[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Should ICC scrap the snickometer technology from Cricket?

[Devadwal]

I have seen lots of incidents where Snickometer technology was not Fully trusted by umpires .

In ongoing BGT series different case i have seen where Snickometer was no Fully trusted .

Rahul Was given out because snicko showed deflection but the ball didn't deflect and clear Gap between bat and Ball.

Jaiswal given out because ball deflected though snicko showed nothing

Akashdeep was given out but there is not deflection on snicko .

Whatever decision happened right or wrong that's is not my point now.

But why we are wasting so much money on a tecnology which is not Fully trusted by Officials .

Just scrapped it and let's umpire take all call in real time

Either trust Fully on it or just throw it to the dustbins as simple as that.

 

[Devadwal]

@BouncerGuy @Hitman @Nikhil_cric @cricketjoshila @DeadlyVenom @RedwoodOriginal @Ab Fan

Your views about Snickometer technology.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Its not the technology that's at fault. Its the individual.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Technology is meant to help the umpire make the best decision. it is not the ultimate standard. Scrapping is not gonna help any entity.

Sometimes Human interpretation is better than technology like in the case of Jaiswal. cannot say the same for the other 2 instances But look at the Akashdeep one. That mark shows why technology is not perfect...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1873612447233233095

 

[Devadwal]

Technology is meant to help the umpire make the best decision. it is not the ultimate standard.

But that was the not case in KL Rahul dismissal.

He was given out because snicko showed deflection Even there was clear Gap between bat and ball.

But Rahul Wicket umpires trust on tecnology ,why? That is my question .

 

[Devadwal]

Its not the technology that's at fault. Its the individual.

That individual is taking call sometimes from technology or sometimes at own because he thinks so .

That is double standards and called as an hypocrite .

 

[HitWicket]

But that was the not case in KL Rahul dismissal.

He was given out because snicko showed deflection Even there was clear Gap between bat and ball.

But Rahul Wicket umpires trust on tecnology ,why? That is my question .

For a thin edge the ball will only be next to the bat for a tiny fraction of a second. Cameras have a frame rate therefore it's entirely possible the camera won't perfectly pick up the exact moment the bat and ball made contact, as was the case with Rahul's edge.

 

[Devadwal]

For a thin edge the ball will only be next to the bat for a tiny fraction of a second. Cameras have a frame rate therefore it's entirely possible the camera won't perfectly pick up the exact moment the bat and ball made contact, as was the case with Rahul's edge.

There was no edge on Rahul case .it was bat hitting the pad at the Same time and Snickometer showed a deflection .

There was clear gap between bat and ball. Umpires should have taken call based on that instead Snickometer.

 

[HitWicket]

There was no edge on Rahul case .it was bat hitting the pad at the Same time and Snickometer showed a deflection .

There was clear gap between bat and ball. Umpires should have taken call based on that instead Snickometer.

The bat didn't hit the pad until well after the spike appeared on snicko.

The gap between bat and ball visible in the image is because the frame is from marginally after when the ball hit the bat.

 

[Devadwal]

The bat didn't hit the pad until well after the spike appeared on snicko.

The gap between bat and ball visible in the image is because the frame is from marginally after when the ball hit the bat.

Wrong bat hit the pad even before ball passing close to the bat.snicko showed it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

That individual is taking call sometimes from technology or sometimes at own because he thinks so .

That is double standards and called as an hypocrite .

This is where BCCI has to lodge a protest. Umpire is supposed to change his decision on the basis of technology. And that has to be irrefutable.

But incompetent umpires think otherwise.

 

[mominsaigol]

Arei yaar rahnei do. India lost and now more houses are being burned down. Maybe ban the Internet as well.

 

[HitWicket]

Wrong bat hit the pad even before ball passing close to the bat.snicko showed it.

You're either blind or being deliberately ignorant. The ball was clearly well past the bat by the time Rahul hit his pad as the footage makes clear. Even in the image you've posted above, notice how the ball is nowhere to be seen in the small circular image of the bat hitting the pad?

