Channel 9 finally bow to benchmark00 pressure

[benchmark00]

Stapel has never seen Don Bradman bat therefore people who say Don Bradman existed are making it up.


Stapel has never seen Antarctica. Therefore Antarctica does not exist.


Stapel has never seen Neptune. Therefore Neptune doesn't exist.

Literally the dumbest argument.

 

[Burgey]

How do you know he didn't see Bradman, hasn't been to Antarctica and hasn't seen Neptune?

 

[benchmark00]

He's too busy watching every ball of every international cricket match to see those things.

 

[andyc]

Seriously though benchy, have you actually seen a false positive from Hot Spot?

 

[benchmark00]

****, not sure how many times I have to say it. Yes.

Read through this thread and every single other DRS thread I have posted in.

 

[andyc]

Yeah I read through the thread but you just said you have seen it, but not actually said when. Which is exactly what Stapel is doing with Snicko. Honestly just wondering because I too can't remember a mark on Hot Spot that couldn't be easily discounted the same way you can easily discount an sound on Snicko that clearly isn't an edge.

 

[benchmark00]

There are several occasions. I think Pietersen or maybe Bell it was in an Ashes series in Australia a few years back was the first one I saw.

People don't get it, the mark shows up on hot spot, but I know it's not out because it isn't in the same spot as the ball passed through. that is by pure luck and coincidence.

If a ball passes the bat and you can see a line that appears which is the same as an edge (which doesn't happen but just to throw you and Stapel a life line I'll go along with this fallacy), BUT you can see daylight between the bat and the ball, guess what the answer is? Not out.

If I see a white spot show up on hotspot and the ball is in the vicinity and I don't have a strong audio to back it up, I'd be compelled to give it out, despite the fact there are no guarantees that the ball actually did hit the bat.


I will repeat one more time, hot spot is for entertainment purposes only. It literally is only good for seeing how close to the middle of the bat a ball came out of and seeing Doug Bollingers hair piece. As a tool for making decisions it is useless as it clouds the certainty of more reliable pieces of technology.

This has always been my stance and will continue to be so. DRS should not be in play without snicko.

 

[uvelocity]

there are sometimes marks on the bat, but they are relatively rare, and the chance that a close edge, with a false hot spot at the same height on the bat is a very long shot.

i've seen jupiter fwiw

 

[benchmark00]

How is it any more of a long shot than it appearing a bit higher or a bit lower? It's all equal chance. It's an unreliable piece of technology that takes too long to come up with an non definitive answer.

 

[benchmark00]

And just so I can put an underline on this discussion so no one has to ask me about this again:

I have no doubt that snicko probably is not 100% perfect.

But anything hot spot can pick up, snicko can. And there are some (many) that hotspot doesn't pick up that snicko can. That's why there is no need for hotspot to exist. The confusion comes when they contradict each other (hot spot says no edge snicko says edge, or hot spot says mark but snicko doesn't register a snick signal). Snicko is the more reliable so having hot spot just makes people confused and adds doubt when there shouldn't be any.

 

[Daemon]

How is it any more of a long shot than it appearing a bit higher or a bit lower? It's all equal chance. It's an unreliable piece of technology that takes too long to come up with an non definitive answer.

But that chance is really low isn't it? It's not 100% but it still has a role to play in correcting a non insignificant amount of wrong decisions, as long as umpires learn to use it properly imo. I think you've argued in the past about disrupting the flow of the game and how it takes too long, but leaving that aside, for the very basic purpose of getting more correct decisions, surely it's better than no DRS?

fwiw if real time snicko is perfected then I don't see any practical use for hot spot either.

 

[GIMH]

I defo agree snicko is more reliable. Not sure why we would need hotspot if real time snicko is available but don't object to hotspot should we have five minute delay snicko

 

[uvelocity]

How is it any more of a long shot than it appearing a bit higher or a bit lower? It's all equal chance. It's an unreliable piece of technology that takes too long to come up with an non definitive answer.

because there is much more bat for it to appear on than in exactly the right place

anyway what about some of those times you hear a wierd nick noise but the ball is clearly nowhere near the bat, i'm yet to see what snicko has to say about those ones, but im interested

 

[Furball]

There are several occasions. I think Pietersen or maybe Bell it was in an Ashes series in Australia a few years back was the first one I saw.

People don't get it, the mark shows up on hot spot, but I know it's not out because it isn't in the same spot as the ball passed through. that is by pure luck and coincidence.

If a ball passes the bat and you can see a line that appears which is the same as an edge (which doesn't happen but just to throw you and Stapel a life line I'll go along with this fallacy), BUT you can see daylight between the bat and the ball, guess what the answer is? Not out.

If I see a white spot show up on hotspot and the ball is in the vicinity and I don't have a strong audio to back it up, I'd be compelled to give it out, despite the fact there are no guarantees that the ball actually did hit the bat.


