'Technology will not be introduced at the umpire's expense': Richardson
When Dave Richardson joined the ICC as general manager he wanted to be involved with the game on a much broader scale than he had done previously as wicketkeeper for South Africa
This is an issue recently echoed by Ehsan Mani in his first speech as ICC president, where he said: "Over the past year there have been issues in the game and decisions taken that have tested the unity of the ICC and its members. Over the coming months, one of the key roles for me will be to ensure that cricket is able to resolve these issues and move on from the disputes that have arisen. The ICC will continue to act fairly and impartially in addressing any issue."
This is an outdated and inaccurate view of the role and remit of the ICC. Over recent years, the ICC has grown as an organisation and will continue to grow with the support of its members, acting as the driving force in international cricket. Over the course of my time at the ICC, the organisation has been faced with a number of cricketing challenges but through the recruitment of specialised and experienced staff, it is better equipped than ever to deal with these issues. The ICC has proved itself capable of tackling the often complex and difficult cricketing issues in an impartial and rigorous manner.
The Code of Conduct sets the expected standards of behaviour and has recently been strengthened to provide more powers for umpires and the ICC chief executive to lay charges after an incident has occurred. With the standards in place, the focus must now be on ensuring match officials apply the code where necessary.
Cricket is a game. Human error in the decision-making process of officials is part of all games. Why should cricket be any different? It is important to the fabric of cricket that the sport is umpired by humans, not robots, and the ICC has no interest in our umpires becoming glorified coat hangers. We will look at any technology on its merits but it will not be introduced at the expense of the umpire's status as the key decision-maker in relation to the rules and regulations.
The trial in Sri Lanka achieved exactly what we wanted it to: it gave us an insight into the use of certain technology under match conditions. What it did highlight was that there was no compelling case at this time to rush into introducing greater technology into the sport. Particularly as a number of practical problems emerged such as the consistency and reliability of some technology.
Technology alone does not make a mockery of umpires. In many cases it highlights just how difficult a job the umpires have and how well they perform this task. The figure of 90% is based on the analysis of all games we review and of all decisions umpires are required to make in a game.
Hawkeye is a broadcaster's tool designed and used to enhance television coverage and plays no role in the umpire's work. It is a decision of the broadcasters if they want to use it. The use of this tool also gets back to the basic matter of principle - do you want human umpires or robots?
This proposal was a side reference and has not been subject to any scrutiny. The point of raising it was to highlight that there are other, more human, alternatives that should be looked at as well as those proposed by people that think technology is the answer to every question.
All of the above. The issue of illegal bowling actions is clearly a highly emotive one and no-one should lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with people when we deal with this issue. When I started at the ICC there was a three-stage process, it's currently two-stage and there is a review underway to see if it can be more effective by becoming a single stage process.
I am unaware of any such instructions from the ICC or indeed the comments from these umpires about such ICC instructions and I would be pleased if you could give me some sense of where these comments have been made. As I have already said, the only instruction given to our umpires is to apply the rules fairly, without fear or favour and to the best of their ability.
All international umpires are aware of the Laws of Cricket and the process for the review of bowlers reported with suspect bowling actions that supplements Law 24. The match officials are entrusted by the ICC to apply these provisions where appropriate. It is important to recognise that it is far harder for an on-field umpire to be sure that an action is suspect with the naked eye than it is with the benefit of a slow-motion replay. It is therefore unsurprising that recent incidents have tended to be reported after the close of play when umpires have had an opportunity to analyse match footage.