Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr
Did the machine change the strike zone, or have the umps been manipulating the strike zone all along? Like when people say Jesus was born on Dec 25th & then historical evidence reveals it was actually sometime in October. Jesus' b'day didn't change. People through time had just been repeating a lie.
The way I see it, you can either redefine in the rule book what a strike is to modern interpretations and then recalibrate the computer. Or you can allow the game to go back to the way the strike should have been in the 1st place.
|
I don't know that I oppose it,
per se, I am just wary. While I dislike replay in almost all sports, I don't mind technology in place (like Cyclops in tennis or goal line technology in soccer) to get "static" calls correct. Static is not the best word, but non-judgement yes or no calls if the technology can improve on the naked eye.
I am not a cricket fan, but I am an inveterate browser of Wikipedia. I found it interesting that the advent of slow-motion technology was able to demonstrate that it is almost impossible for a bowler to do a throw without some flex to the elbow, which was illegal, so they changed the rule that the elbow cannot flex to a degree noticeable to the naked eye.