Appealing decisions?

[Scaly piscine]

I love to know what the technophobes base their conclusions of 'i don think its anywhere near 100% yet' etc. from as they can only judge these things from 2D TV combined with the human eye (far less accurate). Where most of the lbws are wrong is from a height point of view, the behind-the-stumps umpire should confer with square leg umpire for the height as it's much easier for them to judge. I'd go this route before using an appeal system.

 

[marc71178]

The don't agree with it 100% is because it still doesn't take into account atmospheric conditions, only tracks the path of the ball up to interception.

 

[Scaly piscine]

If it were trying to predict the ball 20 yards after it gone past the batsman fine, but the ball doesn't zip around suddenly (after it bounces and does nothing) just as it gets to the batsman. Also the distance Hawkeye is actually working out (distance between hitting the batsman to the stumps) is pretty small compared to the distance the ball has traveled, there's not a lot of extrapolation there.

 

[Steulen]

I love to know what the technophobes base their conclusions of 'i don think its anywhere near 100% yet' etc. from as they can only judge these things from 2D TV combined with the human eye (far less accurate). Where most of the lbws are wrong is from a height point of view, the behind-the-stumps umpire should confer with square leg umpire for the height as it's much easier for them to judge. I'd go this route before using an appeal system.

I agree. On LBW's, I believe the right way to go would be first for the behind-the-stumps umpire to raise the finger when he believes the batsman was trapped in front of the stumps. Then, the square leg umpire has to raise his finger as well if he believes the ball was low enough to hit the stumps. Only then, after both b-t-s and square leg have judged their respective parts of the ball's trajectory, would the batsman be given out.

 

[marc71178]

There are still doubts - what about the one that pitches just before impact - no way of knowing what that's going to do.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I've seen Hawkeye make horrifically bad messes of LBW shouts before, to boot.

 

[Mr Casson]

I've seen Hawkeye make horrifically bad messes of LBW shouts before, to boot.

The creator says it rarely makes mistakes (though I'm sure he would say that if he knows what's good for business), and when it does, they aren't that bad.

The usual cause of mistakes is the technology tracking the shadow instead of the ball, isn't it? Apparently means that sunnier days are more conducive for errors.

 

[Scaly piscine]

There are still doubts - what about the one that pitches just before impact - no way of knowing what that's going to do.

Not totally sure but I think Hawkeye can measure the rotation of the ball, but yea if it pitched and the seam straightened or it pitched on the seam and moved away/in it would fail to measure that but that would be something you could give a margin of error to.

And yes Hawkeye supposedly tracks the shadow instead sometimes but that is only supposed to occur like 2-3 times a day on average (assuming I remember the article right). I think virtually all of the significant errors would be something like that happening and then that would be an error you couldn't fail to notice, I remember watching where something like Hawkeye was used on a tennis game and it was obvious something was misaligned - every ball on the computer graphics was shuffled 2 inches to the left from where it actually landed.

 

[age_master]

I love to know what the technophobes base their conclusions of 'i don think its anywhere near 100% yet' etc. from as they can only judge these things from 2D TV combined with the human eye (far less accurate). Where most of the lbws are wrong is from a height point of view, the behind-the-stumps umpire should confer with square leg umpire for the height as it's much easier for them to judge. I'd go this route before using an appeal system.

if you wanna use computers play cricket 2004 or similar. There is by Far enough technology used in cricket already. while hawkeye is a nice feature for people watching at home, adding an element of entertainment perhaps. it is not necessary for the umpires to use it.

The Umpires, as a general rule, do a fantastic job. there is absolutley no need to have other people make even more decisions for them.

 

[marc71178]

Not totally sure but I think Hawkeye can measure the rotation of the ball, but yea if it pitched and the seam straightened or it pitched on the seam and moved away/in it would fail to measure that but that would be something you could give a margin of error to.

So you now have to incorporate a margin of error into the thing?

I think I'll stick to the man in the middle thanks.

 

[Mr Casson]

while hawkeye is a nice feature for people watching at home, adding an element of entertainment perhaps. it is not necessary for the umpires to use it.

Even then umpires are still being ridiculed for deicisions that have been shown to be wrong. What's the point in providing something for its entertainment value if the umpires are still being criticized?

 

[age_master]

whats your point?

 

[Mr Casson]

If the technology isn't playing a part in the decision, then it's just unnecessary. I don't see why umpires need to have their mistakes repeatedly shown and analyzed and criticized.

 

[luckyeddie]

If the technology isn't playing a part in the decision, then it's just unnecessary. I don't see why umpires need to have their mistakes repeatedly shown and analyzed and criticized.

I guess the real answer to that is the fact that it now takes 4.5 minutes to bowl an over, of which the actual charging in, bowling the ball, getting an outside edge to third man and running a single amounts to about 15 seconds a ball - giving the commentary team 3 minutes an over (or 4.5 hours in the day) to 'fill in'.

Things like 'hawk-eye' were never meant to be an aid to the umpire but an aid to the viewer/commentator - and the 1,000 frame cameras are a further extension of that.

 

[Linda]

I guess the real answer to that is the fact that it now takes 4.5 minutes to bowl an over, of which the actual charging in, bowling the ball, getting an outside edge to third man and running a single amounts to about 15 seconds a ball - giving the commentary team 3 minutes an over (or 4.5 hours in the day) to 'fill in'.

Things like 'hawk-eye' were never meant to be an aid to the umpire but an aid to the viewer/commentator - and the 1,000 frame cameras are a further extension of that.

Which is a great thought.
When we watch an entire day of cricket, we spend 4.5 hours of that day not actually watching cricket. No wonder my mates think I'm crazy.

 

[Mr Casson]

I guess the real answer to that is the fact that it now takes 4.5 minutes to bowl an over, of which the actual charging in, bowling the ball, getting an outside edge to third man and running a single amounts to about 15 seconds a ball - giving the commentary team 3 minutes an over (or 4.5 hours in the day) to 'fill in'.

Things like 'hawk-eye' were never meant to be an aid to the umpire but an aid to the viewer/commentator - and the 1,000 frame cameras are a further extension of that.

I thought of the benefits to the commentary, but I don't see why they need such exorbinant technology to analyze previous balls. They can still do it with instant replay.

 

[luckyeddie]

I thought of the benefits to the commentary, but I don't see why they need such exorbinant technology to analyze previous balls. They can still do it with instant replay.

Well, they (TV channels) didn't develop the systems - these things are always commercially driven and after development would then be offered for use (you scratch my back, sonny) in a medium affording plenty of public exposure. All the better if a 'governing' (yeah) organisation like the ICC should then make use of it, but they are very much the tail, and although they may be seen to be wagging the dog, they ain't.

 

[Mr Casson]

Fair point. I understand that there are other factors driving it, but I was just saying I think it should not be that way.

 

[marc71178]

The one thing I do love about the technology is when the umpire gets it spot on, the commentators comment that it looks a rough call, and then the technology suggests the umpire was right all along.

 

[Mr Casson]

The one thing I do love about the technology is when the umpire gets it spot on, the commentators comment that it looks a rough call, and then the technology suggests the umpire was right all along.

It's great, isn't it?

Although some commentators don't need assistance to look stupid. Nasser Hussain made some brilliant blunders in the final of the ICC Trophy. I think at one point he said it was the biggest OD tournament in the world.