India controls the cameras but not the truth: Fair cricket for everyone — can we follow the football broadcasting model?

[uppercut]

Relax.

Pakistan played horribly. Early wickets. Poor shot selection. Game was done in the powerplay. No excuses.

When a team collapses on its own, there’s nothing for broadcasters to “assist.” Cricket decided the match.

My point has always been about transparency in tight moments not inventing conspiracies when a side plays badly.

This one was simple: Pakistan were outplayed.
Move on

So essentially what you are saying is that you have absolutely nothing to prove your wild claim that India controls the cameras but will continue to indulge in verbal gymnastics to hang on to ludicrous conspiracy theories.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It’s funny how whenever this topic comes up, the default response is either to call it “conspiracy theories,” bring up old losses, or start waving the flag. None of that changes the central point: (fair cricket requires neutral broadcasting.)

I’m not talking about hackers sitting inside Hawk-Eye machines or every decision being rigged. I’m saying when the (broadcaster, the technology operators, and the rights holder are all under the same flag), the conflict of interest is obvious. If the feed is delayed, if certain frames are skipped, if Hawk-Eye margins are presented in ways that always seem to tilt one way, fans have every right to question it.

Even if you want to quote Cricbuzz numbers, stats don’t capture the key moments. A single dubious overturn in a knockout game swings more than ten routine decisions in Tests. It’s about timing and optics, not just volume.

And let’s not ignore fixtures either: India being scheduled to play the (last group game in almost every ICC event) gives them the net run rate advantage. That’s not paranoia, that’s a documented pattern. Add to that broadcasters conveniently avoiding awkward moments (like the toss handshake incident), and you have a system that simply isn’t neutral.

You can mock, call it “paranoia,” or wave the “we’re rich” card. But if cricket wants to be trusted globally, it needs neutral production, the same way football, tennis, and even rugby separate governing bodies from broadcasters. Otherwise, you’re not defending India, you’re defending a system where (the referee, the cameraman, and the scoreboard operator all wear the same jersey.)

FAIR CRICKET FOR EVERYONE = NEUTRAL BROADCAST. That’s the beginning and the end of the argument.

Neither hawkeye nor ultraedge are owned by Indian companies

 

[nish_mate]

So Uncle Toms and Kannspiracis couldnt come up with anything? Come on chaps, thats a white flag being raised by you lot!

 

[Ryw]

 

[Ryw]

 

[uppercut]

View attachment 162345

So what was the issue with that decision ?

 

[Cover Drive Six]

So what was the issue with that decision ?

Ball touched the bat. .. That's the only issue.

 

[jnaveen1980]

View attachment 162345

This stupid fake image lol Did you even watch the full frame. I guess not> You are not that smart

 

[Ryw]

Ball clearly missed the bat and hit the thigh pad.

Yet UltraEdge created unnecessary controversy instead of instantly clarifying it.

That’s the issue not the result, not the winner.

When tech creates confusion in a straightforward call, people will question consistency

 

[jnaveen1980]

Ball clearly missed the bat and hit the thigh pad.

Yet UltraEdge created unnecessary controversy instead of instantly clarifying it.

That’s the issue not the result, not the winner.

When tech creates confusion in a straightforward call, people will question consistency

So it gave an opportunity for another crying moment for you lol Happy for you

 

[uppercut]

Ball clearly missed the bat and hit the thigh pad.

Based on what ?

Yet UltraEdge created unnecessary controversy instead of instantly clarifying it.

That’s the issue not the result, not the winner.

When tech creates confusion in a straightforward call, people will question consistency

So you are saying they just suppressed the snicko and the 3rd ump just went with the onfield umpire OR his gut feeling when he ruled the batsman out ?

 

[nish_mate]

Uncle Tom's back, what a surprise.... Was quiet yesterday wonder why

 

[Smbhayi]

This stupid fake image lol Did you even watch the full frame. I guess not> You are not that smart

It did look like there was a gap between bat and ball on the replay, and crowd was silent during that time thinking it was not out.. only when UltraEdge showed a spike, the crowd found their voice..

Not accusing anyone though.. it's part and parcel of the game

 

[shah9425]

View attachment 162345

It's suspicious

I think it hit pad

 

[Ryw]

Based on what ?




