Pakistan v South Africa 2013-14 October 10, 2013

PCB excludes Hot Spot for SA series

15

The PCB has decided to not include Hot Spot technology as part of the Decision Review System to be used during the two-Test series against South Africa in the UAE. The third umpire will only have access to ball-tracking and audio aids for reviewing on-field calls, the PCB confirmed to ESPNcricinfo. It's another setback for the technology after Australia's Channel Nine chose to remove it for the upcoming Ashes.

The production cost of the usage of DRS in the series is supposed to be borne by the broadcaster and, according to the terms of the deal between the PCB and Ten Sports, Hot Spot was not made mandatory as it would have shot up the production costs.

Since the production cost was also included in the broadcasting rights fee - which means that the total cost owed by the broadcaster to the PCB is calculated after including production costs during the series - the inclusion of Hot Spot would have reduced the board's rights fee earnings by approximately US$100,000.

Pakistan had used Hot Spot during the 2012 home series against England, during which the technology was in the spotlight after it failed to provide evidence on more than one occasion.

Graeme Smith, the South Africa captain, was unperturbed by the exclusion of Hot Spot: "It (not having hotspot) is not something I am losing a huge amount of sleep over. I know there has been uncertainty over hotspot of late. But I'm happy there is a part of DRS in the series. I believe DRS is part of the modern game and it should be embraced."

Umar Farooq is ESPNcricinfo's Pakistan correspondent. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Hammond on October 17, 2013, 9:44 GMT

    Just get rid of DRS altogether. For once I think the BCCI have it right.

  • on October 11, 2013, 7:21 GMT

    hmmm a 50-50 decision. if its only finances then may be good. It costs so much. it may have been very useful as in this series spinners will have a major role and small edges will be crucial.

    But in last ashes series, hotspot was a major concern and created many controversial incidents.

  • reb1 on October 10, 2013, 21:04 GMT

    The predictive part of hawkeye seems grossly unscientific. The uncertainty cannot be the same (and certainly not smaller than a cricket ball) with different length deliveries and times of impact on the pads. The cricket ball should be replaced with a soccer ball or a watermelon in some of those simulations.

  • wrenx on October 10, 2013, 12:46 GMT

    Does HotSpot really cost this much? I can't help but feel that the makers are pricing themselves out of the market. Surely they should drop the cost, because they're not making any money by boards refusing to use the tech. Even if they make a smaller margin, they need to price more competitively.

  • on October 10, 2013, 10:26 GMT

    What is all this talk of Snicko? It is not available, has never been available and, as yet, cannot be available to the 3rd umpire - because it takes too long to produce.

    IMO the most important diagnostic available to the 3rd umpire is the simple video replay. This alone would remove almost all the 'howlers' - which is what DRS should really be about. All this concentration on the adjudication of marginal decisions is in danger of killing off DRS - even the bits that clearly and uncontentiously improve the standard of decision making.

  • plob on October 10, 2013, 10:17 GMT

    If it's a financial thing, fair enough. But a risible idea to begin the demise of Hot Spot. It CAN show that contact has been made between bat and ball, as we've all seen on many an occasion. If it doesn't show any contact, then simply weigh up all of the other evidence. Not 'rocket science'. A retrograde step IMHO.

  • sjw2k on October 10, 2013, 9:46 GMT

    As it seems that the cost of implementing Hot Spot is restricting its use in Test Series, surely if ICC want to use it as part of the DRS then they should contribute some of the money towards its use? In my opinion DRS should consist of a minimum 3 technologies; Hawkeye, Snicko and Hot Spot, with the ICC contributing some of the cost to the poorer Test playing nations if needs be. If countries can not agree of use of any one of these then none should be used in the Test Series. Boards should not be able to pick and choose which technologies they want to use just because of cost. Either use all of them or none of them.

  • itisme on October 10, 2013, 9:14 GMT

    Ridiculous. It is completely idiotic to remove Hotspot and keep the ball tracking technology for lbw decisions. If at all, it should be the ball tracking technology which should be scrapped. The ball tracking involves a fair amount of uncertainty. Why keep using it? I do not understand at all.

  • on October 10, 2013, 9:06 GMT

    I think both Sniko and Hot Spot should be used in tandem. Although it would not be pefect solution but 95% correct is till batter than 60% correct.

  • blackcaps101 on October 10, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    @Englishfan yes I agree with the hawkeye idea, but some edges might be so small a deviation might not be detected by hawkeye. Combining hotspot, hawkeye and snicko in each review would be a great idea.

  • Hammond on October 17, 2013, 9:44 GMT

    Just get rid of DRS altogether. For once I think the BCCI have it right.

  • on October 11, 2013, 7:21 GMT

    hmmm a 50-50 decision. if its only finances then may be good. It costs so much. it may have been very useful as in this series spinners will have a major role and small edges will be crucial.

    But in last ashes series, hotspot was a major concern and created many controversial incidents.

  • reb1 on October 10, 2013, 21:04 GMT

    The predictive part of hawkeye seems grossly unscientific. The uncertainty cannot be the same (and certainly not smaller than a cricket ball) with different length deliveries and times of impact on the pads. The cricket ball should be replaced with a soccer ball or a watermelon in some of those simulations.

  • wrenx on October 10, 2013, 12:46 GMT

    Does HotSpot really cost this much? I can't help but feel that the makers are pricing themselves out of the market. Surely they should drop the cost, because they're not making any money by boards refusing to use the tech. Even if they make a smaller margin, they need to price more competitively.

  • on October 10, 2013, 10:26 GMT

    What is all this talk of Snicko? It is not available, has never been available and, as yet, cannot be available to the 3rd umpire - because it takes too long to produce.

    IMO the most important diagnostic available to the 3rd umpire is the simple video replay. This alone would remove almost all the 'howlers' - which is what DRS should really be about. All this concentration on the adjudication of marginal decisions is in danger of killing off DRS - even the bits that clearly and uncontentiously improve the standard of decision making.

  • plob on October 10, 2013, 10:17 GMT

    If it's a financial thing, fair enough. But a risible idea to begin the demise of Hot Spot. It CAN show that contact has been made between bat and ball, as we've all seen on many an occasion. If it doesn't show any contact, then simply weigh up all of the other evidence. Not 'rocket science'. A retrograde step IMHO.

  • sjw2k on October 10, 2013, 9:46 GMT

    As it seems that the cost of implementing Hot Spot is restricting its use in Test Series, surely if ICC want to use it as part of the DRS then they should contribute some of the money towards its use? In my opinion DRS should consist of a minimum 3 technologies; Hawkeye, Snicko and Hot Spot, with the ICC contributing some of the cost to the poorer Test playing nations if needs be. If countries can not agree of use of any one of these then none should be used in the Test Series. Boards should not be able to pick and choose which technologies they want to use just because of cost. Either use all of them or none of them.

  • itisme on October 10, 2013, 9:14 GMT

    Ridiculous. It is completely idiotic to remove Hotspot and keep the ball tracking technology for lbw decisions. If at all, it should be the ball tracking technology which should be scrapped. The ball tracking involves a fair amount of uncertainty. Why keep using it? I do not understand at all.

  • on October 10, 2013, 9:06 GMT

    I think both Sniko and Hot Spot should be used in tandem. Although it would not be pefect solution but 95% correct is till batter than 60% correct.

  • blackcaps101 on October 10, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    @Englishfan yes I agree with the hawkeye idea, but some edges might be so small a deviation might not be detected by hawkeye. Combining hotspot, hawkeye and snicko in each review would be a great idea.

  • ShanTheFanOfSachin on October 10, 2013, 8:35 GMT

    I think its slowly getting back to where it started. Yes technology is good as long as it removes howlers without making it too complicated. The moment Hotspot creates controversies and debatable decisions then no place for it in DRS.

  • CodandChips on October 10, 2013, 8:19 GMT

    I do like Snicko, however believe it picks up noises when there is no edge. I don't think controversy will go away, but will move onto "Ghost edges" because of snickp. Surely hotspot and snicko can both be used to aid the umpires? How about using hawkeye to measure deviation upon passing the edge?

  • ReverseSweepIndia on October 10, 2013, 8:08 GMT

    I think, DRS sans all these expensive tools will make more sense. Q: Why we need DRS?Ans always is: Howlers. Q: What is a howler? Ans: where all public on replay can see that umpire got it wrong. Q: So why not simply use the basic replays which will always remove howlers? Small mistakes are always part & parcel of cricket life and happen with DRS too. This way every body can adopt it, even financially weak boards like Zim too. And if the sane people in administration can get the implementation part correct, this will be biggest tool for the game.

  • on October 10, 2013, 7:56 GMT

    well hotspot was the biggest debatable point in DRS. hawk-eye and snicko are enough for third empire to make a decision.

  • on October 10, 2013, 7:39 GMT

    good news, did not assist the game at all in England vs Australia

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on October 10, 2013, 7:39 GMT

    good news, did not assist the game at all in England vs Australia

  • on October 10, 2013, 7:56 GMT

    well hotspot was the biggest debatable point in DRS. hawk-eye and snicko are enough for third empire to make a decision.

  • ReverseSweepIndia on October 10, 2013, 8:08 GMT

    I think, DRS sans all these expensive tools will make more sense. Q: Why we need DRS?Ans always is: Howlers. Q: What is a howler? Ans: where all public on replay can see that umpire got it wrong. Q: So why not simply use the basic replays which will always remove howlers? Small mistakes are always part & parcel of cricket life and happen with DRS too. This way every body can adopt it, even financially weak boards like Zim too. And if the sane people in administration can get the implementation part correct, this will be biggest tool for the game.

  • CodandChips on October 10, 2013, 8:19 GMT

    I do like Snicko, however believe it picks up noises when there is no edge. I don't think controversy will go away, but will move onto "Ghost edges" because of snickp. Surely hotspot and snicko can both be used to aid the umpires? How about using hawkeye to measure deviation upon passing the edge?

  • ShanTheFanOfSachin on October 10, 2013, 8:35 GMT

    I think its slowly getting back to where it started. Yes technology is good as long as it removes howlers without making it too complicated. The moment Hotspot creates controversies and debatable decisions then no place for it in DRS.

  • blackcaps101 on October 10, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    @Englishfan yes I agree with the hawkeye idea, but some edges might be so small a deviation might not be detected by hawkeye. Combining hotspot, hawkeye and snicko in each review would be a great idea.

  • on October 10, 2013, 9:06 GMT

    I think both Sniko and Hot Spot should be used in tandem. Although it would not be pefect solution but 95% correct is till batter than 60% correct.

  • itisme on October 10, 2013, 9:14 GMT

    Ridiculous. It is completely idiotic to remove Hotspot and keep the ball tracking technology for lbw decisions. If at all, it should be the ball tracking technology which should be scrapped. The ball tracking involves a fair amount of uncertainty. Why keep using it? I do not understand at all.

  • sjw2k on October 10, 2013, 9:46 GMT

    As it seems that the cost of implementing Hot Spot is restricting its use in Test Series, surely if ICC want to use it as part of the DRS then they should contribute some of the money towards its use? In my opinion DRS should consist of a minimum 3 technologies; Hawkeye, Snicko and Hot Spot, with the ICC contributing some of the cost to the poorer Test playing nations if needs be. If countries can not agree of use of any one of these then none should be used in the Test Series. Boards should not be able to pick and choose which technologies they want to use just because of cost. Either use all of them or none of them.

  • plob on October 10, 2013, 10:17 GMT

    If it's a financial thing, fair enough. But a risible idea to begin the demise of Hot Spot. It CAN show that contact has been made between bat and ball, as we've all seen on many an occasion. If it doesn't show any contact, then simply weigh up all of the other evidence. Not 'rocket science'. A retrograde step IMHO.