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

[C_C]

And how do you measure it's superiority? You can't, because by its very nature it's telling you about something that never happened. I agree that the same principle applies to an umpire, but there's no way you can say one is superior to another.

Ofcourse you can through repetitive verification.
If an ump gives you out to a ball pitching outside leg stump far more often than hawkeye does ( one random example), hawkeye is superior. simple as that.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Ofcourse you can through repetitive verification.
If an ump gives you out to a ball pitching outside leg stump far more often than hawkeye does ( one random example), hawkeye is superior. simple as that.

Are you simply assuming that Hawkeye is superior in this regard, or can you provide us with some figures? Even so, I have no problem with Hawkeye being used to determine where the ball has pitched, only with it telling us where the ball would have gone, without ever being able to prove it.

Your magical "repetitive verification" has so far provided us with a technology that says Makhaya Ntini wasn't bowled when everyone at the gound and on TV could plainly see that he was - and that includes the "incompetent" umpire.

 

[silentstriker]

Your magical "repetitive verification" has so far provided us with a technology that says Makhaya Ntini wasn't bowled when everyone at the gound and on TV could plainly see that he was - and that includes the "incompetent" umpire.

So, if its right 48 times out of 50, you harp on the one or two times it wasn't and call it incompetent. But if an umpire gets it wrong 10 times out of 50, then its just 'part of the game'.

History is littered with examples of blind faith in technology proving to be folly - the Titanic being probably the most notorious. As it stands, the technology we have isn't perfect - I can think of plenty of inconclusive (and controversial) runout and catch decisions being made even with the assistance of the 3rd umpire.

Wanting to exercise a little caution doesn't make one a luddite, especially when it involves making such a fundamental change to our sport.

Nice strawman there. What blind faith? I said the umpire should decide, but it should be referrable to the third umpire so he can use the technology and weigh it appropriately in making a decision. I.e, what if this technology shows a clear edge in an LBW appeal? Clearly, technology has made the game fairer there.

Its not going to be perfect, but its going to be better than the crappy umpiring we have now.

 

[silentstriker]

You don't need too many eyes to see, though, that there are occasions in tennis, football, etc. where Umpires\Referees do lose authority, and do as a result struggle to impose fair-play.

In what way?

I don't mind your idea if it turns out that it works well to just give the umpire more technology. But I think that you do need to involve the third umpire a lot more, as he can use camera angles and other tools to make his decision.

My question is, if its good enough for run out, why isn't it good enough for LBW?

 

[marc71178]

So, if its right 48 times out of 50, you harp on the one or two times it wasn't and call it incompetent. But if an umpire gets it wrong 10 times out of 50, then its just 'part of the game'.

Show me an umpire who makes 20% bad calls.

 

[C_C]

Are you simply assuming that Hawkeye is superior in this regard, or can you provide us with some figures? Even so, I have no problem with Hawkeye being used to determine where the ball has pitched, only with it telling us where the ball would have gone, without ever being able to prove it.

Your magical "repetitive verification" has so far provided us with a technology that says Makhaya Ntini wasn't bowled when everyone at the gound and on TV could plainly see that he was - and that includes the "incompetent" umpire.

I am assuming nothing- i am saying that hawkeye's introduction in tennis will settle this issue.
And i have no problem with hawkeye predicting the path of the ball either - just like what the umpires are doing, but instead of relying on 'feel and intuition' it relies on calculations
Obviously it still has its flaws, but i for one, think Hawkeye is far more accurate than the 'super umpires'.
I am not particularly enthused leaving split-second decisions to old men who are going blind slowly.

 

[Goughy]

Show me an umpire who makes 20% bad calls.

Well at least the last couple of years

 

[Scaly piscine]

Show me an umpire who makes 20% bad calls.

Depends entirely on whether you just every daft appeal, or just the big ones. I seem to recall some figures of around 85% correct decisions for various umpires on TV once - so it's possible given some massaging that you could make the 20% bad calls mark. It is to subjective anyway to be using statistics.

 

[Dick Rockett]

So, if its right 48 times out of 50, you harp on the one or two times it wasn't and call it incompetent. But if an umpire gets it wrong 10 times out of 50, then its just 'part of the game'.

I'm not calling Hawkeye incompetent, just trying to point out to the advocates that it's certainly not as perfect as they make out. As for your figures quoted above, they come across as arbitrary and don't do your argument any favours. Where are you getting them from?

Nice strawman there. What blind faith?

It's blind faith because you're supposing that Hawkeye is more accurate, when there is no way to prove that. The only way would be to somehow visit parallel universes and compare the two results. When you get back from doing that, I'll be very interested to hear your findings.

I said the umpire should decide, but it should be referrable to the third umpire so he can use the technology and weigh it appropriately in making a decision. I.e, what if this technology shows a clear edge in an LBW appeal? Clearly, technology has made the game fairer there.

Its not going to be perfect, but its going to be better than the crappy umpiring we have now.

Since when did we need Hawkeye to tell us if there's been an inside edge or not? I don't think umpiring is any crappier now than in previous years. We simply have better means of scrutiny.

 

[Dick Rockett]

And i have no problem with hawkeye predicting the path of the ball either - just like what the umpires are doing, but instead of relying on 'feel and intuition' it relies on calculations

The same way the human brain does. Can you catch a ball if someone throws it at you?

I am not particularly enthused leaving split-second decisions to old men who are going blind slowly.

