Cricket Player Manager
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 151 to 161 of 161

Thread: Hawkeye: More fallible than they'd like us to think.

  1. #151
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    Hmmm, when they can build a robot that can successfully bat against Warne or Steyn, based on a system of cameras, and a computer program telling it where the ball is going to go, I'll accept that the simulation of an elite humans eye and brain has been developed. Until then, I'd say the best people are better than the technology.
    Ah Jesus, Matt. This is probably the worst post by a good poster I've read. "Nobody's built robots that bat yet, therefore human eyes are better than cameras".
    Last edited by Uppercut; 08-08-2009 at 06:38 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  2. #152
    Hall of Fame Member Jamee999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Leicestershire, UK
    Posts
    15,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    Hmmm, when they can build a robot that can successfully bat against Warne or Steyn, based on a system of cameras, and a computer program telling it where the ball is going to go, I'll accept that the simulation of an elite humans eye and brain has been developed. Until then, I'd say the best people are better than the technology.
    Why would you want a robot batsman? Unless you're planning on starting a robot cricket league, it'd be totally useless.
    Or something.

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990 - 15/4/2006

  3. #153
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    #teamAthlai
    Posts
    27,884
    Quote Originally Posted by slippyslip View Post
    Also, the more forward a batsmen is the less accurate hawkeye will be.

    Snicko is probably the worst piece of "technology" out there. Just looking at soundwaves and estimating when the ball went past the bat and linking them up. Fun for viewers, hope its never used for anything more than that.
    They now synch together the video footage and audio together by the way. With times down to the millisecond and everything.
    Direbirds FTW!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Wellington will win the whole thing next year. Mark my words.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I'll offer up my avatar to Athlai forever if Wellington wins the Champions League.
    President of T.I.T.S
    Tamim Is Talented Society

  4. #154
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Ah Jesus, Matt. This is probably the worst post by a good poster I've read. "Nobody's built robots that bat yet, therefore human eyes are better than cameras".
    Uppercut, I'm completely serious. You're saying that Hawkeye is better than human eyes. I'm saying that if you really have a machine that can calculate wha a ball will do, I look forward to seeing the resultant batting machine.

    I'm no expert, but I'd suspect that the hawkeye system probably calculates based on some base line parameters and a couple of variables per delivery. The human brain/eye combo remains massively more advanced and capable.

    Essentially what you're arguing is that access to multiple replays and/or slow motion would help you make a better decision, which is a truism tha says nothing about whether Hawkeye in and of itself is more accurate than a person.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.


  5. #155
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamee999 View Post
    Why would you want a robot batsman? Unless you're planning on starting a robot cricket league, it'd be totally useless.
    In as one of the RCL managers.
    NRL Tipping Champion 2014

    Over 0.2: Putland to Nevill, OUT, no run, full ball swings in late to crash into his pads. Nevill is almost falling over trying to get bat on it but can't. Huge shout for LBW and Umpire Martell eventually raises the finger! P.Nevill - lbw b:Putland 0 (1 ball, 1 minute).

  6. #156
    International Coach pup11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    India
    Posts
    12,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    Uppercut, I'm completely serious. You're saying that Hawkeye is better than human eyes. I'm saying that if you really have a machine that can calculate wha a ball will do, I look forward to seeing the resultant batting machine.

    I'm no expert, but I'd suspect that the hawkeye system probably calculates based on some base line parameters and a couple of variables per delivery. The human brain/eye combo remains massively more advanced and capable.

    Essentially what you're arguing is that access to multiple replays and/or slow motion would help you make a better decision, which is a truism tha says nothing about whether Hawkeye in and of itself is more accurate than a person.
    Yeah, I agree with you on this....

    What hawk-eye does is predict the line of the ball after impact, now there is a clear problem with that, in 8/10 instances hawk-eye shows the ball hitting or clipping the stumps, now if one starts going by that, most tests would be over in 2 days or less.

    The thing with the lbw law is, its not as clear cut as other modes of dismissal that are there in cricket, an umpire has to predict whether the ball would have hit the stumps and also take into account all the other factors, that are required for an lbw decision to go be given in favor of a batsman or a bowler.

    Now I would always trust an umpire to do a better job than hawk-eye when making an lbw decision, I think most good umpires don't rule a batsman lbw, unless they are completely sure that the ball is hitting the stumps.

    Not noticing an inside-edge, or the the impact outside off-stump, or the ball pitching outside leg, are some usual errors that umpires make while ruling someone lbw, and this where hawk-eye and hot-spot can help the 3rd umpire as guidelines, but I'm not big on it predicting whether a ball is hitting the stumps or not.

  7. #157
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,763
    I kinda agree with Matt, although I like technology being introduced simply because it has no inherent bias.

    As much as we may dog our umps, the human brain is advanced and people seem to assume that every calculation made by it is a conscious one. I am sure umps have watched so many balls, know so much about the game, etc, that sub-consciously their brains are wired to give very accurate calls and may take into account variables a machine/program may not.
    ★★★★★

  8. #158
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    Uppercut, I'm completely serious. You're saying that Hawkeye is better than human eyes. I'm saying that if you really have a machine that can calculate wha a ball will do, I look forward to seeing the resultant batting machine.

    I'm no expert, but I'd suspect that the hawkeye system probably calculates based on some base line parameters and a couple of variables per delivery. The human brain/eye combo remains massively more advanced and capable.

    Essentially what you're arguing is that access to multiple replays and/or slow motion would help you make a better decision, which is a truism tha says nothing about whether Hawkeye in and of itself is more accurate than a person.
    The building of a robot batsman is a ridiculous and completely irrelevant idea, but apart from that, I do see where you're coming from. I thought you meant that the raw human eye is better than 8 different camera angles and the use of slow motion etc., it seems you meant that the human eye with the use of all technology except the predictive element of hawkeye is better than that prediction.

    I'm not entirely convinced, but you might be right. It wouldn't be too hard to test if you wanted to find out, you'd think.

  9. #159
    Banned sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    32,390
    Im all for hawkeye tbh, I'm not convinced that it's 100% accurate all of the time,but I am willing to bet that it gets the majority of decisions right, which is probably as good as any of the umpires on the international circuit.,

  10. #160
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Brigida
    Posts
    751
    In for Hawkeye.

  11. #161
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    As I've stated before, my problem with it is how the frame at which the ball is paused andd the prediction is based upon is arbitrary, chosen depending on the man in the van (which is how it operates, btw - one bloke inside a van), and affects the result too much.
    And the silly thing is, for the overwhelming majority of lbws you can see quite clearly whether they're out or not just based on slo-mo replays. Only in a small number is there any real doubt.

    As for the ascertation that Snicko is worse than HawkEye, well, how laughable. Snicko is one of the most reliable pieces of technology because it reveals facts, as does HotSpot. HawkEye does, to some extent, reveal facts, but the predictive element is obviously a different matter.

    Whether it's still more reliable than a human eye, well, that's an interesting question.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. High time ICC have a check on the umpires
    By biased indian in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 12-04-2004, 02:12 PM
  2. Hawkeye - the future?
    By luckyeddie in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-08-2002, 04:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •