The Investec Ashes 2013

ECB wants apology over tape claims

Brydon Coverdale

August 7, 2013

Comments: 153 | Text size: A | A

Kevin Pietersen is distraught after being adjudged caught behind, England v Australia, 3rd Investec Test, Old Trafford, 5th day, August 5, 2013
During this series, several edges have failed to appear on Hot Spot but have shown up on the Snickometer © Getty Images
Enlarge

Kevin Pietersen angered by links to Hot Spot crisis

The ECB will demand an "explanation and apology" from Australian TV station Channel Nine following claims that players have been using silicone tape on the edges of their bats to fool Hot Spot during the current Ashes series.

The ICC has dismissed the reports that the ICC's general manager of cricket operations, Geoff Allardice, would discuss the issue ahead of the fourth Test at Chester-le-Street as "totally incorrect." During the series, several edges have failed to show up on Hot Spot, and the Channel Nine report made particular reference to Kevin Pietersen's second innings dismissal at Old Trafford, which appears to have been the main driving force behind the ECB's complaint.

"These media reports are totally incorrect," David Richardson, the ICC chief executive, said. "Geoff Allardice is meeting with both teams and umpires to see how we can best use the DRS and the available technology going forward in the next two Test matches. It has nothing to do with any players."

Pietersen himself reacted angrily on Twitter after his name was linked to using tape. "My name brought up in Hot Spot crisis suggesting I use silicon to prevent nicks showing! Such hurtful lies. I am never afraid of getting out! If I nick it, I'll walk. To suggest I cheat by covering my bat with silicon infuriates me. How stupid would I be to try and hide a nick when it could save me on an lbw appeal, like in the first innings where Hot Spot showed I nicked it."

Both teams have been frustrated by decision reviews during the series, especially regarding edges behind. Batsmen sometimes use fibreglass tape to help with the longevity of their bats, but the Australia captain Michael Clarke said he did not know of any Australian batsman using silicone-tape or any other method of attempting to reduce the effect of Hot Spot.

"It's hard for me to talk for other players, but I've never heard any type of conversation like that in the Australian change room," Clarke said. "I didn't know there was such a thing you could do to hide nicking the ball on Hot Spot. I wouldn't have thought that a bit of tape would have made any difference anyway.

"I think I would know. I'm a bat nuffy, I pick up everyone's bats. I go through everyone's cricket bats. I find the accusation quite funny, to be honest. I can't talk for everyone but if that's the case and we're talking about cheating, I can guarantee you there's not one person in the Australian change room who will cheat. It's not the way we play cricket."

During this series, several edges have failed to appear on Hot Spot, but have shown up on the Snickometer, which is not part of the technology used by the third umpire.

Graham Onions, the England seamer, was equalling damning about the claims. "It's a huge accusation, and it's outrageous really,'' he said. "It seems completely blown out of proportion really; it doesn't seem right.

"I know the England players would never put anything on their bats. Tape has been used to mend cracks or to get our favourite bats to last as long as possible, but it sounds completely silly to even think that people are putting things on their bat to try and help them to cover up decisions.

"I can say that we don't put anything on our bats. We play the game as fair as you can, as I'm sure the Australians do as well.''

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Brydon Coverdale

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by RohanMarkJay on (August 9, 2013, 23:54 GMT)

Aussies lost the ashes because they were poor they played poor cricket. They deservedly lost the first test. Thanks to Agar,Hughes and Haddin they got close. But England outplayed them for most of the match and deservedly won. Aussies might have thought it was a crappy result but it was the right one.Well Played England. 2nd test. England totally thumped non existent Australia. Australia upped their game at old trafford and were probably unlucky not to win. However England showed they have Ozzies measure and would win the series eventually .England will probably up their game when they go to Australia. I think Australia will up their game in considerably in Australia. However some of the comments from Aussies and their media is just typical. Aussies got a crap team going nowhere, their situation isn't helped by their arrogant supporters. I hope England thumps them in Oz.

Posted by   on (August 9, 2013, 15:07 GMT)

Reminds me of English tour of India when Snow and Liver put Vaseline on their headband, and used it to shine the ball.

Posted by   on (August 9, 2013, 8:53 GMT)

@Afzal ahmed: Why do you still bang on about Stuart Broad ? Haddin (1st test) and Warner (3rd test) have both admitted they edged the ball but neither walked. And yet neither of these two "gentlemen" have copped anywhere near the same level of criticism that Broad did. Why is that ?

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 9, 2013, 8:02 GMT)

@Biso, I agree but even umpires make mistakes, as spinners can get massive spin with one delivery and next to none with similar delivery that doesnt hit rough.

That it why it is important to 'teach' hawkeye in different environments. However, the most important thing with hawkeye is that its perediction element depends on how much data it can collect on the trajectory of the ball from where it pitched to the impact on the batsman as that allows for a better prediction, eg 12 points on a curve gives a smother curve than 6 or 3, so the speed of the cameras comes very much to the fore, in the early days of development I believe they used 50 FPS cameras, but since Sony have taken a stake in Hawkeye this has gone up to 100-150 fps cameras.

THere is aslo the Calibration, Ideally this should be done at the start of play and during lunch and Tea to ensure the maximium efficency of the system, which is something I dont believe they do anymore.

Posted by Biso on (August 9, 2013, 4:34 GMT)

@yorkshirepudding.Thnx 4ur info. Having worked with traditional optical and subsequent laser sighting systems I can well appreciate yur text.I am now convinced that the position of two hawkeye cameras longitudinal to the pitch is critical.Seems clear, the system is basically a tracker and can therefore track far better than a human being. However, an important point here is that an element of extrapolation of the ball path subsequent to impact is inevitable. This is where an umpire with his prior specific knowledge might score over hawkeye, say in a situation where a dipping/swerving yorker hits the pads-hawkeye will extrapolate a linear path post impact while a brave umpire might consider further lateral movement in air and rule not out. The error margin of (within and not +/_ )3.5mm seems ok for now but this will certainly be subject to the impact distance from the stumps. More cams , more accuracy/processing speed and costlier at the moment.Needs tech audit for sure..

Posted by   on (August 9, 2013, 3:15 GMT)

The LBW argument of KP is flimsy. Outside edges will go for catches, inside egdes will possibly hit the pads. So you want to ensure outside edge does not appear in hotspot, but inside edge does.

rarely will inside edge go for a catch (unless a spinner is bowling, bat pad comes into play) and even much rarer, outside edge being given out LBW.

Posted by   on (August 9, 2013, 2:37 GMT)

It is possible because some England players have ignorant approach to the reality. Biggest example Stuart Broad refused to walk even though he knew he edged and was caught in 1st Test.. If one observe it can be found controversy always erupts in a series when England involves either home or away.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 23:29 GMT)

@greatest game..The inventor of hawk eye is on record saying that unlike Tennis and Football, the ICC adopted technology prematurely without adequate testing. vikram501 is absolutely correct here.

Posted by fguy on (August 8, 2013, 17:03 GMT)

@Greatest_Game & @landl47 -- these are some quotes from scientific studies - "Dinosaurs Died Within Hours After Asteroid Hit Earth"..."The six-mile-in-diameter asteroid is thought to have hit Chicxulub in the Yucatan, striking with the energy of 100 million megatons of TNT"... "The "heat pulse" caused by re-entering ejected matter would have reached around the globe, igniting fires and burning up all terrestrial organisms not sheltered in burrows or in water".

expecting dinosaurs to "adapt" to this drastic change is like dropping humans on mars & then when they die calling it a "failure to adapt". in that case you may be right semantically but not logically

Posted by CaughtAndBowled on (August 8, 2013, 15:55 GMT)

May be KP used silicon tapes to avoid outside edge and left it with out tape to show up inside edge to save him from LBW!!!

Posted by android_user on (August 8, 2013, 14:58 GMT)

I watched the OT test match and I think this 11 should stay as it is for the next match. Starc's 50 odd in the first innings prove that he has the capacity to become an all rounder himself. plus Harris's spell in the second innings was really lethal. he was actually trying to reverse the ball in the 13th over. Lyon would have had tremendous success if his catch was taken in the slips early for Cook. So verdict is this 11 stays for the next test unless Australia plays 4 seamers for the ground.

Posted by timallen1950 on (August 8, 2013, 13:17 GMT)

Why why not take a tip from Rugby and allow umpires to be the sole arbiter of whether or not to use the available technology. Can you imagine a captain of a rugby team asking for a decision from an off field ref equipped with slow motion replay devices to overturn a referee's decision? Why should this be allowed in Cricket then? Just let the umpire decide if he needs to go to the technology. At present, even if he is uncertain he is forced to make a decision knowing that he may be humiliated by the off field umpire telling him to overturn his decision, which I am sure they are loathe to do without compelling evidence. This way round the on field umpire does not need to make up his mind BEFORE going to the DRS. He can consult the DRS prior to making his decision which can further inform him before he actually makes it. This will restore some authority back to the umpire and stop a lot of unnecessary time wasting.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (August 8, 2013, 12:41 GMT)

@TheCricketeer on (August 8, 2013, 12:11 GMT), the same idea occurred to me. If you were to apply a strip of fine sandpaper to each edge then you would undoubtedly increase the amount of friction and therefore heat but I guess there would be valid reasons not to do that, e.g. wear on the ball and a loose piece could create a false positive. Some sort of textured varnish might be feasible though.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (August 8, 2013, 12:38 GMT)

@YorkshirePudding on (August 8, 2013, 11:25 GMT), it makes perfect sense that anything that reduces the amount of friction generated when the ball makes contact with the bat or in any way dissipates or diffuses that heat will render HotSpot less effective. If HotSpot is going to continue in use then the ICC will almost certainly have to look at creating a list of things that can't be applied to the edges of bats.

Posted by TheCricketeer on (August 8, 2013, 12:11 GMT)

This tape issue brings up an interesting question. If silicone tape would really have an effect on hot spot what I would like to know is whether other substances might actually show up even better? Maybe some kind of non intrusive tape / oil / gel could be applied to all bats prior to a batsmans innings to make DRS more effective. Like a referee checks a foorballers studs as he runs onto the field so the 4th umpire could ensure the tape was applied effectively to a bat before the batsman comes onto the field.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 11:43 GMT)

God forbid the Aussies don't admit we are 2 up due to being the better team.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 11:32 GMT)

Cricketers do not cheat at all no matter what country they are playing for. Why on earth would they it only puts the game and their players into a shady light. This business has cemented an idea I had regarding why India would not use the DRS, in fact I can well understand now why they refused to use it. Rumours abound in any subject and cricket is not immune

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 8, 2013, 11:25 GMT)

@jmcilhinney, I have read that bat stickers on the edges can interfere with hotspot detection as they can often hide the mark as they reflect heat which masks it, as well and that the ICC and Hotspot was looking into it and I think that stickers have been banned from the edge of bats.

In regards to vasaline the creator of hotspot claims it has no impact on edge detection, I suspect there may be statement in regard to the any impact of these silicone strips within the next week or so.

Posted by The_Wolvarun on (August 8, 2013, 11:13 GMT)

Well Peitersen has said he would be a fool to use the Vasoline or the fibreglass tape as it would go against him in the review for LBW but why would they apply it on the inside edge it would only be on the outside edge???

The theory is simple it is used as a lubricant to reduce the friction and in extension the heat that shows up as a nick on the thermal camera. So why is it that the players can not just apply it on their outside edge?????????

Posted by KricketWicket on (August 8, 2013, 10:43 GMT)

Wow!! Unbelievable. Just a couple of years ago, a former England captain - Michael Vaughan, and a current English player - Stuart Broad, suggested that VVS Laxman, one of the true gentlemen to have played the game, was cheating by using vasaline on his bat. If the ECB have any humility and respect - they should first apologise to VVS on behalf of their players.

Posted by ChandraaR on (August 8, 2013, 10:41 GMT)

I suggest ICC approach the BCCI to request the services of Indian batsmen to test Snicko and Hotspot. You won't find more reliable ways to test real match-situation nicks. Inside the line, outside it, undercut, uppercut, on the square cut, down the legside, they can nick them all with more regularity than anyone else. I am sure unlucky Rahul Dravid, the least likely to nick them, will offer to help with generating miscellaneous noises for Snicko like bat-hitting-pad, bat-hitting-ground, glove-brushing-thigh, lace-hitting-bat, bat-hitting-sweat etc. For best results, test with a never-seen-before left arm pace bowler of dubious quality, although lately they are getting better at nicking mediocre left-arm spin and offspin bowling too.

Posted by Not_Another_Keybored_Expert on (August 8, 2013, 10:36 GMT)

Does climate play a part in hotspot? just thought maybe that's why we see a difference in intensity in the glow of hotspot in different weather.

Posted by Not_Another_Keybored_Expert on (August 8, 2013, 10:29 GMT)

Did KP get fined for dissent for how he carried on when he got given out? if not he should think himself lucky, i've seen players cop fines for less.

Posted by Cannondale on (August 8, 2013, 10:24 GMT)

Then why anything was not detected by hotspot when umpire heard sound and snicko detected it? (KPs bat was away from pads, neither it hit the ground). Is it limitation of Hot spot or someone fooled hot spot)

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 8, 2013, 10:07 GMT)

@5wombats, is it a case of sloppy journalism from newspapers picking up on something and then extending it and adding a players name in.

It should be noted that sniko is not immune from being in accurate as weve seen sharp noises like bat on ball can occur from equipment, thinks like metal/plastic ends on the straps of a helmet can make a clicking sound IF they hit.

Posted by DingDong420 on (August 8, 2013, 9:59 GMT)

Grow up ECB - Remember Broad accusing Laxman double standards i think

Posted by jmcilhinney on (August 8, 2013, 9:58 GMT)

@5wombats on (August 8, 2013, 8:23 GMT), it depends exactly what else was said in other quarters and what it was based on. I also saw that discussion on Channel 9 and (I believe) it was Ian Healy who something like "there have been stories of bat manufacturers putting silicon tape on the edges of their bats and that affects HotSpot". He was obviously getting his information from somewhere so it may be that original source that is the issue. Then again, Healy may only have heard a rumour and then other sources took what he said as gospel. Also, he did say that this alleged tape affected HotSpot but not that that was its specific purpose, while I have read elsewhere that it was the players, not the manufacturers, who applied the tape and that it was done deliberately to fool HotSpot. Sounds like possible Chinese Whispers and at least some journalists not checking their facts.

Posted by Shoeshine on (August 8, 2013, 9:57 GMT)

@Chris-P, the edition you may have seen on Channel 9 might not have mentioned Pietersen, but the one on the Channel 9 website news section, explicitly and solely did refer to him, and no other player. So there absolutely is a reason for Pietersen and the ECB to be furious about it.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 9:46 GMT)

they need to get Snicko working properly. The presence (or not) of a sound at the right instant is gonna be much reliable than Hot Spot, which depends on getting a good camera angle, ambient temperature, and maybe other stuff like condition of ball and bat as well.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 9:46 GMT)

Just another ploy by the Australians. When a good team doesn't win, they look for answers within themselves but when a poor team doesn't win they look for any reason to discredit their opposition or in this case DRS.

I hope England thrash them in the forthcoming tests! Will make for interesting viewing

Posted by Gibbo64 on (August 8, 2013, 9:43 GMT)

GloryDaysReturn argument about taping the outside edge of the bat to avoid edging to slips is strange. I have see many batsmen get inside edges to the keeper. The hotspot is a good system if it is used correctly by the umpires. Surely if you see a spot then the batsmen has hit the ball and if you DON'T see a spot then he has NOT hit the ball. Unfortunately the umpires appear to be confused and are making some very strange decisions affecting both teams. Khawaja and Pieterson are 2 such poor decisions. I think that Australia may have regained the Ashes in Australia in 2010/11 but for the DRS. Ricky Ponting was given NOT out a few times and the DRS correctly overturned. Michael Clarke did NOT edge the ball (as did Broad in the 2nd test) in Adelaide but it hit the middle of the bat and he was caught by Bell I think. He refused to walk (it was so bad he had to apologize in twitter) but was given out by the DRS. Mistakes are made but it seems to be better than the old system to me.

Posted by landofcricket on (August 8, 2013, 9:22 GMT)

at the end of day,as clarke said DRS brings more controversies & fun .enjoy guys

Posted by android_user on (August 8, 2013, 9:01 GMT)

why kp says its his own disadvantage to put tape on bat for getting wrong lbws.surely he can put tape on outside edge and keep inside edge clean.his argument is weak in this case.also still remember ecb never apologised when Michael Vaughan claimed laxman applied vaseline on bat.why ecb now expect apologies when the shoe is on other foot?? am I missing something here.??

Posted by skilebow on (August 8, 2013, 8:40 GMT)

TMS had a very good discussion (as they so often do) about this during the last test. Apparently the problem is, obviously when you swing a bat it creates wind around the bat. The harder you swing the stronger the wind. The theory is that sometimes when a batsman has have swung hard it creates enough wind around the bat to mask a hotspot on the edges

Posted by GloryDaysReturn on (August 8, 2013, 8:40 GMT)

I'm not saying KP has done anything, but his argument about the edges balancing out decisions is rubbish. You'd put the tape on the OUTSIDE edge only for the nicks, and keep the inside edge 'clean' for the LBW issue. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed...

