DRS, Snicko, but no Hot Spot for SL-Eng

http://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-england-2012/content/current/story/557166.html

Shame, I think Hot Spot is dead reliable.

Or possibly just dead.

No technology is failsafe or foolproof, but Snicko isn't bad ... provided you don't have biased technos ramping up and down the volume and amplitude, depending who's batting.

Looks like the decision may have been made on cost grounds.

Wait, snicko? Has that ever been "officially" used before?

Takes f*cking ages to build the "evidence". Two overs' worth of time, at least.

I'm not sure that article is right. They probably just mean the stump mic.

I blame cheating batsmen (who glaze their edges with vaso) for the demise of Hot Spot.

No, just the useless ICC, who won't stump up the wonga so that every nation can afford the technology.

What, and eat into the Bannies' take from the great game??

skully wrote:I blame cheating batsmen (who glaze their edges with vaso) for the demise of Hot Spot.

So why dont the umpires take a sample from every bat for lab testing? They have plenty of time as they don't have to call chuckers and seemingly don't have to worry about front foot no balss anymore.

Indeed, taips. If mandatory bowling crease cameras were at all Tests then the umpires could forget about that duty, with a red light doing the job. And then they could get the cotton buds out and swab the edges of the batsmen greasy edges, scrutinise the 15 degrees of bend limit on the bowlers, and generally keep a better eye on onfield behaviour.

My point is that the front foot seems to referred already in every decision.

Aye, it's on budget reasons. HotSpot has been a godsend. OK, it doesn't work in the coldest of days in England (and hence probably NZ) but it's good everywhere else and has provided an instantaneous judgement on whether a batsman has hit the ball. It's nice knowing your batsman is going to get reprieved.

Brass Monkey wrote:Aye, it's on budget reasons. HotSpot has been a godsend. OK, it doesn't work in the coldest of days in England (and hence probably NZ) but it's good everywhere else and has provided an instantaneous judgement on whether a batsman has hit the ball. It's nice knowing your batsman is going to get reprieved.

Hadn't heard that about cold days? Why wouldn't it work?

Too much of an absence of heat for the infra-red to be able to pick up any significant changes in heat - i.e. it's all too cold.

That's why some quite frankly dim cricketers are 'not sure' about the technology.

Heard that if they had the four cameras for a full series (10 days cricket in this case) it would cost something approaching £70,000 ($100,000 if you're Yankocentric). Which, considering they can't even pay their players properly, is a lot of money to the SL board.

Brass Monkey wrote:Too much of an absence of heat for the infra-red to be able to pick up any significant changes in heat - i.e. it's all too cold.

That's why some quite frankly dim cricketers are 'not sure' about the technology.

Interesting. I assumed that the "hot spot" would be caused by friction. I would have thought extreme heat would be more detrimental than extreme cold.

I think it only picks up heat to a certain level, if bat and ball are too cold their heat signatures don't raise enough to register on the camera. That's my rudimentary understanding of it. The creator had to 'explain' himself after a Dravid dismissal last year.

It's dependent on the coefficient of friction of the two surfaces. Temperature hasn't much of an impact on the coefficient of friction of a material. Higher temp means a minutely lesser coefficient of friction which would mean less heat generated by friction on contact between bat and ball, and thereby, a minutely less conspicuous mark (don't think it would be perceptible).

Can't say anyhting decisive.

tricycle wrote:It's dependent on the coefficient of friction of the two surfaces. Temperature hasn't much of an impact on the coefficient of friction of a material. Higher temp means a minutely lesser coefficient of friction which would mean less heat generated by friction on contact between bat and ball, and thereby, a minutely less conspicuous mark (don't think it would be perceptible).

Can't say anyhting decisive.

That is the way I would have seen it.

I'm only going on what the creator was saying when interviewed.

Not disputing that, was only saying what I would have thought, which appears to be wrong.

Brass Monkey wrote:I'm only going on what the creator was saying when interviewed.

Fair enough. Can't ask for more of an explanation from him though, as it would stump me.

No, I was saying the creator could've been bullshitting in haste because he had to answer so many questions from the Sky team....

Aye, that should be left to the scientific folk though, they could detect the gobshite in a flash.

Easy enough to test though. All you need is a cold room.

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Aye, it's on budget reasons. HotSpot has been a godsend. OK, it doesn't work in the coldest of days in England (and hence probably NZ) but it's good everywhere else and has provided an instantaneous judgement on whether a batsman has hit the ball. It's nice knowing your batsman is going to get reprieved.

Hadn't heard that about cold days? Why wouldn't it work?

Seems strange - there is not that much difference in heat between 5 deg C and 30 deg C. (only about 10% ) I would not have thought it be that big of a deal to hotspot

Brass Monkey wrote:No, I was saying the creator could've been bullshitting in haste because he had to answer so many questions from the Sky team....

...disappointing to see Danny coming out as a religio maniac