So I start writing this post under the assumption that most of you have been up to date with the sports news. Especially news from cricket and soccer. Two sports that I follow fanatically. Two common issues plaguing both these sports are the inconsistency of the umpires/referees and the administrations in both these sports have been contemplating on usage of reviews and technology to reverse decisions being made on field. Personally I believe that using reviews and video technology, or making use of the so called hawk eye would just remove the human element from either game. For there will be occasions when just one bad decision in Soccer might hand a team which is being out played a penalty and might prove to be a turning point as is the case often. But then that’s what makes the game so interesting to watch. Secondly a soccer game moves at such a rapid pace that once a game has started, one just does not notice time flying by for the next 45 minutes. And using technology will do nothing but disrupt this flow of the game. Again the umpteenth official sitting upstairs and using replays to judge a foul or not can also mistakes for most of the decisions in soccer are subjective. Of course there are certain clear cut cases when the referee does know straight away the course of action to be followed, like for example a goal keeper touching the ball outside the D. Today I am reading “Sangakara”‘s comments that certain poor decisions had cost his team around 500 runs and hence they lost the series. Who is he kidding? His comments does not hide the fact that his team were pathetic through out the series but for the three days they were batting in Ahmedabad. Why should one have on field umpires if everything can be decided using technology? Even making use of technology cannot assuage the Australians and Doug Bollinger who in the ongoing test with West Indies have had a few words of choice to tell the onfield umpires after a referral did not go their way. When the second and third officials of the game between France and Ireland missed a very clear handball again it was them who had to be blamed. No one seems to concentrate on one obvious solution of training the umpires and referees better, but instead tries to talk about using technology which is something man devised. So in a way technology’s word is again man’s word. So why not use man himself to make these decisions? Also one final point that I would like to add and something that might not be entirely pertaining to this context is this: by admitting to the handball a couple of days after the game HENRY did not make things better. If he was actually guilty of the handball he must have admitted immediately to the referee that it was a handball and the goal should not stand. If he was trying to act like a saint a week after the game it just does not change the fact that France was dominated over two legs and Ireland was the better team through out and deserved a better fate than this. But all this is what technology would change. I am totally against using it in sports.