***Official*** England in New Zealand series 2013

[grecian]

Yeah, hotspot from the other side showed a faint touch imo.

yep.

 

[SilentOne]

Yeah, hotspot from the other side showed a faint touch imo.

could that not have been from striking the bat on the pitch?

 

[Cabinet96]

But the way they treat hotspot, will there ever be enough evidence?

That's what I was thinking as soon as he went for the review.

Mark on hotspot = out

No mark on hotspot = out

But there was also a loud woody noise just as it passed the bat, with the bat no where near any clothing or the ground. It's not as simple as mark on hotspot = this, no mark on hotspot = that. You have to assess all the evidence you've got.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah, hotspot from the other side showed a faint touch imo.

Could have just been the friction of hitting the ground when you take guard surely. There was nothing the size of what an edge was and only a large slightly lighter grey blur across the whole bottom of the bat.

 

[Bahnz]

But the way they treat hotspot, will there ever be enough evidence?

That's what I was thinking as soon as he went for the review.

Mark on hotspot = out

No mark on hotspot = out

Maybe if the replays had shown another potential source for the noise (e.g. Taylor clipping his pad) or clear daylight between bat and ball.

Yeah, it's difficult to overturn a caught behind shout, but so what? The point of DRS is to overturn obviously incorrect decisions. I don't see any evidence that the umpire's decision was obviously incorrect.

 

[Zinzan]

I thought there was something at the bottom of the bat. But I didn't think it was conclusively ball on bat.

Actually on 2nd look, the spot I thought I saw was a light-spot between a person in the crowd and Taylor's bat.

That said, It really did seem out watching live & from snicko and it's not as if Taylor went up straight away confident he didn't nick it. Sounds strange, but I think had Taylor been more confidence on the review, it might have made a difference to the decision.

 

[Athlai]

But there was also a loud woody noise just as it passed the bat, with the bat no where near any clothing or the ground. It's not as simple as mark on hotspot = this, no mark on hotspot = that. You have to assess all the evidence you've got.

The technology of syncing sound to video has been established as an unreliable way to review wickets. This is why we don't fricken use snicko, so instead we let it be proof in other circumstances?

Tripe.

Taylor isn't taking a punt on whether technology will absolve him, he doesn't think he hit it. There is no batsman review that is more genuine than a referred caught behind, technology gave us nothing and still the decision wasn't overturned.

Utter ****ing tripe.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Yeah, I have no problem with it being given out, as there wasn't enough "evidence".

My point is, is there any point in reviewing a catch when it is being given out?

Say there was no noise, and no hotspot.
In the past that hasn't been enough evidence either.

 

[99*]

I always thought snicko edges was a large peak at the point of contact.

When Sky showed it it was barely a rise on the line.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah, I have no problem with it being given out, as there wasn't enough evidence.

My point is, is there any point in reviewing a catch when it is being given out?

Say there was no noise, and no hotspot.
In the past that hasn't been enough evidence either.

I would say daylight between bat and ball, the ball/bat hitting the pad, snicko not synching with the ball passing the bat...etc. are enough to overturn a decision.

 

[grecian]

The technology of syncing sound to video has been established as an unreliable way to review wickets. This is why we don't fricken use snicko, so instead we let it be proof in other circumstances?

Tripe.

Taylor isn't taking a punt on whether technology will absolve him, he doesn't think he hit it. There is no batsman review that is more genuine than a referred caught behind, technology gave us nothing and still the decision wasn't overturned.

Utter ****ing tripe.

Pretty poor posting this tbh. The decision by the umpire was out, there's a number of reasons why that could have been true. Not sure of the rage.

 

[Athlai]

I always thought snicko edges was a large peak at the point of contact.

When Sky showed it it was barely a rise on the line.

The sign of a conclusive edge is a large spike. The sign of a sound of any kind is that sort of rise. Maybe Taylor took a woody fart at that moment, the mic isn't in the bat it's in the stumps. Who knows what the **** it was.

 

[Bahnz]

The technology of syncing sound to video has been established as an unreliable way to review wickets. This is why we don't fricken use snicko, so instead we let it be proof in other circumstances?

Tripe.

Taylor isn't taking a punt on whether technology will absolve him, he doesn't think he hit it. There is no batsman review that is more genuine than a referred caught behind, technology gave us nothing and still the decision wasn't overturned.

Utter ****ing tripe.

If Taylor thought he didn't hit it, then how come he took about 10 seconds and a conversation with McCullum before reviewing it?

Anyway, I'm still holding out for that "real-time snicko" technology that was mentioned on Cricinfo a couple of weeks back. Will really help in situations like this.

 

[Cabinet96]

The technology of syncing sound to video has been established as an unreliable way to review wickets. This is why we don't fricken use snicko, so instead we let it be proof in other circumstances?

Tripe.

Taylor isn't taking a punt on whether technology will absolve him, he doesn't think he hit it. There is no batsman review that is more genuine than a referred caught behind, technology gave us nothing and still the decision wasn't overturned.

Utter ****ing tripe.

Isn't the reason snicko's not used because it takes too long to come through, rather than it being unreliable?

The DRS was brought in to eradicate howlers, and I don't think that was a howler. Heck, I reckon he actually hit it and the right decision was made.

 

[Athlai]

Pretty poor posting this tbh. The decision by the umpire was out, there's a number of reasons why that could have been true. Not sure of the rage.

Because UDRS just doesn't make ****ing sense. We use hotspot as the UDRS method to check edges, we see no edge and we still can't overturn it.

Why use hotspot at all if we aren't trusting it to detect edges?

 

[Bahnz]

The sign of a conclusive edge is a large spike. The sign of a sound of any kind is that sort of rise. Maybe Taylor took a woody fart at that moment, the mic isn't in the bat it's in the stumps. Who knows what the **** it was.

Exactly. We couldn't tell precisely what the noise was, but we also couldn't tell that it obviously wasn't the bat. The umpire, however, thought that it was, and that's still the most important factor.

 

[Athlai]

If Taylor thought he didn't hit it, then how come he took about 10 seconds and a conversation with McCullum before reviewing it?

Anyway, I'm still holding out for that "real-time snicko" technology that was mentioned on Cricinfo a couple of weeks back. Will really help in situations like this.

He probably heard the noise as well but felt nothing at all.

Unless Taylor is mysteriously deaf I think he had fair reason to be unsure over whether he edged it or not, the noise certainly occurred and he certainly didn't feel the ball.

 

[Zinzan]

Okay, so if that's the precedence, I've got no major issue provided the ICC categorically say so. To be consistent, they need to make it official that hot-spot evidence is not enough to override an umpires out decision.

 

[grecian]

Yeah, I have no problem with it being given out, as there wasn't enough "evidence".

My point is, is there any point in reviewing a catch when it is being given out?

Say there was no noise, and no hotspot.
In the past that hasn't been enough evidence either.

Plenty of times there have been daylight between bat and ball, TBH, Taylor didn't go for the review right away here either.

 

[Bahnz]

Because UDRS just doesn't make ****ing sense. We use hotspot as the UDRS method to check edges, we see no edge and we still can't overturn it.

Why use hotspot at all if we aren't trusting it to detect edges?

I know it's not ideal, but we know that hotspot doesn't always work for thin edges. And even if we didn't have hotspot, Taylor's decision still wouldn't have been overturned.