So you are saying they just suppressed the snicko and the 3rd ump just went with the onfield umpire OR his gut feeling when he ruled the batsman out ?

No, I’m not saying the 3rd umpire went with his “gut feeling.”

I’m saying this:

There are 28 cameras on the ground. Yet when timing UltraEdge, the broadcast chose to air the front-on frame instead of the clearer side angle that would align bat proximity and sound properly.

That’s not about suppressing snicko.
That’s about which visual is prioritised when milliseconds matter.

UltraEdge is only as convincing as the frame it’s synced with.

If a side-on angle gives clearer separation between bat and pad, why not show that first?

When presentation choices influence perception in tight calls, people will question it.

No conspiracy. Just asking for consistency in what’s shown especially in big moments

 

[RexRex]

View attachment 162346

UltraEdge algorithm had its sensitivity parameters tweaked for that Hetmeyer dismissal. Don't tell anybody

 

[jnaveen1980]

UltraEdge algorithm had its sensitivity parameters tweaked for that Hetmeyer dismissal. Don't tell anybody

I enjoy the misery of these poor guys. It is a good therapy.

 

[uppercut]

No, I’m not saying the 3rd umpire went with his “gut feeling.”

I’m saying this:

There are 28 cameras on the ground. Yet when timing UltraEdge, the broadcast chose to air the front-on frame instead of the clearer side angle that would align bat proximity and sound properly.

That’s not about suppressing snicko.
That’s about which visual is prioritised when milliseconds matter.

UltraEdge is only as convincing as the frame it’s synced with.

If a side-on angle gives clearer separation between bat and pad, why not show that first?

When presentation choices influence perception in tight calls, people will question it.

No conspiracy. Just asking for consistency in what’s shown especially in big moments

This is why it helps to have ACTUALLY watched the match LIVE!!


Whats the next conspiracy ?

 

[Mesozoic]

Whats the next conspiracy ?

West Indies actually won the game yesterday but the broadcasters used advanced AI to show an Indian win on the screens.

 

[Ryw]

It did look like there was a gap between bat and ball on the replay, and crowd was silent during that time thinking it was not out.. only when UltraEdge showed a spike, the crowd found their voice..

Not accusing anyone though.. it's part and parcel of the game

Exactly visually it looked like there was a gap. Crowd reaction reflected that too.
Then UltraEdge spike appears and suddenly the narrative flips.

No one is saying someone pressed a secret button. But let’s not pretend presentation doesn’t matter.

The TV director decides which angle is synced, which frame is frozen, and what the audience and indirectly the officials see first.

When a tight call hinges on milliseconds, frame selection is critical.

If everything is clean, show the clearest side-on angle synced perfectly with UltraEdge and remove all doubt instantly.
That’s all people are asking for clarity, not chaos

 

[sithb]

OP clearly has not seen a single EPL game if he says that refereeing standards in football are better or the referees are unbiased.

 

[Ryw]

I’ve watched plenty of Premier League games which is exactly why I mentioned it.

No one claims EPL refereeing is perfect. The difference is: every VAR angle is shown transparently and debated openly.

Questioning consistency in cricket doesn’t mean I think football is flawless.

If your only counter is “you don’t watch EPL,” that’s not an argument that’s deflection.

Even West indies coach Daren Sammy along with Hetmyer not happy with this broad daylight robbery. Well played broadcaster.

Stick to the actual point buddy

 

[uppercut]

Exactly visually it looked like there was a gap. Crowd reaction reflected that too.
Then UltraEdge spike appears and suddenly the narrative flips.

No one is saying someone pressed a secret button. But let’s not pretend presentation doesn’t matter.

The TV director decides which angle is synced, which frame is frozen, and what the audience and indirectly the officials see first.

When a tight call hinges on milliseconds, frame selection is critical.

