The Ashes 2013-14 November 19, 2013

Real-time Snicko gets Ashes debut

ESPNcricinfo staff
43

The ICC has confirmed that Real-time Snicko technology will be be used in conjunction with Hot Spot to detect edges as part of the DRS for the upcoming Ashes series.

In October, it appeared that Channel Nine had cut Hot Spot from its list of tools for this summer's coverage but the network's executive producer of cricket, Brad McNamara, confirmed that Hot Spot and Real-time Snicko will be available after a deal was reached with BBG Sports, which provides the technologies.*

Cricket Australia and the ECB have both agreed to the use of the products and the ICC will treat the Ashes as a further, full-scale trial for the new Real-time Snicko technology before determining if it will be rolled out further. It was previously tested on the sidelines of the previous Ashes series in England.

Under the existing DRS, Snicko cannot be used as the process of matching the audio with the vision is too time-consuming, but the new Real-time Snicko reportedly makes the process almost instantaneous, giving the third umpire an extra tool to make his decision.

"The ICC has been monitoring the development of RTS for the past 12 months, including its use in more than 50 days of cricket coverage during the English summer," the ICC's general manager Geoff Allardice said.

"We were happy to support the initiative of CA and the ECB because we believe it can improve the DRS by getting more decisions correct involving faint edges, to help the umpires make those decisions faster, and to help spectators and viewers better understand those decisions."

McNamara earlier told the Sydney Morning Herald: "We had a difficult negotiation with BBG Sports but thankfully we've come together. We're thrilled to have Hot Spot continue as part of the coverage.

"We're all about the best technology in the world. We feel that is among it and are looking forward to adding to that with Real-time Snicko, which we think will add to the viewers' experience and also hopefully help in the decision-making process for umpires. It will change the DRS. Hopefully you won't get the mistakes."

Hot Spot was particularly controversial during this year's Ashes in England, when it appeared not to detect a number of thin edges and the TV umpires at times used evidence from stump microphones instead. Australia's captain Michael Clarke wrote in his newly-released book The Ashes Diary that he would prefer Hot Spot not be used until it was more reliable.

"My opinion is that if the technology isn't perfect, it shouldn't be used at all," Clarke wrote. "The inventor and owner of Hot Spot [Warren Brennan] came out and admitted it doesn't pick up all nicks. Ok, that's fine: Hot Spot should not be used until it is more reliable. Once the technology has been tested and is shown to be correct, then the ICC should rule that every team has to use it. We should have the same rule for everyone."

The other major change to the DRS for this summer's Ashes will be the introduction of extra reviews, after the ICC announced it would trial a system of topping up a team's reviews to two after 80 overs in an innings. Irrespective of whether a team has used none, one or both of its reviews, its available review tally will be set to two after the 80-over mark.

*1.20pm GMT, November 19: this story was updated to reflect confirmation from ICC

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • SamRoy on November 19, 2013, 4:53 GMT

    The biggest problem remains with the two decision rule. Sometimes when you need a wicket you take a gamble and it doesn't work out and later when a howler is committed there are no more reviews (in case that happens within 80 overs). The only way to stop it is if the third umpire gets the right to interrupt the flow of the game and has the power to overturn a decision in case a howler is committed. The current set up also allows strategic reviews for 50-50 decisions which is not good for the game but involves time-wasting. Now that after 80 overs reviews will be renewed you will see more time-wasting.

  • TheOnlyEmperor on November 20, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    Technology can be perfected, but what's to prevent subversion and manipulation of technology by the service providers of technology? Where are the checks and balances for that? You can't accept any system unless the checks and balances exist to prevent fraud and misuse because an entire set of devious practices will definitely come up to 'beat the system'. That's the reason, any system needs to be kept simple, truthful and transparent for the audience, who after all are the patrons of the sport. All this dissonance, because technology didn't live up to performance expectations during the last Ashes series and the Eng-India series before that in Eng, are a result of insufficient thought on aspects mentioned above.

  • TheOnlyEmperor on November 20, 2013, 7:51 GMT

    The Hotspot is supposed to capture impact between the ball and the bat. The Snicko on the other hand just captures sound and that can come any where around the batsman including big insects flying around. The sounds captured by Snicko need to be interpreted thus adding a subjective element to the existing decision making process. Not done! When a technology is unreliable as a stand alone tool, how does it suddenly become reliable as an accompaniment? This is simply laughable and ridiculous! I don't expect any country other than England and Australia to see sense in its use, so don't complain when they object!

