Sponsorship snag hits TV replay problem for World Cup

Ask England captain Alec Stewart after the run out decision of Australian opening batsman Michael Slater went against the Poms and enabled Mark Taylor's men from Oz to win the Ashes series 3-1 this summer instead of a 2-2 draw. A blurred TV replay gave the third umpire licence to rule Slater ``in'' not ``out''. Little wonder it had Ian Botham and Ian Chappell wanting to seek redress.

``They have the sort of technology in South Africa which leaves no doubt in any one's mind whether a batsman is in or out,'' grumbled beefy Botham. ``Spot on there,'' growled Chappell.

So can South African, or more precise, Pretoria designed and developed video technology, take the controversy bug out of the third umpire's role in the rest of the world and prevent a possible disaster in this year's World Cup?

``Oh yes,'' said Bill Burrow, the video consultant, whose company Avpro 2000 perfected and patented the ``Panaeye'' or the VROMS (video run out monitoring system) for use in this country.

Since 1992 after discussions between himself and Dr Ali Bacher, managing director of the United Cricket Board (UCB), Burrow has been at the forefront of the technology which has now become an important part of the test and limited-overs international (LOIs) scene in this country. The idea is to have four fixed cameras (two at each end) to do away with the visual problem created by the mid-wicket camera, where the accuracy is only 60%.

The accuracy of VROMS is between 95 and 98%. This was highlighted by not only the Slater run out decision but also the stumping of England all-rounder Mark Alleyne by Sri Lanka's Romesh Kaluwitharana in Monday's day/night slog match in Brisbane. The batsman seemed to be ``in'' but the TV umpire ruled otherwise, much to the confusion of the SkySport commentators.

Burrow, however, has run into a problem of trying to sell the idea of using VROMS at this year's World Cup in the United Kingdom and Holland in May and June to the England (and Wales) Cricket Board (ECB). Cost factors have been cited by the organising committee's event manager Michael Bowing for the decision ``not to consider its inclusion in the 1999 World Cup''.

Later correspondence suggested the only way VROMS could be used would be through a ``bigger World Cup sponsorship involving umpires, referees and big TV screens.''

Burrow has worked out a cost effective plan which would come to about R1.8-million for the five weeks of the tournament which includes preliminary rounds, the ``super six'' round, semi-finals and final.

In his fax of November 18 to Bowing, Burrow has proposed:

His company would supply two full four camera systems including operations and installation crew; all costs to be paid by the Pretoria company; responsibility for the supply of a broadcast feed to the host broadcaster with sponsors logo (the feed can also be played on the venue big screen). Since that fax the International Cricket Council (ICC) has replied through their cricket operations manager, C D Hitchcock, who said it was their (the ICC) role to encourage full members (test playing countries) to provide the best possible facilities at test or LOI level. While the ``ICC fully support the proven benefits of square on cameras it is the responsibility of each country to make the necessary arrangements at their own grounds, as the UCB have done in South Africa''.

The used of VROMS at the World Cup was not discussed at this week's ICC executive board meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, as the role of the third umpire is the responsibility for the ICC's cricket committee.

First used at Centurion Park in mid-December 1994 during a one-day international match VROMS has played a permanent role in tests and limited-overs internationals (LOIs) in South Africa much to the envy of other countries who still make use of the inaccurate mid-wicket system. As Burrow points out, this was because cost factors made it too expensive to use. Since then technology has improved to the extent that digital cameras have become much smaller without diminishing the effect of the picture when transmitted to the TV screen.

Burrow met Dave Richards, the ICC's chief executive, when he was in South Africa last October, who felt the only way VROMS could be as part of a far wider international) sponsorship.

The city video technology expert also tried to sell the idea to the Australians who have retained the less effective mid-wicket camera system and often with disastrous results. He also had dealings with the 1996 World Cup committee but met with no success. And there was criticism of any number of line decisions during that tournament held on the Asian sub-continent.

As Burrow makes the all too obvious point, what if a team loses out the ``Super Six'' phase of the tournament, or a place in the semi-finals, through a similar line decision to that of Slater? The World Cup 1999 cannot afford a repeat of that debacle. Imagine the row if a line decision ruling saw a country knocked out on a technicality because a run out was ruled ``in'' when the VROMS would have ruled it ``out'' The organising committee would not so much have whipped egg on their collective faces as an omelette.

Fortunately the MCC, owners of Lord's where the final will be held, have installed the video programme