Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 161

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

  1. #31
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    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.

  2. #32
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,713
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    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 .

    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    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.

  3. #33
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    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.

  4. #34
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,713
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    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.


  5. #35
    State 12th Man Autobahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    "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

    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    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.

  6. #36
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic
    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.

  7. #37
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,782
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani
    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.
    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.

  8. #38
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.
    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

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani
    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.
    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

  10. #40
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  11. #41
    ICC is completely useless as giving proper trials for technology, if it was something as intrinsic to the game as changing the rules to allow a friggin substitute then it would have been trialled for the best part of a year with all the international teams involved. There was a trial of *some* technology in the Super Series (which was a mild success in some respects), that was like a child sticking their toe into the water and saying it's too cold and then running off. They deliberately made it half-hearted so there could never be an overwhelming success or failure and they could carry on with the status quo without ever trying it properly.

    Hopefully Hawkeye being used successfully in tennis will put pressure on the ICC to realise it is no longer in the 20th century.

  12. #42
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,782
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    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).
    However, could the red zone also be made slightly less important if umpires only had to watch one set of stumps rather than looking at the bowlers feet then straight away up at the stumps?

  13. #43
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
    Hopefully Hawkeye being used successfully in tennis will put pressure on the ICC to realise it is no longer in the 20th century.
    How so?

    In Tennis there is no prediction at all of anything, therefore it is looking at hard facts.

  14. #44
    International Debutant shankar's Avatar
    3 Card Poker Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    How so?

    In Tennis there is no prediction at all of anything, therefore it is looking at hard facts.
    Cricket is also looking at hard facts since the laws only require the umpire to extrapolate the path the ball followed before hitting the pad. So IF the technology can capture the path of the ball before hitting the pad accurately, then that's sufficient.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    How so?

    In Tennis there is no prediction at all of anything, therefore it is looking at hard facts.
    As I've said before you can still use Hawkeye for showing whether the ball pitched on the stumps, where it hit the batsman the path of the ball up to where it hit the batsman. A replay with this information on it shown to the umpire would hardly slow the game down at all and would still increase the number of correct decisions significantly.

    Erm yea, similar to what shankar said.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •