It was in South Africa a few years ago, during a triangular one-day series involving Pakistan, the West Indies and the Springboks, that the TV camera was first used to judge run-outs for an international tournament. The third umpire, the man off the field, was asked to make a decision on a run-out whenever the two umpires on the field decided that they could not say with absolute certainty whether a man had made his ground or not. Over the years, use of the camera has gained acceptance and both the fielding and batting sides have benefitted.
The cameras are not merely used to judge whether a batsman has made his ground or not. Footage is increasingly being used to judge whether a fielder has saved a boundary legally -- that is, whether he made contact with the ball when any part of his body was over the boundary line.
The recent Singer tournament was not helped by cameras for one simple reason -- there weren't enough of them. There were times when the third umpire had to judge whether a stumping should be given or not -- after viewing the footage from a frontal camera. A side-on camera would have left no doubt in anybody's mind but it simply wasn't there.
And this brings up the question -- should it be the job of a commercial organisation, which has bought the television rights to a tournament, to provide the footage which will be used to make such judgements? Or should the onus be on the organisers as the footage goes to help the umpires?
Or, to take the whole thing a step further, should the supreme cricketing authority, the International Cricket Council, itself provide part of the funds and see that the cricket boards concerned bear the rest to ensure that there are sufficient cameras to cover all angles? If some kind of move is made in this direction, then matches could be allocated only to grounds which have this infrastructure.
It will be some time before footage can be used to decide on a leg-before decision. There are easy ones when an umpire has no doubt at all but there are plenty more where there are as many opinions as there are commentators. One can theoretically visualise technology which renders the batsman's pads transparent and makes tracing of the path of the ball possible. That would remove any lingering doubt as to whether the ball would have hit the wicket or not. This is only theory but one must bear in mind that a lot of the technology now considered commonplace was thought to be in the realm of space fiction just a decade ago.
There are some who still argue that the cameras should be done away with; the umpire is competent enough to judge. Those who would like the umpire alone to make the decision also point out that a great deal of the attractiveness of the game comes from one attribute -- human error. This may hold good when one considers the case of a great batsman who goes for a duck or a brilliant fielder who drops a simple catch, both incidents deciding the fate of a match. A wrong decision by an umpire, however, mars a game. It's as simple as that. Human error, in this case, spoils the game.
The use of the camera has come to stay. Of that there is little doubt. And therefore it would be in the interests of the game that the ICC sit up and take note of the way technology has intruded into the field. It would be far better if the organisers were to provide the infrastructure in order that footage from sufficient angles is available whenever the third umpire has to make a decision. Else there would only be justice for some -- never justice for all.