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.
GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010Originally Posted by Irfan
Is Cam White, Is Good.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.,
In for Hawkeye.
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.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)