If everything is clean, show the clearest side-on angle synced perfectly with UltraEdge and remove all doubt instantly.
That’s all people are asking for clarity, not chaos

So lets assume for a moment that there was no bat involved in that dismissal and that there was some hanky panky that happened ( thats how I interpret your post based on your past posts on this topic in this thread alone ). Therefore the Ultraedge system plus the main camera team would have to somehow collaborate and manufacture a edge, sync it with the action captured by the main cameras ( atleast two) and accomplish that in realtime in under a minute ( I checked the timestamps by replaying the recording ) .... correct ? Is that what you think happened here ? If not then explain.​

 

[jnaveen1980]

So lets assume for a moment that there was no bat involved in that dismissal and that there was some hanky panky that happened ( thats how I interpret your post based on your past posts on this topic in this thread alone ). Therefore the Ultraedge system plus the main camera team would have to somehow collaborate and manufacture a edge, sync it with the action captured by the main cameras ( atleast two) and accomplish that in realtime in under a minute ( I checked the timestamps by replaying the recording ) .... correct ? Is that what you think happened here ? If not then explain.​

The whole thread would not have existed if this guy were technologically savvy.

 

[sweep_shot]

I’ve watched plenty of Premier League games which is exactly why I mentioned it.

No one claims EPL refereeing is perfect. The difference is: every VAR angle is shown transparently and debated openly.

Questioning consistency in cricket doesn’t mean I think football is flawless.

If your only counter is “you don’t watch EPL,” that’s not an argument that’s deflection.

Even West indies coach Daren Sammy along with Hetmyer not happy with this broad daylight robbery. Well played broadcaster.

Stick to the actual point buddy

Football is a classy global sport. Cricket has become a farcical Indian sport.

India have ruined cricket with petty politics and overcommercialization.

 

[Sachin fan]

So lets assume for a moment that there was no bat involved in that dismissal and that there was some hanky panky that happened ( thats how I interpret your post based on your past posts on this topic in this thread alone ). Therefore the Ultraedge system plus the main camera team would have to somehow collaborate and manufacture a edge, sync it with the action captured by the main cameras ( atleast two) and accomplish that in realtime in under a minute ( I checked the timestamps by replaying the recording ) .... correct ? Is that what you think happened here ? If not then explain.​

You cannot talk reason to guys who are too dumb to reason. It must be a wonderful life to be so ignorant about how things work so you can weave in your fairytales and fantasies into each aspect of it.

What a magical world where people can accomplish things by magic. If only things worked like that in life.

 

[Sachin fan]

OP clearly has not seen a single EPL game if he says that refereeing standards in football are better or the referees are unbiased.

Or, what is more likely, he is just lying for attention.

 

[Bhaijaan]

This is all the kind of dumb stuff we can talk about.

If it was safe and ethical, I wish everyone related to cricket in Pakistan could have their mouth sewed permanently and were just asked to do the needful. No talking. No conspiracy theories. No politics. Just blood perform for your nation which you humiliate almost every single time you step on the cricket field.

We have dumb munafiqs like Saqlain speaking same nonsense on talk shows while shamelessly defending their relatives and literally asking for another job from PCB. I sometimes wonder how bad the economic situation must be that all these people who played cricket for us for decades and made decent money are still shamelessly playing politics to this day as 50 year old men still trying to look for a PCB job, haven’t you made any investments during your playing careers so that you never had to do this? These retired people and half our problems right now in cricket. It’s a crisis no one talks about.

 

[BouncerGuy]

I don't think it is a joke that India won 2 white ball events and now they are heading towards another one... Not eveything is unfair. India winning back to back could not be a joke.

 

[Ryw]

The emotional meltdown in the replies says more than my post ever did.
First I never said “magic manipulation in 30 seconds.” That’s your exaggeration, not my claim.

Broadcast workflow is not sorcery.
UltraEdge is synced to video.
The TV director decides which angle is shown first.

Frames are selected. Feeds are queued.
That’s not conspiracy that’s how live production works.

Questioning presentation choices ≠ alleging a secret lab manufacturing fake spikes in real time.

Second personal insults about intelligence, nationality, or “sewing mouths shut” only show insecurity. If the technology is airtight, explain it calmly. No need for hysteria.

Third I have repeatedly said:
If the dismissal is clean, fine.
If Pakistan plays badly, they deserve to lose.

My point has always been about transparency in high-stakes moments nothing more.

If asking for clarity triggers this much outrage, maybe the discussion is uncomfortable for reasons beyond “technology.”

Debate the process. Drop the insults

 

[jnaveen1980]

The emotional meltdown in the replies says more than my post ever did.
First I never said “magic manipulation in 30 seconds.” That’s your exaggeration, not my claim.

