matticus
Guru
Ah, that's interesting. Sounds like a very fixable problem đź‘Ť I just hope none of our guys get out via Snicko tomorrow ...
[I also hope our guys ARE batting most of tomorrow!]
Cricket thread
- Thread starter rich p
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Ah, that's interesting. Sounds like a very fixable problem đź‘Ť I just hope none of our guys get out via Snicko tomorrow ...
[I also hope our guys ARE batting most of tomorrow!]
laurentian
Well-Known Member
You can see just how wrong Snicko was here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c0mpjw7g7nko
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c0mpjw7g7nko
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
The BBG explanation makes little sense. Using a mike just 22 yards away would not result in such a time delay.
Bonefish Blues
Banging donk
- Location
- 52 Festive Road
I've read this mistake exacerbated something that's already known whereby the TV Snicko is already slightly asynchronous, whereas the one that's shown to the TMO is properly synced. Not sure if true though.
laurentian
Well-Known Member
Yeah . . . and, even if bowled very fast, you would expect the "snick" to be seen after you could see contact not before
Dogtrousers
Lefty tighty. Get it righty.
So at the end of tomorrow's play Aus could be facing the prospect of another long day in the field in the searing heat..
... Or maybe they'll say "nah, we won't enforce the follow-on."
Last edited:
Dogtrousers
Lefty tighty. Get it righty.
It did affect the Aus innings but it's a bit early to say it's affected the outcome of the test.
T4tomo
Legendary Member
Well the real indication the explanation is bollox is that it would result in the snick noise occurring after the ball passed the bat, not before it