Instead of leaving it up to IT boffins? I work in IT, and trust me, programmers and testers are anything but infallible. Also, claiming that umpires are old and blind is unfair and patronising.

 

[C_C]

The same way the human brain does. Can you catch a ball if someone throws it at you?

Not all the time - nobody can.
Human brain relies on intiutive feel, which is often wrong. Hawkeye can be turned into a far far better answer than old aeging umpires with dodgy vision.

Also, claiming that umpires are old and blind is unfair and patronising.

So name me a few umpires who are below 40 and have 20/20 vision in international cricket.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Not all the time - nobody can. Human brain relies on intiutive feel, which is often wrong. Hawkeye can be turned into a far far better answer than old aeging umpires with dodgy vision.

What you are referring to as intuition is the process of the human brain doing precisely what Hawkeye does. When you line up a ball for a catch, you are calculating the arc of a parobola, the effect of gravity, wind resistance and interference, and so on. Just because you don't devote your primary consciousness to performing such calculations - as you might in an exam - you're still doing them. You underrate the capabilities we have as humans. Yes, the umpires are imperfect human beings, but so are the human beings that created Hawkeye.

So name me a few umpires who are below 40 and have 20/20 vision in international cricket.

Nope. I don't have access to that kind of info, and neither do you.

 

[C_C]

When you line up a ball for a catch, you are calculating the arc of a parobola, the effect of gravity, wind resistance and interference, and so on.

You are not calculating.
You are estimating.
Huge difference.

Nope. I don't have access to that kind of info, and neither do you.

So you have to state the case for the umpires rather than assuming it so simply out of convention.

 

[Dick Rockett]

You are not calculating.
You are estimating.
Huge difference.

Well, there's plenty of scientific writings out there contradicting you, but if you want to see it that way, whatever.

So you have to state the case for the umpires rather than assuming it so simply out of convention.

I'm not making any assumptions. You're the one saying that the umps are all blind, which is a gross generalisation and makes you sound vindictive, rather than rational.

 

[C_C]

I'm not making any assumptions. You're the one saying that the umps are all blind, which is a gross generalisation and makes you sound vindictive, rather than rational.

My reference was towards the not so-sound vision of the 50-60 year old population compared to the younger group.

Well, there's plenty of scientific writings out there contradicting you, but if you want to see it that way, whatever.

Please.
Your brain doesnt calculate - it estimates such thing. I certainly dont go 'this delivery was 95.3432 mph' upon seeing it. All i know is it was fast.
The entire reason we have automated machinery in several instances is because it is simply more accurate than we are.
I think its just a matter of time before we have a program that is significantly better than the umpires at telling various cricketing descisions.

 

[marc71178]

Well at least the last couple of years

Is it really 20%?

That would suggest that in every session he makes 18 bad calls (assuming an over rate of 15 to the hour)

 

[kwigibo]

I resent the luddite comments in this thread, and I am far from what you'd call a 'purist' (I spend too much time defending One Day cricket for that title). I don't oppose technology in adjudication, I think the strike zone and video replays can be very useful for LBW decisions, even though in practice they haven't been.

But when an unpire gets it wrong, you can accept them as fallible. I know I'd feel much more hard done by if I was given out by a flawed mechanical judgement than that of a fallible umpire. Maybe that's just because we've all learned to live with that fallibility, some more than others based on this discussion.

I'd expect Hawkeye to get things wrong, but I'd rather it's mistakes weren't so conspicuous, out by millimetres, not inches. But the technology required for that isn't feasible, until it is, I'm prepared to make do with the current situation, I sort of like yelling at my TV.

 

[Ikki]

I'm prepared to make do with the current situation, I sort of like yelling at my TV.

Being an Aussie we usually kiss it .

 

[Scaly piscine]

I resent the luddite comments in this thread, and I am far from what you'd call a 'purist' (I spend too much time defending One Day cricket for that title). I don't oppose technology in adjudication, I think the strike zone and video replays can be very useful for LBW decisions, even though in practice they haven't been.

But when an unpire gets it wrong, you can accept them as fallible. I know I'd feel much more hard done by if I was given out by a flawed mechanical judgement than that of a fallible umpire. Maybe that's just because we've all learned to live with that fallibility, some more than others based on this discussion.

I'd expect Hawkeye to get things wrong, but I'd rather it's mistakes weren't so conspicuous, out by millimetres, not inches. But the technology required for that isn't feasible, until it is, I'm prepared to make do with the current situation, I sort of like yelling at my TV.

How is it going to be out by inches when you've got people operating it, it's not a case of just Hawkeye just saying out or not out and all the operators and so forth just blindly leaving it to do its work.

I have yet to see a significant valid argument against Hawkeye being used in some capacity, it all just seems to be random mudslinging from doomsayers hoping that one of their criticisms manages to stick. It's fast and it will greatly reduce the number of blatant errors, what more do you want?

 

[Son Of Coco]

My reference was towards the not so-sound vision of the 50-60 year old population compared to the younger group.




Please.
Your brain doesnt calculate - it estimates such thing. I certainly dont go 'this delivery was 95.3432 mph' upon seeing it. All i know is it was fast.
The entire reason we have automated machinery in several instances is because it is simply more accurate than we are.
I think its just a matter of time before we have a program that is significantly better than the umpires at telling various cricketing descisions.

I agree...Ricky Ponting's Cricket 2005 is pretty good at it!