Broadcast workflow is not sorcery.
UltraEdge is synced to video.
The TV director decides which angle is shown first.

Frames are selected. Feeds are queued.
That’s not conspiracy that’s how live production works.

Questioning presentation choices ≠ alleging a secret lab manufacturing fake spikes in real time.

Second personal insults about intelligence, nationality, or “sewing mouths shut” only show insecurity. If the technology is airtight, explain it calmly. No need for hysteria.

Third I have repeatedly said:
If the dismissal is clean, fine.
If Pakistan plays badly, they deserve to lose.

My point has always been about transparency in high-stakes moments nothing more.

If asking for clarity triggers this much outrage, maybe the discussion is uncomfortable for reasons beyond “technology.”

Debate the process. Drop the insults

Length of this post shows who is having a melt down lol. Not even West indians were talking about it..you conveniently went missing when boat load of errors happened in ashes. This is not even an error lol

 

[Josh]

Length of this post shows who is having a melt down lol. Not even West indians were talking about it..you conveniently went missing when boat load of errors happened in ashes. This is not even an error lol

Apni team ki lagatar haar dekh kar Ryw ka dil toot chuka hai ..ab dusro ko discredit karne ke alawa kuchh option bacha nhi

 

[uppercut]

The emotional meltdown in the replies says more than my post ever did.
First I never said “magic manipulation in 30 seconds.” That’s your exaggeration, not my claim.

Broadcast workflow is not sorcery.
UltraEdge is synced to video.
The TV director decides which angle is shown first.

Frames are selected. Feeds are queued.
That’s not conspiracy that’s how live production works.

Questioning presentation choices ≠ alleging a secret lab manufacturing fake spikes in real time.

Second personal insults about intelligence, nationality, or “sewing mouths shut” only show insecurity. If the technology is airtight, explain it calmly. No need for hysteria.

Third I have repeatedly said:
If the dismissal is clean, fine.
If Pakistan plays badly, they deserve to lose.

My point has always been about transparency in high-stakes moments nothing more.

If asking for clarity triggers this much outrage, maybe the discussion is uncomfortable for reasons beyond “technology.”

Debate the process. Drop the insults

So you are just unhappy with the aesthetics of the ultraedge presentation for that Hetmeyer wicket ? Is that all or am I missing something ?

 

[Ryw]

So you are just unhappy with the aesthetics of the ultraedge presentation for that Hetmeyer wicket ? Is that all or am I missing something ?

Go back to post #71 written before this World Cup even started.

I clearly said that in high-stakes games, presentation choices (angle selection, replay sequencing, UltraEdge syncing) would become talking points if they lacked clarity.

That was not written after a loss.
Not written emotionally.

Not written to seek attention.
It was written in advance about transparency standards in big tournaments.

Now when a tight decision creates visible confusion and debate, suddenly I’m “technologically illiterate” or “lying”?
No.

My point has been consistent from the beginning:
I am questioning presentation consistency, not inventing sci-fi spike manufacturing labs.

If everything is clean, great consistency will shut the debate down naturally.

But pretending broadcast production has zero human decision-making involved is far more naïve than asking questions about it.

Post #71 proves this wasn’t reactionary. It was a principle raised beforehand.
Debate the process. Not my IQ

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I would argue that even if that was true, one decision is unlikely to affect the outcome of the game.

Honestly, I felt Shanaka should have had another shot at that wide bowl Shaheen bowled and helped Sri Lanka win.

I felt umpire robbed him there.

But I am not going to blame the Sri Lankan loss on technology or lack of it, thereof.

They were too slow to attack and hence lost the game leaving them with 28 runs to get in an over.

If it was much less, they would have won.

West Indies didn't make enough runs and didn't bowl well enough.

Was Hetmeyer unlucky?

Perhaps.

Then again, maybe not.

But it is not the factor leading to loss or win in these games.

Is technology perfect and consistent ?

No.

But the technology is much better than the umpiring errors we used to have (glaringly so with bat hitting the ball and still being LBW) and is much adept at removing howlers.

Remember how Fakhar under-edged to the keeper and Sri Lanka didn't appeal when Pakistan barely had 140 to 150 runs.

That is a howler that got missed.

I don't see anyone crying about it.

Crying becomes selective only when Indian team plays.

Because people want to somehow blame anything except India or give them credit for their wins.