  • Shaggy076 on November 20, 2013, 5:54 GMT

    As much as I don't like the DRS system (mainly I don't like Captains being in control of it), but all the errors everyone are talking about from the Ashes series were errors from the third umpire and not the actual DRS. Since these fools don't understand technology and willing to give people out from a noise in the stump mic, we have to give them more evidence and hope that they will be able to make the correct decision. As for snicko, having real time noise, compared to the video now they should make the right decision.

  • Shaggy076 on November 20, 2013, 5:34 GMT

    F-F-L; That's a lot of excuses considering in the last 20 years we have only lost 3 series. You must have a very long memory.

  • Jagger on November 20, 2013, 3:05 GMT

    The problem is the waiting. There should be a little room under where the umpire stands where all the batting side sit and when someone's out they just knock on the trapdoor and a batsman jumps out. But the long walk back to the pavilion should continue when he's out. That way they can't discuss what the pitch is doing. I am totally against DRS. Like a pushbike, computer technology is a toy. Both have been exploited far beyond that which they were first intended, and to help people in India answer phones. The technology is a joke, and is nowhere near good enough for the great game of cricket. Furthermore, how long will the television audience be forced to endure that boring process over and over again - there is no end to what this monster will become. Dismissals should be left to the on-field umpires only.

  • Gazzypops on November 19, 2013, 23:49 GMT

    Someone in my extended family works for Sky and he said that snicko on tv replays has sound added in independently of any infield audio footage. In other words, the tv snicko isn't actually bona fide audio. So the snicko 'shockers' as shown on Sky aren't genuine, proven shockers at all. Hopefully, real-time snicko will be rather more truth-based...! Totally agree with SamRoy about the two rule fallacy. The 50-50 decisions using modern, potentially flawed technology probably cause more controversy than poor decisions made onfield without any dubious tv replay. Why give the players the chance to add such confusion and controversy to the mix. Why not dock 15 runs for an incorrect challenge...? DRS is valuable if it's used in the way it is intended to be used.

  • brisCricFan on November 19, 2013, 23:16 GMT

    @Pelham_Barton; I think there is a slight difference here to the 'benefit of the doubt' argument... We aren't talking about if we thought the ball carried to the fieldsman ... we have the third umpire that can check and has, and in some cases we have lived with the decision that it was inconclusive so the batsman was given Not Out. But in those cases, the on field umpire hadn't stated an opinion (or given an on-field decision) that influences the outcome.

    Lets use a fieldsman catch as an example... currently, replays would show inconclusive and by your application, the batsman would receive that benefit of the doubt and remain Not Out. However, if the umpire on field gave the catch and a doubtful batsmen reviewed the decision, even though it is inconclusive, he would still be out because the on field umpire said so...

    This is the area that has the most contention. If we are using technology to review a decision, then it has to be without the influence of the original call.

  • on November 19, 2013, 23:11 GMT

    Front-Foot-Sponge: "Now we have the DRS tool that is most misunderstood by fans and umpires."

    Oh I dunno: I think Snicko might just have the EDGE over HotSpot.

    Boom Boom.

  • shillingsworth on November 19, 2013, 21:33 GMT

    @Front-Foot_Sponge - Agree that things were better without DRS but that was before the advent of all the TV gadgets. As these took over, we had an absurd situation in which the armchair viewer was better placed to make a decision than the onfield umpire. There really is no going back. I can't agree that umpiring decisions were accepted pre DRS and that debates didn't continue for years - how many times do people still bring up Bucknor's errors in the India v Australia test at Sydney nearly six years ago or Bowden giving Kasprowicz out at Edgbaston back in 2005?

  • SamRoy on November 19, 2013, 4:53 GMT

    The biggest problem remains with the two decision rule. Sometimes when you need a wicket you take a gamble and it doesn't work out and later when a howler is committed there are no more reviews (in case that happens within 80 overs). The only way to stop it is if the third umpire gets the right to interrupt the flow of the game and has the power to overturn a decision in case a howler is committed. The current set up also allows strategic reviews for 50-50 decisions which is not good for the game but involves time-wasting. Now that after 80 overs reviews will be renewed you will see more time-wasting.

