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

[Scaly piscine]

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.

 

[marc71178]

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?

 

[marc71178]

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.

 

[shankar]

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.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I've seen what SJS described a couple of other times too, but took it with a pinch of salt. I've never really been all that convinced by it.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

yeah, I would agree with that. So many times, Saqlain was refused LBWs because only HE knew it was the doosra. The umps always thought it was an off break, even if it had actually straightened after pitching. AT least, Hawk eye will extrapolate the movement of the ball more accurately, even though it will miss the doosra, just like the umps did.

 

[Richard]

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.

Err, sorry? Regularly? I can think of 2 occasions in the 6 years I've been watching of the thing being in use where it's not been able to provide a clear indication.
And I've certainly never seen any occasion where it's missed a sound that has been obvious without it. That, really, would defy physics.

 

[marc71178]

Err, sorry? Regularly? I can think of 2 occasions in the 6 years I've been watching of the thing being in use where it's not been able to provide a clear indication.

You haven't watched much cricket in that case then.

 

[Richard]

Rubbish, I've watched copious amounts of it.
Care to actually give some instances, rather than just say "they exist"?

 

[thierry henry]

If Hawkeye can accurately track the ball from leaving the bowler's hand until the point where it hits the batsman, then how can it possibly be wrong?

 

[Dick Rockett]

If Hawkeye can accurately track the ball from leaving the bowler's hand until the point where it hits the batsman, then how can it possibly be wrong?

The doubt lies in whether or not it can accurately predict what would have happened had the batsman not been in the way.

Some people are sceptical of Hawkeye's ability to do that.

 

[C_C]

The doubt lies in whether or not it can accurately predict what would have happened had the batsman not been in the way.

Some people are sceptical of Hawkeye's ability to do that.

The issue will be settled soon - Tennis will settle it rather nicely.

 

[Dick Rockett]

The issue will be settled soon - Tennis will settle it rather nicely.

There's a big difference though. In tennis, it's used to show what the ball did do, not what it would have done. There lies the problem.

 

[marc71178]

How will Tennis show anything since Hawkeye in Tennis has absolutely no predicting to make?

 

[C_C]

There's a big difference though. In tennis, it's used to show what the ball did do, not what it would have done. There lies the problem.

Not all the time.
Hawkeye cannot get every single angle through feedback. As such, it will have to extrapolate certain fightpaths.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Not all the time.
Hawkeye cannot get every single angle through feedback. As such, it will have to extrapolate certain fightpaths.

If that's true, I'd bet it's a lot less complicated than predicting the spin or swing of a cricket ball.

 

[shankar]

The doubt lies in whether or not it can accurately predict what would have happened had the batsman not been in the way.

Some people are sceptical of Hawkeye's ability to do that.

No, the doubt should lie more on whether it can capture the path of the ball till it hits the pad. Because if it did that accurately, the remaining part is just straight-forward - It just has to fit a curve to the path the ball was following before it hit the pad and extrapolate it.

 

[C_C]

If that's true, I'd bet it's a lot less complicated than predicting the spin or swing of a cricket ball.

False.
Tennis has spins on the ball too.
Reverse spin, top spin, under spin, sliders, flat ones, etc. etc.

 

[Dick Rockett]

False.
Tennis has spins on the ball too.
Reverse spin, top spin, under spin, sliders, flat ones, etc. etc.

Even if a tennis ball was capable of the same extremes you're referring to, you're missing the point.