End of story.

 

[pillionrider]

Have already said in this thread that this guy relies on Google and zero real-world understandings to peddle his tinfoil theories. And this still keeps going.

Broadcast workflow is not sorcery.
UltraEdge is synced to video.
The TV director decides which angle is shown first.

Frames are selected. Feeds are queued.

Throwing in some keywords so people think you know what you're talking about. You're simply an ignoramus.

Firstly, Ultraedge refers to the entire system that includes video and raw audio from the mics on and around the stumps. So you don't even know the basics you're mouthing off on.

The difference between Ultraedge and Snicko is that this one is fully automated as far as the syncing process goes.

Just because you might have some experience using a video editor doesn't mean you have a damn clue about real-time video/audio syncing

There is the 3rd umpire and a DRS official who decide which angles they want to see. So even in Snicko, where an operator had to align the audio with video (and this was not according to their whims and fancies, but based on actual timecodes), cheating would require the 3rd umpire, the operator and DRS official to all be in cahoots.

Ultraedge removes even this option. The only way to cheat would be to manipulate the real-time raw audio (remove/add some frames, introduce a spike) and then feed this realtime into the Ultraedge system. Which is basically ridiculous, just like the OP.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Have already said in this thread that this guy relies on Google and zero real-world understandings to peddle his tinfoil theories. And this still keeps going.



Throwing in some keywords so people think you know what you're talking about. You're simply an ignoramus.

Firstly, Ultraedge refers to the entire system that includes video and raw audio from the mics on and around the stumps. So you don't even know the basics you're mouthing off on.

The difference between Ultraedge and Snicko is that this one is fully automated as far as the syncing process goes.

Just because you might have some experience using a video editor doesn't mean you have a damn clue about real-time video/audio syncing

There is the 3rd umpire and a DRS official who decide which angles they want to see. So even in Snicko, where an operator had to align the audio with video (and this was not according to their whims and fancies, but based on actual timecodes), cheating would require the 3rd umpire, the operator and DRS official to all be in cahoots.

Ultraedge removes even this option. The only way to cheat would be to manipulate the real-time raw audio (remove/add some frames, introduce a spike) and then feed this realtime into the Ultraedge system. Which is basically ridiculous, just like the OP.

There are a couple of names for this fallacy

Sunk cost fallacy or Ad hoc rescue

It is better to keep the guy in loop lol It is fun to watch

 

[BouncerGuy]

Not everything is controlled or can be controlled... Sometimes players get unlucky, sometimes umps can make a mistake... It is all part of the game.

We have seen some shaky stuff during IPL for sure... It cannot be denied and if someone denies that, he is ignorent fool.

 

[Ryw]

I would argue that even if that was true, one decision is unlikely to affect the outcome of the game.

Honestly, I felt Shanaka should have had another shot at that wide bowl Shaheen bowled and helped Sri Lanka win.

I felt umpire robbed him there.

But I am not going to blame the Sri Lankan loss on technology or lack of it, thereof.

They were too slow to attack and hence lost the game leaving them with 28 runs to get in an over.

If it was much less, they would have won.

West Indies didn't make enough runs and didn't bowl well enough.

Was Hetmeyer unlucky?

Perhaps.

Then again, maybe not.

But it is not the factor leading to loss or win in these games.

Is technology perfect and consistent ?

No.

But the technology is much better than the umpiring errors we used to have (glaringly so with bat hitting the ball and still being LBW) and is much adept at removing howlers.

Remember how Fakhar under-edged to the keeper and Sri Lanka didn't appeal when Pakistan barely had 140 to 150 runs.

That is a howler that got missed.

I don't see anyone crying about it.

Crying becomes selective only when Indian team plays.

Because people want to somehow blame anything except India or give them credit for their wins.

End of story.

Have already said in this thread that this guy relies on Google and zero real-world understandings to peddle his tinfoil theories. And this still keeps going.



Throwing in some keywords so people think you know what you're talking about. You're simply an ignoramus.

Firstly, Ultraedge refers to the entire system that includes video and raw audio from the mics on and around the stumps. So you don't even know the basics you're mouthing off on.

The difference between Ultraedge and Snicko is that this one is fully automated as far as the syncing process goes.

Just because you might have some experience using a video editor doesn't mean you have a damn clue about real-time video/audio syncing

There is the 3rd umpire and a DRS official who decide which angles they want to see. So even in Snicko, where an operator had to align the audio with video (and this was not according to their whims and fancies, but based on actual timecodes), cheating would require the 3rd umpire, the operator and DRS official to all be in cahoots.

Ultraedge removes even this option. The only way to cheat would be to manipulate the real-time raw audio (remove/add some frames, introduce a spike) and then feed this realtime into the Ultraedge system. Which is basically ridiculous, just like the OP.

There are a couple of names for this fallacy

Sunk cost fallacy or Ad hoc rescue

It is better to keep the guy in loop lol It is fun to watch

You guys are still missing the most important point of this entire thread.
Go back and read the early posts especially before #71 or 1st page of this thread.

Those were written before this World Cup even started, not after a loss, not after a controversial decision.

The points raised were three simple concerns about modern cricket:

• Broadcast presentation choices (angles, replay timing, frame selection)
• Technology interpretation during tight decisions
• Tournament structuring and scheduling advantages

None of that is science fiction. These are structural discussions about transparency in elite sport.

Now let’s address the replies:
First nobody said one decision decides a match. Cricket is not that simple.

Teams still have to bat and bowl well.
That has always been acknowledged.
But pretending technology discussions are irrelevant just because teams also make mistakes is not an argument.

Second the long lecture about UltraEdge, Snicko and syncing is ironically proving my point. These systems still rely on operators, review officials and broadcast feeds. They are not magic robots running in space with zero human input.

Even the DRS protocol itself allows multiple angles to be requested and selected. That is exactly where transparency matters.

Third calling this a “tinfoil theory” doesn’t change the timeline.
This thread existed before the tournament started predicting that:

• Broadcast debates would occur
• Technology interpretations would be questioned
• Scheduling advantages would appear

And here we are people arguing about UltraEdge, angles, reviews and scheduling.

So clearly the discussion was not as ridiculous as some posters claim.
And lastly, about the “selective crying” narrative that’s just deflection.

When technology controversies happen in Ashes, IPL, World Cups, or anywhere, people debate them. That’s normal in modern sport.

Questioning processes does not mean denying a team’s ability.

It simply means fans want consistent standards.

Fair cricket, transparent technology, and neutral production standards should benefit every team, not just one.

If that basic idea is controversial to some people, that says more about them than it does about the discussion

 

[pillionrider]

You guys are still missing the most important point of this entire thread.
Go back and read the early posts especially before #71 or 1st page of this thread.

Those were written before this World Cup even started, not after a loss, not after a controversial decision.

The points raised were three simple concerns about modern cricket:

• Broadcast presentation choices (angles, replay timing, frame selection)
• Technology interpretation during tight decisions
• Tournament structuring and scheduling advantages

None of that is science fiction. These are structural discussions about transparency in elite sport.

Now let’s address the replies:
First nobody said one decision decides a match. Cricket is not that simple.

Teams still have to bat and bowl well.
That has always been acknowledged.
But pretending technology discussions are irrelevant just because teams also make mistakes is not an argument.

Second the long lecture about UltraEdge, Snicko and syncing is ironically proving my point. These systems still rely on operators, review officials and broadcast feeds. They are not magic robots running in space with zero human input.

Even the DRS protocol itself allows multiple angles to be requested and selected. That is exactly where transparency matters.

Third calling this a “tinfoil theory” doesn’t change the timeline.
This thread existed before the tournament started predicting that:

• Broadcast debates would occur
• Technology interpretations would be questioned
• Scheduling advantages would appear

And here we are people arguing about UltraEdge, angles, reviews and scheduling.

So clearly the discussion was not as ridiculous as some posters claim.
And lastly, about the “selective crying” narrative that’s just deflection.

When technology controversies happen in Ashes, IPL, World Cups, or anywhere, people debate them. That’s normal in modern sport.

Questioning processes does not mean denying a team’s ability.

It simply means fans want consistent standards.

Fair cricket, transparent technology, and neutral production standards should benefit every team, not just one.

If that basic idea is controversial to some people, that says more about them than it does about the discussion

Said a lot, also said nothing at all.

