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

[Dasa]

I like hawkeye, I do not like Steve Bucknor. So anything that gives a guy with a laptop more power to make correct decisions above the rate made by the Ump is a good thing IMO.

That's the main point of those supporting more technology....even if HawkEye isn't 100% correct (which is certainly isn't), I suspect it'd get things right more frequently than umpires would...of course, that's just speculation at this point.

 

[Autobahn]

That's the main point of those supporting more technology....even if HawkEye isn't 100% correct (which is certainly isn't), I suspect it'd get things right more frequently than umpires would...of course, that's just speculation at this point.

That's probably a better way of putting across the point i was making

Remember Hawk-eye doesn't predict bounce or deviation or turn, it simply follows the path of the ball, i.e. a missle tracking system wouldn't predict where the missle would go it follows the path of the missle.

when people turn around and point out that a cricket ball is smaller, remember during the gulf war when they managed to guide a guide a bomb into an air-vent, shows that size doesn't matter and that tracking systems are able to handle that level of precision.

And friendly fire is rarely an accuracy-problem it's often a result of poor communication and organisation, which leads to confusion over the positions of allied-units.

I suspect people here making Accuracy out to be a huge problem (when it is much better than some umpires), are just covering up the fact they aren't comfortable with hawk-eye as an umpiring tool.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Oh no, Hawkeye was out because some pillock didn't get the cameras in the right place. It got one thing wrong - lets never use it again, one error makes it useless. Now if we could find 100 umpires for the next Test and sack each one as soon as they get a decision wrong then everyone will happy.

 

[kwigibo]

when people turn around and point out that a cricket ball is smaller, remember during the gulf war when they managed to guide a guide a bomb into an air-vent, shows that size doesn't matter and that tracking systems are able to handle that level of precision.

And friendly fire is rarely an accuracy-problem it's often a result of poor communication and organisation, which leads to confusion over the positions of allied-units.

I suspect people here making Accuracy out to be a huge problem (when it is much better than some umpires), are just covering up the fact they aren't comfortable with hawk-eye as an umpiring tool.

Air vent, shmair vent, that's not a resonable anology. If they dropped a dumb bomb and figured out in a couple of seconds that it had by chance fallen through an air vent that was sticking out of the target, maybe that might relate. If a machine was launching cricket balls at batsmen, and in depth satellite and airborne reconaissance was undertaken over the cricket pitch and surrounding terrain, and hours of mission planning preceded the bowling of each delivery, I could see the relevance of missile accuracy.

And the whole air vent missile thing reaks so very much of defense industry propaganda. Even with modern technology and training they still occasionally bomb an afghan wedding reception, or drop their ordinance on the wrong country (to be fair I'm sure Syria looks uncannily like Iraq from 40,000 feet).

Which is not to say Hawkeye makes me uncomfortable at all, before I started noticing the errors I was ready to lock umpires out of lbw decisions. But such obvious mistakes suggest to me that it's no better than umpires, and less accurate than a simple video review of the delivery in a lot of cases.

 

[honestbharani]

In one of the test matches in the recent series, Kumble clean bowled a batsman. Hawkeye showed that the ball would have missed the stumps by over an inch !!

This is a fact.

I think Hawkeye should be trusted only for where the ball pitched and for the rest it should be shown with a caveat 'Hawkeye is approximate"

It was Bell's dismissal at Mohali, I think. And yes, I never thought much of it than as a guide. But to be honest, the makers did say their error would be around 1-4 cms, I think.

 

[Autobahn]

Air vent, shmair vent, that's not a resonable anology. If they dropped a dumb bomb and figured out in a couple of seconds that it had by chance fallen through an air vent that was sticking out of the target, maybe that might relate. If a machine was launching cricket balls at batsmen, and in depth satellite and airborne reconaissance was undertaken over the cricket pitch and surrounding terrain, and hours of mission planning preceded the bowling of each delivery, I could see the relevance of missile accuracy.

And the whole air vent missile thing reaks so very much of defense industry propaganda. Even with modern technology and training they still occasionally bomb an afghan wedding reception, or drop their ordinance on the wrong country (to be fair I'm sure Syria looks uncannily like Iraq from 40,000 feet).

Which is not to say Hawkeye makes me uncomfortable at all, before I started noticing the errors I was ready to lock umpires out of lbw decisions. But such obvious mistakes suggest to me that it's no better than umpires, and less accurate than a simple video review of the delivery in a lot of cases.