I will repeat one more time, hot spot is for entertainment purposes only. It literally is only good for seeing how close to the middle of the bat a ball came out of and seeing Doug Bollingers hair piece. As a tool for making decisions it is useless as it clouds the certainty of more reliable pieces of technology.

This has always been my stance and will continue to be so. DRS should not be in play without snicko.

The Pietersen one wasn't a false positive. In the incident you're referring to, the mark was on Pietersen's bat before the ball passed it, and it was on a part of the bat the ball when nowhere near. Whatever the mark was, it had absolutely nothing to do with the cricket ball.

It was at Melbourne just before Pietersen got to his 50. Ponting had a massive sook about it when the incident was reviewed and the idiots in the crowd booed KP when he did hit his 50.

I know this concept is completely alien to your way of thinking, but you are wrong on this issue.

 

[Red]

****, not sure how many times I have to say it. Yes.

Read through this thread and every single other DRS thread I have posted in.

But have you ever seen a false positive from hotspot Benchy?

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

This has all happened very late in the piece, though, hasn't it? It is one thing to bring in this new technology and say, well, now the umpires have no excuse, but does anyone really know how to interpret snicko? All too often I've heard commentators look at snicko and say: "Oh, well that doesn't really look like a 'bat sound'". The umpires haven't got the experience with it, they've had about a week's notice, and you can bet your back passage that they'll make mistakes with it.

 

[Stapel]

First of all, I would like to apologise if my earlier remarks were aimed at the man, rather than his point.

Stapel has never seen Don Bradman bat therefore people who say Don Bradman existed are making it up.


Stapel has never seen Antarctica. Therefore Antarctica does not exist.


Stapel has never seen Neptune. Therefore Neptune doesn't exist.

Literally the dumbest argument.

Indeed the dumbest arguement ever. But then again, these are arguements are made (at least firmly changed) by you. Thank FSM I'm not dumb enough myself of producing such nonsense !

Are we really going that way?


Allow me to explain......
Don Bradman, Antarctica and Neptune have been seen by thousands of people. False hotspot positive only by a poster going by the name of Benchmark, who, I have no doubt, has serious questions over some technology. Or maybe it has been seen by more people? I don't know. Hence I ask for examples. But you persist in not making you're own point. Thta's how I see this.

It would, imho, be advisable to not aim your arrows at my alleged poor arguemnts, but to put forward some (strong) examples. I guess even cricinfo commentary would do. I'm genuinely interested in your questions over hotspot!


More importanntly.......,
I have seen Neptune (the planet, not the Greek god of the seas). Actually, depending on your position on our globe, it can be seen right now. All you need is a rahter cheap telescope. The typical Christmas gift for 10 year old boy type of scope would do. Must be said Neptune is probably the dullest planet to watch.

 

[benchmark00]

The Pietersen one wasn't a false positive. In the incident you're referring to, the mark was on Pietersen's bat before the ball passed it, and it was on a part of the bat the ball when nowhere near. Whatever the mark was, it had absolutely nothing to do with the cricket ball.

It was at Melbourne just before Pietersen got to his 50. Ponting had a massive sook about it when the incident was reviewed and the idiots in the crowd booed KP when he did hit his 50.

I know this concept is completely alien to your way of thinking, but you are wrong on this issue.

How do you not get basic comprehension?

The fact that the mark existed before, after or during the ball passing the edge, and the fact that ball is higher or lower than where the ball passes the ball is pure coincidence, and is purely ancillary to the issue at hand. No one is saying Pietersen was out, just that it's an example of when a false positive is given as there is nothing to distinguish between an edge mark and anything else.

Please do not waste any more of my time.

 

[hendrix]

What is the chance of a false positive spot appearing at the exact same spot as the ball passes the bat at the exact same time as the ball passes the bat?

because that's a real false positive, not there being a spot on the bat before or after the ball passes it.

You can't take the same leniencies you do with snicko and then not apply them to hotspot.

e.g. here:

If a ball passes the bat and you can see a line that appears which is the same as an edge (which doesn't happen but just to throw you and Stapel a life line I'll go along with this fallacy), BUT you can see daylight between the bat and the ball, guess what the answer is? Not out.

If I see a white spot show up on hotspot and the ball is in the vicinity and I don't have a strong audio to back it up, I'd be compelled to give it out, despite the fact there are no guarantees that the ball actually did hit the bat..

Why can you only see daylight for snicko but not for hotspot?

 

[Spark]

This has all happened very late in the piece, though, hasn't it? It is one thing to bring in this new technology and say, well, now the umpires have no excuse, but does anyone really know how to interpret snicko? All too often I've heard commentators look at snicko and say: "Oh, well that doesn't really look like a 'bat sound'". The umpires haven't got the experience with it, they've had about a week's notice, and you can bet your back passage that they'll make mistakes with it.

Thin, sharp "line" = nick, smudged, less intense noise = not nick