This was published 3 months ago
Snicko is used in the Ashes, but UltraEdge in the BBL. The quirks of cricket technology explained
Cricket can be a difficult game to explain to those not familiar with the quirks of the sport. The explanation for the use of technology is not straightforward, either.
Many of the one million-plus viewers who settled in to watch the Big Bash League after the Ashes on Thursday may be wondering why there is different technology used for the Tests in this country and for Cricket Australia’s Twenty20 competition.
Players have lost faith in Snicko after it returned controversial decisions during the Adelaide Test, but UltraEdge is being used for a lower level of cricket despite being considered by some experts, including Ricky Ponting, to be the superior technology.
Even to seasoned cricket viewers, it seemed an additional absurdity in the technology debate that has exploded during this Ashes summer.
What are Snicko and UltraEdge?
The Snickometer, known as Snicko, uses frame by frame pictures of the ball passing the bat matched up with a waveform to capture the sound from any contact between bat and ball.
It also detects other sounds, such as the ball hitting the pad, the bat hitting the ground and the bat touching pad, but they produce spikes of different lengths.
UltraEdge, designed by Hawk-Eye in 2016, is different from Snicko as it uses Hawk-Eye’s ball-tracking technology to match the sound, whereas Snicko requires a person to align the images with the sound.
What’s the controversy, and why have players lost faith in Snicko?
Questions were raised about the accuracy of Snicko after Alex Carey was given not out on day one then later admitting he had hit the ball.
The technology revealed a spike several frames before the ball had passed Carey’s bat.
BBG Sports, the third party in charge of providing Snicko to broadcasters, said they had made a mistake by turning up the sound on the stump microphone at the bowler’s end instead. It meant the wrong graphic was shown, and the pictures and sounds were out of sync.
On the second day, the Australians were miffed Jamie Smith was not given out, caught behind, to a bouncer from Pat Cummins, adamant it had come off glove and helmet. Snicko technology forced umpires to rule the ball had come off only Smith’s helmet.
“Snicko needs to be sacked. That’s the worst technology there is. They make a mistake the other day, and they make another mistake today,” Mitchell Starc said in comments captured by the stump microphone.
Labuschagne added sarcastically: “[Smith’s] got to get the doctor because his head’s apparently got blown off.”
To the dismay of Smith and Ben Stokes, Smith was eventually given out caught behind after hooking another bouncer from Cummins. TV umpire Chris Gaffaney ruled Smith was out based on a spike in Snicko, but doubts were raised due to a gap between frames when the ball passed the bat.
Why is Snicko used for the Ashes, but not the BBL?
Fox, the host broadcaster for the Ashes, use Snicko, while Seven uses UltraEdge.
UltraEdge is considerably more expensive to operate so it’s understandable that a broadcaster would want to save a few pennies after signing a $1.5 billion TV deal.
The International Cricket Council pays for technology for the World Cup in the 50-over and Twenty20 formats but not for bilateral series such as the Ashes.
Which technology is better?
Former Australia captain Ricky Ponting has said umpires have privately lost faith in Snicko, which is used in Australia and New Zealand. UltraEdge is preferred in England, India and South Africa.
“This technology that we are using here is simply not as good as technology that is used in other countries,” he told Seven.
“You talk to the umpires, they’ll tell you the same thing. They can’t trust it.”
“They’ve got a third umpire sitting up in there that’s got to make decisions based on what he’s seeing that the technology is providing, and sometimes they have a gut feel that it’s not right.
“That can’t happen. You’ve got to be able to trust the technology that’s in place.”
Former England captain Michael Vaughan is not a fan of Snicko either.
“It’s a shocker. It’s wrong. The players have lost trust in it,” Vaughan told BBC Sport’s Ashes Debrief.
“The ICC need to look at themselves in the mirror because who pays for this? The host broadcaster aren’t going to pay for the best technology, they pay so much for the rights. The home board aren’t going to pay for it.
“The ICC should be paying for whatever the best technology is. This is an ICC event, it’s the World Test Championship.”
Should we get rid of technology?
At a point when teams battle to bowl the required number of overs in day, it takes more time out of the game for the video umpire to review decisions and for teams to deliberate whether to send close calls upstairs.
Former England international, coach and commentator David ‘Bumble’ Lloyd does not believe it has improved the game.
“DRS is supposed to improve everything; now we’re talking about DRS’s failure. It’s not worked,” Lloyd said on Seven.
Technology is not perfect, but it is better than the old method of leaving it all in the hands of the on-field umpires. The average rate of on-field decisions being overturned is about 25 per cent, according to ICC figures.
But the Decision Review System was introduced to eliminate howlers. In this series, it has contributed to a couple.
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport are sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.
