Hawkeye: Wrong.

[ptrg]

For anyone who didn't see ball that Krejza bowled to Dohni who padded up to, and looked like it was going to go on to hit middle 3/4 way up, hawkeye was proven WRONG.

The ball, which pitched right on the line of offstump and outside, spun n struck dohni square on in the middle of his front pad.

Hawkeye then began to retrace the flight of the ball, BUT the frame at which they paused the ball hitting him was 1-2 frames after the initial strike, hence it had gone on to be the the leg side of his pad.

Haweye then took this point at reference and drew a line that went on to miss the stumps by almost a foot!

So for all the "hi-tech" crap you hear about hawkeye (or should I say the "inventors" who are laughing all the way to the bank), it is nothing but a simple line that is plotted from point of release to where ever the director deems that the ball "struck the pad" (-dont forget 2 frames in cricket can miss a LOT of "in between" action- just see those close run outs). On this occasion the director missed this occasion by about 6 inches in width.

I know it may seem trivial, but if this technology was ever introduced, then it would be a blight on the game.

[Zeke]

oh noes.

hawkeye was wrong?!

woe.

[omit]

...it's always been used as a commentators aid only, no ones calling for it to be used by umpires and i'm very sure no one is calling for it to be used by them so what is your problem

in regards to how it works, this is patent information about hawkeye
A video processing system for use in ball games played within a predetermined area on a pitch or the like such as cricket, comprising at least four video cameras arranged in spaced apart relationship at fixed positions around the said area, a video processor and ball tracker to which signals from the cameras are fed, a data store for date which models the said area and includes data representative of characteristic features positioned thereon for use in performance of the game, and a store for data appertaining to rules and/or key events of the ball game played, the video processor being operative to; (a) identify in each frame, from each camera, groups of pixels corresponding to the image of a ball; (b) compute for each frame the 3D position of an image thus identified using ball image data from at least two different cameras; (c) predict a ball flight-path from the said 3D ball position as computed in successive frames; and, (d) map the predicted flight-path on the modelled area so as to identify any interaction with one or more of the said characteristic features, which interaction signifies the occurrence of a key event or a rule infringement.

[Natanui]

Tell me about it!

There have been multiple times on the ATP tennis tour that hawkeye has proven to be incorrect by high speed/def cameras..

You always hear about the "precision" and "technological advancement" that hawkeye is, but I have yet to ever hear the manufacturers, commentators, or anyone else, truly explain how it works!
This is due to one simple fact - it is solely based on the users input. There are no "32 camera's tracking the balls flight" or any of that crap. Its purely sum little indians job to decide where the ball hit the batsman.

The decision you are talking about was pure PLUMB and it is non decisions like that garbage by Dar that are ruining cricket. It is far too much a batsmens game these days.


Speaking of Dar, that over throw controversies would have to be one of the most incompetent pieces of umpiring I have ever seen.

He clearly implied it was over, handing Krejza's hat to him and walking off his spot, yet when Ponting addressed Bowden about it, he went and asked Dar who blatantly lied to cover himself and said he had no called over.

If Ponting is to be suspended for a slow over rate, Dar should most certainly be suspended for such a bad act of incompetence.

[Speck]

I remember the last Ashes series, where on the same ball, hawk-eye once hit the stumps and once missed. Found it very odd. If I'm right (not saying I am) I think it might have happened today. Was off Watson, an LBW that was given (earlier today). One hit and later in the day it didn't.

[thesmallprint]

There have been instances where someone has been bowled and hawkeye shows it missing the stumps.

Obviously they don't show it on TV.

[SwampCreature]

I think it was last summer or a couple ago seeing the opposite of that, someone bolwed a nut that turned sharply and just missed leg stump by a hair, they showed hawkeye to illustrate the turn and it projected the ball clipping leg. FAIL.

[Adelaide Hawk]

Hawkeye is only an entertainment tool. Anyone who takes it as proof (like Tony Greig) as to where the ball would have gone really needs help.

[wotdoiput]

Never trusted Hawkeye, especially since the 2005 Ashes when Warne bowled a couple of balls that caused Hawkeye to malfunction and basically say it was impossible to do.

[Belnakor]

uh correct me if i'm wrong, but when the referral system comes in, Umpires will be able to use Hawkeye up until the point of prediction.

[Ralphy09]

hawkeye should never be used for LBW's

[Belnakor]

Never trusted Hawkeye, especially since the 2005 Ashes when Warne bowled a couple of balls that caused Hawkeye to malfunction and basically say it was impossible to do.

this delivery screwed up hawkeye - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=vfdRy7sofYA

[TigerCraig]

hawkeye should never be used for LBW's


Only way it could be used is to confirm where the ball pitched, and where it hit the pad - not for predictions

[YOTC]

this delivery screwed up hawkeye - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=vfdRy7sofYA
Plumb.

[ubolt]

never going to be used in replays for LBW's, the only thing that will be used is the strike-zone.

everyone knows it is only a reference tool, rather than a definitive guide anyway.


so why does it matter if it is wrong?

[OzBomber]

this delivery screwed up hawkeye - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=vfdRy7sofYAGeez, look how far that turned! I couldn't believe that was not out when I saw it live.