Channel Nine have axed the controversial decision-review technology Hot Spot ahead of this summer’s Ashes series.
The Australian inventor of the technology, Warren Brennan, confirmed to Fairfax Media that Channel Nine had opted not to use the technology for the five-Test series, beginning on November 21 in Brisbane.
Brennan indicated that the cost of the technology, which would total $250,000 across the series, was the driving reason for why Channel Nine had axed the system.
Hot Spot was blighted by a series of questionable reviews during the recently completed Ashes series in England, won 3-0 by the home side, in which the Hot Spot technology either missed an edge or provided an inconclusive resolution.
It leaves ball-tracking technology Eagle Eye, audio from stump microphones and close-up slow motion replays as the DRS technology available to umpires.
It comes after a recent ICC announcement in which they indicated that the DRS process would be reviewed.
ChrisUK
Guest
No I meant it was just empty rhetoric!
cantab
Guest
ah....When is this happening?
cantab
Guest
But if it gives you false negatives then take that into account. It still seems like the most valuable tool to me. you could still used it in a manner in which you only use took it's positive readings it would add a lot of value. Watching for minuscule deviation and sound (without snicko) is the most subjective and worse method they have, yet it seems like they will be using this more now.
ChrisUK
Guest
Yep!
josh
Roar Rookie
But they aren't going to mandate all test member to install a minimum DRS standard. So it's more empty rhetoric.
ChrisUK
Guest
The ICC have expressed their "disappointment" about this decision.
ChrisUK
Guest
Best available or most commercially attractive?
ChrisUK
Guest
Sure, it gives false negatives. But better that way around. In concert with a real time snicko it would be fine. Without it, it requires a realistic acceptance of its limitations. If DRS is in place it does seem strange not to be using it.
James
Guest
but we have already proven that the drs system is no longer for the howlers but for every decision you can get and so out is out wether it is a tiny nick or a huge edge.
soapit
Guest
that was more to ensure the best available team was going to be put out.
soapit
Guest
its a stpuid excuse as far as im concerned. those edge it misses must be so fine to be worthy of a not out call anyway.
soapit
Guest
ca have aways been cheap. years ago ch9 offered to install dedicated cameras for run outs (constantly aimed at the right spot) but ca wouldnt stump up the cash so we got the half arsed use of whatever was captured for tv. astonishingly amateur
josh
Roar Rookie
This is why the ICC should fund the DRS. Not sure of the coffers the ICC have but surely each full member nation could accommodate a fee for the DRS to be paid to the ICC to ensure it's consistent use worldwide. What's the point of the ICC?
Anuj
Guest
Why is broadcaster making this decision and not the ICC or CA? Unfortunately money has led to more greed in the system instead of helping the sport and fans and as an Indian, I squarely blame the BCCI for it. They have no regards for fans, either those watching on TV or those spending almost a month's salary to watch a day of cricket in stadium in India.
Talisman
Guest
My initial thought when I read this was - the ICC were so embarrassed by the umpiring during the Ashes series something had to be done to protect them (umpires & ICC) & the money is just a plausible excuse. Haven't changed my mind yet.
James
Guest
it gives false negatives, it always has sometimes the ball nicks the bat but if its at a certain angle it wont show up the white spot. so you will never be given out by hot spot saying a nick happened when it didnt but you may escape when it says a nick didnt happen but it did. its fallible, we have to stop thinking of it as not.
James
Guest
it doesnt give false positives but hot spot in all forms does give false negatives, there is a nick it just doesnt show at certain angles. thats my problem with hot spot. so long as the mic is all good and properly synced up with the ball then i have no problem with hot spot being removed. its more pure this way, the umpire does not have heat vision thingy but he does have his eyes and his ears, using video and sound is just kinda like the umpire 2.0 as opposed to including hotspot which is like umpire 2.0.1. im going to give it a chance. it also, with the cost thing, means that poorer cricketing nations wont have to have hotspot techonology to play more international cricket.
ChrisUK
Guest
According to the Guardian, the ECB hadn't been officially advised of this and were seeking confirmation. They said it was a matter for Channel 9 and CA *at this stage* (my emphasis). I don't actually know what that means or refers to. Would the ECB have any input? It's an interesting thing for them to say - as you say you'd have thought all these things were matters for discussion between the boards.
DJW
Guest
I agree Chris. Why is Channel 9 making this decision and not CA? CA and ECB should of got together after the last Ashes series and tried to work together to come up with the best solution for the upcoming Ashes to ensure where talking about the cricket and not umpiring decisions. Plus the biggest issue seemed to be with the third umpires application of the technology and making this transparent to everyone rather then the technology itself. If everyone knows the basis for third umpring decisions, how and why they arrive at certain decisions, at least we know why decisions are given even if we don't agree with them.
Jayrigg
Guest
Makes you think a bit, I read somewhere last year that nine wanted an input into team selections for one of the one day or 20/20 teams. Don't know how accurate that report was but if true, again its all down to money.