.

 

The omni presence of information technology has thrown up some interesting debate in the cricket and media industry. In the high profile sports of Cricket, a debate has ensued with some of the recent developments which are highlighted here from the perspective of Cyber Law as prevalent in India. This debates falls in the realm of Cyber Laws since this involves "Digital TV Signals" which are "Electronic Documents" as per ITA-2000 and are the basis of certain decisions which have commercial impact. The TV Signals are owned by the TV Companies some of them use players as their "Brand Ambassadors" and their on field success has a commercial impact on the TV company or its associates. There is therefore an inherent conflict of interest between the TV signal producers and its use to determine the success or failure of players.

While the undersigned is fully in support of the use of technology to reduce uncertainties arising out of human errors in umpiring, the current debate is to focus on the possibility of commercial interests influencing the game in due course.

It is well known that Cricket has adopted as a matter of accepted policy, a technological intervention in the proceedings of the game through the system of "Third Umpire"(also referred to as "TV Umpire"). The game is controlled on the filed by two on the field umpires and there is a third umpire who sits in the Pavillion, watches TV replays and when referred, gives decisions. This TV umpire bases his decisions on TV replays with some modifications such as slow motion rendering of the play. The decisions of the TV Umpire directly affects on the field umpiring decisions in case of certain types of "Outs" such as "Run Outs" and "Stumping" and also in case of boundary line related decisions such as catches, boundary hits and sixer hits. Of late on the field umpires also use TV umpire for consulting on certain catches such as whether there has been a fait edge or whether the ball has bumped of the ground before a catch is made.

Presently the game is fully under the control of the on the filed umpires and only they have the right to call for the assistance of the TV umpire and then pronounce the decision. The TV umpire therefore is subordinate to the field umpire and his decisions are the decisions of an "agent". Players have no right to appeal over the decision of the filed umpire if he decides not to refer a decision to the TV umpire.

Recently the body which controls global Cricket namely the International Cricket Council (ICC) has decided an increased role for technology in umpiring decisions by suggesting that the fielding side will have a right to "appeal directly to the TV Umpire". (Let us call this "Super Appeal". In such cases the online umpire is completely bypassed. The TV umpire therefore becomes the independent authority who can decide if a batsmen is out or not in those cases which are referred to him by a "Super Appeal". The recent change made is in respect of "LBW Appeals" where the TV replay can show if the ball had pitched in line with the stumps or not.

The media which has been a huge source of funds to the game has been using other technical devices to make the TV coverage more interesting. Some of these devices are sophisticated computer devices including hardware and software components. The software incorporates sophisticated dynamic image processing technology together with some subjective inputs from game experts. There is "Snickometer" which listens through a sound transmitter fixed to the stumps, there is a key hole camera which is fixed to one of the three stumps which tracks the lateral movement of the ball, there is a set of long range cameras which track the ball after it is released by the bowler, hits the pitch and bounces at the batsmen. The images captured by the set of cameras along with other data input by the programmer or otherwise learnt by the software by observation through the match are processed by the software to predict a trajectory of the ball which has an interesting influence on LBW decisions. Presently ICC has introduced only one aspect of technology where a wicket to wicket shaded area (Wicket mat) is superimposed on the ball trajectory to identify whether the point where the ball hits the pitch lies within the wicket mat or not. This includes two aspects namely,

a) Placement of the mat

b) Determining the trajectory of the ball from the point of release by the bowler to the point where it reaches the ground (Approximately 18 to 20 yards or 16 to 18 meters away on an average)

It should also be noted that it is an accepted Umpiring Jurisprudence that for a batsmen to be declared out, the umpire should in his opinion be convinced that he is out beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt, the "Benefit of doubt" goes to the batsmen. In the manual umpiring era therefore, there were many cases where the batsman would be out but would be given the benefit of doubt. This possibility is being slowly reduced by the use of technology and particularly the slow motion play of the original video recording. The proposed  new ICC decision on LBW  (Experimentally to be tried in the Coming Champion's trophy matches to be held in India). The "Benefit of Doubt" principle makes it possible to influence a decision by simply not making a relevant video clip available to the umpire or if the clipping is not of requisite quality.

The current debate has been started by one Mr Steve Bucknor, an experienced Umpire and a member of the Elite Umpire Panel maintained by ICC. Mr Steve Bucknor has made the following interesting comments which deserve to be verbatim reproduced.

While stating  that Technology can be misused for commercial considerations, Mr Bucknor said

"It has been known to happen where the technology has been used to make umpires look bad.

"Mats (the line graphic used to adjudge leg before decisions) have been moved, balls have disappeared, ball hitting the bat and only coming up into the fielder's hands, but between the bat and the hand, no ball is found and you are told, 'Sorry, we don't have that clip, we can't show it'," he was quoted as saying by the media in Port of Spain.

"It has happened. I've been in a game when it has happened,"

"Sometimes nothing is shown because the batsman was a key player and getting out at that stage would have made life very difficult for that team.

"It all depends on who is operating the technology. I have been told that this ball is the one with which the batsman got out, but the one that is being shown is not the same one he got out with.

"It has been known to happen. When these things are happening, it makes life extremely difficult for the umpires. Who do you trust from there on you don't know," he was quoted as saying in Trinidad and Tobago Express.

The words of Steve Bucknor actually accuses the TV crew of a major cyber crime as defined in India..."manipulating information residing inside a computer knowing that it would cause a  wrongful harm to some person"..which is part of Section 66 of ITA-2000. This offence is called "Hacking" and creates liability for the perpetrator to be imprisoned for and  three years and fined upto Rs 2 lakhs. It is also possible for the affected person to invoke Section 43 of the Act and claim compensation for any loss or damage suffered by him.

In view of the above it may be necessary for ICC to consider the following.

a) Subject the software used for TV replays (particularly the component which predicts the ball trajectory) to a software audit.

b) Ensure that the TV replays are not manipulated before being shown to the umpire by posting an ICC observer right in the mixing studio where raw signals are received.

c) Ensure that in case of every decision referred to the TV umpire, the original raw signals from all the cameras are captured for a period covering say 5 seconds prior to and 5 seconds after the event are archived for evidentiary purpose and handed over to ICC along with a digital signature of the person in charge of broadcasting.

I would welcome members of the public to comment on the above. Though some would feel that we are needlessly complicating an enjoyable sports with such discussions, it is necessary to keep in mind that with the enormous financial stake in the industry, Steve Bucknor's allegations need to be seriously explored and remedies found.