Umpire Referrals

[wisden18]

The problem with Hawk Eye is the way it is actually applied to cricket (which is different to its use in any other sports), and all this stuff about used by the military (great) but it doesn't actually address this main problem.

Not a lot of people seem to understand how Hawk Eye is used in practice. At a match where it is being used there will be some guy in one of the broadcast vans operating Hawk Eye. What is it that he has to do? Well, he has to decide at which point the ball hits the batsman and at that point (via the press of a button, I assume) the predicative element takes over. But the number of times one watches on the TV and disagrees with where the so-called first point of impact was, leads me to severely question how accurate this man-in-the-van is (and at the end of the day, it's just as open to human error). Interestingly it also explains sometimes why you see rewinds of the footage being done if Hawk Eye is cut to pretty quickly after the decision (as the man-in-the-van is trying to work out where and when to push the button).

It's this human element of Hawk Eye's application in cricket which is distinct from how it is used in other sports (e.g. tennis) when it is much more akin to how Hawk Eye works when dealing with where did the ball pitch (for which I think Hawk Eye is great).

Next match you watch with Hawk Eye in, look at for where they suggest the first point of impact is; I bet you'll disagree at least once (if not a fair few more times!).

 

[vic_orthdox]

Completely AWTA.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm pretty sure hawk-eye isn't just a man sitting in a van watching a video. Although it would be, quite frankly, absolutely hilarious if it was.

 

[Precambrian]

Haha, WTF? I read that it involves motion tracking the ball from 4 cameras.

 

[wisden18]

Haha, well not it's not "just" a man sitting in a van, but that is one of the integral parts of it when it's used in relation to cricket.

They have to know when to switch from a tracking to a predicative element of the system, and this is the way they do it (and is ripe for issues of being inaccurate).

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, hence it takes the point where the velocity of the ball changes as where it hit the batsman. Not a dodgy wee man sat in a van saying "i think it stopped there".

At least, that's what I thought, correct me if I'm wrong, where did you find out about it?

 

[wisden18]

Haha, damn I should have used that description. Nope, my understanding is that it is a human controlled decision, it's also one of the reasons why the ICC are reluctant about its application with regards to the predicative element (that the the global coverage of its use).

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, so often when they do the "strike zone", let alone the hawkeye, I swear that they use the wrong frames on when the ball strikes the batsman, and it affects the suggested path.

 

[Penguinissimo]

Here are my thoughts on the whole thing:

- The guiding principle is simple as far as I'm concerned:

1. The on-field umpire gives the benefit of the doubt to the batsman (as ever).

2. The TV umpire gives the benefit of the doubt to the on-field umpire.

- If the TV umpire is not sure whether or not it is out, he just says "can't help you mate - go with your decision". He does not try to guess on the basis that his guess might be better than his mate's.

- The TV umpire should not see the predictive element of Hawkeye, because (a) nobody knows whether its accurate or not (particularly for spinners) and (b) it does not allow for the benefit of the doubt, which is a huge factor in LBW decisions.

- The TV umpire should definitely see Hotspot, which seems to be the best technology out there for determining what the ball has hit. Given that Hotspot and Snicko broadly deal with the same decisions, Snicko isn't necessary.

- I still think challenges is the best way to go, otherwise you will end up with a huge row if an umpire doesn't ask for help on a decision which technology shows to be wrong. The result of a couple of such rows will be that umpires ask for almost every decision to be checked, and the game slows to a crawl.

 

[silentstriker]

Not a lot of people seem to understand how Hawk Eye is used in practice. At a match where it is being used there will be some guy in one of the broadcast vans operating Hawk Eye. What is it that he has to do? Well, he has to decide at which point the ball hits the batsman and at that point (via the press of a button, I assume)

No way. It would be absolutely hilarious if it was a guy-in-a-van. I though it would be automated, e.g, you set the tracking software on the ball, and then it handles it from there.

I wonder where their claimed prediction % comes from then?

 

[zaremba]

Clearly some teething trouble but I hope the new system is here to stay. Decision making is better. Howling mistakes are reduced. Carping at umpires a la Ponting / Warne is all but eradicated. Everybody wins.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm still giggling at the guy-in-the-van idea. Not because of what wisden actually said, just at the thought that the entire thing's a hoax and it's just been a guy wearing a tin-foil hat sat in a van with a string and a piece of paper all along.

 

[Athlai]

No way. It would be absolutely hilarious if it was a guy-in-a-van. I though it would be automated, e.g, you set the tracking software on the ball, and then it handles it from there.

I wonder where their claimed prediction % comes from then?

They actually showed us the guys in the van once in New Zealand during the tea break to show us how hawk eye works. He's spot on.

 

[silentstriker]

So what does the guy do, exactly? Pick a point of impact? Anything else? Frame of impact? ITSTL. I'd like to see the consistency and the accuracy in the picks.

 

[Athlai]

So what does the guy do, exactly? Pick a point of impact? Anything else? Frame of impact? ITSTL. I'd like to see the consistency and the accuracy in the picks.

It was the tea break naturally I wasn't paying much attention.

 

[grant28]

No, get rid of them. They slow the game down and some decisions are still indecisive. Look at the controversy they have caused so far, in the short space of time they've been used. Soon umpires will be deemed as bad as football refs.

 

[Evermind]

Cricinfo - ICC expands referral trials to include Hot Spot

An interesting move forward. Finally they're taking heed.

Love this little statement:

Channel Nine producer Steve Crawley described Hot Spot as "100% backed up by science", as opposed to other applications.

So what're the snicko and hawkeye - witchcraft?

 

[Richard]

There's no valid reason for the non-use of Snicko; interestingly, there was for HotSpot (that being that it wasn't available for all matches and that it was hardly fair for some teams to benefit from it while others didn't) so apparently this is no longer an issue.

Either way, glad to see HotSpot being used, because it can only help, it cannot hinder.

HawkEye is a different matter entirely as it does not reveal fact but make a prediction (at least - the predictive element of it does). Snicko and HotSpot purely reveal fact that is not always visible with a standard picture+sound piece of film. So both should always be used if the Third-Umpire is to scrutinise any type of decision.

 

[Debris]

No referrals. Disgraceful umpiring decisions give me something to talk about. Plus I love all the lame conspiracies that come out about how umpires are out to get certain countries.

 

[Richard]

How on Earth anyone can love that is completely and totally beyond me. I'd be as delighted to get shot of that as I would of just about anything.