England consider formal complaint after Snicko error costs Carey's wicket
Briefly

England consider formal complaint after Snicko error costs Carey's wicket
"This issue in this instance was that the spike came before any possible contact on the replay, whereas similar occurrences earlier in the series have seen it come afterwards and are factored into the umpiring protocols. With Carey later admitting he thought he had hit the ball the wicketkeeper said he would have reviewed in hope had it been given out on the field BBG, the company that owns Snicko, owned up to the mistake, which came with Australia 245 for six."
"The only conclusion that can be drawn from this, is that the Snicko operator at the time must have selected the incorrect stump mic for audio processing. In light of this, BBG Sports takes full responsibility for the error. The technology uses audio from the stump microphones and in this instance it is believed the feed from the one at the non-striker's end may have been used in error."
"The boys were pretty confident he hit it, said Saker. I think the calibration of the Snicko is out quite a bit and that has probably been the case for the series. There's been some things that don't really measure up. At that stage it was a pretty important decision. Those things hurt, but you get through it. In this day and age you"
England are considering a formal complaint over the Snicko technology after Alex Carey received a lifeline en route to a century in the third Test. Carey was on 72 when Josh Tongue believed the left-hander had edged behind and was given not out on the field; third umpire Chris Gaffeney did not overturn despite a spike appearing on the review. The spike in this instance occurred before any possible contact on the replay, unlike earlier cases where spikes followed contact. Carey thought he had hit the ball. BBG admitted an incorrect stump microphone feed was likely used. England were unhappy and bowling coach David Saker indicated a complaint to match referee Jeff Crowe may follow.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]