So basically your're saying that until the day machines, software and AI completely runs the DRS and umpiring, you will keep bumping this thread. Unsurprising, considering AI probably wrote this too

 

[uppercut]

Go back to post #71 written before this World Cup even started.

I clearly said that in high-stakes games, presentation choices (angle selection, replay sequencing, UltraEdge syncing) would become talking points if they lacked clarity.

That was not written after a loss.
Not written emotionally.

Not written to seek attention.
It was written in advance about transparency standards in big tournaments.

Now when a tight decision creates visible confusion and debate, suddenly I’m “technologically illiterate” or “lying”?
No.

My point has been consistent from the beginning:
I am questioning presentation consistency, not inventing sci-fi spike manufacturing labs.

If everything is clean, great consistency will shut the debate down naturally.

But pretending broadcast production has zero human decision-making involved is far more naïve than asking questions about it.

Post #71 proves this wasn’t reactionary. It was a principle raised beforehand.
Debate the process. Not my IQ

See my post #72 in response to that post #71 that you keep mentioning. Can you respond to that without sitting on the fence and indulging in vaguery ?

if it was clipping the leg stump ( which it was not ) it would have been umpires call and Afridi would not be out as the umpires call would stay ... So tell me how the broadcaster cheated here.

Once you are done with that ... then lets talk about Salman's catch of SKY.

So respond to that with CLEAR explanation with evidence on why you think Pak was hard done by in that game.

Pretty darn sure that you will never touch on the specifics and will just waffle around sprinkling vaguery.

Fair cricket, transparent technology, and neutral production standards should benefit every team, not just one.

If that basic idea is controversial to some people, that says more about them than it does about the discussion

Again what evidence have you put forward so far in this thread to prove that India benefited from the supposedly unfair non-transparent, biased TV production ?

Evidence needs to be tangible for everyone to see. Got anything yet in this T20WC with only one match to go that was a absolute howler that India benefited from ? Specify the match and the over where this benefit supposedly happened.

 

[Ryw]

View attachment 162345

View attachment 162346

Ball clearly missed the bat and hit the thigh pad.

Yet UltraEdge created unnecessary controversy instead of instantly clarifying it.

That’s the issue not the result, not the winner.

When tech creates confusion in a straightforward call, people will question consistency

No, I’m not saying the 3rd umpire went with his “gut feeling.”

I’m saying this:

There are 28 cameras on the ground. Yet when timing UltraEdge, the broadcast chose to air the front-on frame instead of the clearer side angle that would align bat proximity and sound properly.

That’s not about suppressing snicko.
That’s about which visual is prioritised when milliseconds matter.

UltraEdge is only as convincing as the frame it’s synced with.

If a side-on angle gives clearer separation between bat and pad, why not show that first?

When presentation choices influence perception in tight calls, people will question it.

No conspiracy. Just asking for consistency in what’s shown especially in big moments

Exactly visually it looked like there was a gap. Crowd reaction reflected that too.
Then UltraEdge spike appears and suddenly the narrative flips.

No one is saying someone pressed a secret button. But let’s not pretend presentation doesn’t matter.

The TV director decides which angle is synced, which frame is frozen, and what the audience and indirectly the officials see first.

When a tight call hinges on milliseconds, frame selection is critical.

If everything is clean, show the clearest side-on angle synced perfectly with UltraEdge and remove all doubt instantly.
That’s all people are asking for clarity, not chaos

See my post #72 in response to that post #71 that you keep mentioning. Can you respond to that without sitting on the fence and indulging in vaguery ?



So respond to that with CLEAR explanation with evidence on why you think Pak was hard done by in that game.

Pretty darn sure that you will never touch on the specifics and will just waffle around sprinkling vaguery.



Again what evidence have you put forward so far in this thread to prove that India benefited from the supposedly unfair non-transparent, biased TV production ?

Evidence needs to be tangible for everyone to see. Got anything yet in this T20WC with only one match to go that was a absolute howler that India benefited from ? Specify the match and the over where this benefit supposedly happened.

I’ve already explained the pattern earlier in the thread What happened with the Hetmyer UltraEdge decision that day is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about questionable timing between the spike and the visuals, plus the broadcaster conveniently showing angles that don’t really help verify it properly.

With 28 cameras on the ground, it’s hard to believe that the most conclusive side angle somehow wasn’t shown when it mattered. Instead we get a front-on frame that conveniently lines up with the UltraEdge spike.

