Channel 9 finally bow to benchmark00 pressure

[benchmark00]

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:



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

Because with hotspot the whole fundamental principle is that the naked eye is unreliable and that's why you use hot spot. The chance of there being an exact, .01 second sound existing at the same time, giving the same impression as a nick (a relatively sharp high display) is more unlikely than a hot spot showing up.

And that's not even my point which seems to have been lost here. I haven't said that snicko doesn't give false positives. I'm saying hot spot does though and people blow their loads when people come out and say "oh but hot spot doesn't give false positives!!!!" but that's blatantly untrue. it does.

In this part of the discussion all I want is for people to stop saying it doesn't give false positives as some form of justification of the technology. It's just wrong.

 

[hendrix]

Well, I'm partially to blame for that.

What I meant to say was that, with intelligent use of hotspot, false positives are exceedingly rare.

If the evidence is not conclusive from hotspot (or any other technology), then the decision is not overturned. I'm happy with that, as long as they understand the limitations of each technology and know when something is conclusive or not.

I'm quite fond of hotspot when it comes to bat-pad or inside edged LBWs.

 

[Furball]

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.

Oh I forgot. The Supreme Authority on Life, Internet, Cricket and Infra-Red Technology has spoken.

Don't know what I was thinking.

 

[benchmark00]

Oh I forgot. The Supreme Authority on Life, Internet, Cricket and Infra-Red Technology has spoken.

Don't know what I was thinking.

Sounds like a post of someone who was wrong.

That's ok, apology accepted.

 

[Furball]

Sounds like a post of someone who was wrong.

That's ok, apology accepted.

 

[Jono]

This forum is filled with false positives itbt

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

The equivalent of this can and does happen with Snicko.

In both cases, it's pretty easy to tell whether the spot/noise (delete as applicable) is down to the ball striking the bat or not. In the Pietersen case, the mark on the bat shown in HotSpot was later shown to be due to the bat striking the pad. Snicko would pick this up and show what you term a "false positive" as well, but it's sort of besides the point - it was pretty easy to detect in HotSpot alone in the Pietersen case that there was no edge, and it would have been in Snicko as well. In this regard HotSpot and Snicko are equivalent. Technically yes this is a false positive but I don't see the issue.

I do agree though that Snicko is generally preferable and I don't see the need for HotSpot assuming that Snicko is available.

 

[Red]

My opinion:

Get rid of the whole ****ing DRS system, except for run outs or stumpings.

Everything else is decided by the umpires on the ground.

The system worked for 100+ years. It still will.

I despise watching players review an umpire's decision.

 

[benchmark00]

I agree Monky.

 

[Red]

But...I will say that I played 3rds last Saturday. I took 3 wickets but I reckon I would've had 6 or 7 if I'd been able to review my LBW appeals.

****ing self umpiring in lower grades. What a bull**** joke that is!

 

[NUFAN]

Haha the Prior c Smith b Lyon 0 (1) is the perfect illustration of how DRS works.

 

[Jono]

Indeed

 

[benchmark00]

How is anyone arguing that DRS doesn't lead to more correct decisions? Weird post.

 

[Jono]

Indeed.

 

[Maximas]

But...I will say that I played 3rds last Saturday. I took 3 wickets but I reckon I would've had 6 or 7 if I'd been able to review my LBW appeals.

****ing self umpiring in lower grades. What a bull**** joke that is!

Your better off being a batsman in lower grades, definitely get more out of the umps!

 

[uvelocity]

we've got a charity chips and lollies stand at work, the bird came and refilled it again today. she gives me a raging false positive every time tbh

 

[NUFAN]

How is anyone arguing that DRS doesn't lead to more correct decisions? Weird post.

In response to Monk's post that said to let umpires decide everything bar stumpings and run outs. It would have meant that Prior wouldn't have been given.

 

[Red]

In response to Monk's post that said to let umpires decide everything bar stumpings and run outs. It would have meant that Prior wouldn't have been given.

Fair call. That was an interesting one because Lyon clearly didn't think it was out either. But it was.

The thing I dislike most is batsmen reviewing LBWs when they obv haven't hit it, and then the umpires decision getting overturned because more than half the ball is missing the stumps or something according to Hawkeye.

 

[hendrix]

Fair call. That was an interesting one because Lyon clearly didn't think it was out either. But it was.

The thing I dislike most is batsmen reviewing LBWs when they obv haven't hit it, and then the umpires decision getting overturned because more than half the ball is missing the stumps or something according to Hawkeye.

no, it will only get overturned if the whole ball is missing the stumps.

 

[Dan]

Wasn't there a delivery during the Test in which bat hit ground and ball simultaneously (or was very, very close to the edge)? It was all irrelevant because the ball bounced after passing the bat, but in that type of thing it would be very hard to get a definitive answer out of snicko, surely. The loud noise of bat hitting ground could potentially obscure the sound of the edge, hence making hotspot useful and snicko imperfect.

In that situation, where the audio evidence isn't clear due to simultaneously hitting the ground, and the visual evidence isn't conclusive, I suspect hotspot could help the process. Overall I agree that snicko should be the lead piece of tech and its call should take precedence over the very-imperfect hotspot, but in some situations I can see the latter being more useful, even if those situations are rare.