The Ashes 2013-14 November 3, 2013

Hot Spot may earn Ashes reprieve

43

Hot Spot could be set for a late entry into the upcoming Ashes series alongside a trial for an enhanced DRS, including Real Time Snicko technology, having previously been jettisoned after talks between its inventor, Warren Brennan, and Cricket Australia broke down over the cost of the system.

Now, however, the two parties are reported by the Sydney Morning Herald to have reopened negotiations less than three weeks before the Ashes resumes with the introduction of Real Time Snicko, which is also part of Brennan's company BBG Sports, being pushed forward for full-scale use. The enhancement was trialled behind the scenes during the previous Ashes in England, but was not part of the available DRS process which was the centre of much controversy during the series.

Most of that stemmed from the reliability of Hot Spot which appeared to not detect a number of thin edges with the third umpires using evidence from the stump microphones instead. Under the current DRS protocols, Snicko cannot be used due to the time it takes to match up the audio with the pictures but the Real Time version makes this an almost instant process.

Earlier this year Brennan said: "I am hopeful that it would improve fine-edge detection dramatically. On most occasions, you are going to have the Real Time Snicko and Hot Spot agreeing with another. So the third umpire will now have two points of reference. There can be more consistency that way."

Although confidence in the DRS was dented during the Ashes series in England - which also sparked the controversy over taped bat edges which angered the England team - both sides remain two of the strongest supporters of using the review system and the boards are understood to be open to the upgraded version.

David Saker, England's bowling coach, still believes more correct decisions are made. "Obviously over the English summer, a few things went a little wrong with it,'' he said. "But the majority of the time, they've got more decisions right than wrong - so I'm a big supporter of it.'

"I think if we can get as many correct decisions as possible, it's better for the game - not just for England. The decision obviously will be made by Cricket Australia, but I'd definitely welcome it for sure.''

Matt Prior, the England wicketkeeper, supports the DRS if the technology is reliable. "I'm a fan of the review system and technology. At the end of the day there is a huge amount on each decision and you have to get the right decision," he said shortly before the tour started. "If Hotspot is inaccurate it cannot be used and we have to find another way of getting to the right decision. As long as the right decision is made, that is all the players want."

An enhanced DRS - which will require approval from the ICC - would bring the role of the third umpire back to the fore. It has been suggested that because of the key position third umpires now hold in the decision-making process, away from the traditional line decisions of run outs and stumpings, that extra training is required and potentially a panel of specialist TV officials to support on-field umpires.

The back-to-back Ashes have put pressure on the ICC's elite panel of umpires because the majority come from England and Australia which makes them ineligible to stand in the 10 Tests which began in July and run until early January in Sydney.

Only four umpires - Marais Erasmus, Aleem Dar, Tony Hill and Kumar Dharmasena - are available for the Test matches and are rotated through the on-field and TV roles. There have been talks about selecting from the international panel of umpires, the level below the elite, to ease the burden and Billy Bowden, who was demoted earlier this year, has been the name mentioned.

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • beamer_specialist on November 5, 2013, 16:51 GMT

    What ever happened to ultra slow motion ? I thought that was really godd at detecting snicks.

  • JohnnyRook on November 5, 2013, 5:40 GMT

    @ ReverseSweepIndia. You are the one of the few sane voices in an asylum. Hence, nobody will listen to you. I have long been of opinion that DRS and hotspot/hawkeye/snicko don't have to be one and the same thing. We can remove almost all howlers by a simple TV replay.

