a ■■■■■■■ joke in England. I’m not sure how it’s been elsewhere but its implementation and use in England in the top flight has been nothing short of a joke.


I’d scrap it for everything except runouts and stumpings.

In AFL I’d scrap it completely.

I don’t follow the American sports, but haven’t they basically ditched technology for the same reasons?

I don’t mind the use of technology but I don’t like the idea of using it when it suits only and ignoring it at other times.
Cricket it isn’t used properly IMO. If you are going to use it get rid of this umpires call garbage and this rubbish about it hitting the edge of the stump etc. If you review it and DRS has it nicking even 1mm of the stump then bad luck you are out


but this won’t happen as we’ll get replays and commentary of wrong/equivocal decisions from broadcasters and media and social media. And the call to fix the mistakes will come.

It seems the implementation of the technology and the human element that’s still involved has been the problem in it not being what it should be.


That’s true, but are we really more confident that the technology is making any less mistakes than the human umpires are making? So people can call to introduce a system to fix it all they like, but if there’s not a system that works then that’s a silly thing to call for!

That’s cool but I bet you were sooking when all those inside edges were given LBW, all those missed touches on the goal line and the ball nicking the goal-post were called as goals. Seems like it’s created controversy because either way people will sook one way or another.

Seems to me you’re sooking over half a dozen decisions over the space of a season when you’re just completely forgetting and ignoring obvious bad decisions are overturned. Anyone remember Billy Bowden and Bucknor? Indians were sooking big time when Symonds edged the ball and was given not out.

I think it needs finessing but the amount of horrible decisions it’s saved would have quadtripled the eye-raising ones. But no one cares about the 10 saved decisions but will whine about the one dodgy one.



Basketball the coaches can review calls (but not no-calls - so you can get whacked with no recourse). Baseball has had video reviews for a fair few years. They do it exhaustively - from what I’ve seen, they generally get it right, but it does slow down the game.


The only technology that has consistently worked is goal line technology in soccer, the rest all have massive faults

It’s fine in tennis. The Hawkeye in tennis is more accurate then cricket because it’s only tracking where the ball went, not guessing where it might go


Hawkeye has been a godsend imo.

Baseball only brought in reviews in the last 5 years or so, and not allowed for balls and strikes. They may have had them for fouls and homers for a bit longer, but base running calls recently.

I’d completely get rid of video in Aussie Rules for touched in play, but leave it for the goal lines. They don’t call them for touched marks, and really, what’s the difference between a touched ball being marked in the goal square and going through for a goal?

The Paine one and Santner one were Aleem Dar’s fault. For Paine, he should have said it was wrong about where it hit him, and the Santner one, he should have seen it hit the wrist band on the glove. The Taylor one was down to the ball tracker’s height and bounce algorithm.

Maybe I’m in the minority but I didn’t care at all about this. Never did.

No. It’s been a problem for years. Sure, there will be examples where it’s worked, and a bad decision has been overturned, lots and lots of examples. However there are also lots and lots of examples of the technology making bad decisions.

The point is - why replace an imperfect (human) system with another, imperfect system? Apart from the endless delays, what is the point?

1 Like

Going to do a BSD.

Stop watching sport, problem solved.

That’s my point about cricket technology. If you are going to use ball tracker you have to accept the decision no matter it’s decision. None of this umpires call rubbish, if it’s hitting it’s hitting

I think that’s easily the best example of technology that has actually worked, however do we really know that it works? There’s nothing to check it against. I assume the ball tracking tech is the same as DRS, and that seems to be wrong a lot.

They have done extensive studies with Hawkeye and it’s pretty darn close. You also have the scuff marks on the clay and hard courts which back it up pretty much to within a mm

1 Like

Yep, exactly. I hate this whole it was only just clipping the stumps so it stays not out.

But if people got their way and didn’t have tech then it’d be not out regardless? so what’s the issue?

I agree that the use of technology has not helped, is it making us less human?
On a somewhat related issue has the use of all the technology in communication (people on phones, twitter, texts, emails etc) made the world we live in a better place?

Seems to me a lot of “contact” but not many useful outcomes