Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Hawkeye - the future?

  1. #1
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752

    Hawkeye - the future?

    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?
    Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men

  2. #2
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Bombay , India
    Posts
    17
    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...



    Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, and professionals built the Titanic

  3. #3
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752
    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.

  4. #4
    Cricket Web Vice Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    7,190
    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.


  5. #5
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Trivandrum,India
    Posts
    260
    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..
    "Life is just a demo... but I still can't afford the full version"

    For some fun visit my website - http://www.smilehouse.cjb.net
    * Software * Online Games * Pranks * Wallpapers * Source Code * and lots more :)

  6. #6
    International Debutant Kimbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    london
    Posts
    2,835
    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
    life's a gift thats why they call it the present

  7. #7
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Bombay , India
    Posts
    17
    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 !

  8. #8
    International Debutant Kimbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    london
    Posts
    2,835
    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.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web XI Moderator lord_of_darkness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Auckland , New Zealand
    Posts
    13,252
    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..
    Don L-o-d , Legion Of Doom

    Lords Lounge, Off Topic, The Happening Place in CW and OT.

    Co Chairman CWBCC - Cricketweb XI - CW Green | Manager of Hampshire CC - Wccc | Chairman of the Muralitharan Supporters Club ~MSC~ |

    Current Stats:
    2* - 17-4-35-3 - Season Ends..

    Current Record
    Batting - RHB: M:48 Inns:43 Runs:457 H/S:33* Ave:15.5 N.O:10
    Bowling - Off Spin: O:280 M:40 Runs:975 Wickets:104 Ave:9.3 S.R:15.6

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752
    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).

  11. #11
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Bris Vegas, Australia
    Posts
    197
    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.


  12. #12
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,857
    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.
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  13. #13
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752
    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.

  14. #14
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,187
    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.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  15. #15
    Cricket Web XI Moderator lord_of_darkness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Auckland , New Zealand
    Posts
    13,252
    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 ?


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •