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

[Dick Rockett]

No, the doubt should lie more on whether it can capture the path of the ball till it hits the pad.

If anecdotal evidence in this thread is correct, then it seems that it can't do that accurately.

the remaining part is just straight-forward - It just has to fit a curve to the path the ball was following before it hit the pad and extrapolate it.

That can all depend on when the ball hits the pad. If it hits on the full, then how do you know whether or not the ball might have moved off the pitch? If the ball was swinging, how do you know how much it might have swung after it went past the batsman? For example, your classic inswinging yorker only moves at the last moment. What if the batsman had taken a big stride down the wicket before it really started to curve?

 

[C_C]

Even if a tennis ball was capable of the same extremes you're referring to, you're missing the point.

No i am not.
Hawkeye has to be predictive in certain scenarios in tennis. Simply because it wont have direct feedback data on all shots - unless you wanna line every court with a dozen hawkeyes.

 

[thierry henry]

The doubt lies in whether or not it can accurately predict what would have happened had the batsman not been in the way.

Some people are sceptical of Hawkeye's ability to do that.

?

If hawkeye can track the ball accurately from the time it passes until the time it strikes the pad, surely it merely has to extrapolate the path after bouncing to find the exact location that the ball will end up? The angle of the bounce/spin etc will already be known from the trajectory of the ball after bouncing.

 

[shankar]

That can all depend on when the ball hits the pad.

If it hits on the full, then how do you know whether or not the ball might have moved off the pitch?

Whether or not it would have moved off the pitch is irrelevant. The laws say that the batsman has to be given out if the ball continuing on the path prior to hitting the pad, would have hit the stumps. This is why even if a big spinning leg break hits the batsman on the full, the umpire has to assume that ball would have gone on straight.

If the ball was swinging, how do you know how much it might have swung after it went past the batsman? For example, your classic inswinging yorker only moves at the last moment. What if the batsman had taken a big stride down the wicket before it really started to curve?

Again the explanation is the same. But I'd like to know how the umpire (or anyone) would have predicted the late inswing given that there was no indication till the moment it hits the pad.

 

[open365]

A point on this threads title, i've never heard any commentator say hawkeye is 100% acurate, a lot of them say it's just a guide, though this might just be when they call a decision wrongly.

 

[silentstriker]

Both teams should get two 'reviews' per day. Meaning, if the umpire gives someone out, or not out, the captain of the said team can refer this decision to the third umpire, who would use this technology to make a determination.

Like American football, the evidence would have to be 'conclusive' in order to overturn the decision on the field.

Umpires are not part of the game. If the bowlers always took the batsman's words on edges, and batsman took the fielders word on clean catches, and things like that, the umpire would be obsolete. Their job is to make sure the game is played fairly and all the rules are observed. That's it. The minute they influence the game by making a wrong decision, they have overstepped their bounds. Up until recently, that was unavoidable, but now we have the techonology to minimize those errors. what kind of luddite sport are we following that we choose not to use it?

Oh, we know the decisions are wrong, but well, its kind of nice if an umpiring decision, rather than the players themselves, decide who wins the Ashes. It would be kind of interesting, don't you think? Imagine if the England were one run from winning the game, and this was their last wicket. It would be just a hoot if Flintoff was given LBW when he clearly wasn't out, and a review would have clearly shown a bat edge and thus England might not have lost the Ashes. It adds extra spice to the game...in fact, we should just roll a dice everytime the fielding side appeals for a wicket...see what happens.

 

[Richard]

Both teams should get two 'reviews' per day. Meaning, if the umpire gives someone out, or not out, the captain of the said team can refer this decision to the third umpire, who would use this technology to make a determination.

I've never liked this.
I think it comes far too close to undermining the Umpire's authority.
The changes I'd make would give more authority to the on-field Umpires, not less.

 

[Richard]

Oh, we know the decisions are wrong, but well, its kind of nice if an umpiring decision, rather than the players themselves, decide who wins the Ashes. It would be kind of interesting, don't you think? Imagine if the England were one run from winning the game, and this was their last wicket. It would be just a hoot if Flintoff was given LBW when he clearly wasn't out, and a review would have clearly shown a bat edge and thus England might not have lost the Ashes. It adds extra spice to the game...in fact, we should just roll a dice everytime the fielding side appeals for a wicket...see what happens.

A bad decision very, very nearly did decide The Ashes, in that Kasprowicz was absolutely plumb at Edgbaston on 0 and that reprieve (added to the Jones drop at third-man) nearly cost England the series victory.

 

[silentstriker]

I've never liked this.
I think it comes far too close to undermining the Umpire's authority.
The changes I'd make would give more authority to the on-field Umpires, not less.

What authority? The umpire's job is to make sure the play is fair. There is no inherent authority in him. If it means getting the decision right vs. getting it wrong, to hell with the umpire's authority? What's so important about having that anyway?

 

[silentstriker]

A bad decision very, very nearly did decide The Ashes, in that Kasprowicz was absolutely plumb at Edgbaston on 0 and that reprieve (added to the Jones drop at third-man) nearly cost England the series victory.

And how exactly is that good for cricket? You live with bad decisions if there is no better way, but if there is, why should someone be asked to lose a game because of it? I certainly wouldn't want to lose an important game just because some luddite purists (not necessarily you, just making a point) feel that it somehow ruins to 'pureness' of the game. Bugger the purity, I want fairness.

 

[Richard]

What authority? The umpire's job is to make sure the play is fair. There is no inherent authority in him. If it means getting the decision right vs. getting it wrong, to hell with the umpire's authority? What's so important about having that anyway?

Without authority it's incredibly difficult to make sure play is fair. All the best Umpires (Harold Bird, Frank Chester, etc.) were brilliant at assuring fair-play, because everyone had huge respect for them.
Also - that's not his only responsibility. In lbws, he's also there as an arbitrator. I agree that this is not as important as the authority-figure part of the job, but there's still absolutely no way of resolving lbws without someone to make the decision.

 

[Richard]

And how exactly is that good for cricket? You live with bad decisions if there is no better way, but if there is, why should someone be asked to lose a game because of it? I certainly wouldn't want to lose an important game just because some luddite purists (not necessarily you, just making a point) feel that it somehow ruins to 'pureness' of the game. Bugger the purity, I want fairness.

When did I say it was good for cricket?

 

[Dick Rockett]

No i am not.
Hawkeye has to be predictive in certain scenarios in tennis. Simply because it wont have direct feedback data on all shots - unless you wanna line every court with a dozen hawkeyes.

Whether that's true or not, I still maintain that you can't compare the way a tennis ball moves with the way a cricket ball does - anyone who's played cricket with a tennis ball knows that.

 

[silentstriker]

When did I say it was good for cricket?

Well, if it isn't good for cricket, then we need to put technologies in place that make it so that it is no longer bad for cricket.

Without authority it's incredibly difficult to make sure play is fair. All the best Umpires (Harold Bird, Frank Chester, etc.) were brilliant at assuring fair-play, because everyone had huge respect for them.

Why? In other sports, the umpire also is responsible for fair play, and you don't run into this problem.

Also - that's not his only responsibility. In lbws, he's also there as an arbitrator.

Sure, and let the captain appeal to the third umpire if they feel the guy on the field got it wrong.

 

[C_C]

Whether that's true or not, I still maintain that you can't compare the way a tennis ball moves with the way a cricket ball does - anyone who's played cricket with a tennis ball knows that.

Irrelevant to how it moves.
Whats relevant is the efficiency and accuracy of the tracking system.
A plane doesnt move like a missile. But a missile tracking system can also track a plane.
If hawkeye is successful in predictive simulations in tennis,it most definately should be tried in cricket.
And note- Hawkeye doesnt have to be perfect. it just has to be better than the incompetent umpires to replace them.

 

[Richard]

Well, if it isn't good for cricket, then we need to put technologies in place that make it so that it is no longer bad for cricket.

Yes, we do, but that doesn't involve players being allowed to question a decision.

Why? In other sports, the umpire also is responsible for fair play, and you don't run into this problem.

Umpires in most sports aren't so obvious as in cricket.
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.

Sure, and let the captain appeal to the third umpire if they feel the guy on the field got it wrong.

Wouldn't it be easier to just create a decision-making process that gives little chance of it going wrong ITFP?

 

[Dick Rockett]

I certainly wouldn't want to lose an important game just because some luddite purists (not necessarily you, just making a point) feel that it somehow ruins to 'pureness' of the game. Bugger the purity, I want fairness.

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.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Hawkeye doesnt have to be perfect. it just has to be better than the incompetent umpires to replace them.

I think that statement more or less exposes your bias. If you think that all umpires are incompetent then I don't see how you can objectively discuss this issue.

 

[C_C]

I think that statement more or less exposes your bias. If you think that all umpires are incompetent then I don't see how you can objectively discuss this issue.

Not all. But most are.
The issue is simple- which is a better deterministic tool for dismissals involving lbws- umpires or hawkeyes.
The bias is comming from the traditionalists who expect the replacement technology to be perfect, when all it has to be is superior.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Not all. But most are.
The issue is simple- which is a better deterministic tool for dismissals involving lbws- umpires or hawkeyes.
The bias is comming from the traditionalists who expect the replacement technology to be perfect, when all it has to be is superior.

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.