  • TheOnlyEmperor on November 20, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    Technology can be perfected, but what's to prevent subversion and manipulation of technology by the service providers of technology? Where are the checks and balances for that? You can't accept any system unless the checks and balances exist to prevent fraud and misuse because an entire set of devious practices will definitely come up to 'beat the system'. That's the reason, any system needs to be kept simple, truthful and transparent for the audience, who after all are the patrons of the sport. All this dissonance, because technology didn't live up to performance expectations during the last Ashes series and the Eng-India series before that in Eng, are a result of insufficient thought on aspects mentioned above.

  • TheOnlyEmperor on November 20, 2013, 7:51 GMT

    The Hotspot is supposed to capture impact between the ball and the bat. The Snicko on the other hand just captures sound and that can come any where around the batsman including big insects flying around. The sounds captured by Snicko need to be interpreted thus adding a subjective element to the existing decision making process. Not done! When a technology is unreliable as a stand alone tool, how does it suddenly become reliable as an accompaniment? This is simply laughable and ridiculous! I don't expect any country other than England and Australia to see sense in its use, so don't complain when they object!

  • Shaggy076 on November 20, 2013, 5:54 GMT

    As much as I don't like the DRS system (mainly I don't like Captains being in control of it), but all the errors everyone are talking about from the Ashes series were errors from the third umpire and not the actual DRS. Since these fools don't understand technology and willing to give people out from a noise in the stump mic, we have to give them more evidence and hope that they will be able to make the correct decision. As for snicko, having real time noise, compared to the video now they should make the right decision.

  • Shaggy076 on November 20, 2013, 5:34 GMT

    F-F-L; That's a lot of excuses considering in the last 20 years we have only lost 3 series. You must have a very long memory.

  • Jagger on November 20, 2013, 3:05 GMT

    The problem is the waiting. There should be a little room under where the umpire stands where all the batting side sit and when someone's out they just knock on the trapdoor and a batsman jumps out. But the long walk back to the pavilion should continue when he's out. That way they can't discuss what the pitch is doing. I am totally against DRS. Like a pushbike, computer technology is a toy. Both have been exploited far beyond that which they were first intended, and to help people in India answer phones. The technology is a joke, and is nowhere near good enough for the great game of cricket. Furthermore, how long will the television audience be forced to endure that boring process over and over again - there is no end to what this monster will become. Dismissals should be left to the on-field umpires only.

  • Gazzypops on November 19, 2013, 23:49 GMT

    Someone in my extended family works for Sky and he said that snicko on tv replays has sound added in independently of any infield audio footage. In other words, the tv snicko isn't actually bona fide audio. So the snicko 'shockers' as shown on Sky aren't genuine, proven shockers at all. Hopefully, real-time snicko will be rather more truth-based...! Totally agree with SamRoy about the two rule fallacy. The 50-50 decisions using modern, potentially flawed technology probably cause more controversy than poor decisions made onfield without any dubious tv replay. Why give the players the chance to add such confusion and controversy to the mix. Why not dock 15 runs for an incorrect challenge...? DRS is valuable if it's used in the way it is intended to be used.

  • brisCricFan on November 19, 2013, 23:16 GMT

    @Pelham_Barton; I think there is a slight difference here to the 'benefit of the doubt' argument... We aren't talking about if we thought the ball carried to the fieldsman ... we have the third umpire that can check and has, and in some cases we have lived with the decision that it was inconclusive so the batsman was given Not Out. But in those cases, the on field umpire hadn't stated an opinion (or given an on-field decision) that influences the outcome.

    Lets use a fieldsman catch as an example... currently, replays would show inconclusive and by your application, the batsman would receive that benefit of the doubt and remain Not Out. However, if the umpire on field gave the catch and a doubtful batsmen reviewed the decision, even though it is inconclusive, he would still be out because the on field umpire said so...

    This is the area that has the most contention. If we are using technology to review a decision, then it has to be without the influence of the original call.

  • on November 19, 2013, 23:11 GMT

    Front-Foot-Sponge: "Now we have the DRS tool that is most misunderstood by fans and umpires."

    Oh I dunno: I think Snicko might just have the EDGE over HotSpot.

    Boom Boom.

