Under cricket’s decision review system (DRS) a player may request a review of dismissal decisions taken by on-field umpires. Reviews of leg before wicket decisions, the focus of this article, occur through a ball-tracking technology popularly called “Hawk-Eye.” If Hawk-Eye makes mistakes, in the face of such errors, the overall error rate can be decomposed into a “technology error rate” and a “human error rate.” Consequently, improved decision can be achieved through better technology or better umpires. We argue that, given the costs of DRS, the same gains could be obtained, at lower cost, by investing in umpires rather than technology.
CollinsH. (2010). The philosophy of umpiring and the introduction of decision-aid technology. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 37, 135–146.
2.
CollinsH.EvansR. (2008). You cannot be serious! Public understanding of technology with special reference to “Hawk-Eye. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 283–308.
3.
CollinsH.EvansR. (2012). Sport-decision Aids and the “CSI-effect”: Why cricket uses Hawk-eye well and tennis uses it badly. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 904–921.
4.
FisherR. A. (1920). A mathematical examination of the methods of determining the accuracy of an observation by the mean square and the mean square error. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 80, 758–770.
5.
International Cricket Council. (2009). Umpire decision review system—A guide (pp. 1–49). Dubai, United Arab Emirates: ICC.
6.
OwensN.HarrisC.StennettC. (2003). Hawk-Eye Tennis System. In VIE 2003: International Conference on Visual Information Engineering: Ideas, Applications, Experience, July 7–9, University of Surrey, Guildford, pp. 182–185.
7.
PetersC. A. F. (1856). Uber die Bestimmung des wahrscheimlichen Fehlers einer Beobachtung aus den Abweichungen der Beobachtungen von ihrem arithmetischen Mittel. Astronomische Nachrichen, 44, 30–31.
