However, Broad's aggressive approach paid off when Rahane miscued a pull shot to Samit Patel at fine leg and in his next over, he took the prized wicket of Rahul Dravid to leave India 86-2 although the wicket was not without controversy.
On-field umpire Billy Doctrove adjudged that Dravid had not made contact as the ball went through to wicketkeeper Craig Kieswetter but, although the "Hotspot" thermal imaging camera concurred, TV umpire Marais Erasmus said there was a sound and that he could see a deflection - a view later backed up by the "Snickometer" which highlighted a clear noise as the ball passed the bat.
BBC Test Match Special summariser Mark Butcher said: "Hot Spot is not something you can completely rely on.
"It's a bad piece of kit for those fine nicks but Dravid's body language told me he was out because the millisecond the ball passed the bat, he jerked his head to see behind."
And after the game, Parthiv Patel admitted: "I heard a noise."
Anderson... Laxman... Prior celebrates, and England think they have their man here, even if Umpire Rauf says no...
BBC Test Match Special's Phil Tufnell
"I think he nicked that. Matt Prior has shaken Jimmy Anderson's hand and said well bowled. I don't see any point in hotspot - it's absolutely worthless, unless you get a fat edge it doesn't show. You know as a cricketer when someone has got a fine scratchy outside edge."
Let's have a look at the replays - bat nowhere near the pad, and there looks to be a clear - if tiny - deviation as ball passes bat. Nothing on Hot Spot, and third umpire Billy Bowden just will not give that. English fielders hang heads - they were convinced by that, and whispers re the use of Vaseline on bat edges to defeat heat-seeking technology will only get louder. Other petroleum-based tinctures also available.
1136 India 48-1
This from Bowden (I'm paraphrasing): "I heard a sound, couldn't be 100% certain it came from the bat because of nothing on Hot Spot." So Bowden heard a nick. All the ex-pros around me are saying that was out. Laxman's head even flinched round to follow the ball. Hmm. Maiden from Broad to Dravid; India trail by 173.
The real interesting science is the statistics. How many times was hot spot used last year? How often did hot spot get it wrong? And are you SURE hot spot got it wrong?Amie wrote:I need to know if this technology can have such huge error margins (because this has happened twice in one tournament and a few other times in the last year) and if it can, what the science behind it is.
Adam H wrote:The real interesting science is the statistics. How many times was hot spot used last year? How often did hot spot get it wrong? And are you SURE hot spot got it wrong?
"Huge error margins" in this case would be less than about 90% accuracy, I think. I'll bet you that of all the calls that hot spot overturns (so the most difficult ones) hot spot gets it right more or less 9 times out of 10. It's just that you remember the ones where it is most debatable.
Also, I would probably put a little less faith in the spectators hearing a nick. Your ears subconsciously brace themselves for loud sounds if you know they're coming. So if it's not picked up on video/snickometer, it's pretty weak evidence IMO.
ElWanderer wrote:I don't think anyone considers the Hot Spot, Snickometer or Hawk-eye technology to be infallible, as such. Or rather, I hope not! The problem with Hot Spot seems to be that the thinnest of edges result in the smallest amounts of friction between bat and ball, meaning any temperature gain will be so small it could be lost in the noise.
In more detail, but guessing somewhat: I presume the system works by setting a threshold temperature above which things are coloured bright white to highlight nicks, whilst everything else is left alone - that threshold will have to be a certain level above the average temperature of the bat, or else there will be lots of speckles of white (and therefore apparent nicks) from natural temperature variations, both in the bat and in the sensor of the IR camera. Alternatively or in addition, there may be a threshold for a number of adjacent pixels that have to show an increase for a spot to be shown as white. However it works, there will be steps to rule out as many false positives as possible, but those steps allow some false negatives, where the faintest of nicks to go undetected by the system...
..Basically, if there is a noise (that can't have come from anywhere else) on Snickometer and a visible deflection of the ball's flight, it shouldn't actually matter if Hot Spot doesn't show anything. Whether all the 3rd umpires look at it that way or not is another matter. It depends on whether they see "no hot spot" on Hot Spot as absence of evidence (i.e. inconclusive in of itself), or evidence of absence (i.e. means there was no nick)...
Well, if it's 90% accurate (completely made up number), and it's used 5 times a tournament (again, completely made up), then at least two errors will occur in about 1 out of every 12 tournaments.Amie wrote:Okay. I can see what you mean. However, like I said, is it likely to occur twice over, in the same tournament?
Zamfir wrote:It's very possible that the umpires are much less than 90% correct for these cases.
Amie wrote:How can we confirm if the noise can't have come from anything else?
Amie wrote:The technology, in my view, is more often than not, used for validating an already made decision in the umpire's head.