Posted by 5wombats on (August 8, 2013, 8:23 GMT)

@Chris_P like you I also saw this Channel 9 feature and I have to say that I am fairly stunned that the outcome is like this! Amazing!

Posted by chics on (August 8, 2013, 8:19 GMT)

Dear ECB,

Where were you when your Mr. Michael Vaughan claimed during India England series that our Mr. VVS Laxman must have used gel to avoid snick getting caught by snicko. You didn't asked for the apology from your EX.

As if nobody can talk anything about your players however all your so called gentlemen can say anyone anything.

Chirag Desai

Posted by BMDeep on (August 8, 2013, 8:01 GMT)

And who knows,D worst it yet to come.It may also give scope to question d integrity of whole team.Amidst all d comments and sarcasms abt fool proof technology and evolution theories,we are missing a basic qn.I agree dat every technology will have some scope for error but at what cost? Forget abt percentages.Its all numbers.If a controversial decision given by DRS has a potential to change d game,it must b avoided to use it at highest level.I C so many ppl blaming BCCI for their refusal towards DRS but no one seems to blame ICC for their lack of initiative to make d member boards and umpires understand d system better.After all,it is human who analyses all d data and have to make decision.So,hw far is it correct to blame a board or set of ppl called umpires wid out makng any effrts to comprehend d system?We can accept a person making mistake wid out any aid but it is unacceptable if he gves wrng decision jus coz he is incapable of understanding d data.It is d sole responsibility of ICC

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 8, 2013, 7:58 GMT)

@mngc, I know that Hawkeye uses 6 cameras usual 2 on the each of the on/off side of the pitch and one at each end and tend to be smalller than the TV cameras so can be mounted in out of the way spots.

However Shan was refering to removing the technology from the equation and relying on simple TV images from each end of the ground, due to the hieght and location of these camera the angles would distort the angles and trajectories, sometimes they arnt even directly behind the Stumps because of logcistical issues around grounds. Take Lords the cameras are mounted in a specific position on the balcony of the pavillion and can be off centre depending on the wicket used.

The ground level cameras are not directly wicket to wicket otherwise the umpire or non stricker would be in the way, At Egbaston the camera opposite the pavillion was mounded on a cherry picker as there was no room for the camera.

Posted by BMDeep on (August 8, 2013, 7:46 GMT)

First thing;s first, I dont think channel 9 directly accused KP of doing sth illegal.Secondly, long gone r d days when journalism is only meant to report wats happened.V r now living in an era of SENSATIONALISM, which is wrongly attributed as journalism. Seeking an explanation nd apology from press? seriously? I dont think no media houses in any country be it Aus or Eng or Ind give a damn about reactions arising from their news. Its really disheartening to know dat d same media houses from so called VICTIM country accused another legend of d game for doing sth illegal. WHile my intention is not to draw spades on any crckt board or any crcktr, It is now high time to rethink the outcomes of usage of system which was studied and understood very less. First it gave scope for questioning d integrity of umpires (so many ppl in this very forum talked abt how 3rd umpire falsely tried just to make onfield umpire right). Now it is giving scope to question d integrity of players. TBC

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 8, 2013, 7:45 GMT)

@Chris_P

Interesting points, I doubt anyone outside of Aus would have seen the particular article on Channel 9, so we are left to rely on what is reported in both the Australian media (TheAge, SMH, HeraldSun) and Local media.

@Biso, my point was about stanard cameras at either end, and I dont believe these are connected to the hawkeye system. Hawkeye uses 6 independant highspeed cameras at different positions to track the ball, at the start of each game/day they calibrate the cameras with a device is placed centre pitch, with the aid of lazers this allows the system to know how far each camera is from a fixed point. I do remember in early uses (2005) that during breaks the system was recalibrated with what looked like a wire frame with mirrors.

As with all things thre is a margin of error, the creators claim about 3.5mm accuracy if the system is calibrated correctly.

Posted by pyramix on (August 8, 2013, 7:44 GMT)

ECB wants an apology? Where was their sense of outrage when their own camp was making such baseless allegations against India two summers ago? Did they ask Vaughan to apologize when he claimed that Indian players were using vaseline on their bats to beat Hotspot? Did they reprimand Broad for checking VVS Laxman's bat for vaseline? Do they know how much more insulting that is to a player when it comes from another player on the field, than from an uninvolved 3rd party?

Here's an article from ESPNCricinfo itself about that event: http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-india-2011/content/story/525671.html

I realize that was a separate incident, but from what I've seen over the years, England has a tendency to apply different standards when they're on the receiving end. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill and move on.

Posted by dynamco on (August 8, 2013, 7:35 GMT)

Twitter Warren Brennan‏@HotSpotInventor @MichaelVaughan @HotSpotInventor Michael, its time you investigate why players are using fibreglass tape on the edges of their bats.

Posted by Not_Another_Keybored_Expert on (August 8, 2013, 7:26 GMT)

I watched this on Nine live, there was no suggestion about Pietersen , All nine did was show a tweet from a New South Wales cricketer who claimed some players use this tape, Nine have no case to answer for, The ECB should have looked in to this more before they made a statement.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 7:11 GMT)

Add a small metal in the centre of the ball which is recorded through one single cam.. The edges can be easily detected through sharp deviations on the tracking line..and be used as an adjunct to hawk-eye is well..it will be also affordable with poor boards!!

Posted by JG2704 on (August 8, 2013, 7:00 GMT)

Loads of intangibles here

I wonder (if all this is true) how they know how it all works? Do they know batsmen who have practiced this? I'm also wondering if Snicko is More reliable than hot spot and therefore should take over from Hotspot?

Also , I wonder why they are so firm on demanding an apology from C9 but back a month or 2 ago (although they strongly denied it) they made no issue of Bob Willis making an apology for his ball tampering accusations?

Posted by mixters on (August 8, 2013, 6:53 GMT)

@Greatest_Game awesome comment I love you logic and they way you handle shall we say HOWLERS. Sometimes even the most basic concepts are beyond cricket lovers!!

Posted by ashankar on (August 8, 2013, 6:10 GMT)

Here we go again, if the English players check for Vaseline on an Indian Player we have to see the light side of it and if a tabloid or media raises a question on them they seek apology!!!

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 6:09 GMT)

I think that DRS is the total problem thing it should be abolished. because from Vaughn saying VVS Laxman used Vaseline to fool hot spot.now Australian TV station Channel Nine following claims that players have been using silicone tape on the edges of their bats to fool Hot Spot during the current Ashes series.now kP is accused of it.its better to use snickometer its the best one.

Posted by Biso on (August 8, 2013, 6:08 GMT)

@Jet2001. I agree with your apprehensions about the air mass that will undergo sudden compression and DE-compression when two high speed objects moving in opposite directions go past each other with small distance between them. We are not aware if the system is capable of effectively truncating such noise. The point in all this is, how well have the systems been technically audited. I am not a believer of those figures about improvement in 3 or 4 percentage with use of DRS. It may or may not stand statistical scrutiny. The point certainly is, whether the system is affordable for the marginal improvement in decision making. Why should the poor boards be patronizing such systems at this stage when they ( systems ) are definitely not yet reliable enough. As far as the controversial interpretation by the third umpires goes, it is clear that either they need more training/exposure or they are certainly confused about the reliability of the system which is affecting their decision making.

Posted by mk49_van on (August 8, 2013, 5:53 GMT)

ECB doth protest too much, methinks. There must be an element of truth to this.

Posted by Biso on (August 8, 2013, 5:51 GMT)

Yorkshire pudding and Jet2001 , have brought out valid points. The position of the hawk eye cameras on either side of the pitch( fore and aft direction i mean) which are actually not as well placed as the umpires eye is certainly a point of concern. Then you may have other cameras placed across the pitch which can provide data for the 3 D effect. Having said that, it is difficult to imagine how to calibrate the system for different ground conditions/dimensions. what exactly is the error probability is perhaps left to the makers of the system, who may not be saying the right things unless someone has technically audited the system in depth. In any case none of are in any position to state with any level of confidence that the system has flaws to the extent of being acceptable. Off course, an umpire crouching with his eyes level with the bails will be better placed. However, i am not sure how long could he manage that( notwithstanding the fact that his eyes are not as sharp as a camera

Posted by Thangaraja. on (August 8, 2013, 5:50 GMT)

"How stupid would I be to try and hide a nick when it could save me on an lbw appeal.." - Have silicon tape for outer edge and not for inner part of the bat. Simple..!! No hotspot for outside edges and you can escape in case of LBW appeals.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 5:01 GMT)

KP saying why would i put tape on my bat it won't show up for edges on LBW apeals not saying he does it but its simple put silicone tape on outside edge so doesn't show up on hot spot for edges then don't put it on inside edge so it shows up on LBW appeals, i haven't seen too many outside edges hitting the pad for lbw appeals its always insde

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 4:58 GMT)

I'm no physicist or scientist, but the moment I heard silicone it made me look askance at the whole report Channel 9 report. Silicone will cause things to grip for god's sake, I'd of thought what you need is something that has less friction transfer. One of the things mentioned occasionally is a quick film of Vaseline. But Petersen is right - disguise edges and you could be costing yourself dearly on an LBW review. I think the whole thing belongs in the conspiracy files.

Posted by SOLNAN on (August 8, 2013, 4:50 GMT)

Another bloomer from media. They would love to bring down the best member of any team. Why on earth would a batsman apply silicone tapes? They would be absolutely stupid to do so,since if the ball raps a batsman in front he will be judged LBW if the sniko does not show up. Do some homework before reporting such trash.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 4:24 GMT)

During 2011 Ind tour of Eng, Vaughan made allegations in his twitter on 1 of d most respectable cricketer like Laxman, claiming he applied vaseline gel on his bat to avoid faint edges from hotspot n snicko. Well, when they know so much abt technology, there is every chance of Eng players using it for their benefits. Who knows, the claims of the aus media might be true. Can some one plz go n chk all the bats of Eng players???

Posted by cricket_ahan on (August 8, 2013, 3:43 GMT)

Clearly this is just a ploy by Channel Nine to spice up its coverage given they can't boast about Australian test victories any more. The stupid thing is, while tape may or may not remove the showing of a hot-spot on a bat, merely applying it to the bat in the first place widens the blade, therefore increasing the likelihood of an edge. Given there are only two incorrect DRS reviews allowed, the majority of decisions would still be made by an on-field umpire, who unless he is related to Superman would not have infra-red vision. Stupid claims, completely not backed up - poor journalism!

Posted by landl47 on (August 8, 2013, 3:35 GMT)

@fguy: proving you don't understand the dinosaur extinction doesn't help your case. The meteorite created a major climate change to which the dinosaurs couldn't adapt, so they died. Failure to adapt to change was the reason they died, the meteorite was simply the instrument which caused the change.

Technology has created a major change in the way in which decisions can be made. Because it was largely developed through the TV companies, it has also changed the way in which TV audiences can see what happened. Unless the game adapts to this change, it is going to struggle to survive. People are getting very tired of seeing decisions made which are obviously (to the TV audience) wrong. Trying to pretend this change doesn't exist is not adapting. Improving the process is adapting.

Which do you think is more likely to benefit the game?

Posted by landl47 on (August 8, 2013, 3:21 GMT)

@jet2001: yes, it means to synchronize. This is currently done by taking the audio tape and the video tape back to a pre-determined point where they are known to be synchronized and then running forward from there. Because both tapes have to be run, the snicko indicator has to be 'built'. Incidentally, in movies, that's why they use a clapboard before every take, to provide a point from which the audio and video can be synchronized.

Automated snicko, due next year, will produce a synchronized audio and video much more quickly, and so it will be capable of being used. Like everything else, it's not definitive in itself, the noise still has to be interpreted; but the more corroborative indicators there are, the less chance of a mistake being made.

Posted by warnerbasher on (August 8, 2013, 3:12 GMT)

Pietersen hasn't walked a number of times including twice in Australia during the last series when evidence suggested a nick. I don't blame him either. The situation will resolve itself as the players figure out how to use the technology more effectively. The wickets of noballs was resolved after the 2009 Ashes when Flintoff took 3 Australian wickets at Lords off no balls

Posted by Greatest_Game on (August 8, 2013, 3:10 GMT)

@ fguy. Are you struggling with the concept of 'adapting to change?' Responding to my statement "dinosaurs perished because of failure to adapt to change," you wrote "Really? Wow, so that big meteor that hit Earth, which scientists say was the cause, (of dinosaur extinction) didn't have anything to do with it? we've all been sold a bunch of lies people. alert the press."

While you enjoyed ladling on the sarcasm, you failed to understand the central point of the "meteor theory." Let me help: DINOSAURS FAILED TO ADAPT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES CAUSED BY A METEOR IMPACT! Easy, isn't it?? No need to alert the press - it's not big news that you struggle with simple concepts.

I wrote, "Evolution is shown to occur ... in abrupt and massive changes." A large meteor impact causes abrupt & massive change. Had you given that some thought, you may not have felt the need to try to humiliate me, but instead display your alarming inability to grasp basic evolution theory.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 3:00 GMT)

Always interesting to be on the other side of the storm in the tea cup. Channel Nine were fielding questions on Twitter. One of them related to the manufacture of bats (in Australia, if I recall correctly) with taped edges (on the front) to disguise hotspot nicks. Brett Lee made comments that the ICC had to make sure that these bats were not being used in test matches, as the Pietersen adjudication showed how much more difficult these things can be when there is no visible hotspot. They have nothing to apologise for. ECB need a lesson in not get your knickers twisted.

Posted by android_user on (August 8, 2013, 2:55 GMT)

I dont know about others but I am so fed up with all this 'controversy' that has nearly destroyed this series. it's taking away the main attractions of the series which has been some quality cricket. as an Aussie fan I've just been blown away by how well England has played this series. we've been competitive, but outplayed in all disciplines so far. so many have had breakthroughs in their games and yet all the media can.continue to talk about is drs. I'm all for the Indian model of not using drs. the easier the process of decision making for the umpire is, the less incorrect decisions will be made. asking for a controversy free game is beyond a ridiculous request. so why are we so hampered on trying to make one. drs was never perfect in the first place, we've given it a fair go and it's caused more controversy then it's saved. so why are we still using it?

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 2:34 GMT)

Why Harris OR Bird? How about replacing Starc with Bird and having quartet of Siddle Harris Bird Watson, goodluck making 400+ with them bowling at you, throw in Agar as well, theres not a possibility that Lyon will take more wickets than him, so keep him in at number 8. Starc's wickets, if you look so far this series, have been extremely lucky, he bowled a bit better the last test than theonebefore, but his wicket of Pietersen had hotspot inside edge on back of bat as the bat came across, and Starc also got some other lucky wickets. Starc bowled better, but I'd prefer to See Bird take his place. My Lineup for next test.

Watson Rogers Clarke Warner Smith Hughes/Khawaja Haddin Agar Siddle Harris Bird

Clarke should come up to 3, it alleviates a ton of pressure, Khawaja hasn't impressed much more than Hughes, so perhaps Hughes over him, Also, when Rogers "retires" I'd have one of them opening with Warner.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 2:19 GMT)

So the ICC never accused England or Australia of tampering with their bats after all - it was just a Channel 9 beat up. If I had known that from the start I would have ignored the story altogether. Channel 9 are the lowest of gutter press and gossip-journalism, though the other Australian free-to-air channels give them good competition for that title.

Posted by legend_963 on (August 8, 2013, 2:01 GMT)

Here is a simple explanation of this drs dilemma. Drs uses technology that is programmed to give results on matters relating to physics. The information it relays is interpreted by the umpire (a clueless group of persons that have no experience with it and know nothing about it). At the end of the day it is the umpires that make the final decision not hotspot or snicko. Therefore if u want someone to blame BlAME THE UMPIRES not KP or the the technology used in drs. For the genius in the bcci that says that drs should be foolproof He needs a lesson in earthly technology NOTHING is FOOLPROOF. You just improve on the bugs that you find and this helps in bettering the technology. SO THE NEXT TIME SOMEONE BLAMES DRS THINK TWICE it is an inanimate object it does not make decisions on its own the people that the decisions are actually the ones to blame.

Posted by Vishnu27 on (August 8, 2013, 1:20 GMT)

AniketKanade: I think you've nailed it. That seems the most logical & fair way forward to me. I sadly doubt though that the ICC could be as sage.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 1:09 GMT)

"I am never afraid of getting out! If I nick it, I'll walk." He didn't walk in the Ashes in Australia went Ponting last captained it. He stood his ground as Ponting argued with the umpire about the decision when the edge was shown on the big screen..... Later in an interview with channel 9 Petersen said "I only walk when I am told to"

Posted by Angry_of_Wembley on (August 8, 2013, 1:08 GMT)

Correspondents to this section should understand that the allegations were reported on Australia's Nine Network and said to be based on suspicions by the inventor of the DRS system, justifying the ordinary performance of several decisions this series. Now, I'm not sure whether the celebrated 60s celebrity Christine Keeler ever liked cricket - her game was more nuanced, I suspect - but she famously dismissed the denials by a mendacious Member of Parliament with the immortal "well he would say that, wouldn;t he?" To think that cricket used to be considered a cerebral pursuit... AoW

Posted by thebrotherswaugh on (August 8, 2013, 1:06 GMT)

So they should. The technology is not fool-proof, so don't go slinging baseless accusations at players - KP has every right to react in the manner he did - he obviously just wants to get his strong opposition to the comment on record. On another note, is it illegal anyway?? As for the debate on walking, get over it, the vast majority of players will never walk (Clarke never has, and he's had some doozies over the years), just leave it at that & let the umpires do their job.

Posted by RJHB on (August 8, 2013, 0:50 GMT)

Hmm yeah what a surprise the Australian sports media are under fire for this, they are only interested in rumour, innuendo and outright lies in the pursuit of ever more sensationalist headlines! They are as dreadful as the English media now. I think this should just be ignored as absolute rubbish. Let me make one point though before all Poms become too hysterical. Back in 2005 it was in fact the English who accused Ricky Ponting of using an illegal bat because it had an elaborate Kookaburra sticker on the back of it. A sticker!! Wow! No wonder he made all those runs! Just FYI the bat was indeed investigated, the sticker was found to do precisely nothing by the ICC who then banned it anyway! Lol

Posted by jmcilhinney on (August 8, 2013, 0:49 GMT)

While I almost certainly don't have all the details, my impression was that no specific accusation was made against any specific player or general accusation against England players, so I'm not sure that an apology is required on that basis. That said, if this story was broken without any actual evidence to back it up then that is irresponsible journalism and I think an apology is in order because people's reputations can be damaged even when an accusation is proven to be false.

Posted by YeshT on (August 8, 2013, 0:47 GMT)

This is really funny. It is a great game with just bat and ball. So much technology with DRS that the main essence of the game is being questioned for sake of technology... LOL.. have bats that are HotSpot friendly.. yeah right .. every batsman's dream. Cricket without DRS has always been great and matches have been remembered always for the character of the teams and not bad decisions. It is the human element that make matches interesting.. what next .. have Robots in place of on-field umpires with super sensor snickos and extreme slo mo cameras !!!! stop with all the DRS and get back to teams talking about cricket and not technology.

Posted by RohanMarkJay on (August 8, 2013, 0:29 GMT)

Absolutely agree with Kevin Peitersen. Whats Channel Nine up to. Kevin Pietersen and co. are rightfully angry. As KP says why should he put tape when a nick could save him from an LBW appeal. Channel Nine just bitter that England retained the ashes! By the way congratulations to the England team for retaining the Ashes. It will be tough but I am sure they will do well in Australia.

Posted by Rowayton on (August 8, 2013, 0:14 GMT)

Wouldn't silicon tape make the bat wider, if only by a millimetre or two? So that you could snick balls that you wouldn't snick if it wasn't there? That sounds like a good idea. And to those outside Australia, I wouldn't worry about anything Channel 9 said. Commercial TV 'news' in Australia is the pits.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 23:25 GMT)

Does it not occur to anyone that most of the 'edges' show by snicko but not by hotspot have been off Australian bats. Just because KP was the last to example doesn't mean he was the only one. This series is not the first time that Hotspot has failed to show edges - the technology simply isn't good enough to prove the ball wasn't hit - but, when it does show up the contact it is still useful.

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (August 7, 2013, 23:23 GMT)

The journalists etc making all the allegations need to produce the evidence in a court situation. or they can withdraw the allegations and apologise. Perhaps the prospect of suitable punishment may prove salutary.

Posted by Nerk on (August 7, 2013, 22:56 GMT)

Ah, so the accusations came from Channel 9. People should just assume that its wrong. Channel 9 has gone from being the pinnacle of sports casting to a network of ex players alternatively hyping the game up then whining about it. The people in charge of Channel 9 sports should be fired... out of a canon and into the sun.

Posted by mngc on (August 7, 2013, 22:48 GMT)

@yorkshirepudding. There is a mathematical formula that calculates the movement of the ball based on speed, angle if incidence, etc that can be programmed into the computers used. DRS is likely to be taking inputs from multiple cameras. That is a lot more accurate than the human eye and brain.The umpires are only about 25 % right when it comes to reviews so if DRS can take it up to 95 % then it has done its job. Deal with the 3rd umpire mistakes separately from DRS as that is simple to arrive at a proper solution if there is the will.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 22:32 GMT)

This is ridiculous. Why would anyone try to prevent HotSpot from detecting an edge when it could conversely save one from an incorrect lbw decision? It's not all about catches off thin edges. This is a simple case of flawed technology. You don't blame the people subject to the technology when it simply doesn't (or can't!) work properly. Maybe India has it right after all. Shelve it until it's been sorted out.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 22:06 GMT)

Q. How does this news affect an Indian? A. VVS Laxman was alleged to have done same thing by some malicious English media.

Posted by malepas on (August 7, 2013, 21:52 GMT)

@HawK89: I was also with the view that Sangakarra would walk but that changed in the 1st T20 against SA, Sanga caught behind,,BIG edge, local empire didn't give him and he didn't walk and off course SL want on to loose the easy match, I lost respect for Sanga since then. As for some people arguing that tape would penalised batsmen against LBW's, the simple answer is: only tape it on the outside edge and leave the inside edge alone..

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 21:22 GMT)

The flaw in your argument (and Pietersen's) CricketingStargazer is that mosts edges behind are from the outside of the bat and most edges into the pads are from the inside. Who claimed that both edges had to be "treated".

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 7, 2013, 21:16 GMT)

@Shan156, with LBW's the camera is often further away and at an angle of around 15-20 degrees higher than the wicket which can misrepresent the angles and height.

It also doesn't account for what some call foreshortening caused by putting a 3d image into a 2D world and so doesn't give an accurate guide as far as how far forward a batsman is, or batsman's height, EG SRT's pads are shorter than KP's due to the difference in height.

Even then a thin edge wouldnt show a deviation, just like the KP decision, the ball didnt visibly deviate, there was simply a noise.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 7, 2013, 20:52 GMT)

@vikram501, I didnt say that the BCCI was bullying as stated fact that the BCCI are digging their heels in in test series where india plays, in some ways i understand the situation, but surely profit should be the bottom of the list in regards to the technology.

I also have a somewhat cynical view that stats had these systems been developed in india then it would be a different matter, but thats normally when the tinfoil starts to wear thin.

You also have the strange instances where lesser boards (SLCB, BCB, ZCB) cannot affort the full on technology.

Posted by Shan156 on (August 7, 2013, 20:25 GMT)

DRS definitely needs to be revisited. It has created more problems than it has solved. Let's get rid of Hawk-eye, Snicko, HotSpot and simply defer reviews to the third umpire who could use simple, slo-mo replays to make his decision. Let's keep the game simple and respect the umpires' decisions. There will be mistakes but it will be an improvement over the way the game was played before and at the same time not depend on technology which definitely seem to have flaws.

Posted by fguy on (August 7, 2013, 20:11 GMT)

@Greatest_Game -- "the biggest & most powerful dinosaurs perished because of failure to adapt to change". Really? Wow, so that big meteor that hit Earth, which scientists say was the cause, didn't have anything to do with it? we've all been sold a bunch of lies people. alert the press.

Posted by CricketingStargazer on (August 7, 2013, 20:09 GMT)

Does it occur to nobody that, if a batsman were doing this, he is just making sure that that inside edge into the pads is not detected, allowing him to be fired out LBW.

It is hard to believe that a batsman would be that daft! Ways of cheating DRS to avoid HoSpot detecting edges are well known. However, the same HotSpot protects batsmen from wrong LBWs. You can't win both ways. It will just even out in the end.

Posted by HawK89 on (August 7, 2013, 19:26 GMT)

"I am never afraid of getting out! If I nick it, I'll walk." He didn't walk in the Ashes in Australia went Ponting last captained it. He stood his ground as Ponting argued with the umpire about the decision when the edge was shown on the big screen. Only 2 people that truly walk are the wicketkeepers; Sangakarra and Gilchrist, no one else, so don't try to claim that you do.

Posted by AniketKanade on (August 7, 2013, 19:18 GMT)

DRS most definitely improves accuracy in decision making and let's not target DRS for improper use of DRS. Some suggestions : (1) Let On-field umpires have right to review all decision voluntarily - just like they do for run-outs. In addition, captains can question umpiring decisions withing the stipulated limit on no. of such reviews. (2) Captains should hold onto their review if the technology decides to go with on-field decision just because evidence is inconclusive to overrule the decision, but is enough to doubt the accuracy of it. In other words, if ball is just clipping the leg stump, for which on-field umpire ruled not-out on lbw appeal, on-field decision should stay, but reviewing team should also not use up its review. With these 2 changes, DRS could take most of the human error out of the equation and also reduce DRS related anxiety and to-review-or-not-to-review dilemma in captains' minds.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 19:02 GMT)

Ironic isnt it, since England was accusing Laxman of doing the same thing. What goes around comes around. Before accusing anyone else, one should look at themselves.

Posted by jet2001 on (August 7, 2013, 19:01 GMT)

Sniko is not available to the 3rd umpire, I wish it was not available to the viewing public. If we only had what the 3rd umpire had maybe we would have a better understanding of his decision, hence less controversy surrounding his decision. Sniko takes time to "build"? does this mean synchronize? if this is the case how can it ever be trusted, can anyone explain what they mean by it takes time to "build"

Posted by londondoc on (August 7, 2013, 18:40 GMT)

Remember a certain Stuart Broad checking VVS Laxman's bat when India were playing England a couple of years ago- presumably for Vaseline on the edges. Maybe the ECB should apologise to VVS before they have the moral ground to ask for one from the Aussies!

Posted by Lanka1234 on (August 7, 2013, 18:39 GMT)

DRS has confused lot of people including the TV commentators. I find micheal Atherton and Nasser Hussein are quite fair. Some of the comments made by Ian Botham may not have been said. Is snicko accurate? Could the resonance of the fastly moving air between the bat and the ball travelling more than 80 mph could create the same impression as the genuine nick. Suren

Posted by Newlandsfaithful on (August 7, 2013, 18:32 GMT)

I don't have a problem with the technology and I don't mind the third umpire making a call on minimal evidence - even if a snick doesn't seem to show. He's trying his best. What to me seems farcical is this system of "on field decision stands, etc." and the number of reveiws. To my mind every appeal should be reveiwed and judged on merit with all available technology. Its fairer and certainly less controversial. (But won't they over-appeal to slow the game down? No - the cricketing world will see the direct evidence of their unsporting behaviour and they can be punished by the match referee.)

Posted by willsrustynuts on (August 7, 2013, 18:24 GMT)

I think players having been taping vaseline to the middle of the outside edge and taping micro badgers to the inside edge. If we had super super super sloooooow motion cameras we would see the badgers applying a cooling gel to the outside edge as the ball passes the bat. Those badgers huh!

Personally I wont be happy until we get billion pixel heat seeking cameras that can bend the space time continuum in such a way that we can travel back in time to see the shot again from 361 degree angles.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 18:11 GMT)

simple solution.. either use sniko or hotspot...thts it...dont mix it.. else it wlll create confusions. all decisions shd b made by drs only.....

Posted by a328232 on (August 7, 2013, 18:03 GMT)

Mr Peterson - Are you saying Cricket should function according to your word.

FYI nobody can read human mind including yours.

Is there something stopping you from using silicon on outer egde of your bat only. Are you really as innocent as it seems from your tweet.

Posted by BigINDFan on (August 7, 2013, 17:54 GMT)

Past Ashes series had players making statements to get mental advantage before matches. Now that the Aus team is mediocre and Eng is not as dominating as the Aus of the past, DRS has taken center stage.

ICC - If Test matches are considered pure cricket by die hard fans then remove DRS altogether and select quality neutral umpires. Keep DRS to ODIs and T20.

If not give teams unlimited reviews and let teams use their time wisely - more reviews means less overs to bat or bowl opposition out.

Tapes to mask nicks - really? Maybe ICC should produce bats that has microphones and balls with sensors built in :-) No umpires only TV umpires.

Posted by vikram501 on (August 7, 2013, 17:06 GMT)

@YorkshirePudding: I agree with you on the point that BCCI's bullying tactics do not help. They have the money to invest in research of this system to come up with an efficient and transparent system that could be used universally, but I guess they would not do that unless they see a profit in this.

Posted by vikram501 on (August 7, 2013, 17:04 GMT)

@Greatest_Game: Every sport changes and adpats, but not at every level at the same time. I find your analogies quite tedius and akin to saying for example that if we have new drugs available for certain diseases we should start giving it to the people without prior testing - that is not evolution to survive, but quite the opposite. When they introduced hawk eye in Tennis, they did not introduce it at the Grand Slams straight away. I recall trials at various fringe tournaments for a while,before it was made a standard. Same goes for goal line technology in Football. If ICC are serious about this, there should have been trials of this technology at all games that are broadcast live (Tests, T20Is, ODIs) and not doing some internal testing to say it is accurate.

Posted by vikram501 on (August 7, 2013, 16:54 GMT)

@jmcilhinney:Regarding why batsmen are allowed to review caught behind dismissals (in the absence of real time snicko): Going by the ICC playing regulations on DRS, it is impossible to overturn such a decision as we saw in the last test match - with only hotspot and sound. Regarding ICC having thought through this well: You must be made a PR officer of ICC! We had the Eng vs WI series in 2009, where DRS (then called UDRS) was so bad that no one - the players, commentators, viewing public - had any idea of what was going on. Then we had a change of rules immediately for the next series. I do not recall ICC or Hotspot technicians categorically saying it is unreliable when it comes to detecting fine edges - in fact hot spot was considered the most accurate and reliable technology out there, one used in military and so on. But now that there have been a couple of instances in this series this is coming out. All these do not indicate well thought out decision making by the ICC.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 16:49 GMT)

Erm, I'm a particularly rubbish number 11 batsmen in a low club level, and even I use bat tape. It sure as hell isn't for DRS at my level!! The fact is that the edges and toe of the bat are the most prone to cracking, and I don't really want my bat breaking. Less of an issue for the pros I grant you, but they are still likely to have favourite bats they want to keep.

This is a story over absolutely nothing, made up by an Aussie media determined to deflect away from the fact they've lost an Ashes series for the 3rd time in a row.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 16:35 GMT)

"How stupid would I be to try and hide a nick when it could save me on an lbw appeal". Flawed logic. Most caught behinds are outside edges, and most lbw-saved-by-a-edge are inside edges. There's enough motivation to tape the outside edge but not the inside (if such a tape exists).

Posted by Cricfacts on (August 7, 2013, 16:32 GMT)

I can now understand why india don't support this DRS.. The technology just isn't conclusive enough. First was ball tracking, now its edge. They need to work on hotspot because if its less effective in very hot conditions then its going to be a major fail.

Posted by Calypso_Kid on (August 7, 2013, 15:57 GMT)

jmcilhinney you are right that a hotspot is very powerful evidence of contact and should be used that way. However, snicko is less conclusive. The comment about specks of dirt and flies causing sound was over the top. However, modern equipment has features that can produce sound as the hands move and twist on the bat during a stroke, especially the velcro on glove wrists and the ribbed rubber grips on bats. Every batsman has had the disconcerting experience of "equipment noise" just as they play and miss at a ball.

Posted by Rahulbose on (August 7, 2013, 15:45 GMT)

More problems created by DRS. There are probably plenty of ways to fool these sensors, as it is even in normal conditions they seem to create more confusion than clarity as to the correct decision.

Posted by ahsanmahmood945 on (August 7, 2013, 15:44 GMT)

I think its better for ICC to keep things simple by excluding both hotspot and sniko from the DRS system and just use hawk eye for decisions.if the edge is healthy enough then it will be visible by naked eyes thus umpire can give out

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 15:38 GMT)

i dont care if players use silicone tape, its funny to me that such a tape exists, and obviously the ICC-DRS supporters have to police the tape on bats now. Funny that Pietersen sounded a bit dodgy in his tweet, yes, why would he ever use the tape when it can save him from LBW??? Oh, maybe because the outside edge is 99% going to get you caught behind, and the inside edge is 99% going to save you LBW, tape one half only maybe? :))

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 15:32 GMT)

isn't the simple answer to all this hotspot madness that the umpires use towards making the CORRECT decision it if it shows a spot (still of course making sure the spot was made by the ball & nothing else) but if nothing is shown it doesn't mean anything to the decision being made, because it's clear it misses on faint edges?

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 7, 2013, 15:30 GMT)

@StickyWicket_StraightBat, actually its the people that are interpreting the technology that is at fault, Khawaja at OT was a classic example of the technology being correct but the person interpreting it being wrong.

then there was Trotts dismissal at TB and again it was the person interpretting the technology that was wrong.

The Technology shows either actual data (Hotspot, Snicko, slow motion), or interpreted data in terms of Hawkeye. Hawkeye is a best guess system, much the same as the process an upire uses to decide if the ball is hitting, excelt that it used maths to project the path, and is as accurate as any human can be.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 15:27 GMT)

I want the use of drs by Dalmiya

Posted by verbanonfacta on (August 7, 2013, 15:10 GMT)

We abandoned potentially partisan umpires. We abandoned neutral umpires. We are now about to abandon the DRS. Let's head for a DRSRS. All that's required is for one machine to average out all data from all other machines, the latter being checked after each ball whether there are grounds for the batsman being out. If there are any grounds, the element of doubt in favour of the batsman is abandoned (ANY grounds being sufficient as agreed by lawyers of non-cricketing countries), and the batsman is given out. Humes's logic that we cannot see causality, and Kant's inference that causality is hard-wired in our perception only, and is not part of the world as it is in itself, (as opposed to the world as it appears to us) will see the abandonment of cricket by 2020.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 7, 2013, 15:08 GMT)

@cozens, the 100% accuracy is a smoke screen thats been put up anyone with a modicum of intelligence would realise that you will never get 100%.

Posted by StickyWicket_StraightBat on (August 7, 2013, 14:48 GMT)

DRS is a SYSTEM. It comprises of technology, people and processes. TECHNOLOGY:Hotspot, Ball Tracking, Snicko and simple replays; PEOPLE: Umpires and players; PROCESS: who and when referrals are made, how technology evidence is used and the ultimate goal the referral is trying to achieve (which should be to make correct decisions yes?) There is nothing wrong with the PEOPLE part of the system. All players want to get/claim wickets. Its their job. All umpires try to make the correct decision within the framework of rules and the PROCESSES they are required to follow. Clearly the hotspot part of the TECHNOLOGY isnt working. Ball tracking is well..debatable. Snicko, somewhat reliable and the best one is identifying howlers through simple replays.The rest of the technology components are half baked and the PROCESSES employed are not well thought out and DO NOT have the ultimate goal of making "correct" decision in mind. We need DRS (if?)but lots need to change.

Posted by Greatest_Game on (August 7, 2013, 14:35 GMT)

@ vikram501 asked " Can you name one worlwide sport where rules are made up as they go along at the highest level - Football, Tennis, Rugby?"

vikram501 - the rules are made up as they go along in EVERY SINGLE SPORT PLAYED AT EVERY LEVEL!!!!!!!!! No sport has started and continued with an unchanged, fixed set of rules. EVERY sport adapts, all the time. It is called evolution - responding and adapting to the needs of the sport. And, like it or not, cricket NEEDS an efficient, working form of UDRS or games will no longer be televised because TV does show up bad decisions, and bad decisions upset fans.

"Darwinian" evolution is shown to occur in gradual tiny steps, and in abrupt and massive changes. Both are fundamental to the process. But the single constant is that THOSE WHO FAIL TO ADAPT, PERISH. Yes, even the biggest & most powerful dinosaurs perished because of failure to adapt to change. It is difficult NOT to make the same analogy with the BCCI.

Posted by Harding119 on (August 7, 2013, 14:34 GMT)

Oh the Vaseline saga....comes to my mind. If you cannot rely on hot spot then you cannot use it but use what is available to come to a decision. The Umpires should not be put under intense pressure by any player or team. Howlers must be irradicated and that is what DRS is for and that should not be taken away.

Posted by Dangertroy on (August 7, 2013, 14:31 GMT)

and re: real time snicko, I don't understand whats taking so long. A real time spectrograph has been available for 20 years now, winamp on my original pentium could generate it, so why can't we do it in real time for the stump mic audio?

Hawkeye could also be used to show deviation of the ball in the case of an edge. if it can show us how many degrees the ball has moved off the seam, then it could be used to show whether there was a deviation after the bat has passed. the cameras would need to be setup differently, but its certainly possible.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 14:21 GMT)

Get rid of DRS for now. I can digest umpiring errors on the middle as humans err, and umpiring is bloody hard. Cricket was played that way, and I have no problems in sticking to the tradition of leaving it to the two folks in the middle. Yes, you will have some decisions go against you, and some will go for you. In the long run, it balances out. I was initially a supporter of DRS, but all thus unfortunate hullabaloo has made me change my stance. I think there are certain things for which DRS works, and line decisions has to be one of them. For now, if DRS has to exist, it should be only there for line decisions, to gauge where the ball pitched and whether the impact was outside the line of stumps. Yes, no technology is foolproof, but to be honest, DRS now seems to be causing more harm than benefit, and that's a sign that it needs to go.

Posted by cozens on (August 7, 2013, 14:05 GMT)

i cannot see why so many people are upset by it all. using DRS means more correct decsions are made. Its was never going to ensure that ALL decisions would be accurate. The sooner thats accepted, the sooner people can just let it be and get on with it.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (August 7, 2013, 13:30 GMT)

@vikram501 on (August 7, 2013, 12:46 GMT), I have never accused anyone of being a BCCI supporter just because they are against DRS. What I have a problem with is when people say every little issue, real or imagined, vindicates the BCCI's position. You have not said that so I would not suggest that that's what you think. As for your question, the reason that caught behind decisions can be reviewed is because HotSpot is just one part of DRS and is not the only thing used to determine whether there was an edge. As I have said many times, if there is no mark on HotSpot and no noise (on stump mic or, when available, real-time Snicko) then that's pretty solid evidence that there was no edge and the batsman should be not out whether he was originally given out or not. You're being foolish if you think that the ICC didn't think through the current DRS. It does seem to need change but if they rush to change then they will likely get it wrong again, so any changes need to be considered well.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 7, 2013, 13:10 GMT)

@vikram501, I agree the ICC hasnt thought this through at all, partly as they havent fully tested it, which really can only happen in a live match situation, they cant effectively test it in at least one board's sphere because they refuse to accept it. Other boards cant afford it in full so pick piece meal implementations.

Really the ICC should have instigated a full review of the system using the equipment in live games around the world, but without allowing TV companies access to the Technology which would be difficult as TV compaines shelled out to help develop things like hotspot and Hawkeye for thier views.

Unfortunately we are were we are, personally I would love Hawkeye to be out if the balls hitting the stumps, not this 'umpires' decision, or on an umpires decsion the refering team not losing a review.

Hotspot is only 90% and we dont really know how it acts when temperatures and high humidity.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (August 7, 2013, 12:51 GMT)

@Sigismund on (August 7, 2013, 12:17 GMT), I agree to a certain extent but I think that you're exaggerating. A speck of dirt? A passing fly? Do you really believe that they're going to create a sound that could be mistaken for an edge? As for Dravid's shoelace, that was obvious on replay and he would have been given not out if he'd reviewed that decision, courtesy of DRS. If there's a shoelace involved then there's very little chance that it won't be detected. As I've said before, sound is evidence but not proof on its own. If the batsman is given not out and then HotSpot and sound indicate an edge then I would consider that evidence enough to overturn. Likewise, if the batsman is given out and neither HotSpot nor sound indicate an edge then that should also be enough to overturn, e.g. Khawaja. If one of HotSpot and sound indicate an edge but the other doesn't, e.g. Agar or KP, then the decision stays with the on-field umpire's original call. Sound means stump mic or real-time Snicko.

Posted by vikram501 on (August 7, 2013, 12:46 GMT)

@jmcilhinney: You seem to the one who hasn't put much thought into this (like the ICC) and think that if there is some technology, it should be used, without sufficient thought on how it should be used. DRS is not just about available technology. DRS is the PROCESS of how to use that technology to help in decision making. It is pretty obvious (ever since the introduction of DRS) the ICC has not thought through this well. Can you name one worlwide sport where rules are made up as they go along at the highest level - Football, Tennis, Rugby? ICC seem to do that all the time - with DRS in test cricket, the ODI rules (we seem to have new rules each year). An example of lack of thought on DRS - if absence of a hot spot does not mean no edge, why does the ICC allow referrals of caught behind verdicts? - as the 3rd umpire can never overturn the onfield decision (unless it is a no ball).

And please don't start of by saying I must be a BCCI supporter..

Posted by Sigismund on (August 7, 2013, 12:17 GMT)

First vaseline, now tape - what next? PVC? As several have pointed out, tape has long been used to protect bats. The problem here is the new shape of bats. The huge 'edges' make a surface which the ball can just kiss on its way past; it might even be the seam brushing this surface as the ball rotates. The mechanics of this are very different from the old bats with curved edges. They were clear cut: the ball flew off them, there was almost always a deviation, and the snicks were loud enough to hear. You did always know when you'd nicked it; these days they don't. Players should go back to them. Snicko is really dodgy. The graph you eventually see can be massively amplified, and that sound could be anything: a speck of dirt, a passing fly; a bootlace, as happened to Rahul Dravid not long ago. This is not clear evidence, it is dubious to say the least. Not out. Play on.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (August 7, 2013, 11:48 GMT)

If you believe that we should get rid of HotSpot because it is unreliable, how can we take anything you say seriously? While it may be true that the absence of a mark on HotSpot is not proof that the batsman didn't hit the ball, the presence of a mark is very strong evidence that they did hit it. We've already seen several occasions this series where HotSpot has shown that a batsman did hit the ball, e.g. Brad Haddin and Phil Hughes. Why would you get rid of a technology that can do that? You people really haven't put much thought into that, have you?

Posted by jmcilhinney on (August 7, 2013, 11:44 GMT)

Good god! I can't believe the number of people who have been saying that we should ditch HotSpot and use Snicko as part of DRS. How can anything these people say be taken seriously when, after all this time and the number of times it's been stated, they still don't know that Snicko takes too much time to prepare and therefore CANNOT be used as part of DRS? There is a quicker version of Snicko in development and it will be used as part of DRS when it's available but, until then forget about Snicko as part of DRS.