I'm not going to get dragged into Foreign policy in this thread, and i can't find or remember news articles of the two events so i'm not going to comment.

The Vent-bomb analogy was to show that computers and guidance systems which hawk-eye is based on, can handle precise calculations wether it be guiding bombs down vents or following the trajectory of a cricket ball's deviation off the pitch.

Errors? You've pointed out one or two so far and you don't even know for sure wether the system was set up right

 

[steds]

to be fair I'm sure Syria looks uncannily like Iraq from 40,000 feet

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not going to get dragged into Foreign policy in this thread, and i can't find or remember news articles of the two events so i'm not going to comment.

"us bomb afghan wedding" has 2.4 million matches on google. You can't have looked very hard.

The wedding one - The United States is to send a team of military experts to Afghanistan to investigate how a US plane accidentally bombed an Afghan wedding celebration, apparently killing and wounding a large number of civilians.

And the second incident - The US military has confirmed that a bus carrying Syrian civilians was hit by an American missile, killing five people and wounding at least 10. A statement from a US spokesman at the coalition's Central Command headquarters in Qatar said that the US-led forces "regretted" the loss of life, saying the bus was destroyed while coalition forces were targeting a bridge in Rutba, a western Iraqi town near the Syrian border.

Just indicating that they did in fact happen, and even the missle guidance systems have flaws, though hopefully much less rarely than Hawkeye.

 

[C_C]

I have no problems with umpires becomming obsolete. Charm this or charm that- the ultimate objective is to have as best a judiciary as possible.
Currently, its not the case.
While the version of hawkeye used in cricket has its flaws, its still significantly less flawed than the so-called elite umpires.
And more to the point, it is CONSISTENT.
Umpiring errors are anything but consistent- they are pretty random and inconsistant.
Also, hawkeye needs to be used properly and i am not convinced that the commentary teams have the expertise to use hawkeye properly.
I shall be watching its introduction in tennis closely. If its a success, cricket should immediately adopt it.

And as far as predictive technology aspect- the umpires do the exact same thing - they predict which way the ball is gonna go if there was no obstruction.

 

[Ikki]

This reminds me of a speed-gun issue in Australia. The independant testing showed that whilst speed-guns did work most of the time, there were few occaisions that it showed the wrong readings. It was also flawed in that the wrong car could be fined because the speed-gun caught the car next to it and that person would be fined. There is high-revenue in this, yet it is costing people a fortune every year. It is flawed technology, and hence, it is unequitable and it is enforcing the law in a flawed manner. In the same regard, I'd only EVER consider Hawk-Eye if it were something towards 100%. As such, even then I would not propose it realistically. Cricket is a game, a sport. Luck is apparent in our sport, and often can give fans high's and lows, depending on who fortune favours at that time. I think replacing this with something as mechanic as Hawk-Eye is dangerous to the sport.

A movie rings to mind: Stanley Kubrick's: 2001- A Space Odyssey

 

[C_C]

It is flawed technology

Every technology is flawed.
There is no such thing as 'works 100% of the time with accuracy and precision'.

Cricket is a game, a sport. Luck is apparent in our sport, and often can give fans high's and lows, depending on who fortune favours at that time. I think replacing this with something as mechanic as Hawk-Eye is dangerous to the sport.

Au contraire- it is something that is exceedingly good for the sport- it takes away the controversy.
Video replay is extensively used in NHL to determine a goal and crease violations. As such, there is hardly ANY controversy in the NHL about goals.
I have no problems in reducing umpires to nothing more than the showboy who calls for tea in the middle, if that is the more accurate option.
If the very fundamental nature of the sport can be altered through technology(such as batmaking, ball-making,pitch-making,pad-making etc.), there is no reason why umpires should be immune to technology at the face of their incompetence.

 

[Ikki]

Every technology is flawed.
There is no such thing as 'works 100% of the time with accuracy and precision'.

Which is kinda why I said that, it won't happen .

Au contraire- it is something that is exceedingly good for the sport- it takes away the controversy.
Video replay is extensively used in NHL to determine a goal and crease violations. As such, there is hardly ANY controversy in the NHL about goals.
I have no problems in reducing umpires to nothing more than the showboy who calls for tea in the middle, if that is the more accurate option.
If the very fundamental nature of the sport can be altered through technology(such as batmaking, ball-making,pitch-making,pad-making etc.), there is no reason why umpires should be immune to technology at the face of their incompetence.

That's your take on it mate, if I thought the same way I'd be watching Chess. Why? No other variables apart from skill. No luck, no umpire, no nada.

 

[C_C]

Which is kinda why I said that, it won't happen

If 100% accuracy and precision is not a pre-requisite condition to put a man on moon or explode nukes, it most definately isnt a pre-requisite for a rather petty issue like a sport.
The question is, despite its flaws, is it better than the existing system- the answer is, yes.

Why? No other variables apart from skill. No luck, no umpire, no nada.

Luck isnt always tied to the umpire. You get a lucky reprive off a spilt catch or being bowled off a no-ball, etc.
No real umpiring impetus does take away from the sport- it takes mostly the controversy away, as evidenced by NHL.
Simple attachment to traditions is no excuse to impede the development of a more efficient and accurate judiciary system- be it in legalease or in sports.

 

[Ikki]

Simple attachment to traditions is no excuse to impede the development of a more efficient and accurate judiciary system- be it in legalease or in sports.

You're not proposing a simple attachment. You're calling for an overhaul.

 

[Autobahn]

"us bomb afghan wedding" has 2.4 million matches on google. You can't have looked very hard.

I actually typed the same thing in the BBC website and got nothing like that

The wedding one - The United States is to send a team of military experts to Afghanistan to investigate how a US plane accidentally bombed an Afghan wedding celebration, apparently killing and wounding a large number of civilians.

Well the US panel concluded that the aircraft suffered incoming fire and they where right in returning fire:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2242428.stm

So they where aiming for the people who they thought where attacking the aircraft. It wasn't a mistake or a bad accuracy.

And the second incident - The US military has confirmed that a bus carrying Syrian civilians was hit by an American missile, killing five people and wounding at least 10. A statement from a US spokesman at the coalition's Central Command headquarters in Qatar said that the US-led forces "regretted" the loss of life, saying the bus was destroyed while coalition forces were targeting a bridge in Rutba, a western Iraqi town near the Syrian border.

Just indicating that they did in fact happen, and even the missle guidance systems have flaws, though hopefully much less rarely than Hawkeye.

"The bus stopped on the bridge and was hit by munitions already released prior to the bus approaching the bridge,"

They didn't miss the bus just got in the way on the bridge.

 

[C_C]

You're not proposing a simple attachment. You're calling for an overhaul.

I meant 'simple attachment to traditions' ala 'umpires having full authority is a must' kinda assumptions.

 

[marc71178]

It was Bell's dismissal at Mohali, I think. And yes, I never thought much of it than as a guide. But to be honest, the makers did say their error would be around 1-4 cms, I think.

Which makes it anything from about a 5-20% error.

 

[Richard]

It's pretty clear, for me, that HawkEye should NEVER be used as an Umpiring aid. It clearly has faults, unlike the Snickometer, Red Zone and the fading of the batsman to determine lbws.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It was Bell's dismissal at Mohali, I think. And yes, I never thought much of it than as a guide. But to be honest, the makers did say their error would be around 1-4 cms, I think.

I very much doubt they said the errors would be around 1-4 cms.



The choice is clear, you can use Hawkeye to whatever degree you like (could be just replays with the ball tracking graphic overlaid or you could use it for every lbw or somewhere in between) and improve the standard of decisions in the game or you can be a luddite.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's pretty clear, for me, that HawkEye should NEVER be used as an Umpiring aid. It clearly has faults, unlike the Snickometer, Red Zone and the fading of the batsman to determine lbws.

Snicko clearly has major flaws as well. It is regularly totally wrong, missing huge edges or proving inconclusive when (for example) bat and pad are close together and there are two noises. The red zone is obviously a pretty simple tool and is almost always useful in determining where the ball pitched (though really, that is pretty easy on a replay even without it).

None of the technology available for use is flawless, but there are situations where it can be applied with maximum possible use and minimal chance of inconclusive returns. Run out and stumping calls are obvious examples, and I think potentially a cyclops type device to track no balls could be a very good idea as well, if it was as reliable as it is in tennis. These are very black and white decisions where a replay could prove conclusive, though the time wasting for no balls would be useless if it had to be a replay instead of an automatic response.

Video replays are very inconclusive for edges, catches and in some cases LBW decisions, but if the only question asked was whether or not the ball pitched in line they could be used reasonably. This was however tested at the Champions Trophy in 2002 and was largely a failure, with lots of wasted time and many inconclusive calls.