What's new

[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Controversial dismissal of Yashasvi Jaiswal in India's 2nd innings of the 4th Test against Australia – a fair call or a mistake?

Was Yashasvi Jaiswal's dismissal in the 4th Test against Australia fair?

  • Total voters
    44
These were the same people who were celebrating a draw for a rained off game.

Why aren't these people specifically @Rajdeep and @Devadwal defending Australia and showcasing sympathy for being cheated out of a 3-1 lead?

Where are those comments? Infact they were calling it justice and divine intervention.

The truth is the gap between aus and India is extremely high. India won one game in the same way pakistan in 2017 demolished India black and blue in a final but it isn't gonna happen all the time.

Their is a huge gap in batting and bowling amd fielding between the 2 sides minus Bumrah and Bumrah alone can't make the difference.

Besides Bumrah's biggest flaw is that unlike bowlers of the past like wasim, malcolm marshall etc who could bowl 25 overs in a row, Bumrah taps out after 7 to 10 and has to abandon India while aus can cash in on their other rubbish bowlers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Junaids said:
To be honest, this is why I think it’s a matter of time before India exits international cricket.

Yes, every other Board is addicted to Indian TV money. But we saw the BCCI deliberately damage Cricket South Africa a few years ago, then cause financial disaster by pulling out of a Test in England and everywhere they go there is this awful sportsmanship.

That’s why India are such unpopular tourists with the general public in all the SENA countries. And I wouldn’t shed a tear if they move to year round IPL and the rest of us can return to sensible scheduling and sustainable salaries.

We don’t need England and Australia’s best players to earn what they currently do: ten times more than Kiwis and South Africans and Pakistanis. Hopefully a better future lies ahead.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with you there but how does this post relate to my previous post?

Both are totally unrelated topics.

On topic, do you agree the third umpire should have followed the rules set by ICC while giving this decision or go with his gut feeling?

Remember your answer will create a precedence, Indian umpires can follow suit and overturn decisions based on their gut too which defeats the whole purpose of technology.
 
big_gamer007 said:
I don’t disagree with you there but how does this post relate to my previous post?

Both are totally unrelated topics.

On topic, do you agree the third umpire should have followed the rules set by ICC while giving this decision or go with his gut feeling?

Remember your answer will create a precedence, Indian umpires can follow suit and overturn decisions based on their gut too which defeats the whole purpose of technology.
Click to expand...
Can you please post the rule set by the ICC that you are referring to?
 
Mamoon said:
It is not a troll, it is a fact. India is #1 when it comes to producing incompetent umpires, so no one is buying into your tears or feeling sorry for you.

You have lost this series because of your own shortcomings not because of umpiring decisions.
Click to expand...

100% agreed we lost due to our own incompetence, however, this thread is specific to the umpire call which was a blunder as per the rules and should be accepted as one.
 
HitWicket said:
The review rule is that that the third umpire should overturn any decision he has a high degree of confidence is incorrect. The replay showing clear contact and deviation off the globe is enough to give anyone a high degree of confidence that it was incorrect.
Click to expand...
Sorry that is simply not correct. From where will 3rd umpire get that confidence? He need to back it up with some technology na to being conclusive. That is the purpose of tv umpire...it happens in all sports including VAR in football. Now ofcourse we can question snicko or any technology. But that is not for 3rd umpire in the middle of the game. He should depend on what available technology he has got.
 
Devadwal said:
Its better to not produce any umpire if they are sellout like This bangladeshi and Asad Rauf etc

:kp
Click to expand...
You, like a few other indian posters have a serious problem. You guys are behaving like small children. I have noticed this for the last 16 years here at the forum. Everthing is India v Pakistan in your head.

If I am asked why Pakistan is a poor fielding side, I will try to give a proper answer on that and not give the typical 'your style answer' : "India is not a good fielding side either". That is not the answer given by adults, only children will say that.

So when you are asked about why India haven't produced a top umpire, give us the reason for that, don't bring in Pakistan, BD etc. Do you get my point?
 
Rajdeep said:
Sorry that is simply not correct. From where will 3rd umpire get that confidence? He need to back it up with some technology na to being conclusive. That is the purpose of tv umpire...it happens in all sports including VAR in football. Now ofcourse we can question snicko or any technology. But that is not for 3rd umpire in the middle of the game. He should depend on what available technology he has got.
Click to expand...

The replay conclusively showing it hit his gloves is technology.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Can you please post the rule set by the ICC that you are referring to?
Click to expand...

Conclusive evidence to overturn the on field umpires decision.

No one is denying here that Jaiswal didn’t nick the ball, he did nick the ball.

The argument here is if you use technology then you can’t go on your gut too over rule an umpired decision when the said technology shows something else.
Otherwise for LBW every third umpire can overturn on field umpires call when ball tracking shows umpires call?

Why didn’t CA use Hotspot for this series? This is supposed to be their biggest series of summer, why did they cheap out?
In @Junaids words, is CA bankrupt?
 
HitWicket said:
The replay conclusively showing it hit his gloves is technology.
Click to expand...
But how can it be conclusive when the science i.e technology i.e snickometer showing there isn't one. 3rd umpire job is to rely on that technology and not go by his blind eye based on deviation.
 
Rajdeep said:
But how can it be conclusive when the science i.e technology i.e snickometer showing there isn't one. 3rd umpire job is to rely on that technology and not go by his blind eye based on deviation.
Click to expand...

He is relying on the technology, the replay technology conclusively proved it hit his glove. An error of the snicko technology doesn't suddenly override that conclusive evidence.
 
They didnt lose this due to an "umpiring error" or because "it rained".

There is just too many weak spots in the Indian team and Bumrah cant cover every single deficiency in the lineup.

Imagine if this was a 3 match series. India would have escaped with a drawn tour and everyone would be saying how India is an "awesome team for drawing BGT".

The blatant truth is the longer the tour goes ahead, the bigger the class gap betwen a weak and strong team gets exposed.

India will 90 percent lose in Sydney also simply because they dont have enough good players to compete with Australia in their own backyard. I can wager if this series was a 7 match series India would lose 6-1 also barring rain.

The longer the series goes, the better team eventually rises to the top. This will be reflected at the end of this tour.

Today Pakistan missed a golden opportunity to actually win the Test series in South Africa. I think if this was a 5 match series, Pakistan would have been exposed as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Btw. Let's assume it was a wrong decision. But how could that have changed the outcome of the match as some are trying to say here? Let's even say Jaiswal would have hit a double ton here, India would still have lost by some 60+ runs.

It's redicilous to make excuses based on one bad decision by the umpires. These things happen all the time. Ausralia just destroyed the indians in fourth innings. If you take out Jaiswals 80 runs, rest of the batsmen made only 75 runs. That is poor stuff by Kohli, Rahul, Rohit, Pant etc.
 
big_gamer007 said:
Conclusive evidence to overturn the on field umpires decision.

No one is denying here that Jaiswal didn’t nick the ball, he did nick the ball.

The argument here is if you use technology then you can’t go on your gut too over rule an umpired decision when the said technology shows something else.
Otherwise for LBW every third umpire can overturn on field umpires call when ball tracking shows umpires call?

Why didn’t CA use Hotspot for this series? This is supposed to be their biggest series of summer, why did they cheap out?
In @Junaids words, is CA bankrupt?
Click to expand...
Brother this is your opinions.

You guys keep mentioning rules. Please post it in black and white what the rules as you and @Rajdeep Bhai have both mentioned it.

I am struggling to locate this rule that has been broken.
 
Rajdeep said:
That is fine brother...pls dnt play any more cricket with the hated race. I hope BCCI atleast adopt a strict policy. Keep cheating in favour Aussies and one day they might invite you for a test tour.
Click to expand...

I don't play cricket. I have a life :kp
 
HitWicket said:
He is relying on the technology, the replay technology conclusively proved it hit his glove. An error of the snicko technology doesn't suddenly override that conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly. zooming in and out on slow mo is technology too.

Hence why I'm really keen to see what the rule is our friends mention has been broken here.
 
There is nothing controversial, if snicko isn't working that doesn't mean it was not out. Anyone with normal eyesight can tell it was clear out, ball clearly touched the gloves. Good decision by umpire.
 
Dr_Bassim said:
India would do well to honor Bangladesh and their cricket and keep status quo. They didnt lose this due to an "umpiring error" or because "it rained".

There is just too many weak spots in the Indian team and Bumrah cant cover every single deficiency in the lineup.

Imagine if this was a 3 match series. India would have escaped with a drawn tour and everyone would be saying how India is an "awesome team for drawing BGT".

The blatant truth is the longer the tour goes ahead, the bigger the class gap betwen a weak and strong team gets exposed.

India will 90 percent lose in Sydney also simply because they dont have enough good players to compete with Australia in their own backyard. I can wager if this series was a 7 match series India would lose 6-1 also barring rain.

The longer the series goes, the better team eventually rises to the top. This will be reflected at the end of this tour.

Today Pakistan missed a golden opportunity to actually win the Test series in South Africa. I think if this was a 5 match series, Pakistan would have been exposed as well.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Just like Tendulkar helped them before, it's Bumrah now with some good perfromances by Jaiswal. You can't rely on just 1-2 players. They need to spit in more money to get even better facilities than they have already to produce more quality players.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Brother this is your opinions.

You guys keep mentioning rules. Please post it in black and white what the rules as you and @Rajdeep Bhai have both mentioned it.

I am struggling to locate this rule that has been broken.
Click to expand...

It’s not my opinion it’s ICC rule. I already told you what the rule is “There has to be concrete evidence to overturn on field umpires decision”

Posting from ChatGPT below:

According to the ICC’s rules, the third umpire can only overturn the on-field umpire’s decision if there is concrete evidence. This is primarily based on the principle of “clear and conclusive evidence.”





In cricket, the third umpire is allowed to review decisions made by the on-field umpires using available technology (such as ball-tracking systems, replays, or ultra-edge technologies). However, the third umpire can only reverse an on-field umpire’s decision if the evidence presented clearly indicates that the original decision was incorrect. This is often referred to as “clear and obvious evidence,” and the standard of proof is high — the evidence must be definitive enough to confidently overturn the on-field call.





For example:


• In the case of a catch, the third umpire might need to see clear footage that shows the ball was cleanly caught, or the batter didn’t make contact with the ball.


• For LBW decisions, the third umpire will use ball-tracking technology (like Hawk-Eye) to determine if the ball would have hit the stumps.


• For run outs or stumpings, the third umpire checks available replays for evidence to prove whether the batsman was in or out.





If the evidence is not clear enough, the third umpire is expected to uphold the on-field umpire’s decision, relying on the principle that the on-field umpire’s call should stand in the absence of indisputable evidence.




The rule regarding the third umpire overturning an on-field umpire’s decision with clear evidence is found under Law 3.2 (Umpires’ Decisions) of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) Laws of Cricket, which outlines the roles of on-field and third umpires.





Specifically, the third umpire’s role in reviewing and potentially overturning an on-field umpire’s decision is governed by the protocols and guidelines laid out by the International Cricket Council (ICC), especially in Limited Overs Cricket (ODIs and T20s) and Test matches where the Decision Review System (DRS) is in use. The third umpire is guided by the DRS protocol, which requires “clear and conclusive evidence” for a decision to be overturned.





In practice, the third umpire’s decision-making follows the ICC’s Playing Conditions for specific formats, where it aligns with the principle of “conclusive evidence” but does not have an explicit law number, since it is part of the DRS implementation and interpretation.





For official ICC playing conditions:


• ODI/T20: The rules around third umpire intervention are part of the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup and International Playing Conditions, which detail how the third umpire should act in specific scenarios based on technology available.





Therefore, while there is no single rule number under the Laws of Cricket explicitly stating the “third umpire overturning a decision,” it is a practice embedded within the wider playing conditions and protocols, such as DRS and video technology guidelines.
 
HitWicket said:
Yes, if the ball tracking technology has clearly failed then the third umpire is allowed to disregard the result.
Click to expand...

I posted the rules above. You can read them for yourself.

Is concrete and conclusive evidence subjective, if yes, then should that be the case? That is the main question.
 
Okay so now people are saying Snicko was not working properly.

First of all there is no proof of that.

Second, why did just after 2 overs, this 3rd trusted the same snicko and gave Akashdeep out over ruling the onfield umpire again?

C'mmon we were not born yesterday. We could all see what was going on there.
 
big_gamer007 said:
It’s not my opinion it’s ICC rule. I already told you what the rule is “There has to be concrete evidence to overturn on field umpires decision”

Posting from ChatGPT below:

According to the ICC’s rules, the third umpire can only overturn the on-field umpire’s decision if there is concrete evidence. This is primarily based on the principle of “clear and conclusive evidence.”





In cricket, the third umpire is allowed to review decisions made by the on-field umpires using available technology (such as ball-tracking systems, replays, or ultra-edge technologies). However, the third umpire can only reverse an on-field umpire’s decision if the evidence presented clearly indicates that the original decision was incorrect. This is often referred to as “clear and obvious evidence,” and the standard of proof is high — the evidence must be definitive enough to confidently overturn the on-field call.





For example:


• In the case of a catch, the third umpire might need to see clear footage that shows the ball was cleanly caught, or the batter didn’t make contact with the ball.


• For LBW decisions, the third umpire will use ball-tracking technology (like Hawk-Eye) to determine if the ball would have hit the stumps.


• For run outs or stumpings, the third umpire checks available replays for evidence to prove whether the batsman was in or out.





If the evidence is not clear enough, the third umpire is expected to uphold the on-field umpire’s decision, relying on the principle that the on-field umpire’s call should stand in the absence of indisputable evidence.




The rule regarding the third umpire overturning an on-field umpire’s decision with clear evidence is found under Law 3.2 (Umpires’ Decisions) of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) Laws of Cricket, which outlines the roles of on-field and third umpires.





Specifically, the third umpire’s role in reviewing and potentially overturning an on-field umpire’s decision is governed by the protocols and guidelines laid out by the International Cricket Council (ICC), especially in Limited Overs Cricket (ODIs and T20s) and Test matches where the Decision Review System (DRS) is in use. The third umpire is guided by the DRS protocol, which requires “clear and conclusive evidence” for a decision to be overturned.





In practice, the third umpire’s decision-making follows the ICC’s Playing Conditions for specific formats, where it aligns with the principle of “conclusive evidence” but does not have an explicit law number, since it is part of the DRS implementation and interpretation.





For official ICC playing conditions:


• ODI/T20: The rules around third umpire intervention are part of the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup and International Playing Conditions, which detail how the third umpire should act in specific scenarios based on technology available.





Therefore, while there is no single rule number under the Laws of Cricket explicitly stating the “third umpire overturning a decision,” it is a practice embedded within the wider playing conditions and protocols, such as DRS and video technology guidelines.
Click to expand...
From what you have mentioned replays come under the banner of technology.

Doesn't this then prove umpire was right? As the replay was conclusive and even you agree that based on replay he nicked it.

Honestly I think this just strengthens the case of the umpire.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
From what you have mentioned replays come under the banner of technology.

Doesn't this then prove umpire was right? As the replay was conclusive and even you agree that based on replay he nicked it.

Honestly I think this just strengthens the case of the umpire.
Click to expand...

How is the replay conclusive when there was no snicko ?
 
big_gamer007 said:
I posted the rules above. You can read them for yourself.

Is concrete and conclusive evidence subjective, if yes, then should that be the case? That is the main question.
Click to expand...

The replay technology shows the ball clearly hit the glove. The snicko technology has therefore clearly failed and should be disregarded as per the rules, it's as simple as that.
 
Rajdeep said:
Okay so now people are saying Snicko was not working properly.

First of all there is no proof of that.
Click to expand...

The fact the replay technology showed it clearly hit his glove but there was nothing on snicko is proof that snicko failed in this case.
 
HitWicket said:
The fact the replay technology showed it clearly hit his glove but there was nothing on snicko is proof that snicko failed in this case.
Click to expand...
There is no proof that snicko failed.

Replay is not a conclusive technology. If it was boards would not spend millions on technologies like Snicko or Hotspots.

If snicko failed, how come the same third umpire relied on it and gave Akashdeep out couple of overs later by over ruling onfield umpire again.

Looks like we are going in circles.
 
Rajdeep said:
There is no proof that snicko failed.

Replay is not a conclusive technology. If it was boards would not spend millions on technologies like Snicko or Hotspots.

If snicko failed, how come the same third umpire relied on it and gave Akashdeep out couple of overs later by over ruling onfield umpire again.

Looks like we are going in circles.
Click to expand...
I have a proposal, get an aussie visa and come and debate the umpire here? Seriously, I'll arrange a coffee talk between the 2 of you 🫠
 
RexRex said:
I don't think anybody has ever been given out on DRS without a +ve snicko reading.
Click to expand...

But that's ok


According to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis snicko was not working as they were servicing the equipment during the match...
 
