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

[jnaveen1980]

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.

Why didn't he use that logic in the washington's case where there was no deflection. So you are saying big deflection couldn't produce spike, but no deflection produced a spike?

YOu conclude first time snickometer failed. Second time it succeeded just because it showed spike without deflection. lol WHy couldn't you conclude it failed second time as well.

 

[jnaveen1980]

People want consistent intrepretation. Not to inrepret conveniently to hurt one team.

 

[HitWicket]

Why didn't he use that logic in the washington's case where there was no deflection. So you are saying big deflection couldn't produce spike, but no deflection produced a spike?

YOu conclude first time snickometer failed. Second time it succeeded just because it showed spike without deflection. lol WHy couldn't you conclude it failed second time as well.

In the case of thin edges there is quite often no visible deviation. In the Jaiswal decision the visual evidence was conclusive. In this decision the visual evidence was inconclusive. If we had clear footage showing the ball was clearly never anywhere near the glove that would've been enough to disregard snicko, we didn't have that though.

 

[jnaveen1980]

In the case of thin edges there is quite often no visible deviation. In the Jaiswal decision the visual evidence was inconclusive. In this decision the visual evidence was inconclusive. If we had clear footage showing the ball was clearly never anywhere near the glove that would've been enough to disregard snicko, we didn't have that though.

Then there is no consistency. That is convenient intrepretation. Besides the spike didn't even appear at the time of connection. It appeared later. There was a gap. Way too many doubts in washi's case to be given out. So he used the several mini spikes as "evidence" to give that out. But when he saw no spike he totally ignored and gave that out. Both cannot be right.

 

[HitWicket]

Then there is no consistency. That is convenient intrepretation. Besides the spike didn't even appear at the time of connection. It appeared later. There was a gap. Way too many doubts in washi's case to be given out. So he used the several mini spikes as "evidence" to give that out. But when he saw no spike he totally ignored and gave that out. Both cannot be right.

It's completely consistent, they're different situations.

Jaiswal decision
Visual evidence: Conclusive proof of an edge
Snicko: Irrelevant because of the previous conclusive evidence

Sundar decision
Visual evidence: Nothing conclusive either way
Snicko: A spike on the graph where a spike would be expected for a noise off the glove, therefore out.


The spike appeared in the first frame after the ball passed the glove, that is the frame you would expect it to appear in with the spike on the left of the graph. There was no frame where the ball was perfectly next to the glove because that was between frames.

 

[jnaveen1980]

It's completely consistent, they're different situations.

Jaiswal decision
Visual evidence: Conclusive proof of an edge
Snicko: Irrelevant because of the previous conclusive evidence

Sundar decision
Visual evidence: Nothing conclusive either way
Snicko: A spike on the graph where a spike would be expected for a noise off the glove, therefore out.


The spike appeared in the first frame after the ball passed the glove, that is the frame you would expect it to appear in with the spike on the left of the graph. There was no frame where the ball was perfectly next to the glove because that was between frames.

Jaiswal decision

Visual evidence: Not conclusive.
Snicko: Conclusive it is not out. That is not irrelevant. You must factor that too. What if the ball moved late in the air.

Sundar deciision

Visual evidence: Conclusive there was not deviation
Snicko : Not conclusive. There was no snicko right at the time when it goes near.

This is how i see it.

 

[jnaveen1980]

ICC must hire specialist third umpires. These Bangladesh umpires are useless.

 

[HitWicket]

Jaiswal decision

Visual evidence: Not conclusive.

If you genuinely believe that then it's clear your way too blinded by bias and as a result it's not really worth us debating that decision.

Sundar deciision

Visual evidence: Conclusive there was not deviation

No visible deviation to the naked eye, but not conclusive that there was no contact between ball and glove.

Snicko : Not conclusive. There was no snicko right at the time when it goes near.

The closest frame we had to the moment the ball was near the glove was the first frame after it passed. That was the frame in which the spike appeared.

 

[jnaveen1980]

If you genuinely believe that then it's clear your way too blinded by bias and as a result it's not really worth us debating that decision.



No visible deviation to the naked eye, but not conclusive that there was no contact between ball and glove.



The closest frame we had to the moment the ball was near the glove was the first frame after it passed. That was the frame in which the spike appeared.

Consistency should be the key. Just like they establish consistent inrepretation of wides.


1) I genuinely believe. I am not biased. Good if you don't want to debate.

2) Oh wait.. "but not conclusive that there was no contact between ball and glove."

what is this? Then you can literally give every review out. Because "I dont see anything that says it is "not out"" Basically you are giving it out because there is doubt. lol

3) Not really. That was not a spike when it went near. There were a lot of murmurs you see when there air friction.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

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 .

Stop running and answer the question

 

[Devadwal]

Stop running and answer the question

Need some deflection to give the judgement .joke aside I didn't see which incident you were talking about .

Post it any link . Maybe i missed the jaiswal case .

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Need some deflection to give the judgement .joke aside I didn't see which incident you were talking about .

Post it any link . Maybe i missed the jaiswal case .

If there was no snicko technology, would you have given Jaiswal out or not out?

 

[Devadwal]

If there was no snicko technology, would you have given Jaiswal out or not out?

Need to see the deflection like how's so far decison are given by umpire

 

[HitWicket]

2) Oh wait.. "but not conclusive that there was no contact between ball and glove."

what is this? Then you can literally give every review out. Because "I dont see anything that says it is "not out"" Basically you are giving it out because there is doubt. lol

No you can't, you need some form of conclusive evidence to overturn a decision. In this case the visual evidence was not conclusive either way, if we didn't have snicko then the original decision would've remained regardless of what it was. Fortunately we had snicko.

3) Not really. That was not a spike when it went near. There were a lot of murmurs you see when there air friction.

There was some background noise as is nearly always normal with snicko, you'll rarely ever get a perfectly flat line around the spike. There was then a spike larger than any of the background noise that was located perfectly on the graph for coinciding with the ball passing the glove.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

Need to see the deflection like how's so far decison are given by umpire

Your stance is basically, “I know Jaiswal was out because the ball hit his glove, but it shouldn’t be out because Snicko didn’t pick it up”.

 

[HitWicket]

@jnaveen1980 Take a look at the Labuschagne wicket. Look at the bottom left frame, do you think this shouldn't have been given out and unfairly favoured India given the bat isn't next to the ball?