  • shillingsworth on November 19, 2013, 21:33 GMT

    @Front-Foot_Sponge - Agree that things were better without DRS but that was before the advent of all the TV gadgets. As these took over, we had an absurd situation in which the armchair viewer was better placed to make a decision than the onfield umpire. There really is no going back. I can't agree that umpiring decisions were accepted pre DRS and that debates didn't continue for years - how many times do people still bring up Bucknor's errors in the India v Australia test at Sydney nearly six years ago or Bowden giving Kasprowicz out at Edgbaston back in 2005?

  • spindizzy on November 19, 2013, 20:25 GMT

    @Pelham_Barton - nice try but that single reference ONLY applies in situations where the umpire at the other end is consulted. For example it has no bearing on LBW decisions or snicks. It is not a general rule and may not be applied as such.

    Inaccurate use of it could have helped create this myth however.

  • CodandChips on November 19, 2013, 17:29 GMT

    A step forward but beware that it picks up noises for when there is no edge. Snicko definitely proves when there is no edge (no noise) but doesn't prove that there is an edge (because it picks up 'ghost sounds'). Hotspot proves when there is an edge but doesn't prove that there isn't an edge (because it doesn't pick everything up). Therefore by using both more correct decisions will be made, but umpires need to use both carefully.

  • Philip_Gnana on November 19, 2013, 17:10 GMT

    Here we go again. The umpires are there to make the decisions. Why let that decision making process change? Whether it be with or without technology, the decision to make a review has to be with the three umpires.

    We have a third umpire who has access to real time replays who needs to be extensively involved in this decision making process. The players on the field are there to play and that should be end of that.

    We cannot get any system to be 100% accurate whether it be made by the on field umpires or the technology that is available. There has been serious issues with the on field umpiring decisions that led to the use of technology. Lets not forget that. The benefit so far by using the available technology has been positive. To dismiss technology wholesale will be a huge mistake expecting it to be perfect. Nothing in this world is perfect. We needed to start somewhere and we have. Let us improve make further improvements on that. Philip Gnana, New Malden, Surrey.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on November 19, 2013, 16:24 GMT

    Now RealTimeSniko has been intorduced, just what are the Aussies going to moan about when they lose the Ashes? In the past we've had lady luck, pitches, umpires, umpires wearing the wrong hats, weather and shoelaces. The options for them are seriously running low.

  • on November 19, 2013, 14:44 GMT

    Forget continuity, DRS & umpires : make all decisions subject to a public phone-in. Then announce the deicision with a minute long pause for effect - "And the decision is ............ (camera pans round the faces of all involved) ......" - that's what the public class as entertainment these days.

  • heathrf1974 on November 19, 2013, 11:37 GMT

    Snicko is superior to hot spot. What the umpires/ICC need to do is define a clear procedure for determining whether a player is out or not.

  • Front-Foot-Sponge on November 19, 2013, 10:42 GMT

    Now we have the DRS tool that is most misunderstood by fans and umpires. Things were better without DRS, we accepted the odd bad decision and got in with it. Now we talk about them for years. I hope they get it right this series.

  • pardo on November 19, 2013, 10:27 GMT

    To me it's all about whether DRS is used for entertainment or improving accuracy of decisions. If the former then leave it as it is, if the later then take the reviews away from the players and leave it for the onfield umpires to go to TV as in rugby - asking either "Is there any reason for me not to rule that out?"; or "not out" as the case may be - stating what they saw eg (No edge, pitched and hit in line but missing leg". Hawkeye presumably doesn't need to run through its animation - it can give an instant out/not out/marginal call without the pretty pictures. That way onfield Ump makes a provisional call, third corrects if obviously wrong. Third ump should have power to intervene (halting play in necessary) if it looks like a real howler has been made (eg Broad in last Ashes). Would also like to see penalty runs awarded against bowlers for repeated laughable appeals and possibly even taken from batsmen for not walking when an oblivious edge.

  • Pelham_Barton on November 19, 2013, 10:08 GMT

    @spindizzy on (November 19, 2013, 5:59 GMT): Law 27.6: "Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be Not out."

  • on November 19, 2013, 9:39 GMT

    I don`t understand Bouncer51, why do we have to accept mistakes? We are going forward into the future not backwards into the past. So what if on field umpires disappear or their role is limited? The game isn`t about them or for them!

  • Markro2015 on November 19, 2013, 9:28 GMT

    For the most part, I'm happy to use any technology as long as it is the same for both sides. I think the best new initiative would be to have the third umpire responsible for no balls. They could monitor the the delivery stride every ball. This would ensure that no player is ever given out off a no ball and would also relieve the standing umpires from having to move their eyes from the crease to where the ball pitches.

  • Bouncer51 on November 19, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    I am still convinced that technology should only be used in a limited way, e.g. to check for line decisions like run outs, stumpings, to check whether a ball has carried and to check on whether a ball has gone for four or six.. Not for LBW's front foot no-balls and caught behinds. With the current speed technology is developing, it won't take another decade before the field umpires have gone and will be replaced by a nerd in a box, wearinf headphones, surrounded by all sorts of screens and audio devices and Law 3 will have to be amended since only one official will be required. Big screens will keep and show the score number of balls bowled etc; No more need for scorers and the Men in White. Far too often in the not too distant past, umpires have been embarrassed when the big screens revealed so caled "mistakes". This undermines the umpires' authority and takes a human aspect away from the game. Accept that they too, just like the players, are humans and make mistakes and accept that.

  • on November 19, 2013, 7:40 GMT

    If without hot spot how the identify the bat pad catches, LBWs.

  • on November 19, 2013, 7:23 GMT

    Contrary to some suggestions I would not like to overturn Umpire's decision in marginal zone cases. Simulated ball trajectory can never be 100% correct. There are far too many variables involved besides speed of throwing, speed of landing, direction, length and wind direction / speed etc. No computer can accurately cater for bowlers marks, soft / hard spots (different from average hardness assumed), drastic change of wind speed after pitching and direction of seam etc. All these factors effect the actual bounce and direction towards wickets. Hence a narrow zone of ambiguity will always remain.

  • on November 19, 2013, 7:04 GMT

    I agree with landl47. Why should a team loose a referral based on Umpires original call. If Umpire can can get benefit of doubt by means of letting his decision stand, the appealing side should also get benefit of fair doubt by means of not reducing its available referrals. Only those referrals should be counted in case the umpire is right without any shadow of doubt. This will make the whole process fair and transparent.

  • dunger.bob on November 19, 2013, 6:21 GMT

    Some things are just meant to go together. Ham and eggs, Bonny and Clyde, Butch and Sundance etc. So it is with hotspot and snicko. When they are used in conjunction it works.

    The only thing that amazes me about this is that it's taken this long. Channel 9 has been using it for years and it works.

    I don't care if they have a DRS or not. The only thing I'd ask is that if they do have one, use snicko and hotspot together. You'll be amazed at how helpful it is.

  • Rahul_78 on November 19, 2013, 6:21 GMT

    ICC, CA and ECB have not learnt anything from the previous mistakes. The lesson that should have been learnt is do not use high profile international matches to test the technologies when millions are watching and each and every mistake is marginalized. Has ICC used real time snicko in any of the domestic matches? What is the reliability factor apart from the test conducted by the solution provider? What if this technology is also inconsistent as Hot Spot and is dependent on external factors like weather, ground noise levels etc to work perfectly? Icing on the cake is Hot Spot which was proven to be highly incompetent and unreliable in recently concluded Ashes has been retained. It was clear that players were trying to use it tactically in 50-50 decisions and third umpire was ignoring it and basing the decisions on audio and video evidence. What has been improved in the shot span in Hot Spot for it to be retained? To err is human but to repeat the mistakes is a work of a fool!

  • spindizzy on November 19, 2013, 5:59 GMT

    There's nothing in the Laws of Cricket giving benefit of the doubt to the batsman, that's a myth. It's simply that it followed the ethos of presumption of innocence in common law and was adopted, fairly haphazardly by some umpires and repeated by commentators ad infinitum. This is also why the umpires decision ruling is a nonsense, the interpretation of the evidence should be consistent and should involve all three umpires. The current DR system is practically designed to fail - it's all about gaming the results and protecting the umpires and nothing to do with finding the truth of what actually happened. If they did that instead it would remove all reasonable complaints. (Some unreasonable ones would persist but humans are by nature irrational to some degree).

  • ShutTheGate on November 19, 2013, 5:49 GMT

    Does anyone know how hawk eye has a reputation for being flawless?

    It's a computer animation predicting the flight path of a ball that in real life has been stopped by a bat or pads yet no one seems to question it's accuracy.

  • venkatesh018 on November 19, 2013, 5:45 GMT

    Great news that Hot Spot has not been discontinued. Hope the new real time Snicko experiment is successful and it will be all the way up from now on for DRS.

  • ladycricfan on November 19, 2013, 5:42 GMT

    The real question is what the DRS is for? Is it there to 1) eliminate obvious errors ( like the Broad's one) or is it there to 2) detect faint nicks (which the on- field umpires can't hear or see any deviation) and marginal LBWs?

    If it is no1 then simple replay by third umpire will do the job.

    If it is no 2, then the on field umpires will become redundant and only the technology and the third umpire will be required.

  • jahinoz on November 19, 2013, 5:29 GMT

    I think the DRS should take a lesson from the Rugby League World cup. Lets hear what what the third umpire is thinking or saying, so we don't get the bitter taste of a surprise DRS howler. The majority of problems have been snicks. Give the third umpire a replay or two, have a caption saying "inconclusive from this angle" or put a microphone on him. Give him another angle or two, hotspot, snicko and if its still inconclusive after that, let the on field umpires decision stand and lets get on with it. There's nothing worse than watching it for 5-10 minutes over and over again then having a decision which looks obviously wrong. It ruins the match.

  • BRUTALANALYST on November 19, 2013, 5:27 GMT

    Great news for all involved

  • on November 19, 2013, 5:26 GMT

    The law has always been that any doubt should go to the benefit of the batsman. In this case, if a ball is deemed so close as to be an "umpire's call" decision, then I feel that it should be given "not out." This way the benefit of doubt rule is kept intact. However, if/when the technology is accurate enough to determine there is no doubt, then give the decision in favour of the bowler. The initial use of the technology was to try to stop "howler's" from the umpire. THe way it is used by the players is completely against the spirit of the game. Personally, I feel that the close decisions should be reviewed by the third umpire, and if there are any blatant errors, then he gets involved and overturns the decision of the on-field umpire. If not, get on with the game. Lets face it, there is at least 30-40 seconds between deliveries in most instances anyway so that is normally enough time to correct blatantly obvious mistakes. Let the players play and the umpires umpire.

  • rashivkd on November 19, 2013, 4:51 GMT

    ICC expected to treat Ashes as a trial of technologies!! That is where BCCI is right. Firstly choose one proper technology, try it in any first class season, then use in big stages!!

  • pauldk on November 19, 2013, 4:51 GMT

    @ grizzle on (November 19, 2013, 2:48 GMT) As far as I know, it was tested during the last Ashes series in England in the parking lot outside the stadiums with a fully equipped van

  • rattusprat on November 19, 2013, 4:28 GMT

    The referral top-up will mean every half-hearted LBW appeal after the 70th over will get reviewed (as opposed to the current system where every half hearted LBW appeal after the 8th wicket gets reviewed).

    This will reduce the window of a "Stuart Broad howler" to a 10 over period in the innings, but there is still likely to be at least one in the series, and the regulations will be re-tooled again.

  • PrasPunter on November 19, 2013, 4:23 GMT

    I would say we have always been pioneers in everything when it comes to cricket - tv coverage, aggression, positive outlook, trying out new things and what not. I for sure sincerely hope that our form slump is just temporary.

  • grizzle on November 19, 2013, 2:48 GMT

    Ridiculous that they are trying this straightaway in a test series! How about testing for some time at the first class level to get rid of bugs/problems, etc.?

  • FreddyForPrimeMinister on November 19, 2013, 2:30 GMT

    @landl47 - agree 100%. I also feel that with umpire's call decisions not costing a review, we should revert to the two referrals per innings. This new "two per 80 overs" will simply result on yet more frivolous, tactical reviews. Your thoughts?

  • brisCricFan on November 19, 2013, 2:16 GMT

    @landl47; I'll go one step further on the Umpires Call especially for LBW decisions... the same 'burden of proof' should exist to make the decision... i.e. if the more than half the ball must strike the stump to over-turn an umpires decision, then any less than half a ball should likewise over-turn the decision the other way.

    At the moment, an LBW decision can be just knicking and given out, and another with almost half the ball careening into the stumps and given not out, and on review both stand... ludicrous. Either make it that any part of the ball hitting the stump is out (as it would do had the batsmen not been caught with his legs before the wicket) or make it that more than half the ball has to be hitting or it's not out... which seems an absurdity

  • silly_mid_on on November 19, 2013, 1:44 GMT

    The spikes on the batsman's boots scrape on the pitch. This has created Snicko noise in the past, at the same time the ball is passing the bat. The sound frequency of the different noises needs to be analysed to tell the difference.

  • landl47 on November 19, 2013, 0:53 GMT

    With the combination of RTS and Hot-Spot I would expect see less controversy about 3rd umpire decisions (though if Michael Clarke expects the technology to be perfect he's living in a different universe than the rest of us).

    However, I would still prefer to see 'umpire's call' decisions not cost the reviewing side a referral, because basically they haven't got it wrong. It's simple justice.

  • landl47 on November 19, 2013, 0:53 GMT

    With the combination of RTS and Hot-Spot I would expect see less controversy about 3rd umpire decisions (though if Michael Clarke expects the technology to be perfect he's living in a different universe than the rest of us).

    However, I would still prefer to see 'umpire's call' decisions not cost the reviewing side a referral, because basically they haven't got it wrong. It's simple justice.

  • silly_mid_on on November 19, 2013, 1:44 GMT

    The spikes on the batsman's boots scrape on the pitch. This has created Snicko noise in the past, at the same time the ball is passing the bat. The sound frequency of the different noises needs to be analysed to tell the difference.

  • brisCricFan on November 19, 2013, 2:16 GMT

    @landl47; I'll go one step further on the Umpires Call especially for LBW decisions... the same 'burden of proof' should exist to make the decision... i.e. if the more than half the ball must strike the stump to over-turn an umpires decision, then any less than half a ball should likewise over-turn the decision the other way.

    At the moment, an LBW decision can be just knicking and given out, and another with almost half the ball careening into the stumps and given not out, and on review both stand... ludicrous. Either make it that any part of the ball hitting the stump is out (as it would do had the batsmen not been caught with his legs before the wicket) or make it that more than half the ball has to be hitting or it's not out... which seems an absurdity

  • FreddyForPrimeMinister on November 19, 2013, 2:30 GMT

    @landl47 - agree 100%. I also feel that with umpire's call decisions not costing a review, we should revert to the two referrals per innings. This new "two per 80 overs" will simply result on yet more frivolous, tactical reviews. Your thoughts?

  • grizzle on November 19, 2013, 2:48 GMT

    Ridiculous that they are trying this straightaway in a test series! How about testing for some time at the first class level to get rid of bugs/problems, etc.?

  • PrasPunter on November 19, 2013, 4:23 GMT

    I would say we have always been pioneers in everything when it comes to cricket - tv coverage, aggression, positive outlook, trying out new things and what not. I for sure sincerely hope that our form slump is just temporary.

  • rattusprat on November 19, 2013, 4:28 GMT

    The referral top-up will mean every half-hearted LBW appeal after the 70th over will get reviewed (as opposed to the current system where every half hearted LBW appeal after the 8th wicket gets reviewed).

    This will reduce the window of a "Stuart Broad howler" to a 10 over period in the innings, but there is still likely to be at least one in the series, and the regulations will be re-tooled again.

  • pauldk on November 19, 2013, 4:51 GMT

    @ grizzle on (November 19, 2013, 2:48 GMT) As far as I know, it was tested during the last Ashes series in England in the parking lot outside the stadiums with a fully equipped van

  • rashivkd on November 19, 2013, 4:51 GMT

    ICC expected to treat Ashes as a trial of technologies!! That is where BCCI is right. Firstly choose one proper technology, try it in any first class season, then use in big stages!!

  • on November 19, 2013, 5:26 GMT

    The law has always been that any doubt should go to the benefit of the batsman. In this case, if a ball is deemed so close as to be an "umpire's call" decision, then I feel that it should be given "not out." This way the benefit of doubt rule is kept intact. However, if/when the technology is accurate enough to determine there is no doubt, then give the decision in favour of the bowler. The initial use of the technology was to try to stop "howler's" from the umpire. THe way it is used by the players is completely against the spirit of the game. Personally, I feel that the close decisions should be reviewed by the third umpire, and if there are any blatant errors, then he gets involved and overturns the decision of the on-field umpire. If not, get on with the game. Lets face it, there is at least 30-40 seconds between deliveries in most instances anyway so that is normally enough time to correct blatantly obvious mistakes. Let the players play and the umpires umpire.