 

[HitWicket]

This is where BCCI has to lodge a protest. Umpire is supposed to change his decision on the basis of technology. And that has to be irrefutable.

But incompetent umpires think otherwise.

A clear deflection off the glove shown in a replay is irrefutable evidence that it hit the glove. Snicko failing to pick up the irrefutable glove therefore isn't relevant.

 

[Devadwal]

This is where BCCI has to lodge a protest. Umpire is supposed to change his decision on the basis of technology. And that has to be irrefutable.

But incompetent umpires think otherwise.

If BCCI use its power that some nagin dance supporters and delusion hypocrites who are silent now blamed BCCI to interfere just because they have power and money.

 

[Devadwal]

You're either blind or being deliberately ignorant. The ball was clearly well past the bat by the time Rahul hit his pad as the footage makes clear. Even in the image you've posted above, notice how the ball is nowhere to be seen in the small circular image of the bat hitting the pad?

I'm not blind like you .see the videos again and again untill you clearly understand what was happened.

Just taken out your baised against indian cricket and see the actual reality.

 

[Marooned]

Thread was opened at 4 am

Your aatma needs Shanti more than anything else.

There is no need to scrap anything or be so dogmatic about it. Ultimately the benefit of technology is to make more correct decisions and both Jaiswal and Akash were out. That's all that should matter.

 

[HitWicket]

I'm not blind like you .see the videos again and again untill you clearly understand what was happened.

Just taken out your baised against indian cricket and see the actual reality.

What bias...? I'm English, if anything my bias is literally against the team DRS (correctly) went in favour of. If you can't see that the bat didn't hit the pad until well after the ball passed then you're either hopelessly biased or need an eye test, only you know which is the case.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Stay on topic

 

[cricketjoshila]

If BCCI use its power that some nagin dance supporters and delusion hypocrites who are silent now blamed BCCI to interfere just because they have power and money.

Protesting is every board's right.

 

[cricketjoshila]

A clear deflection off the glove shown in a replay is irrefutable evidence that it hit the glove. Snicko failing to pick up the irrefutable glove therefore isn't relevant.

If snicko isn't showing, it means the evidence isn't irrefutable.

 

[HitWicket]

If snicko isn't showing, it means the evidence isn't irrefutable.

No, if something is clearly visible to the naked eye then that's irrefutable evidence that it hit the glove. If snicko isn't showing it despite that then that's irrefutable evidence that snicko has failed.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It is poor technology. Much better for umpire to close his eyes sing vade matram and make a decision.

Already venues, pitches and schedules are rigged for India might as well go the full way and rig the technology too.

 

[Devadwal]

It is poor technology. Much better for umpire to close his eyes sing vade matram and make a decision.

Already venues, pitches and schedules are rigged for India might as well go the full way and rig the technology too.

This is the problem for pakistan fans ,they make up story at own and think whole world are believed on these fake story.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

This is the problem for pakistan fans ,they make up story at own and think whole world are believed on these fake story.

I am just suggesting a solution that will satisfy your burning and make sure you will be happy in future.

 

[Devadwal]

I am just suggesting a solution that will satisfy your burning and make sure you will be happy in future.

Yes i know how Pakistan fans crying when Akmal was given out in 2015 world cup game against india .

Maybe your memory is too short to know that incident.

Wait for another similar incidents happen with Pakistan player's then you'll be among Pakistan fans who say ICC = BCCI .

 

[Devadwal]

From cricbuzz Cummins to Pant, no run, angles across, the ball skids through and Pant leaves it. The keeper did appeal as the batter bailed out late. Snicko says there was an edge on it. Pant has survived here. Carey did appeal but they didn't consider reviewing it. But was it the sound of the bat? The replays show the bat was a little away from the ball when the snicko showed the murmur. Snicko will continue being the talk of the town.

Another error from Snickometer , there was clear gap between bat and ball.

ICC need to think seriously about Snickometer. Hotspot need to be added along with Snickometer

 

[HitWicket]

From cricbuzz Cummins to Pant, no run, angles across, the ball skids through and Pant leaves it. The keeper did appeal as the batter bailed out late. Snicko says there was an edge on it. Pant has survived here. Carey did appeal but they didn't consider reviewing it. But was it the sound of the bat? The replays show the bat was a little away from the ball when the snicko showed the murmur. Snicko will continue being the talk of the town.

Another error from Snickometer , there was clear gap between bat and ball.

ICC need to think seriously about Snickometer. Hotspot need to be added along with Snickometer

Already explained to you multiple times previously why despite there being an edge and that being confirmed by snicko, there might still be a visual gap between the bat and ball.

 

[Devadwal]

Already explained to you multiple times previously why despite there being an edge and that being confirmed by snicko, there might still be a visual gap between the bat and ball.

Now watch Sundar decison . Hahahha

Its time to banned Snickometer from cricket .

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Oops

 

[BouncerGuy]

Well explained.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1875060219157578116

 

[HitWicket]

Now watch Sundar decison . Hahahha

Its time to banned Snickometer from cricket .

What about it, looked like it worked exactly as expected again?

 

[gazza619]

Protesting is every board's right.

Talking about a cricket board’s right sounds so beautiful coming from a BCCI supporter.

 

[Devadwal]

What about it, looked like it worked exactly as expected again?

Nothing happened when seeing it with closed eye's

 

[HitWicket]

Nothing happened when seeing it with closed eye's

As shown in the image above, there was a spike on snicko exactly where it would be expected if he gloves it for the visual frame shown, I have no idea what issue you actually have with it in this case?

 

[YousafTheBeast]

@Devadwal

If there was no snicko technology, would you have given the Jaiswal decision out?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Talking about a cricket board’s right sounds so beautiful coming from a BCCI supporter.

Right has to be asserted. No one gets their rights by begging.

 

[BCCI-Enforcer]

We made this point that technology is not reliable but the other boards were against us.

The results are there for all to see. Umpire has no confidence in snicko. We should stop using it

 

[YousafTheBeast]

@Devadwal

If there was no snicko technology, would you have given the Jaiswal decision out?

Still can’t answer the question

 

[YousafTheBeast]

We made this point that technology is not reliable but the other boards were against us.

The results are there for all to see. Umpire has no confidence in snicko. We should stop using it

When was BCCI against the use of Snicko?

 

[JaDed]

In all honesty, going from history I would say its a good thing there will be a discourse on this and hopefully a straight forward decision reached by ICC.

 

[IMMY69]

They've done away with testing bowlers for hyperextension so might as well give up on sniko too

 

[HitWicket]

We made this point that technology is not reliable but the other boards were against us.

The results are there for all to see. Umpire has no confidence in snicko. We should stop using it

The technology is fine, 1 instance where 1 piece of technology has failed to detect the edge but another piece has is not an issue.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Interpretation is not consistent. Overwhelming evidence is needed to overturn decisions. THe one they gave to Washi was shocking.

 

[HitWicket]

Interpretation is not consistent. Overwhelming evidence is needed to overturn decisions. THe one they gave to Washi was shocking.

A spike on snicko that lines up perfectly with the ball passing the bat/glove is conclusive evidence.

 

[jnaveen1980]

A spike on snicko that lines up perfectly with the ball passing the bat/glove is conclusive evidence.

murmurs, no deviation is not a conclusive evidence. There was no spike.

 

[HitWicket]

murmurs, no deviation is not a conclusive evidence. There was no spike.

There is a clear spike on the far left of the graph, exactly where you would expect it to be if he had thinly gloved it.

 

[jnaveen1980]

There is a clear spike on the far left of the graph, exactly where you would expect it to be if he had thinly gloved it.

There was no spike. Even the mini spike happened after the ball past the glove. Brendon Julian, Vaughan both disagreed with third umpire decision instantly. There was a gap between glove and ball.

 

[HitWicket]

There was no spike. Even the mini spike happened after the ball past the glove. Brendon Julian, Vaughan both disagreed with third umpire decision instantly.

The spike happened in the first frame after the ball passed the glove and the spike appeared on the far left of the snicko graph. That's exactly what you would expect to happen.

 

[jnaveen1980]

The spike happened in the first frame after the ball passed the glove and the spike appeared on the far left of the snicko graph. That's exactly what you would expect to happen.

There was a clear gap between ball and glove. Zero deflection also confirmed it. That is what Vaughan telling there is no way you can conclusively overturn that decision.

 

[HitWicket]

There was a clear gap between ball and glove. Zero deflection also confirmed it. That is what Vaughan telling there is no way you can conclusively overturn that decision.

There was a clear gap because as we've already established, the visual frame was a fraction of a second after the ball passed the glove. Zero visible deflection happens all the time with thin edges, that's why we have snicko/ultra edge.

 

[jnaveen1980]

There was a clear gap because as we've already established, the visual frame was a fraction of a second after the ball passed the glove. Zero visible deflection happens all the time with thin edges, that's why we have snicko/ultra edge.

That was not a spike that you would normally see with glove. Too much of murmurs more than anything else. There is no way you can call that an edge. No wonder Sundar refused to leave.

 

[HitWicket]

That was not a spike that you would normally see with glove. Too much of murmurs more than anything else. There is no way you can call that an edge. No wonder Sundar refused to leave.

That is exactly the kind of spike you would expect to see for a very thin impact with the gloves. Less sharp than an impact with the bat and fairly small given how subtle it was.

I didn't see the aftermath, if Sundar refused to leave then the match referee should come down hard on him.

 

[jnaveen1980]

That is exactly the kind of spike you would expect to see for a very thin impact with the gloves. Less sharp than an impact with the bat and fairly small given how subtle it was.

I didn't see the aftermath, if Sundar refused to leave then the match referee should come down hard on him.

Not really. It was largely inconclusive. Every single commentator disagreed with that decision. They did frame by frame analysis as well. No way you can give that out. Umpire dropped the ball. The spike came just after it passed the glove. The dumbo can hide behidn protocol. But in the last match he didn't even use spike as evidence.

 

[JaDed]

The technology is fine, 1 instance where 1 piece of technology has failed to detect the edge but another piece has is not an issue.

This is the problem with overwhelming evidence sometimes the technology doesn’t work, how can it be certain to work in the most rarest cases as in those cases the 3rd umpire will definitely go with the technology.

 

[HitWicket]

Not really. It was largely inconclusive.

A spike that lines up perfectly with the moment the ball passed the globe is conclusive.

Every single commentator disagreed with that decision.

Now that just isn't true is it. Plenty of the commentators said it was the correct decision including the former ICC elite panel umpire and umpiring coach.

They did frame by frame analysis as well. No way you can give that out. Umpire dropped the ball. The spike came just after it passed the glove. The dumbo can hide behidn protocol.

The spike appeared in the first frame moments after the ball passed the glove, with the snicko graph indicating a spike generated just before that frame (i.e lining up perfectly). That's exactly what you'd expect.

But in the last match he didn't even use spike as evidence.

Lack of a spike doesn't overrule conclusive evidence of a clear edge visually.

 

[HitWicket]

This is the problem with overwhelming evidence sometimes the technology doesn’t work, how can it be certain to work in the most rarest cases as in those cases the 3rd umpire will definitely go with the technology.

A false negative is irrelevant when we're discussing what you're suggesting was a false positive.

 

[JaDed]

A false negative is irrelevant when we're discussing what you're suggesting was a false positive.

You mean false negative is relevant?

 

[jnaveen1980]

A spike that lines up perfectly with the moment the ball passed the globe is conclusive.



Now that just isn't true is it. Plenty of the commentators said it was the correct decision including the former ICC elite panel umpire and umpiring coach.



The spike appeared in the first frame moments after the ball passed the glove, with the snicko graph indicating a spike generated just before that frame (i.e lining up perfectly). That's exactly what you'd expect.



Lack of a spike doesn't overrule conclusive evidence of a clear edge visually.

1) It didn't line up. There was a gap at that time
2) No in channel 7 nobody agreed with the decision
3) If you juxtapose two image you will see a gap. The spike didn't exactly coincide when it is next to bat. Most of them were murmurs
4) You are contradicting here. Your entire argument was "spike" based. Suddenly you are saying conclusively evidence of of edge visually. In the 2nd case both were missing. There was no deflection. There was no large spike at the time of connection.

 

[HitWicket]

1) It didn't line up. There was a gap at that time
2) No in channel 7 nobody agreed with the decision
3) If you juxtapose two image you will see a gap. The spike didn't exactly coincide when it is next to bat. Most of them were murmurs
4) You are contradicting here. Your entire argument was "spike" based. Suddenly you are saying conclusively evidence of of edge visually. In the 2nd case both were missing. There was no deflection. There was no large spike at the time of connection.

1) It lines up perfectly. The frame was moments after the ball passed the glove. The spike was on the left of the graph indicating it happened moments before this visual frame (exactly when the ball would've been next to the glove).

2) Taufel is part of the channel 7 crew.

3) Covered in response to 1.

4) In the Jaiswal decision there was clear visual evidence of an edge. In this decision there was no clear visual evidence either way.

 

[HitWicket]

You mean false negative is relevant?

No, I'm saying that a false negative like we had in the previous match isn't proof that you're going to suddenly start having false positives like you're suggesting we have in this case.

 

[Devadwal]

1) It didn't line up. There was a gap at that time
2) No in channel 7 nobody agreed with the decision
3) If you juxtapose two image you will see a gap. The spike didn't exactly coincide when it is next to bat. Most of them were murmurs
4) You are contradicting here. Your entire argument was "spike" based. Suddenly you are saying conclusively evidence of of edge visually. In the 2nd case both were missing. There was no deflection. There was no large spike at the time of connection.

Lol he is just lying. In the last test he said spike doesn't means anything but now spikes is everything .

Where was the deflection in Sundar case ?

Two faced people

 

[HitWicket]

Lol he is just lying. In the last test he said spike doesn't means anything but now spikes is everything .

Incorrect, I said snicko is irrelevant when there is clear visual evidence of an edge, as there was in Jaiswals case.

Where was the deflection in Sundar case ?

There wasn't a visually obvious one (as there quite often isn't for very thin edges), hence the importance of snicko showing a spike lining up perfectly with the ball passing the glove.

 

[jnaveen1980]

1) It lines up perfectly. The frame was moments after the ball passed the glove. The spike was on the left of the graph indicating it happened moments before this visual frame (exactly when the ball would've been next to the glove).

2) Taufel is part of the channel 7 crew.

3) Covered in response to 1.

4) In the Jaiswal decision there was clear visual evidence of an edge. In this decision there was no clear visual evidence either way.

1) Sorry disagree. It didn't line up. Lot of noise. Nothing like spike you would see in a typical deflection
2) He has said "he went by protocol".
3) There was no conclusive evidence
4) Snicko overrules visual atleast as per convetion. There is a reason why they always ask for snicko after visual evidence just to confirm. India suffered 3 times recently bat-pad incident due to this. India was always at the receiving end.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Lol he is just lying. In the last test he said spike doesn't means anything but now spikes is everything .

Where was the deflection in Sundar case ?

Two faced people

He is contradicting. May be he took a "stance". So in order to justify that "stance' inventing theories. Actually it was a BS decision if you ask me.

 

[Devadwal]

Incorrect, he said snicko is irrelevant when there is clear visual evidence of an edge, as there was in Jaiswals case.



There wasn't a visually obvious one (as there quite often isn't for very thin edges), hence the importance of snicko showing a spike lining up perfectly with the ball passing the glove.

if you can't see that there is gap between the bat and ball in Sundar case. That no point of discussion .

Everyone was surprised except pakistan fans with that decisions
.

 

[jnaveen1980]

When Pant hit the pad that was interpreted as bat hitting the ball and given out in a crucial last test. India could have won but for that dismissal.

 

[HitWicket]

if you can't see that there is gap between the bat and ball in Sundar case. That no point of discussion .

Everyone was surprised except pakistan fans with that decisions
.

There is a gap between bat and ball in the frame in which the spike appears, yes. That's hardly unexpected, as I've told you before cameras have a frame rate and in this case we only got a frame just before and just after the ball passed the glove, with the graph indicating a spike between those frames.

I'm not a Pakistan fan so there goes your theory out the window. I doubt Simon Taufel is either.

 

[Devadwal]

He is contradicting. May be he took a "stance". So in order to justify that "stance' inventing theories. Actually it was a BS decision if you ask me.

I know it already .some people can go at any length to defend own stand. Right or wrong doesn't matter .

I want hotspot to be included for such a Big series like BGT .

 

[HitWicket]

1) Sorry disagree. It didn't line up. Lot of noise. Nothing like spike you would see in a typical deflection
2) He has said "he went by protocol".
3) There was no conclusive evidence
4) Snicko overrules visual atleast as per convetion. There is a reason why they always ask for snicko after visual evidence just to confirm. India suffered 3 times recently bat-pad incident due to this. India was always at the receiving end.

This wasn't a typical deflection, it was off the glove so would have a significantly different shape. Time-wise it lined up perfectly.

Going by protocol means the correct decision was made.

Snicko doesn't automatically overrule visual evidence. If there is completely conclusive visual evidence and snicko contradicts that then clearly snicko has failed and should be disregarded (as in the Jaiswal decision). In this case we didn't have clear visual evidence either way.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I think Third umpire should be a specialist umpire. These regular onfield umpires are incompetent. Interpretation is wildly varying

 

[HitWicket]

I think Third umpire should be a specialist umpire. These regular onfield umpires are incompetent. Interpretation is wildly varying

Can you give a single example of an inconsistent interpretation of the regulations?

 

[jnaveen1980]

This wasn't a typical deflection, it was off the globe so would have a significantly different shape.

Going by protocol means the correct decision was made.

Snicko doesn't automatically overrule visual evidence. If there is completely conclusive visual evidence and snicko contradicts that then clearly snicko has failed and should be disregarded (as in the Jaiswal decision). In this case we didn't have clear visual evidence either way.

Have you ever seen an umpire not going for snicko even for obvious deflection when they doing the review? No. Even here he went for snicko. WHy did he go for snicko if you think it is obvious?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Can you give a single example of an inconsistent interpretation of the regulations?

India recently had 3 decisions that were questionable even before this series. Bat pad. onfield umpire interepreted as bat hitting the pad. But third umpire interepreted as bat hitting the ball purely on the basis of spike. That is incorrect.

 

[HitWicket]

Have you ever seen an umpire not going for snicko even for obvious deflection when they doing the review? No. Even here he went for snicko. WHy did he go for snicko if you think it is obvious?

To get additional proof. The fact snicko clearly failed in that case then meant snicko should be disregarded.

 

[HitWicket]

India recently had 3 decisions that were questionable even before this series. Bat pad. onfield umpire interepreted as bat hitting the pad. But third umpire interepreted as bat hitting the ball purely on the basis of spike. That is incorrect.

Could you give a specific example please so I can check it?

 

[jnaveen1980]

To get additional proof. The fact snicko clearly failed in this case then meant snicko should be disregarded.

How can you decide it has "failed"? That is not for you to decide that. Your job is just to follow the protocol.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Could you give a specific example please so I can check it?

Rishabh patn against New zealand. 3rd test

 

[HitWicket]

How can you decide it has "failed"? That is not for you to decide that. Your job is just to follow the protocol.

Because the edge was completely clear from the replay. The fact there was then nothing on snicko despite that clear evidence proves that snicko failed in that case.

 

[jnaveen1980]

They have to start having hot spot too if they want reliable decision to be made. If there was any brushing it would have shown immediately.