Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
more like skid spot
Brad McNamara @bbuzzmc
Will say this once and then nothing else. Defamation laws quite clear in Aus.be careful.
Spikey plz move this to Ashes forum.
Its all BCCI's fault!
No Snicko though, then they'd be bowing down to your pressure.
Want to be the online Don Bradman or Ian Salisbury?
Then join CW Cricket today. It's what all the cool kids desire.
RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
RIP Hughesy 1988-2014
Think this is a bad idea ftr. Hot Spot is useful when used correctly - as another poster summed up here during the Ashes, you might get a few false negatives, but you won't get a false positive with it. If it's purely a financial decision then I could understand it a bit, but given that CA has been a big champion of the DRS, it seems a bit silly to now be going backwards by using less technology. Used in conjunction with Snicko, it would be a really great tool.
Edit: Wait, just saw there's no Snicko either. That's ****ed then.
thoughts on this:
1. It's ludicrous that the broadcaster has to pay for a component of an official system. Sure the costs are probably passed on to CA in terms of the broadcasting deals, but if it's an official system, the funds should come directly from the governing body.
2. Hot spot can be used effectively if it's a positive-only indicator - i.e. absence of an edge on hotspot is not enough to overturn a decision, but presence of an edge is. If the umpires understand these limitations, it's probably more comprehensive than any other component of the DRS in terms of unarguably overturning incorrect decisions.
3. The idea that ANY of these components is fool-proof is stupid. One has to use the technologies as components of a system and understand the strengths and weaknesses of each.
4. When hotspot fails, it hasn't overturned a decision. At the absolute worst, the on field decision stays - therefore, it simply cannot be worse than not having it there. But it can be better. It can overturn incorrect decisions. It's a net positive. The outrage against the DRS in the Ashes ignored the fact that the umpires had to make the decisions first and foremost. Even a failure is at worse equal to the status quo. I agree that hotspot in combination with snicko would be more effective than hotspot alone. Again, these technologies need to be used in concert with one another.
The no false positives thing is a blatant mistruth. I have seen a number of examples of a small mark on the bat showing up when the ball hasn't hit it. The reason why I know they haven't hit it is the mark shows up a little lower or higher than where the ball passes through, but that's just by pure luck.
Please stop trotting out the false positive thing, if you watch enough cricket you will realise it's just not true.
The only truly close-to-accurate measure is snicko.
Last edited by benchmark00; 09-10-2013 at 06:04 PM.
But it isn't always possible to detect if it's there early. The bat doesn't always come down in a straight motion.
The fact is that hotspot just wastes time. There is nothing hotspot can pick up that snicko can not. And there is plenty that snicko can pick up that hot spot can't.
Last edited by benchmark00; 09-10-2013 at 06:42 PM.
I have to disagree. With no Hot spot and no snicko DRS is going to be 100x worse, going to have a lot more inconclusives and if you thought the Ashes in England had some silly DRS decisions then this series is going to be an absolute farce.
Get rid of the whole DRS unless an umpire wishes to use it for adjudicating a run out or stumping.
Shows up as a long, thick noise on snicko itbt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)