Dravid is thrown away again by wrong umpire decision?!

[Aswin8]

Hotspot technology is ill-treated again by 3rd umpires..so is it required?is the technoloy is accepted?should these umpires should be taken action?

 

[Varun]

I suspect they have a grudge against Dravid.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

It looked out real-time to me.

It looked out in the slow-mo replay.

Correct decision. Hot Spot is not 100%, and there are factors that can influence it, including moisture in the atmosphere, bat stickers etc...

Using all the evidence, and the fact that it looked out, I see no problem in the decision.

 

[Aditya]

I actually don't agree with the decision. If you're not going with the hot spot, then there is no point in having it. When it shows the white spot (clearing that the player has hit the ball) the umpire easily believes it, without any discussion but when it shows that the player hasn't hit the ball the umpire this time around doesn't go with it straightaway. Has there ever been any incident where the hot spot has shown the edge but the umpire doesn't go with it simply because in the real time it doesn't look good. Now, some would say how could this happen in hot spot but then obviously hot spot is not perfect so I even see this happening. Basically my point is, when you're not going with the hot spot 100% there is no point in having it. Dravid's dismissal today looked out in the real time so the decision was indeed correct.

 

[Viren]

whats the use of having technology if you do not ant to use it?

 

[Aswin8]

Yeah..its a waste of money..
bcci must take action against this issue,else it would become a huge problem,
however there is something is seen in the snicko..so whats right?!

 

[Viren]

snicko does not matter,it is not associated with hot spot,you should see what hot spot is saying and not snicko.

 

[Sureshot]

whats the use of having technology if you do not ant to use it?

I talked about this in the thread, it doesn't matter if Hotspot doesn't show an edge if other, more conclusive aids (like sound) show he did.

Hotspot still has it's uses, little gloves to close in fielders, etc.

It's an aid. I'm sure if there was no sound, but a white spot on hotspot you'd all be moaning that they didn't use the lack of a noise.

He hit it, Snicko confirmed the decision and the sound was distinctive. Though I do think it was a brave decision and I was surprised they overturned it, but the right decision was made.

Edit: To add to that, you use all the aids together to build a picture, it's evidence building, some evidence has more weight than others.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

^ Exactly. The DRS was implemented to make the game more fair. It's about using all the evidence in conjecture in order to conclude what was most probable likelihood. You can't just base your decision entirely on one piece of technology when the others are conflicting that information.

Snicko confirmed the correct decision was made. And that's why the DRS is there - for correct decisions. So why the moan?

India has no logical argument to be fussed up about this decision.

 

[Aswin8]

So you guys agree that 'Hotspot can be wrong at some times'

 

[Sureshot]

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's useless and needs to be reviewed. The fact is the umpires already know that in proven edges it hasn't shown. This is why you look at all the different aids, just as in a court case you'd look at all the bits of evidence, not one bit.

 

[Varun]

We expect way too much from technology. I don't have in-depth knowledge about how this hot-spot thing is implemented, but all I know is, technology is just going to assist us. It's us who have to make the final decisions. It just gives us an more accurate description of the things. Rest is umpire's discretion. And this technology is bound to falter sometimes as well.

 

[Aditya]

Well, you do make a good point there, Varun. The thing is, it's fine that the umpires are not totally dependent on technology but then what is the point of having it when there is not 100% trust on it? I feel for Dravid, hot spot shows nothing but the 3rd umpire goes by the real time replay. What will happen if a player is judged out when the real time replay shows that he is not out but the hot spot shows the white spot. There is obviously a element of a doubt with the technology and the umpires need to make up their mind on whether to go with the technology or go with the real time replays in such situations. This basically means, that the technology must not be used if it's not 100% accurate, it keeps on improving - fine but then it's just too unfair for a player who has been judged out even though technology doesn't prove it.

 

[Varun]

It is umpire's discretion. Again, technology is just to assist them. If they still feel they are correct, they can do so. Of course, they may fail, but then they are humans after all.

And adding to that, I will reiterate that I have no idea how this works. It's just my general views. I'd love someone to enlighten me on how this works in concise words, I am too lazy to read long articles.

 

[Sureshot]

Well, you do make a good point there, Varun. The thing is, it's fine that the umpires are not totally dependent on technology but then what is the point of having it when there is not 100% trust on it? I feel for Dravid, hot spot shows nothing but the 3rd umpire goes by the real time replay. What will happen if a player is judged out when the real time replay shows that he is not out but the hot spot shows the white spot. There is obviously a element of a doubt with the technology and the umpires need to make up their mind on whether to go with the technology or go with the real time replays in such situations. This basically means, that the technology must not be used if it's not 100% accurate, it keeps on improving - fine but then it's just too unfair for a player who has been judged out even though technology doesn't prove it.

But you're missing the point of the evidence that they used to give him out today, the sound. Again, it doesn't matter if one of the aids shows nothing, if another one shows more conclusive evidence.

The technology did prove it, Snicko did after the decision, I firmly believe we need to bring Snicko in to the game, maybe get the lazy teams to bowl at 15 overs an hour, as they should so easily be doing (not pointing at any one team here).

Again, it also doesn't matter if Snicko doesn't show an edge on the smallest of nicks, because it has uses in other areas. It's an aid to be used as part of the system, not a definitive that has to be one or the other.