Should the DRS be mandatory?

[rich1uk]

I wouldn't worry about Snicko and noise at all, rich.

The fact that the 'click' doesn't always appear when the ball's actually alongside the bat is because the video is in frames (stationary pictures) at intervals of one frame every 20ms, but the audio is continuous. So there just may not be a frame with the ball alongside the bat. That's why I suggested retaining only the frame before the ball reaches the bat and the one after it had passed, then listening for a sound in between. I might even try to make a video like that myself and post it!

but umpires aren't using the synchronised content atm , maybe I was being rash about snicko itself but relying solely on a noise to overturn decisions, as we have seen in this series , cant be right

[DeltaAlpha]

I've had many 'conversations' with Paul Hawkins in the past, sussex, but find him to be rather patronising and always taking the stance that Hawkeye's right; I don't much care for being taken for a fool so I don't bother with him any more.

[DeltaAlpha]

but umpires aren't using the synchronised content atm , maybe I was being rash about snicko itself but relying solely on a noise to overturn decisions, as we have seen in this series , cant be right

I don't understand your point, rich.

[sussexpob]

I've had many 'conversations' with Paul Hawkins in the past, sussex, but find him to be rather patronising and always taking the stance that Hawkeye's right; I don't much care for being taken for a fool so I don't bother with him any more.

Never found his responses rude myself DA, but yes, he always has an unshakeable trust in the science of his system. I was amused by the Marcus North explanation where seemingly he said that in the last 3 feet to the stumps the ball suddenly was travelling at a level and perfectly horizontal level to the leg stump.... even though the balls before had land even fuller and gone over the stumps.

[rich1uk]

but umpires aren't using the synchronised content atm , maybe I was being rash about snicko itself but relying solely on a noise to overturn decisions, as we have seen in this series , cant be right

I don't understand your point, rich.

i'll cut and paste what I posted earlier

lots of comments and theories about the noise generated by a very near miss still registering sound waves and I assume the sounds are being picked up from the stump mics so they could be picking up noises from elsewhere as well

we have all seen occasions where there is clearly a noise but the ball has also clearly missed the bat and no obvious source for the noise , again theories about things like a very slight movement in the join where the handle is spliced into the bat

my point was if there is nothing on hotspot and no obvious deviation from watching the footage should umpires be overturning decisions , or even giving decisions on nothing more than a noise ?

[DeltaAlpha]

Thanks rich.

My point is that the ears can associate a sound with its likely source, whereas looking at a waveform such as those that are currently shown with Snicko cannot. A click from the splice would sound different from a nick by the ball, though the waveforms would look pretty similar.

Incidentally, you can't look at a longish video clip and say where the ball was when the click occurred: eye-ear coordination is very poor - if you've ever edited videos, you'd nave noticed how difficult it is to tell whether the video and audio are truly synchronised. That's why I suggested that only the frame before the ball reaches the bat and the one after it had passed should be used.

[Arthur Crabtree]

If your going to ignore sound, then the onfield umpire has to ignore it as well. We have to accept sound as a signifier of an edge, otherwise it becomes too difficult to make a decision. If once a year (or whatever), sound is created by the bat going near the bat (and we don't know if this happens) then the batter has to wear it.

[rich1uk]

If your going to ignore sound, then the onfield umpire has to ignore it as well. We have to accept sound as a signifier of an edge, otherwise it becomes too difficult to make a decision. If once a year (or whatever), sound is created by the bat going near the bat (and we don't know if this happens) then the batter has to wear it.

I didn't say ignore sound

I said it cant be reliable to use it as the sole factor to overturn a decision via DRS as we have seen

[Arthur Crabtree]

Does that mean the on field umpire should use it as a sole indicator? I'm fairly sure they do.

[sussexpob]

If your going to ignore sound, then the onfield umpire has to ignore it as well. We have to accept sound as a signifier of an edge, otherwise it becomes too difficult to make a decision. If once a year (or whatever), sound is created by the bat going near the bat (and we don't know if this happens) then the batter has to wear it.

I dont think Snicko is reliable, in fact they never used to use it in the umpires booth because of this originally. It is only after they started that the line about it taking some time to prepare was touted.

I mean think about that Graham Smith edge! Even the third umpire had to rely on sound in real time...

[rich1uk]

I know they do but it cant be accurate or consistent given how things like wind direction, crowd noise and so on can affect their ability to hear clearly

[Arthur Crabtree]

Snicko always seems to be available immediately after the decision is made, however long the decision takes, so you may be right. But some say that the bat passing close to the ball produces a sound, so the decision could be made on sound (on field, or through the mic) without snicko. I doubt this is true myself. I think the theory developed to explain why there can be a noise but no hotspot, whereas the likelier explanation is that the hotspot wasn't showing a real edge.

The hotspot people are saying that protective coatings shouldn't be allowed on the bat.

[Arthur Crabtree]

So far, everyone has been learning what DRS can and can't do, unfortunately in the middle of important games. I think they are near a sensible interpretation of the gadgets and the system. If the media could be encouraged to accept/understand how the system works, peace may soon be achievable.

[DeltaAlpha]

I think there is only one problem with Snicko, and that's the way it's presented - as an animated waveform. If they did what I suggested earlier, I think it could be pretty reliable: we'd have a video lasting just 20ms in which you may or may not hear a click. It's pretty unlikely that some extraneous source would produce a sound that sounded like a ball nicking a bat in that time. Things like crowd noise and wind would sound completely different and can be filtered out anyway.

[D/L]

...I do think if we are to have as many acrimonious disputes as we have had this year with DRS , then it seems an expensive waste of time ...

I'm quite happy to ignore all the "noises off" if it means we get a higher proportion of correct decisions. With UDRS, we do.