Rohit Sharma agreed that Jaiswal did touch the ball but also pointed out how these technology glitches have been affecting them more often than the Australian team, as he said in the post-match press conference of the 4th Test:

"I don't know what to make of it. Technology didn't show but the naked eye did show. I don't know how they use it. In all fairness, he did touch the ball. Technology is not 100 per cent we don't want to look too much. We are the ones falling on the wrong side more often than not."
 
Rajdeep said:
There is no proof that snicko failed.

Replay is not a conclusive technology. If it was boards would not spend millions on technologies like Snicko or Hotspots.

If snicko failed, how come the same third umpire relied on it and gave Akashdeep out couple of overs later by over ruling onfield umpire again.

Looks like we are going in circles.
Click to expand...
Incase of Akash there was red mark of ball on the bat as well. Cameramen showed it appears just as ball past the bat
 
Rajdeep said:
There is no proof that snicko failed.

Replay is not a conclusive technology. If it was boards would not spend millions on technologies like Snicko or Hotspots.
Click to expand...

A replay can definitely conclusively prove something, in this case it showed a clear impact with the glove. The fact that we know there was an impact but it wasn't detected by snicko is proof that snicko failed in this case.

Rajdeep said:
If snicko failed, how come the same third umpire relied on it and gave Akashdeep out couple of overs later by over ruling onfield umpire again.
Click to expand...

Because it was clearly working as backed up by the replays for this review.
 
FearlessRoar said:
Rohit Sharma agreed that Jaiswal did touch the ball but also pointed out how these technology glitches have been affecting them more often than the Australian team, as he said in the post-match press conference of the 4th Test:

"I don't know what to make of it. Technology didn't show but the naked eye did show. I don't know how they use it. In all fairness, he did touch the ball. Technology is not 100 per cent we don't want to look too much. We are the ones falling on the wrong side more often than not."
Click to expand...

Can't give it out without snicko as it is not conclusive...benefit of the doubt has to go to the batsmen.

Either way India would have still lost the match even if Jaiswal survived.
 
IAJ said:
Btw. Let's assume it was a wrong decision. But how could that have changed the outcome of the match as some are trying to say here? Let's even say Jaiswal would have hit a double ton here, India would still have lost by some 60+ runs.

It's redicilous to make excuses based on one bad decision by the umpires. These things happen all the time. Ausralia just destroyed the indians in fourth innings. If you take out Jaiswals 80 runs, rest of the batsmen made only 75 runs. That is poor stuff by Kohli, Rahul, Rohit, Pant etc.
Click to expand...
Lol india needed another 14 over to play it out for a drawn.

They way jaiswal was getting it was no chance for Australia win this test apart from cheating and they have succeeded in their plan.

:kp
 
FearlessRoar said:
Rohit Sharma agreed that Jaiswal did touch the ball but also pointed out how these technology glitches have been affecting them more often than the Australian team, as he said in the post-match press conference of the 4th Test:

"I don't know what to make of it. Technology didn't show but the naked eye did show. I don't know how they use it. In all fairness, he did touch the ball. Technology is not 100 per cent we don't want to look too much. We are the ones falling on the wrong side more often than not."
Click to expand...
Rohit is always a nice honest guy. This should rest case. Excellent decision by 3rd umpire.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Indians: umpires are corrupt and took money from Australia.

Also Indians: BCCI is corrupt that's why they keep selecting Kohli.

In the space of a few hours they have said that the Australian team, Bangladeshis umpire and their own board are corrupt because Jaiswal nicked it and they lost a match.

What a wretched bunch of fans. Insulting so many people and using racist language because their superstars got humbled.
Click to expand...
Monkey Gate part 2, enjoying the full Indian meltdown 😆
 
Rajdeep said:
There is no agenda brother. I am just stating the rule laid down for 3rd umpires to abide which in this case umpires clearly didnt. Otherwise lets get rid of ball tracking, snicko, hotspot, ultraedge everything and let 3rd umpires trust their blind eye. If this decision was given against Aussies instead of India, you along with others here will using different tone.
Click to expand...
You are making it sound as if there weren't enough evidence available to counter and discard snicko. There clearly was. It wasn't a case of 3rd umpire rejecting snicko on a whim like you are making it sound.
Mark Nicholas called him brave and I would call him brave too because he made the right call even if it was unpopular.
 
Rajdeep said:
If it was boards would not spend millions on technologies like Snicko or Hotspots.
Click to expand...

Snicko is practically free, it's an incredibly primitive technology that is basically just hooking a microphone up and outputting the reading as a graph. There's a reason Australia are the only country still using it.
 
HitWicket said:
Snicko is practically free, it's an incredibly primitive technology that is basically just hooking a microphone up and outputting the reading as a graph. There's a reason Australia are the only country still using it.
Click to expand...
Snicko is not free .get you fact right .
 
Devadwal said:
Lol india needed another 14 over to play it out for a drawn.

They way jaiswal was getting it was no chance for Australia win this test apart from cheating and they have succeeded in their plan.

:kp
Click to expand...
I really don't want to get in to these low-type discussions, but at same time arrogant people like you need to be answered to bring you down to earth. What is the end result? Simple, you lost. People, also most indians, will remember the result, but sore losers like you will remember one single mistake, and that too in your eyes.
 
Devadwal said:
Snicko is not free .get you fact right .
Click to expand...

Snicko isn't a company or a specific technology, it's literally just the concept of hooking up a microphone (that any broadcaster would already have) and displaying the output as a decibel graph (which anyone can do, and the the broadcaster already has the graphics for). Like I said it's incredibly primitive and only still in use in Australia.
 
IAJ said:
This is dangerous stuff by the indians. You never know what some fanatics can do, ICC needs to up this man's security.
Click to expand...
Australia is already paid enough him to settle down in australia .no need anyone help.
 
Romali_rotti said:
I am in a tricky situation here bro.

I am very happy India lost but I am pissed at the Jaiswal decision 🤣
Click to expand...
How are you bro? Long time no speak.

Yeah I know what you mean, you want team to do well, but at same time you want passengers gone.
 
There needs to be enough evidence to overturn decision is just plain stupid.

Correct decision always needs to be reached.

At moment the initial decisions whether right or wrong get to much protection with current Application.

Seems common sense in cricket, football has gone.

That's my side thoughts
 
Amjid Javed said:
There needs to be enough evidence to overturn decision is just plain stupid.

Correct decision always needs to be reached.

At moment the initial decisions whether right or wrong get to much protection with current Application.

Seems common sense in cricket, football has gone.

That's my side thoughts
Click to expand...
Nah you are way off the mark.

Umpires should close their eyes and sing vande matram rather than make correct decisions.
 
HitWicket said:
Snicko isn't a company or a specific technology, it's literally just the concept of hooking up a microphone (that any broadcaster would already have) and displaying the output as a decibel graph (which anyone can do, and the the broadcaster already has the graphics for). Like I said it's incredibly primitive and only still in use in Australia.
Click to expand...

Snicko is in use only in Australia?
 
cricketjoshila said:
If snicko was not working, then DRS was not fully functional.
Click to expand...

If 1 technology fails then the umpires can still make a decision using the other available technology (in this case the replay showing a clear deflection off the gloves).


Devadwal said:
In this case on - fields umpire decision has to be stay
Click to expand...

Incorrect based on what I've written above.


cricketjoshila said:
Snicko is in use only in Australia?
Click to expand...

Yes, the rest of the world has moved on to ultra-edge.
 
Amjid Javed said:
How are you bro? Long time no speak.

Yeah I know what you mean, you want team to do well, but at same time you want passengers gone.
Click to expand...

I've been well my dude. Hope you have been also, if this Jaiswal decision didn't happen and followed by an Indian loss would have been a perfect day for me.

My Philadelphia Eagles won, my boi Saquan Barkley has rushed for over 2000 yards for the season and we looking solid...

That Jaiswal decision left a sour taste on an overall very good day for me.
 
HitWicket said:
Snicko is practically free, it's an incredibly primitive technology that is basically just hooking a microphone up and outputting the reading as a graph. There's a reason Australia are the only country still using it.
Click to expand...

Real time snicko uses a far more sensitive microphone. It was trialled and developed by BBG sports, the same company that developed hot spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Sunil Gavaskar 50th anniversary of debut in Test cricket today - how great was he?
Replies
75
Views
4K
ahmedzee
ahmedzee
H
Overall who was a better cricketer - Sachin Tendulkar or Viv Richards?
2
Replies
117
Views
9K
Hitman
Hitman
A
Another tour – same story : How can Pakistan ever win a Test series in Australia?
Replies
20
Views
5K
Pete Rose
Pete Rose
Back
Top