Hawkeye - the future?

[luckyeddie]

Is there a case to be made for an increase in the use of modern technology within the game?

At present, umpires can call on the third umpire to adjudicate on stumpings, runouts, catches and boundaries. Has it already gone too far, or should it go further?

[WIC_rules]

Depends on how accurate it is. But comes very close to being perfect !

I reckon it will be more of a biz in training than for judging on-field decisions. The onfield umpires would be rendered useless if even the LBW decisions are taken away from them. Imagine the time that would be used up if each & every LBW appeal is deferrred to the TV umpire . in the subcontinent , they appeal once every three balls !! Would make the game slower than it already is . Not feasible...

[luckyeddie]

How's about no-balls?

It could work in exactly the same way as 'Cyclops' at tennis, giving out an audidle 'beep' if the bowler over-steps. It would be much quicker than the call from an umpire (it's reaction time would be far less) and might even allow the batsman time for an optimistic waft or slog.

[Rich2001]

How's about no-balls?

It could work in exactly the same way as 'Cyclops' at tennis, giving out an audidle 'beep' if the bowler over-steps. It would be much quicker than the call from an umpire (it's reaction time would be far less) and might even allow the batsman time for an optimistic waft or slog.

I like that idea, it would save alot of wickets falling on no-balls, and would be an alot quicker than going to the 3rd umpire.

[Anoop]

I'm still not very convinced about HawkEye.. But yes technology should come in!

But if you use something like Hawkeye, you might have to give almost every LB desicion to the third umpire.. it will look ridiculous!! So much time wasted..

[Kimbo]

but the thing with hawkeye is that its not a human deciding, so it wouldn't take long at all. It would take a couple of seconds wouldn't it???
how long does it take for it to figure it out? i dont know all that much about it. but it would be different than other video officials because it is more conclusive

[WIC_rules]

And what if the system breaks downs ? Its only a software . All it takes is a virus to render it into crap ! The ICC would have decide on contingency plans etc. which is nothing but a huge waste of time ! The elite panel of umpires get most of their decisions right , so i dont think there is really any need of external assistance . Cricket needs to retain that 'human' touch . Everything mechanised would leave it rigid & inflexible !

[Kimbo]

yea, i think i agree about everythong you say apart from the umpires getting things right.
the problem these days is that so much more hinges on these decisions because there is so much more money involved- but to be honest it would get a bit infelxible and rigid i know what you mean.

[lord_of_darkness]

id rather have the 3rd camera so when ppl are judged more fairly and if a batsmen is on 399 on 199 they dont get judged out by a wrong decision and if a bowler is on a 10 wicket bag he doesnt get his 10th one because of a wrong decision..

[luckyeddie]

Now I've just thought of something. If me and David Constant spec'ed and wrote the system, we'd have to have some detection process to eliminate electronic ball-tampering (ouch) it was just a joke, sorry (and I swear the dirt must have been in the pocket when my whites came back from the cleaners).

[MrPerko]

I think that getting the decision right should be the most important decision... if the third umpire needs 10 replays to get it right, then so be it.


As for keeping the "human element" in the game... there are enough stuff ups by the players on the field without the umpires contributing as well.

[Neil Pickup]

Controversial decisions are all part of Cricket. Get rid of them, and you'll have little to talk about in the pub after the match. And you'll never get 100% accurate, ever.

[luckyeddie]

Realistically, the only thing I would like to take away from the umpires is no-balling for over-stepping.

Years ago, the no-ball was dependent upon the back foot and the return crease, rather than the front foot and the popping crease.

Umpires had about an extra one-fifth of a second in order to look up from judging whether the bowler had over-stepped before being able to concentrate on the LBW.

Furthermore, batsmen had an extra fifth of a second to hear the call of 'no ball' and be able to get into position in order to give it a great smear over 'cow corner'.

I would not like to see it used for LBW at all, but the existing use for stumpings, run-outs and 'did it carry?' is fine.

[Top_Cat]

And what if the system breaks downs ? Its only a software . All it takes is a virus to render it into crap !

Ony if it were a Windows-based system. 99% of virus's are VB scripting virus's. I tell ya, if they make such technology Windoze-based, they deserved everything they get!

I'm all for using technology in the game because as much as I'd like cricket to be as tradiational as possible, there comes a time when increasing professionalism in the playing demands increasing professionalism in the adjudication.

However, as I've said here before, the technology should be VERY accurate to satisfy my eyes. The chance of error should be rendered so insignificant as to be redundant. Otherwise, leave the human umpires to do the job.

Also, if we're going to have technology in decision-making, make it all or nothing, not this ambiguous system we have in place where it's useful for some decisions and not for others. Either totally modernise the game or leave it.

And trust me, the currect technology isn't THAT accurate. I've got a BSc. with a dual chem major and physics minor and so understand these things better than most and I can tell you, from what I've seen, we have a long way to go. A friend of mine was instrumental in designing the current speed camera system and he's said that there needs to be more money put into the micro-wave style system before it can be assumed to be even remotely accurate.

[lord_of_darkness]

Controversial decisions are all part of Cricket. Get rid of them, and you'll have little to talk about in the pub after the match. And you'll never get 100% accurate, ever.

i guess u are right about that neil , things will certainly be more quite around

But also if mistakes are maken at the wrong moment things can go wrong later on too right ?