Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 161

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

  1. #16
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Autobahn
    Well they use the same technology for guided missiles so i doubt the accuracy is a problem
    Since when has a cricket ball been a guided missile?

    And when was the last time a guided missile was sent out to bounce on the ground, change direction and then hit its target?
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  2. #17
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    And when was the last time a guided missile was sent out to bounce on the ground, change direction and then hit its target?

  3. #18
    cpr
    cpr is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year cpr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Autobahn
    Well they use the same technology for guided missiles so i doubt the accuracy is a problem
    2 Words.

    Friendly Fire.

    "All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce
    Langeveldt: I of course blame their parents.. and unchecked immigration!
    GingerFurball: He's Austrian, they tend to produce the odd ****ed up individual
    Burgey: Be careful dealing with neighbours whose cars don't have wheels but whose houses do.
    Uppercut: Maybe I just need better strippers

  4. #19
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,072
    Quote Originally Posted by kwigibo
    I'd love a reliable technological alternative to the on field umpire, but Hawkeye is looking more and more flawed. Case in point, Ntini's dismissal last night, which confirmed what I've suspected for a while, Hawkeye sucks at accurately displaying changes in trajectory off the pitch. Looking at the video, the ball spun enough that it was not missing off, but was likely a bit high. The commentators felt this way too until hawkeye told them what to think, which was the opposite, not necessarily high, but missing off.

    It does make sense that these errors are made, and I've noticed it before numerous times, particularly when the ball is spinning generously.
    I did not see the Hawkeye of the Ntini dismissal. I read somewhere maybe on CW that the ball was high. However, from the 2nd replay to the last that I have seen it looks to me like it may be missing off and height not too much of a problem, and on 1st viewing it looked dead in the water.

    If hawkeye suggests it was missing off and not too high then it shares the same opinion as me.

    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.

    Guys careers are on the line and tests are too easy to effect with bad decisions.
    Last edited by Goughy; 29-03-2006 at 03:17 AM.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net


  5. #20
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,102
    Hawkeye said that the Ntini dismissal was missing off by about two inches AND too high. Personally I'd say it was probably going over the top, but certainly going to hit off if it didn't. No way it was going to miss by as far as Hawkeye said it was.

    And obviously, the Kumble one where he actually hit the stumps speaks for itself.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  6. #21
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy
    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.

  7. #22
    State 12th Man Autobahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by Dasa
    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.

  8. #23
    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.
    National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th, 11th and 5th in 2009/2011/2013 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion
    Australia’s Darren Lehmann is a ‘blatant loser’ insists Stuart Broad
    Countdown Series 57 Champion
    King of the Arcade
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in public:
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in private:


    MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk

  9. #24
    School Boy/Girl Captain kwigibo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Autobahn

    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.

  10. #25
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,688
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    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.
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  11. #26
    State 12th Man Autobahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by kwigibo
    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

  12. #27
    Hall of Fame Member steds's Avatar
    Breakout Champion!
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    ****ing cold and ****ing wet
    Posts
    17,201
    Quote Originally Posted by kwigibo
    to be fair I'm sure Syria looks uncannily like Iraq from 40,000 feet

  13. #28
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Autobahn
    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.

  14. #29
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    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.

  15. #30
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,477
    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

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


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, 01:12 PM
  2. Hawkeye - the future?
    By luckyeddie in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-08-2002, 03:24 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
  •