I’m not saying it’s some grand conspiracy, but when these things keep happening in tight moments, people are obviously going to question the transparency of the broadcast and the decision process

 

[uppercut]

I’ve already explained the pattern earlier in the thread What happened with the Hetmyer UltraEdge decision that day is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about questionable timing between the spike and the visuals, plus the broadcaster conveniently showing angles that don’t really help verify it properly.

With 28 cameras on the ground, it’s hard to believe that the most conclusive side angle somehow wasn’t shown when it mattered. Instead we get a front-on frame that conveniently lines up with the UltraEdge spike.

I’m not saying it’s some grand conspiracy, but when these things keep happening in tight moments, people are obviously going to question the transparency of the broadcast and the decision process

Lets go back to the Hetmeyer dismissal again. Here is the realtime footage that was shown on live tv:

if you play that for a few seconds you will clearly see BOTH front and side on angles ( live) . So why do you keep pretending that the most conclusive side on angle was not shown (on purpose according to you) ? And more importantly how does this implicate and prove that "India Controls the Cameras"

Straight answers please.

 

[Hitman]

Lets go back to the Hetmeyer dismissal again. Here is the realtime footage that was shown on live tv:

if you play that for a few seconds you will clearly see BOTH front and side on angles ( live) . So why do you keep pretending that the most conclusive side on angle was not shown (on purpose according to you) ? And more importantly how does this implicate and prove that "India Controls the Cameras"

Straight answers please.

Just because we don’t believe in conspiracy theories doesn’t mean we have the right to take away the rights of sore losers to apply balm on their wounds.​

 

[uppercut]

@Ryw no response to post #203 ?

And now that the WC is over and India has won as everyone predicted before a ball was bowled, have you found any evidence of how the evil BCCI "controls" the cameras which you were certain would happen ?

Something tells me that you will never show up on this thread for a while.

 

[Ryw]

Lets go back to the Hetmeyer dismissal again. Here is the realtime footage that was shown on live tv:

if you play that for a few seconds you will clearly see BOTH front and side on angles ( live) . So why do you keep pretending that the most conclusive side on angle was not shown (on purpose according to you) ? And more importantly how does this implicate and prove that "India Controls the Cameras"

Straight answers please.

Interesting that a YouTube clip suddenly appears later showing different angles to “prove” everything was perfectly clear. No need to create a youtube account to cover up.
During the live broadcast, the TV director controls what viewers and the review sequence actually see at that moment.

That’s the entire point of a live production feed. If a clearer side-on angle exists but isn’t emphasized or synced properly when the decision is being reviewed, people are obviously going to question it.

Posting a cleaned-up clip afterwards doesn’t change what the live audience and officials were shown in real time.
And this is exactly the point I’ve been making from day one:

Not conspiracy theories, not magical spike-manufacturing labs simply neutral broadcasting standards and transparent presentation during key decisions.

In modern sport, who controls the narrative feed matters. Every country debates media influence in politics, business, and sport it’s not some forbidden topic.

So the request remains simple and consistent:

Neutral broadcasting.
Clear angles at the moment of review.
Fair cricket for everyone.

If those standards are already being followed perfectly, then questions shouldn’t bother anyone.

Anyway, congratulations to Jay Shah, Jio Star and the broadcast team on delivering another ICC showpiece

 

[uppercut]

Interesting that a YouTube clip suddenly appears later showing different angles to “prove” everything was perfectly clear. No need to create a youtube account to cover up.
During the live broadcast, the TV director controls what viewers and the review sequence actually see at that moment.

That’s the entire point of a live production feed. If a clearer side-on angle exists but isn’t emphasized or synced properly when the decision is being reviewed, people are obviously going to question it.

Posting a cleaned-up clip afterwards doesn’t change what the live audience and officials were shown in real time.
And this is exactly the point I’ve been making from day one:

I see ... so what will it take for you to accept that the clip in that video is the actual footage recorded from the live broadcast feed of that match ?

BTW thats not my youtube account either. But let me know what it would take for you to accept that.

 

[Devadwal]

@Ryw india batsman are using different bat so its very unfair for other team's.

BCCICC changes the pitch during innings breaks so Indian bowler's can takes the wickets.