"Houston, Tranquility Base here –The Eagle has landed."With these immortal words, July 20,1969, Commander Neil Alden Armstrong announced to NASA, and the rest of the extremely nervously awaiting world, that perhaps the greatest technological marvel ever, had been achieved; that man had made the 186,000 mile trip to the earth's only moon, and had landed there, in the vast Sea of Tranquility–magnificent desolation. Everyone still alive when that occurred still remembers where they were at that exact moment. I was sitting at home, listening to the Voice of America on my parents' large; as big as a 20-inch television; Phillips tube radio. As a 16-year-old high school student, one who loved mathematics, I got both cold sweat and real, hot inspiration.
Amazing achievement
The most amazing part of this achievement was that after flying for more than four days, that craft, Eagle, had landed about 300 metres away from its planned landing point. If that is not one of the best efforts that technology had produced, then I am not alive. That flight also culminated what Orville and Wilbur Wright, bicycle makers, had started at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, USA, in 1903, with the Wright Flyer I, allowing very much heavier-than-air powered contraptions to fly–the very advent of modern-day airplanes.That was another formidable result of design, experimentation and technology. Making bicycles could never be as stimulating again. Fast forward to March 1998: England vs West Indies; drawn Fifth Test; Kensington Oval, Barbados. During that game, I distinctly remember having a very long and heated conversation, exchanging very different views indeed, on the use, or lack thereof, of technology in cricket, with one of that game's umpires, Cyril Mitchley of South Africa, one of the better adjudicators the game has ever seen, and a very good, continuing friend. My argument was, and still is, simple–If really desired or required, all umpires could be removed from adjudicating any on-field situations whatsoever in international cricket. All that we have to do is to use the best technology available right now and make it work.
A machine can give correct cricket decisions
I suggested that if man could send a massive space-ship over 180,000 miles away, and land it within 300 metres of where it was planned to be, then I was, and am still damned sure, that we can make a machine to give correct decisions based on a ball being bowled, and flying through the air, to a bat 20 metres away. The umpires are not really necessary. Of course, Cyril Mitchley strongly disagreed, but that situation still exists fully today. Last month, BBC Radio 4 in the UK was featuring programmes that highlighted the 100 most important technological advancements and inventions ever noted in time. One that actually caught my attention was the discovery of dynamite and its eventual use, and other deadly substances, like uranium and plutonium, to devise tools of war and death.
"Fat Man" and "Little Boy," which came out of the Manhatten (atomic) Project during World War II, were the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in 1945. Also, the Allied forces in Afghanistan have been using UAV's �Unmanned Aerial Vehicles–and Predator Drones, to drop bombs and other very dangerous ordinances on insurgents. These drones are actually controlled– flown–by "pilots" who sit in very comfortable darkened surroundings, controlling the flying devices and transmitting death.
Gibson unsure of what he wants
These days, satellite could tell you the size of a handkerchief on the street, as measured from outer space. Whatever happens, technology is certainly here to stay, like it or not! Fast further forward to last week, when the new West Indies cricket head coach, Ottis Gibson, suggested, after being asked about the UDRS–Umpires Decision Referral System: "I am not a great fan of the use of technology in cricket. It is either you use all of the technology available–"Snikko", "Hot Spo" and "Hawk-Eye"– or none at all. I still believe that this is a game, and that the (human) umpires must be in control of it." Firstly, there seems to be contradictions here. Gibson, on one hand, is suggesting that he would prefer that the normal, very fallible and error-prone humans umpire a game that has become so fast and so lucrative. On the other hand, he is asking for more technological assistance. That does not make sense. Either you want it or you do not.
Fifa going bak to the drawing board
FIFA also has its technological problems. Last week, Frank Lampard scored a perfectly good goal for England at the World Cup 2010, against Germany, that at least two billion around the world saw cross the goal line. Yet, the three main people who should have seen it as a goal, the referee and the lines-men, did not. The goal was disallowed. As if to compound the lack of acceptance by Fifa, especially its president, Sepp Blatter, of goal-line technology, Carlos Tevez also scored a goal for Argentina, in the very next game, that was clearly off-side, against Mexico. Had there been proper technology and information available, that mistake would not have been made either. Tevez did score one of the best goals of the tournament so far, in that same game, but it could not detract from the uselessness and outright stupidity that the world's richest sport is way back in the prehistoric ages when it comes to technology and its tremendous uses.
Listening to Gibson and Blatter, I could not help thinking that they too are dinosaurs, of another, long lost time. I have news for them. Technology, all of it, will never go away. The latest story is that Blatter has, firstly, apologised to England, for the disallowed goal. Then he instructed that the referees and linesmen (referee's assistants) who officiated in the Argentina vs Mexico game, and the England vs Germany game, be sent home. Clearly, these match officials had become expendable, since they have managed to embarrass the game by their ignorance, or lack of technological assistance, as should have been provided by their very employers.