There has to be a spike when the ball passes the bat. If there is a spike before or after the ball passes then it's ignored right?
yeah but the spike is already present
Why was the hotspot ignored, what's the balance of probability attached to the different technologies?
Yeah but that's evidence to say he might've hit it, not that he 100% did. There clearly wasn't enough evidence to overturn the umpire's decision.
Yeah I can't remember the two of them commentating together either. I wonder if Ponting would stand up to him if they did.
It worked better in the Big Bash when all he had to deal with was Ponting giving non-stop gems, Fleming and Gilchrist talking pointlessly and endlessly and Mark Waugh being incredibly charismatic and not depressing at all. The interactions were generally far better. The Kevin Pietersen era being the notable dark age.
nah, hotspot is too unreliable for this. it misses a ton of obvious nicks. there's a case for not bothering with it at all tbh, the cases where it's useful are very niche and marginal.
I don't think thats relevant as per the protocols, or atleast not unless there is something else possibly touching the bat at the same time (like the pad). I assume the system does not pick up sounds like feet shuffling, handles cracking, slip fielders snapping their fingers, etc. If it did that would make it a massively useless system.
Dunnow. I'm not a fan of DRS at all. Think it just creates more problems as we've seen here.
hotspot is only used as conclusive evidence *for* an edge, not conclusive evidence *against* an edge. worked that way for years now
There was a snick on RTS when the ball passed the bat. What more evidence is needed?
i mean, sound doesn't travel backwards in time. if a sound has appeared before the ball has reached the bat, then...
Ah. Then the decision makes sense.
