Comments on: What?

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:22:06 +0000

It looked like Roach knew he was out but technology creates uncertainty when it’s supposed to do the opposite.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:33:20 +0000

Homer, I didn't mention snicko - the sound was audible without bringing the graphs out. The thing is that there are plenty of sounds that are not caused by edges. .-= Jonathan´s last blog ..From west to west =-.

By: poopsie

poopsie — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:32:41 +0000

I have not seen a lot of hot spot, but did see the Sarwan dismal just before lunch when he was caught behind off Hauritz. He walked straight away indicating he knew he hit it, but hot spot showed no contact. This concerned me because I thought hot spot was definitive and snicko was not. Is that the case or do I have it wrong?

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:28:07 +0000

The appeal system is ridiculous. If there’s an appeal left with 1 wicket to go you should appeal even if you were clean bowled, just in case the umpire missed a no-ball. Ludicrous.

By: alex

alex — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:34:58 +0000

What makes it to prove that batsman did not nick the ball? 1 feet distance? 1″ distance? what angle? Snicko is uselss. It is like lie detector test. It should not be evidence.

HOTSPOT is better. It shows there is no nick. Some People say faint edge..how faint is faint?.

Why do even appeal if third umpire is not going to over rule. I think UDRS should stay clear of caught behind. It is just not going to work. People always complain in either way. People may not like the angle they see.

By: Homer

Homer — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:19:51 +0000

Jonathan,

On Snicko – often times Snicko detects a sound even though there is daylight and then some between the bat and ball. It has happened often enough for Snicko to be correctly disregarded as a tool for evidence for nicks.

Cheers,

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:03:15 +0000

Jrod, there was definitely a sound, just not one that you would usually associate with an edge. Probably not out, but as Alok says, the system only reviews a decision. The problem is that in some cases there are good reasons not to rely on the camera evidence. However, this is one case where I hoped it would be overturned, even though the technicalities don't say so. Alex, get a grip - when a batsman is/isn't caught behind the concept of "guilt" is completely irrelevant. .-= Jonathan´s last blog ..From west to west =-.

By: alex

alex — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:15:12 +0000

MY mantra is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

So any kind of decision that can’t enforce that mantra should not be part of UDRS.

We do not want third umpire enforce already bad call by field umpire.

SO UDRS should apply to LBW and Grounded catches and Run Outs and Stumping. ALL other catches should not be part of UDRS until we have a way of having as many camera angles. And Sound synchronization that Bat has internal sensor and ball has internal sensor , so it can find it from proximity alert combined with sound from Bat sensor That is in future.

Atpresent we can have UDRS for LBW and RUN OUTS and Grounded catches.

Third umpire can intervene if he see any other howlers if he thinks it is necessary. Like haddin dislodge the bails is a howler and no one noticed it.

By: alex

alex — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:04:02 +0000

Ok i have come to this conclusion.

Appeal system should apply to only grounded catch and LBW. And rest of the decision to be Field umpire decision is final.

I do not want appeal system enforcing field umpires bad call. Instead bad call stays as it is.

if any other Bad decisions if third umpire sees it based on technology , he can over rule based on the clear cut evidence not interpretation of what could be or what should be.

By: alex

alex — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:39:11 +0000

It is not shocking to see Ponting praising umpires when aussie get favourable umpiring decisions. This kind of thing happening forever.

I am with jogesh on that one that Howlers can be fixed by third umpire. The whole appeal system not working if the umpire makes bad call , it enforces bad call.

I think it is bad design. You do not need to remove it complely , can be fixable by changing rules.

What is the use of roach appealing when he is not going to get a decision favourable even technology show he did not nick it.

It is just stupid.