Channel 9 finally bow to benchmark00 pressure

[Furball]

I guarantee on day 1 of the Ashes we'll have a contentious decision that'll have us all saying "if only they had hotspot."

 

[Jono]

Benchmark is running Channel 9?


Remind me not to buy shares when they float later this year/early next year.

 

[Spikey]

c9 set to steal Beauty and the Geek

 

[Jono]

Daniel Wells to host.

 

[Spikey]

Karl Stefanovic out Stuart MacGill in

 

[Jono]

Samantha Lane to head the sports report on Channel 9 news

 

[benchmark00]

Well played on remembering my dislike of Sam Lane.

 

[Spikey]

benchmark00 lives to regret taking his foot off the pedal: hotspot set to feature in the ashes afterall. also something to do with snicko.

i hope benchmark00 learns that even when it looks like you've won, you've still gotta apply pressure

 

[Stapel]

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.

Though I would acknowledge that just any type of technology will occasionally create a false positive, I don't think I recall a number of examples of a small mark on the bat showing up when the ball hasn't hit it. Maybe I should watch more cricket....
Anyway, could it be that sometimes the hotspot appears on the bat a little lower or higher, because there is no video frame of the moment of impact? That would explain it!

I probably would be convinced by your arguements if I had seen a few examples of the hotspot appearing, not a little lower or higher, but a decent chunk lower or higher.

Anyway, the combination of hotspot and snicko will lead to better decisions, as long as the third umpire uses common sense.

I guess that's the key here: COMMON SENSE!

 

[steds]

benchmark00 lives to regret taking his foot off the pedal: hotspot set to feature in the ashes afterall. also something to do with snicko.

i hope benchmark00 learns that even when it looks like you've won, you've still gotta apply pressure

Rookie mistake. But I'm sure the young man will learn from this whole sordid affair and come back even stronger.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Real time snicko sounds promising. I hope it works, and more importantly I hope the dumbass umpires learn to use it properly

 

[Burgey]

I remember playing against a real **** about 20 years ago who was also a very good bat. We got him with real time snicko when yours truly clicked his fingers at exactly the right moment as he narrowly played and missed.

 

[zaremba]

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.

Not much more that needs to be said. I hear the jabberings of those who disagree but they are irrelevant, unpersuasive and/or wrong

 

[benchmark00]

Think you just wrote your business card.

 

[dermo]

what a comeback from hotspot, a cinderella story

 

[benchmark00]

They truly have buckled and developed real time snicko. A real win for camp benchmark00.

 

[Spikey]

what a comeback from hotspot, a cinderella story

Hawkeye said "be there at the end" and it will be

 

[zaremba]

Think you just wrote your business card.

Quite.

Seriously though the 2nd and 3rd points made by hendrix are key and there's yet to be much of a case made against them. Hotspot answers a lot of questions convincingly and the fact that it does not always have the answer (most particularly in that it sometimes misses nicks) doesn't mean it's not a useful tool. You don't exclude confession evidence in criminal trials simply because (1) in some cases there is no confession and (2) false confessions are occasionally made. The rational thing to do is simply to take the evidence on board and weigh it up along with everything else.

 

[Daemon]

Will benchmark bow down to zaremba pressure? #neverwrong

 

[benchmark00]

If there was a means to irrefutably establish guilt or no guilt in a criminal trial, but there was also another means to establish guilt or no guilt, but that second means was very unreliable and muddied the waters and was prone to convincing decision makers one way or the other, why would you allow the latter method when the first is irrefutably correct? More decisions would be correct by using only the first system than using the first plus second.