    A technology which costs $5000 a day but is to be used only for howlers and not for marginal decisions can only be advocated by people who are not the ones having to spend that money. If not, I am starting a business of selling dirt at 100$ per kg with potential customers being the people who want hotspot at 5000$ a day. I think I will have a good shot at becoming a billionaire in next 5 years :)

  • ReverseSweepIndia on November 5, 2013, 4:59 GMT

    Neutral umpires were used to counter partial umpiring which used to happen in all countries, all the time, from all the umpires save a few like Bird and Shepherd and few more. Was more rampant in subcontinent, but was there in other countries. Neutral umpires brought an end to partial umpiring and what we left was Bad umpiring. Elite panel was to counter bad umpiring. And this elite panel as @jmcilhinney said, take pride in their job. So they should be selected based on normal/regular criteria and not based on nationality. Umpires have too much pressure, they have to concentrate hard for 225 overs (5daysX90 one bowling end) and even in rest of 225 overs they do not have much respite.

  • ReverseSweepIndia on November 5, 2013, 4:45 GMT

    Why not scrap this whole hotspot, snicko & what else. Simple video replay remove the howlers and thats it. That can be afforded in a Zim-NZ match as it can be in Eng-Aus match. And being an Indian, whatever BCCI says, most of us Indians want technology to be used & assist in decision making. The high costs then can be diverted to game development in Ire & Afgans.

  • zoot on November 4, 2013, 22:19 GMT

    The last Ashes series has shown us how the on-field umpires are just guessing half the time. We desperately need some technology that everyone can sign up to like in tennis. The ball actually deforms in tennis but the players all accept it. It's the same in cricket. It doesn't have to be 100% as long as all the players and spectators see that it is fair and accept it.

  • PratUSA on November 4, 2013, 17:11 GMT

    "As long as the right decision is made, that is all the players want." Prior is absolutely wrong there. Players don't want right decisions; players want decisions in their favor, right or wrong. If players wanted right decision than a batsman who has nicked but given not out will review it or a fielding team that's claiming a catch on the bounce will review it after their appeal for out is upheld. Let's be honest about what we want, shall we.

  • Green_and_Gold on November 4, 2013, 13:54 GMT

    Good - now we just need to tighten up on how the technology is used and interpreted by the umpires. Get rid of 'umpires call' - if a suite of technology cannot determine if a batsman is out then they should get the benefit. It really does need to be black and white i.e. there is evidence that the person is out or there is no evidence that they are out.

  • CricketMaan on November 4, 2013, 10:47 GMT

    With so little umpires outside Aus, Eng and given that Kumar and Tony are the worst among the elite panel, and with so much technology and TV, why not have 1 local umpire inlcuded. Poor Kumar and Tony, they will once again be subjected to scrutiny and have to survive that!!

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on November 4, 2013, 9:32 GMT

    @jmcilhinney: Yes definitely agree - I don't mind Snicko being used as part of a suite of technology, and indeed some fine edges don't leave a mark on Hot Spot (what with all the silicone tape and whatnot... *coughs*) - but if Snicko is going to be used alone for any (or even all potentially) decisions, then there must be enough clear real-time camera footage to go with the play, including footage of the wicket-keeper's movements if he's up close to the stumps. Despite being a bowler, I do feel sorry for batsmen getting their marching orders after simply brushing pad with bat, and there isn't enough sufficient camera footage to show daylight between bat and ball.

  • cric_J on November 4, 2013, 7:27 GMT

    So after all the hullabaloo this summer, we may still have the Hot Spot being used in the Ashes ! I personally would be glad if this were to happen. I feel thing were blown way out of proportion re the poor decisions as a result of a few inaccuracies on Hot spot's part. And I am not saying this merely because my team won the series 3-0 at the end of it all. No sort of technology or machine is a 100% efficient and gives teething troubles, and that is one of the unsaid laws of the universe. So Hotspot is no different in being that way.

    And anyways Hotspot does improve decision making even if it is by a small percentage. Something IS better than nothing. So even if there were a few issues with its working recently, it doesn't imply that we should do away with it altogether. If one apple is rotten from a bunch that we purchased, it doesn't imply that the others will be rotten too or that we give up eating apples all together. Because at the end of it apples do help our body with iron.

  • beamer_specialist on November 5, 2013, 16:51 GMT

    What ever happened to ultra slow motion ? I thought that was really godd at detecting snicks.

  • JohnnyRook on November 5, 2013, 5:40 GMT

    @ ReverseSweepIndia. You are the one of the few sane voices in an asylum. Hence, nobody will listen to you. I have long been of opinion that DRS and hotspot/hawkeye/snicko don't have to be one and the same thing. We can remove almost all howlers by a simple TV replay.

    A technology which costs $5000 a day but is to be used only for howlers and not for marginal decisions can only be advocated by people who are not the ones having to spend that money. If not, I am starting a business of selling dirt at 100$ per kg with potential customers being the people who want hotspot at 5000$ a day. I think I will have a good shot at becoming a billionaire in next 5 years :)

  • ReverseSweepIndia on November 5, 2013, 4:59 GMT

    Neutral umpires were used to counter partial umpiring which used to happen in all countries, all the time, from all the umpires save a few like Bird and Shepherd and few more. Was more rampant in subcontinent, but was there in other countries. Neutral umpires brought an end to partial umpiring and what we left was Bad umpiring. Elite panel was to counter bad umpiring. And this elite panel as @jmcilhinney said, take pride in their job. So they should be selected based on normal/regular criteria and not based on nationality. Umpires have too much pressure, they have to concentrate hard for 225 overs (5daysX90 one bowling end) and even in rest of 225 overs they do not have much respite.

  • ReverseSweepIndia on November 5, 2013, 4:45 GMT

    Why not scrap this whole hotspot, snicko & what else. Simple video replay remove the howlers and thats it. That can be afforded in a Zim-NZ match as it can be in Eng-Aus match. And being an Indian, whatever BCCI says, most of us Indians want technology to be used & assist in decision making. The high costs then can be diverted to game development in Ire & Afgans.

  • zoot on November 4, 2013, 22:19 GMT

    The last Ashes series has shown us how the on-field umpires are just guessing half the time. We desperately need some technology that everyone can sign up to like in tennis. The ball actually deforms in tennis but the players all accept it. It's the same in cricket. It doesn't have to be 100% as long as all the players and spectators see that it is fair and accept it.

  • PratUSA on November 4, 2013, 17:11 GMT

    "As long as the right decision is made, that is all the players want." Prior is absolutely wrong there. Players don't want right decisions; players want decisions in their favor, right or wrong. If players wanted right decision than a batsman who has nicked but given not out will review it or a fielding team that's claiming a catch on the bounce will review it after their appeal for out is upheld. Let's be honest about what we want, shall we.

  • Green_and_Gold on November 4, 2013, 13:54 GMT

    Good - now we just need to tighten up on how the technology is used and interpreted by the umpires. Get rid of 'umpires call' - if a suite of technology cannot determine if a batsman is out then they should get the benefit. It really does need to be black and white i.e. there is evidence that the person is out or there is no evidence that they are out.

  • CricketMaan on November 4, 2013, 10:47 GMT

    With so little umpires outside Aus, Eng and given that Kumar and Tony are the worst among the elite panel, and with so much technology and TV, why not have 1 local umpire inlcuded. Poor Kumar and Tony, they will once again be subjected to scrutiny and have to survive that!!

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on November 4, 2013, 9:32 GMT

    @jmcilhinney: Yes definitely agree - I don't mind Snicko being used as part of a suite of technology, and indeed some fine edges don't leave a mark on Hot Spot (what with all the silicone tape and whatnot... *coughs*) - but if Snicko is going to be used alone for any (or even all potentially) decisions, then there must be enough clear real-time camera footage to go with the play, including footage of the wicket-keeper's movements if he's up close to the stumps. Despite being a bowler, I do feel sorry for batsmen getting their marching orders after simply brushing pad with bat, and there isn't enough sufficient camera footage to show daylight between bat and ball.

  • cric_J on November 4, 2013, 7:27 GMT

    So after all the hullabaloo this summer, we may still have the Hot Spot being used in the Ashes ! I personally would be glad if this were to happen. I feel thing were blown way out of proportion re the poor decisions as a result of a few inaccuracies on Hot spot's part. And I am not saying this merely because my team won the series 3-0 at the end of it all. No sort of technology or machine is a 100% efficient and gives teething troubles, and that is one of the unsaid laws of the universe. So Hotspot is no different in being that way.

    And anyways Hotspot does improve decision making even if it is by a small percentage. Something IS better than nothing. So even if there were a few issues with its working recently, it doesn't imply that we should do away with it altogether. If one apple is rotten from a bunch that we purchased, it doesn't imply that the others will be rotten too or that we give up eating apples all together. Because at the end of it apples do help our body with iron.

  • ladycricfan on November 4, 2013, 7:27 GMT

    Let's wait and see how the topping up of reviews is going to work. I still don't see how it will remove howlers completely. If the two reviews are used up on top order batsmen early in the innings, for the rest of the overs until the 80th over they will have to play without DRS.

    Reviewing should be taken out of players' hands. Third umpire should intervene when he sees an obvious error.

  • jmcilhinney on November 4, 2013, 3:54 GMT

    @RJHB on (November 4, 2013, 3:20 GMT), I agree regarding using non-neutral umpires for this series and I believe that players from both sides have said the same. It is against ICC regulations so it would have had to go through them and these things take time unfortunately but I think that it's something that both boards should have made a priority. It's not even a vote of no confidence in the other elite umpires but more a recognition that it's already hard to maintain the required levels of concentration for five days without having to do it game after game. With a neutral third umpire then any obvious bias would be easily dealt with in almost all cases anyway but I'd be shocked if there was any conscious bias on the part of any elite umpires, who surely take too much pride in their work for that.

  • RJHB on November 4, 2013, 3:20 GMT

    Well I hope the upgrade is definitely a marked improvement in practice. The problem is it wasn't just the technology failing but the interpretation of it, so lets hope that that extra training as mentioned is provided. As for the limited umpires for the Ashes, why don't the boards get together and negotiate to use the best umpires for the job and if they happen to be Australian or English, use one of each. Anyway hasn't the whole neutral umpire thing gone past its use by date with the advent of DRS? Doesn't every team just want the very best umpires available no matter where they're from, especially if backed by an improved DRS? Surely even the BCCI would want that, especially if it proves how great India are, unless they're in Australia, or England, or SA, or NZ, or......!

  • Mitty2 on November 4, 2013, 2:16 GMT

    @Troy Merrit, 10/10

    @Jmcilhinney, what convinced me was the overhead straight on angle, (and of course that I'm a biased Aus supporter) there wasn't a deviation at all. But on the normal angle that's televised for every ball, it was ambiguous to whether or not there was a deviation. Maybe it's just Mitchell Starc's immense talent and late swing! ;) Whatever the case, the decision had no ultimate bearing on the 3-0 scoreline, and where the Broad non-decision still pains me because he ended up putting in the match winning partnership with Broad, there was bad umpiring on both sides and bad umpiring is certainly no excuse for losing a series 3-0.

    @64blip, agree, the technology's there and it's fine and perfectly functional, but the use of from the third umpire was just ridiculously bad.

  • jmcilhinney on November 4, 2013, 0:22 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (November 3, 2013, 20:15 GMT), I disagree. A lot of people think that there was a deviation on that Trott LBW and I'm one of them. It's obviously a case of someone seeing what they want to see because we can't both be right but there would be no issue at all if we'd been able to see that side-on HotSpot. It looked like a clear deviation to me right away and the replays did nothing to change my mind. There was no noise on Snicko, which did make me wonder, but even then I couldn't not see a deviation on the front-on replay. Front-on HotSpot couldn't see the inside edge of the bat so can't really be used as evidence at all. If I saw the side-on HotSpot and there was no mark then I'd be satisfied that my eyes deceived me but, without that, there will always be doubt. Many England supporters are sure one way and many Australians the other. There's no way to prove either case. Hopefully no HotSpot operator will make that mistake again.

  • jmcilhinney on November 4, 2013, 0:16 GMT

    R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (November 3, 2013, 18:15 GMT), when considering HotSpot and Snicko, we need to remember that many decisions regarding thin edges are already made based on sound alone. If the umpire hears a noise just as the ball passes the bat then he is generally going to give the batsman out unless he believes that he can see daylight between bat and ball. Many thin edges produce no discernible deviation so that can't be used as a standard. To accept umpires using audio alone and not accept audio technology does not make sense. I agree that Snicko alone is not enough but there should be no issue with its being part of a technology suite. I don't think that a decision should be overturned based on Snicko alone but if there is other concurrent evidence then it makes a compelling case.

  • jmcilhinney on November 4, 2013, 0:06 GMT

    @R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (November 3, 2013, 18:15 GMT), I agree. On it's own, I don't see that Snicko can be considered any more reliable than HotSpot because of the chance of false positives. Together though, I think that HotSpot and Real-time Snicko make a compelling case for the batsman being either out or not out. If there's a mark and a noise then any reasonable person would have to conclude that the ball hit the bat and the absence of both can only lead to the opposite conclusion. If there's disagreement between the two then it's hard to see how the naked eye could be genuinely sure either.

  • jmcilhinney on November 4, 2013, 0:02 GMT

    @RednWhiteArmy on (November 3, 2013, 14:28 GMT), that's rubbish. There's many people whinging far more about DRS than the Australian establishment. The addition of reviews after 80 overs may or may not be an Australian idea but it might just be a knee-jerk reaction to the whole Stuart Broad fiasco, which was admittedly fuelled by Darren Lehmann's comments on radio. With regards to HotSpot having been dropped, apparently due to cost, I would imagine that the basis there was that it's performance was not 100% during the last Ashes so the cost should be lower. While I don't think that it was as bad as some people claim even I don't claim that it was perfect. Then again, I never did. The simple fact is that there are many people not completely satisfied with DRS as it is right now. The problem is, everyone wants something different, so you'll never satisfy everyone. I think Real-time Snicko is an excellent addition and, if DRS is used properly, will improve the game.

  • on November 3, 2013, 23:59 GMT

    GOod to see Real time audio being used for decisions, its about time. The technology to do so has existed for decades, so I can only presume its been some sort of political issue that has slowed its introduction. The more evidence that umpires have, the more considered a deliberation can be. It should only be used in concert with video/hotspot though.

    But it also raises the time taken to make a decision, so lets hope games don't continually stop to check marginal calls. I think some sort of penalty should be imposed on teams for outlandish use of DRS, similar to slow over rate penalties.

    @Mitty2 - you forgot to mention that the Aussies were the most arrogant bunch to ever exist too - thought they could pee wherever they liked. Oh wait a minute...

  • jmcilhinney on November 3, 2013, 23:57 GMT

    @Front-Foot-Sponge on (November 3, 2013, 14:11 GMT), but the umpires DID NOT have the Snicko technology available to them. That's the point. Snicko was shown to the TV audience but that was always after the third umpire had made their decision. Real-time Snicko was in use but only as a trial, so the actual third umpire never saw it. I think the most obvious case where Real-time Snicko would have helped in the last Ashes was on Usman Khawaja's dismissal. There was no mark on HotSpot and no noise on Snicko when we saw it either. If the third umpire had that Snicko evidence then I think that it's unlikely that Khawaja would have been given out, which most people agree was the wrong decision.

  • jmcilhinney on November 3, 2013, 23:53 GMT

    @Nutcutlet on (November 3, 2013, 13:38 GMT), I don't necessarily agree with that. There was a case in the last Ashes where a batsman (it was Brad Haddin I believe, or maybe Steve Smith) appeared to be caught behind but, on review, it was shown that the noise occurred just after the ball passed the bat. That noise obviously came from somewhere else other than the ball hitting the bat. While the chances are slim, that noise could have occurred at the exact moment the ball past the bat and appeared to have been caused by an edge. That's why I say that HotSpot and Snicko/audio should have to agree in order to overrule. Together, they provide compelling evidence. If they disagree then it is inconclusive and most likely would have been to the naked eye/ear anyway.

