normal replays quite clearly show that Jones should have been out first ball and that he inside edged the LBW he got out on.PY said:And how can the 3rd umpire help?
HawkEye isn't definite enough and you can't base the decision on a third umpire watching replays on a 2D screen!
Isn't definite enough?!?PY said:And how can the 3rd umpire help?
HawkEye isn't definite enough and you can't base the decision on a third umpire watching replays on a 2D screen!
No it isn't. It's just only the bad decisions which people remember.seamer said:Just awful really. But pretty much every series is marred by it.
May not be perfect but having it available to refer to as a guide would still result in the opportunity for a greater percentage of accurante and correct decisions.steds said:I'm not too sure about the accuracy of Hawkeye.
Yes it is.steds said:No it isn't. It's just only the bad decisions which people remember.
y?steds said:I'm not too sure about the accuracy of Hawkeye.
I'm substantially less sure about the accuracy of umpires decisions.steds said:I'm not too sure about the accuracy of Hawkeye.
There's a dfference between using Hawkeye to confirm where a ball landed and using it to predict where a ball might have landed.Scaly piscine said:Whether the ICC and umpires like it or not, this is the future for cricket.
Methinks you're confusing the one not-proven system (Hawkeye) with the other non-proven system (Snicko) hereScaly piscine said:Isn't definite enough?!?
You can rule out anything that isn't hitting the stumps or pitches outside leg within a second with Hawkeye - quicker than most umpires at present. If it's hitting the stumps you can see where it's hitting according to Hawkeye, the umpires can then look at a slow motion replay to assure themselves that the evil Hawkeye isn't making it up as it goes along and check for obvious inside edges.
Provide this proof then.open365 said:y?
its sceintificaly proven to be amaingly accurate.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/223413.htmlmarc71178 said:Provide this proof then.