Amie wrote:I doubt that very much. At least when it comes to experienced and well seasoned umpires. The technology, in my view, is more often than not, used for validating an already made decision in the umpire's head. When you've been standing in countless matches, you develop that kind of a keenness.
ElWanderer wrote:This is what the Snickometer is for - the sound recording from the microphone (in the stumps I presume) is lined up with the video from the cameras. The tricky part of the technology is precisely synchronising the two (the sound & video on my telly at home often wander in and out of sync - it used to be really noticeable when we had TiVo recordings of NTL cable television), but I don't know how that is done. Then the 3rd umpire scrolls through the frames until they find ones where there is noise or where the ball appears to be passing the bat. If there's a noise, they look at the position of the ball, and possibly also the shape of the soundwave.
If there is a large noise on the recording, but the ball is visibly nowhere near the bat at that timestamp, then clearly the source of the noise is not a nick. If there happens to be a noise with a sound wave similar to that of bat on ball at the same timestamp as the ball is passing the bat, then that's most probably a nick. Yes, it could conceivably be something else that has happened to have made a similar noise at that precise moment, but it is very unlikely. It is impossible to have a decision-making system that is 100% accurate for this kind of thing.
ElWanderer wrote:Ummm, I doubt that. The 3rd umpire's view on an lbw or caught behind decision has to be requested by the players when they don't agree with the decision of the on-field umpire. It's not called for by the umpire themselves. The umpire will often ask the 3rd umpire for help in determining if a ball carried, whether someone was run-out or stumped, as those are very hard to judge on the pitch, but easy for someone with a TV replay - those decisions don't need Hot Spot, Snickometer or Hawk-eye, though.
Zamfir wrote:How can you know? It's surely possible that umpires are correct in more cases than a particular technology. But the only way to be sure of that is to have a third method that is more reliable than either of them, and use that verify them both.
Amie wrote:Right, but that's what I am saying. The player can apparently only make two unsuccessful challenges in a match (I think it's just one challenge in ODIs - a colleague told me as much). However, this is used for confirming if the decision was right or not. If the umpire is proven wrong, then it's fine but if the player gets it wrong twice then he's lost his chance of more appeals.
Amie wrote:So the favourable position here is given to the umpire.
ElWanderer wrote:Amie wrote:Right, but that's what I am saying. The player can apparently only make two unsuccessful challenges in a match (I think it's just one challenge in ODIs - a colleague told me as much). However, this is used for confirming if the decision was right or not. If the umpire is proven wrong, then it's fine but if the player gets it wrong twice then he's lost his chance of more appeals.
Yes, it's definitely two unsuccessful reviews (where unsuccessful means the out/not out decision wasn't overturned by the review) per side per innings in test match cricket. It may well be one per side per innings in the shorter forms - I don't know off the top of my head - though it also wouldn't surprise me if one day matches are different to Twenty20 matches in this respect. The purpose of the limit is to prevent a side from reviewing every single decision that goes against them; it means they only review decisions they really think have a good chance of being overturned.Amie wrote:So the favourable position here is given to the umpire.
I'm still not really sure what you mean by this.
New User wrote:I'd like to know, how often in professional sports are camera replays used instead of a human referee to determine legality? The only examples I know of are races, for which I understand a "photo finish" has been used for years to determine which participant crossed the finish line first.
Amie wrote:About the umpire being favoured -- I mean to say that no matter what technology you bring in to make the decisions fairer and more accurate, if you're not going to use it enough and leave the ultimate decision to the umpire, then it's pretty pointless.
ElWanderer wrote:How often to use the technology in some sports is one of those big debates that may never be resolved. It's pretty pointless if you use the technology so much that it drastically slows down matches and undermines the authority of the on-field umpire, so there have to be some limits. But where those limits should be is another matter. To me, 1 unsuccessful review per innings sounds appropriate for Twenty20, but possibly 1 too few for a one day game.
Everyone wants decisions to be made correctly and consistently, but they also want them swiftly. Who'd be a ref, eh?
Amie wrote:I agree with you. It *is* a huge debate. Also, I know all those things I am not a cricket "n00b" so to speak I raised these questions here because I was really curious about the "science" behind all these technologies and because it came up at work. I have to think about it because I might want to do an article (I work for Wisden India) on these limits and the authority of the umpire and the duration of the game -- all coming into question because of these new technologies. When I say not "enough" I mean the price that they're paying for it is so huge that there have been lots of debates on who should incur the costs. The ICC wants the broadcasters to pay for it and vice-versa. The meat of the matter is, as you have mentioned, "where those limits should be" and nobody is talking about it anymore. The DRS (Dravid Removal System xD) deserves a more serious look anyway. If the same thing were to happen to, say, Sachin Tendulkar, there'd be an uproar and studies and researches and whatnot.
ElWanderer wrote:Ah I did wonder if you were approaching this from an Indian point of view. The BCCI's insistence that Hawk-Eye (or equivalent) couldn't be used for the England v India test series was interesting, especially as it could have saved one of the Indian batsmen from being given out LBW very early in the series (I forget who this was)! There seems to be a lot more enthusiasm about using the technology in the UK, possibly because we have long memories for when umpires make bad decisions, but easily forget when they get things right. Oh and the broadcaster that shows live cricket here is loaded with money! Heck, I rarely watch live cricket because it is on Sky Sports, which I don't have.
Charging the broadcasters does make some sense to me as they seem to use the systems more often than the umpires (or is it that they use for random bits of analysis because they've paid for them...?) and the costs seem relatively small for a large broadcaster, but then I don't know how much all the other cameras, broadcast links, technicians etc. cost.
Is it not still the case that which bits of the review system will be used for a series have to be agreed beforehand by the two teams? I thought the ICC had backed off from mandating their use.
As to the science - if we're talking Hot Spot, then I guess the question is how "fine" a nick can the system detect, compared to on-field umpires; that's assuming fine nicks are harder to detect on playback than determining whether a ball that definitely hit something hit the pad, bat or glove etc.
If someone mentions a % accuracy figure, there are various things that could be measured - it could be the % of the time the system returns the "correct" result, but does that mean from every single delivery including all the dot balls and those that hit the middle of the bat, that would never be referred, or just the deliveries that are interesting? And who works out if it is correct or not (maybe run tests with a sensor on the bat or in the ball?) If we're giving the bastman the benefit of any doubt, we might be more interested in reducing the rate of false positives than the rate of false negatives when considering times the system returns the "wrong" answer. It also depends if that figure includes the analysis by a human or just the output of the technology... I guess I'm mostly just repeating what Zamfir has already said here, I'm afraid.
I still come at this with the view that umpires will make mistakes, that can't be avoided, and that having the technology as a way to reduce the number of mistakes is a good thing, at least at the higher levels of play where it can be afforded and where it doesn't slow down the game too much. But I remember series where players seemed to be appealing with every delivery (eventually resulting in fines after the match for doing it too aggressively) and I would hate for them to be able to review every delivery as well. I guess your point is that if you lose both reviews to situations where there was a faint nick that the system couldn't detect, you'd feel quite annoyed, but I feel such situations are pretty rare. Most reviews I've seen (in my limited experience) are LBW calls, and a lot of those end up "umpire's call", because the error margins are relatively large and well-understood.
ElWanderer wrote:Meanwhile, I see Dravid has retired from internationals. I can vaguely remember his test match debut - cricinfo tells me that was Dickie Bird's last match as umpire - didn't we (England) drop Dravid in single figures then he went on to make (almost) a century? That could describe various players that made their debut against England around that time, mind.
Adam H wrote:HULK pretty sure they don't ever question a call in baseball.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
Amie wrote:ElWanderer wrote:Meanwhile, I see Dravid has retired from internationals. I can vaguely remember his test match debut - cricinfo tells me that was Dickie Bird's last match as umpire - didn't we (England) drop Dravid in single figures then he went on to make (almost) a century? That could describe various players that made their debut against England around that time, mind.
Yes. I am shattered. Absolutely devastated. He was one of the few players that I loved to watch and it was doubly special for me because where I grew up, Sachin Tendulkar was the god. Dravid was more of a sidekick. To me, he is the embodiment of a perfect cricketer. I remember seeing his various faces in victory and in anguish. He was always the antithesis of what my birth city's population thought a "perfect" batsman to be. But he's the reason I watched cricket even though it was only in small doses (I have always loved football more) and he's the only reason why I went back to watching cricket. I can remember, as I'm sure many Indians can, his disbelief and pain when he dropped a catch as a slip... he sat motionless on the ground for a while. I also remember how he used to stay and bat for long minutes without scoring, buckets of sweat trickling from his helmet, only to score the monstrous unexpected six or four.
Every sport has its heroes and Dravid is the perfect ode to the spirit of Cricket - the gentleman's game.
Adam H wrote:I know they stop basketball games a lot to make sure they have exactly the right time on the clock, but I don't think they check other calls.
Users browsing this forum: Bakstoola, Bing [Bot], Bkppiw39, Bnpnvr39, eternauta3k, Farpappestals, Fekeenuisance, GuetraGma, imicheAcics, Ledeeffelioli, MobTeeseboose, Preokcher, shealtket, SlefBalia, WeMbrerveguet and 7 guests