  • jmcilhinney on November 3, 2013, 23:49 GMT

    This is all good news as far as I'm concerned. Real-time Snicko is definitely a good thing and I maintain that the issues with HotSpot in the previous Ashes were highly exaggerated in many corners. A number of the decisions that some fans are claiming show an issue with HotSpot do no such thing. There were only about 3 occasions that I can think of that could be considered genuine issues with HotSpot and one of those was where the side-on view was unavailable due to operator error. With the introduction of Real-time Snicko, I still say that both video (HotSpot) and audio (Snicko) should have to agree in order to overturn an on-field decision. If a batsman is given out caught then there should be no mark on HotSpot and no noise on Snicko for that to be reversed. Likewise, if he's given not out then there should be a mark on HotSpot and a noise on Snicko to change the decision. I really think that what constitutes sufficient evidence to overrule needs to be clarified greatly.

  • 64blip on November 3, 2013, 22:05 GMT

    @Mitty2: I never said Trott wasn't out, just that the system didn't work properly in that case. Although I suppose even that could be put down to human error as they weren't prepared for a next ball referral; nothing wrong with the equipment.

  • yorkshire-86 on November 3, 2013, 21:46 GMT

    Simple solution, only allow properly trained personel - with at least 4 Years training at university in a video-tech related subject and a minimum of 10 Years experience in a video-tech related field - to operate the DRS system. The third umpire must only be allowed to advise the properly trained technician on the Laws of the game, so if the ump asks 'did he snick that' and the tech says yes, the umpire must advise the onfield umps there is a snick, whether the third ump thinks there is a snick or not from thier own viewing of the replays - the tech's interpretation of technology overrules the umpires as the tech is trained and has the requisite 14 Years experience needed to properly interpret the technology as opposed to an ump who is only trained and experienced to give onfield decisions - the key point here is an umpire will *NEVER* get a chance to try technology at a lower level, once they get to the international panel that will be the FIRST time they see it!

  • Mitty2 on November 3, 2013, 20:15 GMT

    @64blip, Trott was out, no deviation, no sound, hitting middle of middle.

    @FFL, 4-0 well done England! But wasn't it meant to be a whitewash!? Considering our team is the worst formation of human beings in the history of any sport, world wide, and all of them are terrible people n a disgrace to Aus teams of the past, not to mention being unintelligent and oxygen thieves, I'd say that's a poor effort from Eng to not win 5-0 :) If it didn't rain in the third test tho, Eng surely would have won right?

  • Mitty2 on November 3, 2013, 20:11 GMT

    Good news, it's better than nothing.

    @RednWhiteArmy, mm saw plenty of Poms whinging in the first test with the Trott and KP decision- including the writer on here in Dobell, but OK mate... It was terrible umpiring on both sides and the system was failing, everyone saw that. Changes needed to be made.

  • on November 3, 2013, 19:59 GMT

    I still maintain that all the technology should only be for the umpires to use when they are not sure. It should be nothing to do with the players.

  • on November 3, 2013, 19:37 GMT

    Snicko, hot spot, stump cam and double DRS are well and good, but how about asking the batsmen to be honest to good sportsmen and 'walk'. It seems there is a stigma attached to batsmen who 'walk', what with top level cricketers of yesteryears encouraging 'non-walking'. Ask any member of the cricket watching public...they will never love a 'cheat' - especially when batsmen admit to knowing that they were out but did not give themselves 'out'.

  • 64blip on November 3, 2013, 19:08 GMT

    There was nothing wrong with DRS in the last Ashes apart from the Trott incident - it was the players and the umpires - in other words human error. There's nothing you can do if an umpire doesn't see what everyone else does! And if the Aussies choose to burn their appeals on half-chances and have none left when a real mistake is made then tough. DRS was brought in to eliminate howlers, not adjudicate on marginal decisions, otherwise you might as well get rid of the umpire. If a team has none left after 80 overs it's because they have gambled and lost. They should NOT be rewarded with two more chances. If anything a team should be penalised for an incorrect review.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on November 3, 2013, 18:15 GMT

    I hate the idea of 'Snicko' having a pivotal role in decision making, or worse still, the only one! I know wicket-keepers that practice making sounds at significant points of a delivery - e.g. release, pitch, point of passing bat etc. You also get batsmen inadvertently brushing their pads, shoes and whatnots with bat and/or gloves just as the ball passes bat, and the sound(s) can be mistaken for 'ball on bat'/'bat on ball' - whatever order it's supposed to be.

    Hot Spot technology MUST be improved and used properly, or DRS arguments will never go away and could even get worse.

  • 2.14istherunrate on November 3, 2013, 18:05 GMT

    Before last summer's Ashes series. I had no doubt about DRS and hotspot. I would be fascinated to know what was different for that series apart from the umpires. Was the technology slightly altered, different types of cameras used? That has to be looked into. By the end hotspot had become the anti-hero. Why? Mostly because it did not show up everything. Yet it showed enough up before that series. I would reinstate hotspot bearing in mind that fact and use a quick version of Snicko which may fill in the blanks. But I would also get competence into the 3rd umpire's cahir at all times. If hotspot was unreliable then what were the umpires? Something has to give whether it is bringing back Billy and Rauf or allowing non neutral umpires back. Quite frankly the 4 umpires used have no authority now and need retraining.

  • on November 3, 2013, 18:03 GMT

    It's about time that they realised that the use of a neutral umpire on DRS there is no longer a need for on-field umpires to be neutral as well. Not that I expect any of the top echelon of umpires to be biased! Allow English and Australian umpires to stand in Ashes tests - one of each would be ideal. Better than bringing in less able umpires like Bowden.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on November 3, 2013, 17:08 GMT

    @RednWhiteArmy: Spot on. The amount of whinging from the aussies reached fearsome heights about 5 years ago after England won the 2009 Ashes. These days the whiging just continues like it's on a loop. The pitches are too dry, lady luck just didn't go their way or the umpires wore the wrong hat, all added up to a monstrusly big event recently when Australia were hammered effectively 4-0 out of 5 Ashes matches. Now they're feeling the pressure back on home soil, we should all no doubt expect an endless stream of artificial 'controversry' to distract the Oz support from their tema's failings on the field. I'm sure another Argus report would sort things out just fine.

  • Gareth_Bain on November 3, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    Woot for RT-snicko! Just please umpires, use it correctly! With more sources of evidence and more time, umpires will reach the correct decision more often.

  • spence1324 on November 3, 2013, 16:13 GMT

    @RednwhiteArmy well said.

  • 2.14istherunrate on November 3, 2013, 15:17 GMT

    Up until that Ashes series in the summer, Hot Spot seemed to be working. Now what was different in the summer I do not know and maybe the first port of call should be to examine how in any detail the technological equipment used was different. The other thing I noticed was that the 4 umpires used were bad. Even Dar who has previously been reliable was shown up and the other other 3 were an embarrasment. I do not know why Bowden and Rauf got the chop but I know they were no worse than the others. They should be brought back. It is noticeabel that there have been no ICC awards this year. I look forward to snicko being used but keep it away from ICC please. And maybe allowing 1 Australian and 1 Englishman plus DRS to stand in Ashes games may solve the problem.

  • on November 3, 2013, 14:53 GMT

    if teams will using this on certain decision then it will successful

  • CamS71 on November 3, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    Real-time Snicko is the way ahead.

  • RednWhiteArmy on November 3, 2013, 14:28 GMT

    The aussie's will no doubt whinge & whinge and get the rules changed again. Thats the mentality, rather than rising to the challenge & raising their game they simply try to get the rules changes. Now as a result of their epic ashes whinging, we now have 2 more reviews after 80 overs. So if you still have both reviews left after 78 overs, you might as well blow them before the 80th over, as you'll get 2 more then. So much for over rates.

  • Front-Foot-Sponge on November 3, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    I don't think snicko is more reliable than hotspot. Throughout the last Ashes the umpires still made loads of mistakes even with the technology.

  • on November 3, 2013, 13:58 GMT

    For God's sake, leave the bloody game alone!!!!!

  • BRUTALANALYST on November 3, 2013, 13:52 GMT

    This is supposed to be the pinnacle of Test cricket, how can you not have the best Technology ? Real time Snicko and Hotspot are a must for the modern game especially for a series like The Ashes !

  • Nutcutlet on November 3, 2013, 13:38 GMT

    Real-time Snicko (at last!) should render Hotspot redundant, so long as the squiggle coincides with the ball passing the bat and not some other contact. If it turns out that there has been a genuine & major advance in the use of technology delivering far more accurate decisions by the end of the Ashes, then the BCCI, always susceptible to reason & with the good of the game at heart, will have to accept it, won't they? That would clear things up, ready for next summer...Wouldn't it? ... Don't you think?... No, surely not!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Nutcutlet on November 3, 2013, 13:38 GMT

    Real-time Snicko (at last!) should render Hotspot redundant, so long as the squiggle coincides with the ball passing the bat and not some other contact. If it turns out that there has been a genuine & major advance in the use of technology delivering far more accurate decisions by the end of the Ashes, then the BCCI, always susceptible to reason & with the good of the game at heart, will have to accept it, won't they? That would clear things up, ready for next summer...Wouldn't it? ... Don't you think?... No, surely not!

  • BRUTALANALYST on November 3, 2013, 13:52 GMT

    This is supposed to be the pinnacle of Test cricket, how can you not have the best Technology ? Real time Snicko and Hotspot are a must for the modern game especially for a series like The Ashes !

  • on November 3, 2013, 13:58 GMT

    For God's sake, leave the bloody game alone!!!!!

  • Front-Foot-Sponge on November 3, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    I don't think snicko is more reliable than hotspot. Throughout the last Ashes the umpires still made loads of mistakes even with the technology.

  • RednWhiteArmy on November 3, 2013, 14:28 GMT

    The aussie's will no doubt whinge & whinge and get the rules changed again. Thats the mentality, rather than rising to the challenge & raising their game they simply try to get the rules changes. Now as a result of their epic ashes whinging, we now have 2 more reviews after 80 overs. So if you still have both reviews left after 78 overs, you might as well blow them before the 80th over, as you'll get 2 more then. So much for over rates.

  • CamS71 on November 3, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    Real-time Snicko is the way ahead.

  • on November 3, 2013, 14:53 GMT

    if teams will using this on certain decision then it will successful

  • 2.14istherunrate on November 3, 2013, 15:17 GMT

    Up until that Ashes series in the summer, Hot Spot seemed to be working. Now what was different in the summer I do not know and maybe the first port of call should be to examine how in any detail the technological equipment used was different. The other thing I noticed was that the 4 umpires used were bad. Even Dar who has previously been reliable was shown up and the other other 3 were an embarrasment. I do not know why Bowden and Rauf got the chop but I know they were no worse than the others. They should be brought back. It is noticeabel that there have been no ICC awards this year. I look forward to snicko being used but keep it away from ICC please. And maybe allowing 1 Australian and 1 Englishman plus DRS to stand in Ashes games may solve the problem.

  • spence1324 on November 3, 2013, 16:13 GMT

    @RednwhiteArmy well said.

  • Gareth_Bain on November 3, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    Woot for RT-snicko! Just please umpires, use it correctly! With more sources of evidence and more time, umpires will reach the correct decision more often.