NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
So yeah. Has hotspot suddenly become unreliable? Did I miss a memo? Can someone explain what exactly is going on?
Believe an Aussie batsman last year noted that he hit one that hadn't showed up.Is there any actual evidence of that? Like has someone proved that there was a faint edge yet it didn't show up?
Surely if it is being used then it should be proven that that a faint edge does show up. We have to know what it is capable of and what it isnt capable of before using it.Is there any actual evidence of that? Like has someone proved that there was a faint edge yet it didn't show up?
With very faint edges (which are the only ones you really need hotspot for) only a very small, very faint "smudge" is created. Generally the bat already seems to be covered in smudges anyway, I guess where the ball has previously touched the bat or whatever? Also, the batsman often has to turn the bat around so that you can actually see the smudge properly. I understand what you mean about the technology being very exact, I just literally find it very difficult to see at times.Well its certainly more reliable than Billy Bowden.
Nevertheless, I've always thought that technically it was more reliable than hawkeye. Its very simple, the ball touching the bat creates heat, which instantly becomes viewable. What's inconclusive?
Agreed completely. It's, from my understanding, an uncooled IR i.e. cheap, detects massive movement, massive amounts of heat, massive objects. Has a far lower resolution than the cooled types. I don't care what Channel 9 says, it's not a precision instrument.Surely if it is being used then it should be proven that that a faint edge does show up. We have to know what it is capable of and what it isnt capable of before using it.
Ive always thought it as an interesting toy. Suprised it is being used for offical reviews.
Brought up a very interesting dynamic to the argument here sir. Cant deabte this TBF..Agreed completely. It's, from my understanding, an uncooled IR i.e. cheap, detects massive movement, massive amounts of heat, massive objects. Has a far lower resolution than the cooled types. I don't care what Channel 9 says, it's not a precision instrument.
Fair enough. Yet even in those cases, it still produces something. If we can't pick it up, surely these very faint smudges can still be picked up via an enlarged image or whatever? Which means, with a little more work there's no reason why hotspot couldn't be definite for edges.With very faint edges (which are the only ones you really need hotspot for) only a very small, very faint "smudge" is created. Generally the bat already seems to be covered in smudges anyway, I guess where the ball has previously touched the bat or whatever? Also, the batsman often has to turn the bat around so that you can actually see the smudge properly. I understand what you mean about the technology being very exact, I just literally find it very difficult to see at times.
Δu=q+wis there any actual evidence of that? Like has someone proved that there was a faint edge yet it didn't show up?
The question is one of resolution, not accuracy. This type of IR cam is relatively low-res.The radio commentators were saying they were under the impression that it was 100% accurate