ABSTRACT
As debate continued and continues around issues of umpiring competence, a further complicating factor has entered the jurisprudential arena. Here we confront the intersection of technology and law, and of the ideology of adjudication. For those who seek certainty and an ‘objective’ truth as the goal of every act of interpretation, the idea of using ‘technology’ if not to judge, then to assist the judiciary in their task of finding the truth, has a strong, if not overwhelmingly persuasive appeal. The idea here is that in many cases, television replays have for several years given viewers at home and fans in the stadium an almost instant basis for judging the facts, and then assessing the ‘correctness’ of the umpire’s decisions for themselves. Why should not umpires themselves have access to the same technology? This would result in ‘better’ decisions and decision-making. Correct decisions could be reached because umpires could see what really happened. They would have more time to adjudicate than they have in being forced to determine with the naked eye an appeal for a run out or a stumping for example. Thus, the right decision would be more likely. Moreover, if correct decisions were made more often as a result of referring to technological assistance, then the whole process of decision-making would gain more respect.1
