A good point was brought up today on the ABC radio coverage about Hawkeye.
When batsmen are bowled, it would be good to see a Hawkeye replay to see just how accurate it is.
Lillee blasts 'Hawkeye'
-
Go_The_Mighty_Magpies
- Posts: 4053
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 1:14 am
- Location: Melbourne
-
commonwombat
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 7:52 pm
- Location: sydney/s.africa
- Contact:
-
Donny
- Posts: 80336
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 6:01 pm
- Location: Toonumbar NSW Australia
- Has liked: 65 times
- Been liked: 28 times
This is a subject of great interest.
Lillee's comments are a combination of over reaction from a cricket traditionalist and juicy subject matter for his column.
I find Hawkeye fascinating but I don't think it should be used in umpire adjudications. At least not yet.
This from an article by Rob Bonnet of BBC News :
"The computer-generated system traces the wicket-to-wicket flight of the ball, and projects its path when it is critically interrupted by the intervention of a pad.
According to inventor Dr Paul Hawkins, Hawkeye has applications beyond mere viewer enlightenment.
Why not, he asked, allow umpires to use it?
Especially since roughly half of the lbw dismissals reviewed by Hawkeye last year were deemed faulty, usually because the ball was shown to have been travelling over the stumps.
You've got to believe in the technology, of course, and while Dr Hawkins thankfully declined to confuse us with scientific mumbo-jumbo, he had me going a bit with claims of "100% accuracy to within 5 millimetres".
But believe it we increasingly do, leaving us with the practical objections of further delay to play.
No problem. Umpires can have access to a decision within two seconds on their own miniature monitor, without recourse to the third umpire."
-------------
It's my understanding Hawkeye is more sophisticated than Lillee's appraisal, "there is no way 'hawkeye' can tell if a delivery is going to skid a bit more than normal or hit a crack, or a damp or worn patch, or a bit of grass on the wicket.
"Batsmen struggle with the unpredictability of bounce, so how on earth is 'hawkeye' going to know what every ball is going to do, how it comes out of the hand or is angled?"
Hawkeye tracks the ball AFTER it pitches, as well as from the bowler's hand and in flight, so deviation and extra or less bounce IS taken into account.
As I wrote in a previous post, I'd like to see the Hawkeye replays when a batsman is bowled. If the actual point which the ball hits the stump/s consistently and conclusively proves to be the same as Hawkeye's virtual prediction, then Lillee's concerns are without substance.
D.K. wrote: "Batsmen struggle with the unpredictability of bounce, so how on earth is 'hawkeye' going to know what every ball is going to do ?" May I remind you, old warhorse and forever one of my very favourite bowlers, computers can process hundres of millions of pieces of info in a second. We humans aren't quite up to that.
Let's hear your opinions but please, can we be spared the, "but it will waste too much time" comments.
As stated in the Rob Bonnet article: "No problem. Umpires can have access to a decision within two seconds on their own miniature monitor, without recourse to the third umpire."
Lillee's comments are a combination of over reaction from a cricket traditionalist and juicy subject matter for his column.
I find Hawkeye fascinating but I don't think it should be used in umpire adjudications. At least not yet.
This from an article by Rob Bonnet of BBC News :
"The computer-generated system traces the wicket-to-wicket flight of the ball, and projects its path when it is critically interrupted by the intervention of a pad.
According to inventor Dr Paul Hawkins, Hawkeye has applications beyond mere viewer enlightenment.
Why not, he asked, allow umpires to use it?
Especially since roughly half of the lbw dismissals reviewed by Hawkeye last year were deemed faulty, usually because the ball was shown to have been travelling over the stumps.
You've got to believe in the technology, of course, and while Dr Hawkins thankfully declined to confuse us with scientific mumbo-jumbo, he had me going a bit with claims of "100% accuracy to within 5 millimetres".
But believe it we increasingly do, leaving us with the practical objections of further delay to play.
No problem. Umpires can have access to a decision within two seconds on their own miniature monitor, without recourse to the third umpire."
-------------
It's my understanding Hawkeye is more sophisticated than Lillee's appraisal, "there is no way 'hawkeye' can tell if a delivery is going to skid a bit more than normal or hit a crack, or a damp or worn patch, or a bit of grass on the wicket.
"Batsmen struggle with the unpredictability of bounce, so how on earth is 'hawkeye' going to know what every ball is going to do, how it comes out of the hand or is angled?"
Hawkeye tracks the ball AFTER it pitches, as well as from the bowler's hand and in flight, so deviation and extra or less bounce IS taken into account.
As I wrote in a previous post, I'd like to see the Hawkeye replays when a batsman is bowled. If the actual point which the ball hits the stump/s consistently and conclusively proves to be the same as Hawkeye's virtual prediction, then Lillee's concerns are without substance.
D.K. wrote: "Batsmen struggle with the unpredictability of bounce, so how on earth is 'hawkeye' going to know what every ball is going to do ?" May I remind you, old warhorse and forever one of my very favourite bowlers, computers can process hundres of millions of pieces of info in a second. We humans aren't quite up to that.
Let's hear your opinions but please, can we be spared the, "but it will waste too much time" comments.
As stated in the Rob Bonnet article: "No problem. Umpires can have access to a decision within two seconds on their own miniature monitor, without recourse to the third umpire."
Last edited by Donny on Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Donny.
It's a game. Enjoy it.
It's a game. Enjoy it.
-
commonwombat
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 7:52 pm
- Location: sydney/s.africa
- Contact:
Basically, am in agreement with yr viewpoint. Such technology is useful and may be the way to go in the future. However there ARE questions that legitimately have to asked and answered re its applications, accuracy and limitations.
Whilst DK may be proven wrong, he should be thanked for putting this debate into focus. People and commentators are talking as if it is infallable and the greatest thing since canned beer whereas there is no definitive proof, essentially just publicity bumpf.
There are too unreasonable extremes in this; those "diehard traditionalists" and those who would rush in something that is not fully tested. Case in point is tennis where it took 10-15 years to get Cyclops right.
If this techology is up to scratch then certainly go with it, but have it tested fully and not just rely on maufacturers/developers salestalk.
BTW, re the great DK. Would consider him less of a diehard than most and would always listen to what he had to say on cricket, something I would not extend to many others that you may care to name.
Whilst DK may be proven wrong, he should be thanked for putting this debate into focus. People and commentators are talking as if it is infallable and the greatest thing since canned beer whereas there is no definitive proof, essentially just publicity bumpf.
There are too unreasonable extremes in this; those "diehard traditionalists" and those who would rush in something that is not fully tested. Case in point is tennis where it took 10-15 years to get Cyclops right.
If this techology is up to scratch then certainly go with it, but have it tested fully and not just rely on maufacturers/developers salestalk.
BTW, re the great DK. Would consider him less of a diehard than most and would always listen to what he had to say on cricket, something I would not extend to many others that you may care to name.
he's an animal, what can u expect!!!
-
The Prototype
- Posts: 19193
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 7:54 pm
- Location: Hobart, Tasmania
I'm not a real fan of Hawkeye, I'm amazed how they can accurately judge where the ball was going to end up after it hit the pads, or the bat. But hey, it's still an interesting thing to have, some of the people at home that wonder why the LBW was turned down gets to know why, when they show where the ball pitched. Though I think it's a little overused some days.
-
JLC
- Posts: 6387
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2000 6:01 pm
- Location: Keysborough still representing Hot Pies
- Been liked: 1 time
I have heard a lot of comments from the media re these devices and have seen them on ch 9 in operation.
I think if we were playing on concrete and the bounce was predictable then the device would be great. However when cricket pitches wear and tear and bounce becomes unpredictable i fail to see how this contraption could retain its accuracy.
Its great for TV audiences but i wouldnt be taking that as the gospel as many commentators appear to be doing.
jlc
I think if we were playing on concrete and the bounce was predictable then the device would be great. However when cricket pitches wear and tear and bounce becomes unpredictable i fail to see how this contraption could retain its accuracy.
Its great for TV audiences but i wouldnt be taking that as the gospel as many commentators appear to be doing.
jlc
The Torres bounce is officially dead. You are walking alone now Fernando.
-
Donny
- Posts: 80336
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 6:01 pm
- Location: Toonumbar NSW Australia
- Has liked: 65 times
- Been liked: 28 times
JLC, one of the reasons I submit articles is so our readers have access to information.
Four posts above this one, you'll find all the info you need. Like this, for instance:
"Hawk-Eye does not try to predict the path of the ball after the bounce. Instead, the Hawk-Eye cameras track the ball both before and after the bounce, so the correct trajectory of the ball leaving the wicket is determined."
Four posts above this one, you'll find all the info you need. Like this, for instance:
"Hawk-Eye does not try to predict the path of the ball after the bounce. Instead, the Hawk-Eye cameras track the ball both before and after the bounce, so the correct trajectory of the ball leaving the wicket is determined."
Donny.
It's a game. Enjoy it.
It's a game. Enjoy it.
-
Fradam
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 1999 6:01 pm
- Location: Bendigo, Victoria
If hawkeye was an umpire all sides would be bowled out for under 100 every innings.
A good example of how un accurate hawkeye is is Tendulkars 6 at the MCG last week. The height of the ball over the sightscreen was much different on hawkeye to how it actually got there.
I think the umpires are using hawkeye to do some local umpiring cos I've been given out to some shockers this year.
A good example of how un accurate hawkeye is is Tendulkars 6 at the MCG last week. The height of the ball over the sightscreen was much different on hawkeye to how it actually got there.
I think the umpires are using hawkeye to do some local umpiring cos I've been given out to some shockers this year.
Do I look like the tech?
-
JLC
- Posts: 6387
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2000 6:01 pm
- Location: Keysborough still representing Hot Pies
- Been liked: 1 time
Any benefit of the doubt should be going the batsmans way with LBW decisions. If the ball is only going to clip the bails then imo thedoubt still exists and it should be given not out. Whereas the commentators just because it hits the bails imply that its a bad decision if given not out.
jlc
jlc
The Torres bounce is officially dead. You are walking alone now Fernando.
-
The Prototype
- Posts: 19193
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 7:54 pm
- Location: Hobart, Tasmania
If Hawkeye was bouncing on the same pitch as the actual ball the was bowled, then it would probably be more accurate then it is, but it's still close to where the bowl had pitched. I'm surprised how they can make a firm judgment where the bowl would of gone if it didn't hit the pads. Like when Hayden bats out of his crease, even if it hits in line, it's still got a fair way to travel before hitting the stumps.