By AAP
December 21st 2009 @ 7:21am
View The Roar's top cricket writers.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
Join Australia’s community for solo & micro business at FlyingSolo.com.au
Related coverage
Broad defends video review decision
Match referee Chris Broad has defended the controversial dismissal of West Indies tailender Kemar Roach that delivered Australia a 35-run third Test win in Perth on Sunday.
Roach was adjudged caught behind by on-field umpire Billy Bowden off Doug Bollinger on the final day and requested for a review of the decision by third umpire Asad [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(6)
Mushi said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
If the stump microphone did pick up the connection of bat and ball then how did hot spot not pick up the transfer/generation of heat from the same collision?
The outcome for such technology is binary – either it hit the bat or it didn’t. The absence of any indication that it hit the bat should be enough evidence that it did not.
If they are saying that the image will not register such contact then it shouldn’t be used as they are admitting ti is completely and utterly useless for the purposes it has been employed.
sittingbison said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
and there’s the rub
george said | December 22nd 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
In this case visual evidence is better that audio evidence therefore if the visual evidence was not conclusive then he should have been given out.
Greg Russell said | December 22nd 2009 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Mushi is correct that “either it hit the bat or it didn’t”. However the fault in Mushi’s argument is that Hot Spot has a flawless correlation with this “binary outcome”. The ICC has never said it does, in fact it has made clear that Hot Spot is not perfect. Most likely this was an example of this imperfection. The reason is simple: the contact between bat and ball must be substantial enough to generate an amount of heat that Hot Spot can detect. In the case of very faint edges – which this most likely was – there is obviously not sufficient heat.
Why do I say “most likely”? Because the audio also is admissable evidence. It’s a dangerous game when one starts saying that audio evidence should be ignored and only visual evidence allowed (seemingly because of a desire for Australia to suffer defeat?). Did Chris Gayle recall Mitchell Johnson in T1 when he was given out but Hot Spot showed no edge? No. So it’s hypocritical for Gayle now to argue that Roach should not have been given out.
The bottom line is that the Australians heard a noise (it was a genuine rather than a contrived appeal), the umpire heard a noise, the noise was that of bat hitting ball rather than a foot hitting the ground, the bat was a long way from the body (making it hard to argue that the noise was from anything other than bat hitting the ball), and the stump microphone confirmed the noise of bat hitting ball at the appropriate instance. While none of this proves that Roach definitely was out, it certainly gives a compelling case for upholding the on-field umpire’s decision.
I also note that the body language of the West Indian batsmen was certainly not one of “we wuz robbed” after the final decision came through. On the other hand, Johnson’s body language in Brisbane was definitely one that made clear that he strongly believed he hadn’t hit the ball.
The interesting thing is what would have happened if Bowden gave it not out and the Australians referred the decision. I suspect it would have remained not out.
On the balance of probability, this was out, but one can’t say for sure. In such situations the on-field umpire’s decision should be accepted. Whichever way it goes, it is not a howler. The referral system is designed to correct howlers, not to adjudicate where there is uncertainty.
There’s the argument about the batsman getting the benefit of the doubt. But this is only for the on-field umpire’s decision. The terms of reference for the referral system are that where there is doubt, the umpire rather than the batsman gets the benefit. In other words, the original decision of the umpire holds.
If this sounds unfair, then consider lbws. There is no such thing as an lbw without doubt, because one can never say for sure that the ball would have hit the stumps. So if the principle of the batsman getting the benefit of the doubt were to be applied literally, then there would never be any lbws. That would be absurd. In other words, there is no strict principle that the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry for a long comment here, but there are many issues raised by this incident, and it is dangerous to over-simplify in one’s assessment of what happened.
Campbell Watts said | December 22nd 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
I disagree Greg,
The audio response picked up is not conclusive evidence just because the bat is away from the body – it could have originated from pads hitting each other or a dragging of spikes on the pitch. Audio can come from many places
The visual evidence of hotspot can not deny an edge as the heat is left on the bat – visually obvious where it came from!
So whatI”m saying is that a noise can come from many sources – whereas a visual of a nick on hotspot is undenyable.
I’ll agree hotspot may not be perfect – but neither is audio! Enough uncertainty to give not out? I’d argue yes!
Greg Russell said | December 23rd 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Campbell,
1. “The visual evidence of hotspot can not deny an edge”
Yes, but this does not mean that the reverse applies, i.e., that when there is no hot spot then there was no edge. As I wrote yesterday: “The reason is simple: the contact between bat and ball must be substantial enough to generate an amount of heat that Hot Spot can detect. In the case of very faint edges – which this most likely was – there is obviously not sufficient heat.”
So, sometimes when there is an edge there is no hot spot. The ICC openly admits this, and it is one reason why it publicly states that Hot Spot is not flawless.
2. “a noise can come from many sources … it could have originated from pads hitting each other or a dragging of spikes on the pitch.”
Indeed. But the point is that these are quite DIFFERENT noises (and if you listen to the stump microphones, it is very easy to hear this). So it is not just that Asad Rauf heard a noise, but that he heard the right kind of noise (i.e., bat hitting ball) at the right instant. Here are Broad’s precise words on this:
“The third umpire, when reviewing the decision, used a range of technologies that were available to him, including the slow-motion replays, amplified stump microphone sound (at normal speed and slow motion) … the noise of the ball hitting the bat was picked up by the stump microphone.”
If you have ever heard amplified stump microphone on slow motion (Channel 9 has sometimes played it), you will understand that there is a massive difference between ball hitting bat, pads hitting each other, dragging of spikes on the pitch, etc.
So your argument is extremely tenuous, and seemingly it is more based on emotion than on an understanding of evidence-based probability.