• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

kwigibo

School Boy/Girl Captain
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. The technology is not as magical as the proprieters wish us to believe, to be able to discern otherwise relatively small but crucial changes in trajectory is probably beyond their tracking system. From what I know of it there is an amount of extrapolation involved, and in a dismissal such as this, I doubt there is enough time between ball pitching and hitting the pad to recieve sufficient data to make an accurate inference.

Anyone else dissillusioned?

Anyone still unhappy they haven't adopted it for official umpiring use?
 

Autobahn

State 12th Man
kwigibo said:
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. The technology is not as magical as the proprieters wish us to believe, to be able to discern otherwise relatively small but crucial changes in trajectory is probably beyond their tracking system. From what I know of it there is an amount of extrapolation involved, and in a dismissal such as this, I doubt there is enough time between ball pitching and hitting the pad to recieve sufficient data to make an accurate inference.

Anyone else dissillusioned?

Anyone still unhappy they haven't adopted it for official umpiring use?
Well they use the same technology for guided missiles so i doubt the accuracy is a problem and again hawkeye only follows the trajectory, it doesn't predict them as you seem to be suggesting.

The only thing that's widely accepted to make hawkeye go wrong is if the cameras aren't algined properly.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Autobahn said:
Well they use the same technology for guided missiles so i doubt the accuracy is a problem and again hawkeye only follows the trajectory, it doesn't predict them as you seem to be suggesting.

The only thing that's widely accepted to make hawkeye go wrong is if the cameras aren't algined properly.
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" :)
 

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
SJS said:
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.
The cheating Indian keeper must have moved the stumps!!!
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
I was actually going to start a similar thread because I had the exact same thoughts. I personally felt that the ball may have gone over the top as it barely hit Ntini's leg. However, it wasn't missing off. In the Ashes the C4 technitians had to re-alanyse a Warne ball that confused and confounded the Hawkeye machine. So they had to re-analyse it.

I like having the Hawkeye when watching cricket. But I am by no means convinced by it.
 

Dick Rockett

International Vice-Captain
Even if Hawkeye could somehow be proven to be 100% accurate, I still don't want it.

With all the advocation of technology going on these days, the natural course of things will eventually render the umpire nothing more than a strangely dressed fellow who tells the players when it's time for a break.

It may be an old-fashioned attitude, but part of cricket's appeal lies in its connection with a more gentile past, and I'd like to keep the umps firmly planted at the non-strikers end, making the big calls.

Anyway, sport would be a lot less interesting without controversy.
 

kwigibo

School Boy/Girl Captain
Autobahn said:
Well they use the same technology for guided missiles so i doubt the accuracy is a problem and again hawkeye only follows the trajectory, it doesn't predict them as you seem to be suggesting.

The only thing that's widely accepted to make hawkeye go wrong is if the cameras aren't algined properly.
Guiding missiles is different than tracking the exact trajectory of a small ball, on a scale of dimensions much smaller than that involved in any military application of the technology. And guided missiles aren't 100% accurate, far from it. And tracking guided missiles isn't a piece of cake either, otherwise the US missile defense shield wouldn't have been such a fiasco.

And Hawkeye is by definition a predictive system, it predicts where the ball would have gone had the batsman not got in the way. And the data collected could not possibly be so complete as to not involve some sort of inference. And of course that inference is going to be subject to error when accounting for the difficulty of establishing a consistent set of assumptions that apply to the fluid conditions involved in bowling a cricket ball.

If the cricket pitch were a mile long I'd say the margin of error would be negligible, but I don't think the technology is completely up to the task in the current circumstance.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
I'm fairly sure that the HawkEye animations shown on TV are just for the TV audience, and aren't as accurate as the real thing....it's just made into a slick looking animation to make it easier to understand for people watching at home.

Interesting points on the use of technology - http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/142121.html
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Francis said:
I like having the Hawkeye when watching cricket. But I am by no means convinced by it.
I like hawkeye too but some times commentators use it to butteress their own point of view. There are occasions when a ball appears to be going down the leg side. Umpire does not give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman and sends him packing, hawkeye shows that the ball would have got the faintest of kisses to the outside edge of the leg stump.

I have heard commentators admiring the 'great' decison by the umpire in these cases. I dont understand how the umpire in his regular, full speed, hawk-eye-deprived vision could have guessed that it would have not gone a millimeter on the other side? Let alone the fact that Hawkeye could be wrong.

The reverse has also happened at times.
 

Dark Hunter

State Vice-Captain
It's always irritated me when commentators use it as evidence for their argument. "We'll take a look at hawkeye, yep, it was just going to hit, i'm right." Yet, if hawkeye shows it missing, and the commentator is saying it's out, they usually argue that hawkeye got it wrong.

IMO it's never going to be a hundred percent right. Hence, we shouldn't make it available to umpires. Yeah, 9/10 it'll probably help him make the right decision, but what if it get's one wrong, or doesn't compute properly. It's happened before, SJS gave us an example earlier. People seem to forget that it's just another bit of technology and it can have bugs and such, just like any other program.

One thing i would like to see done, is hawkeye following the ball after it's hit. Just imagine a batsman dancing down the pitch, then smashing the ball out of the park. Hawkeye shows the ball making it about halfway down the pitch, and all of a sudden it just changes direction and goes flying. :p:laugh:
 

Dick Rockett

International Vice-Captain
Dark Hunter said:
One thing i would like to see done, is hawkeye following the ball after it's hit. Just imagine a batsman dancing down the pitch, then smashing the ball out of the park. Hawkeye shows the ball making it about halfway down the pitch, and all of a sudden it just changes direction and goes flying
We kind of have that here in NZ with Virtual Spectator. It's like the old "wagon wheel", but in 3D - so those really big hits look spectacular in VS.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
mundaneyogi said:
In places, that article is bizarre. Who has ever heard someone complain that microwaves remove the human element from cooking?

That has to be, hands down, the worst analogy in support of an argument I've come across. Ever.
I don't know about that, but microwaves do make the food taste like crap. Is that the same complaint? :p

Seriously though, Hawkeye is quite obviously flawed quite a lot of the time. It'd be insane to attempt to use it in cricket right now instead of the umpire, as it isn't even close to reliable. How many times does the Kumble thing happen? It's only rarely that we see Hawkeye when it isn't on an LBW shout, and then we can't really test how accurate it is. If we're seeing clear examples of it being inaccurate on the rare occasions we as viewers can actually test it, it's obvious why it isn't being used yet.

Obviously Hawkeye is perfectly good at determining the trajectory of a straight ball, but it sucks awfully at picking up where the ball is going to go after it deviates, whether it be in the air or off the surface. The reasons for that are fairly obvious, if you think about it.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Dark Hunter said:
It's always irritated me when commentators use it as evidence for their argument. "We'll take a look at hawkeye, yep, it was just going to hit, i'm right." Yet, if hawkeye shows it missing, and the commentator is saying it's out, they usually argue that hawkeye got it wrong.
Haha yeah that annoys me too.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Autobahn said:
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?
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
kwigibo said:
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:

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 

Top