Posted by Jaffa79 on (August 7, 2013, 11:31 GMT)

People who make claims like this need to supply evidence or not say anything at all.

Posted by ozwriter on (August 7, 2013, 11:27 GMT)

CliffM, well played. another reason why the DRS and its interpretation and regulation needs to be tightened up. because until ICC does that, test cricket will continue to suffer. there have been too many DRS howlers already which has marred this series for me. whats the point having technology if we're not going to get more decisions right. bring in specialist DRS umpires, that may help. and if snicko isn't available, get rid of hotspot. so DRS is only for LBW decisions.

Posted by Green_and_Gold on (August 7, 2013, 11:24 GMT)

@Edd Oliver - Maybe if India used DRS we could have had more series in which to examine the system and these flaws could have been ironed out by now. Hot spot is only one piece of technology used in the whole system. Ive see countless times where an edge had shown on it and you then dont have to look at replays and wait for audio. The replay in Kevins dismissal wasnt conclusive but no one says we shouldnt have replays. Also what happens if we get a fool proof system in place and then it dosent work in India for some reason - it needs to be implemented in all series and reviews and worked on until it stops producing controversial decisions (which have mostly come from the interpretation rather than technology its self).

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (August 7, 2013, 11:23 GMT)

England have had the lion's share of umpire howlers this series so I'm not surprised. Batsmen's bats should be checked for Silicone tape before going out in the middle, it is clearly against the spirit of the game if it is done.

Posted by RichardG on (August 7, 2013, 11:22 GMT)

chapatishot: "even Andy fiower is against the technology".

Is there any chance of you bothering to check what you're writing is correct? Or rather just make stuff up to back up your prejudices... There's an interview with Andy Flower on the home page of this very site in which he is supportive of using technology, he just points out that it hasn't worked very well in this series, something that I don't think anyone could deny.

Posted by sonofstan on (August 7, 2013, 11:21 GMT)

Silicon tape is the best for protecting the edge of a bat from wear and tear. Even with the number of bats they each have I would have been surprised if test batsmen hadn't been using it.

I hate to say this but, I believe that the Australian media are doing everything they can to belittle England's retaining of the Ashes.

Posted by typos on (August 7, 2013, 11:17 GMT)

We've seen guys hit the cover off the ball and stand their ground...we've seen umpires give dubious calls on the field and in the box....we've seen bar room punch ups and twit tweets galore...this seems a surreal series to be sure but whether the players on either side will sink to that level of low is preposterous. It is more likely that the technology has not evolved as well as we thought it did. Pieces of dirt flying up and flicking the bat can produce the sharp 'snick' recorded on snicko and optical illusions have been blamed for other worldly adventurers in the past, let alone hot spots on cricket bats! Even the powers that be have compounded the conundrum by using the technology to come to the wrong conclusions....even though they did not need technology to make a bonehead call on the penultimate evening of the last test. Maybe the solution to all of this is to revert to the good old days of letting the on field umpire call 'em as he sees 'em.

Posted by willsrustynuts on (August 7, 2013, 11:16 GMT)

Also, ignore anything from someone calling themselves a tribologist. They are part of the problem NOT the solution.

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (August 7, 2013, 11:14 GMT)

Some of the press have very vivid imaginations. Test players are far to high profile under the constant gaze of the media etc to risk this sort of thing and neither team has any historical link to sharp practices.

Posted by willsrustynuts on (August 7, 2013, 11:13 GMT)

Ban the TV companies from bringing these cameras into the ground. They are not fit for purpose and are bringing the game into disrepute.

It is time the fans reclaimed the game.

Posted by EdwinD on (August 7, 2013, 11:10 GMT)

With all the controversy over the DRS the solution to me seems so simple and obvious I can't understand why it hasn't bee used. Hotspot has been shown to be unreliable (for whatever reasons) so why not just go with snicko and the audio/visual and forget Hotspot?

Posted by Mervo on (August 7, 2013, 11:06 GMT)

Clarke is the only player, I believe, on either side with a Test average over 50. I can't see that he needs any such assistance. What a lot of nonsense. Could one spray silicone on a bat, or go back to the use of linseed oil? All we need is umpires with eyes and who are not afraid to rule on what they see on the screen. Kawaja has had such a run of dud decisions with DRS

Posted by SinSpider on (August 7, 2013, 11:05 GMT)

I think this is just another cover up operation by the ICC to explain the failure of HotSpot. Firstly, is there a rule in the ICC books which says that a bat cannot be taped used certain material? If HotSpot is not picking nicks, then it is time to revise the way DRS is used. The third umpire cannot base his decision on HotSpot. Visual evidence should be given equal priority. Also, can Snickometer data be available sooner than it is currently? There is a reason why DRS is opposed by countries like India and ICC should recognise this.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 7, 2013, 11:05 GMT)

Technically one only has to put tape on the outside edge as these are the ones that tend to go through to the keeper, the inside ede would deflect on to the pads, so you wouldnt want to put something there.

I notice that no mention is made of the Warner edge that was given not out even though there was a sound and no mark so the review wasnt over ruled.

Posted by chapathishot on (August 7, 2013, 11:03 GMT)

It is a waste of time and money to spend so much on this technology.Two teams who where favoured by this technology are Srilanka and England and they where supporting it the most.But once Poms where on the receiving end even Andy fiower is against the technology.And for Srilanka they need it the most what else can you do when people like Dharmasena from BC Cooray school of umpiring are standing in the matches. I feel that the only umpire who made so much wrong decision against the home team is Dharmasena and for that ICC rewarded him with he best umpire award.

Posted by PFEL on (August 7, 2013, 11:02 GMT)

Other than Pietersen's what else was there? I can remember Warner's but it seemed to me that the sound on snicko was his spikes in the pitch as he swivelled.

Posted by DingDong420 on (August 7, 2013, 10:56 GMT)

Why is it whenever this happens against England the conspiracy theories come out.

Remember Broad checking Laxmans bat when hot spot showed he hadn't nicked it.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 10:54 GMT)

Just get rid of hot spot, it's far too unreliable. Doesn't work for fast thin edges, doesn't work on hot days, etc. I was an advocate of the DRS but maybe India were right after all and we should go back to just the two umpires on the field and only use the third umpire for run outs and stumpings.

Posted by mohsin1317 on (August 7, 2013, 10:50 GMT)

Clarke is a great player and I don't think Australian players would be getting into this. Also a great point made by KP "How stupid would I be to try and hide a nick when it could save me on an lbw appeal, like in first innings where Hot Spot showed I nicked it."

Posted by Harlequin. on (August 7, 2013, 10:50 GMT)

What might be interesting to look at in terms of hotspot is how much the different sides of the ball, or even the seam, play a part in the process. From what I understand, hotspots are created by the heat of friction created by the impact and as the bowlers are deliberately altering the friction of either side of the ball when shining it, then you may get different sides of the ball giving different results.

Also, it should be easy enough to inspect for silicone tape....because it's tape and the umpire could peel it off. A silicone oil or a PTFE emulsion rubbed into the side of the bat may be easier to hide (but only the outside edge to save your LBW claims KP!). As a tribologist, I am happy to make some for the batsmen if they want it!! ;)

Posted by CliffM on (August 7, 2013, 10:48 GMT)

Cheating is an interesting word in this context. I am not aware of anything in the Laws that prevents a player from putting tape on his bat.

Posted by android_user on (August 7, 2013, 10:48 GMT)

This is the dumbest conspiracy yet. Next they will be wearing icepacks in their gloves. Total rubbish.

Posted by   on (August 7, 2013, 10:41 GMT)

I believe in Clarke's integrity =D

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Brydon CoverdaleClose
Brydon Coverdale Assistant Editor Possibly the only person to win a headline-writing award for a title with the word "heifers" in it, Brydon decided agricultural journalism wasn't for him when he took up his position with ESPNcricinfo in Melbourne. His cricketing career peaked with an unbeaten 85 in the seconds for a small team in rural Victoria on a day when they could not scrounge up 11 players and Brydon, tragically, ran out of partners to help him reach his century. He is also a compulsive TV game-show contestant and has appeared on half a dozen shows in Australia.
Tour Results
England v Australia at Southampton - Sep 16, 2013
Australia won by 49 runs
England v Australia at Cardiff - Sep 14, 2013
England won by 3 wickets (with 3 balls remaining)
England v Australia at Birmingham - Sep 11, 2013
No result
England v Australia at Manchester - Sep 8, 2013
Australia won by 88 runs
England v Australia at Leeds - Sep 6, 2013
Match abandoned without a ball bowled
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days