Hawkeye

[Wallaby]

Ok, we've had another test where it looks like hawkeye has misjudged a few decisions - at least according to commentators and BF experts.

I am a huge fan of hawkeye technology.. I have read up on how it works (just Google 'How does hawkeye work') - there are plenty of explanations. And it's really pretty simple. Multiple cameras, filming at the same time, triangulation, put them together - you get a track of the ball. And yes, it takes account of swing, swerve and spin.

It's a far, far better system than the naked eye from 22 yards away, particularly when an umpire can't clearly tell how far forward a batsman is, or how far the ball has travelled after pitching before it hits the batsman's pad. As for people watching on a TV screen....well.

Notice I only said i was a fan of the technology. I'm not that sure i like how it is used in the game - but that's another argument. I reckon that it works, and I trust the technology over any umpire or ex-player.

 

[Jaymin]

In regards to the LBW's, the main issue seems to be with the prediction of whether the ball is going to hit the stumps.

I think it should just be used to determine whether the ball pitches outside leg or hits the batsmen in line.

 

[BarneyBent]

It's better than the naked eye. Yes, it's not perfect, but a lot of the "mistakes" simply demonstrate that we assume our judgement is a lot better than it is.

 

[big_e]

It's better than the naked eye. Yes, it's not perfect, but a lot of the "mistakes" simply demonstrate that we assume our judgement is a lot better than it is.

Bingo.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

In my view the "prediction" shouldn't be used. The only thing that should be used is whether it hit in line and how high it was hit...then the ON FIELD umpire makes a judgement call.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Notice I only said i was a fan of the technology. I'm not that sure i like how it is used in the game - but that's another argument. I reckon that it works, and I trust the technology over any umpire or ex-player.

I also trust it a lot more than bigfooty experts too.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

What I would like to know is how technology copes with the subtle differences in the pace and bounce of the wicket from day 1 to day 5. How does technology deal with the fact you can bowl two deliveries in the same spot, one can bounce, the other skid? Does it factor in the differing bounce and angle from a Steyn or a Morkel delivery?

Technology cannot possibly be 100% fool proof, and because of this I just cannot accept that an umpire can give a player out lbw, but then be over-ruled because technology determines the ball would have missed the top of the stumps by 1 centimetre.

It's crazy.

 

[big_e]

It tracks the ball from the point of delivery to the point of impact with the pad, so yes, it does take into account that the ball can behave differently after it bounces.

 

[Hoven]

I think that Hawkeye should start using some kind of confidence interval with its predictions. A ball that isn't moving, has pitched short and hit the batsmen back in the crease is going to be much easier to project the trajectory of than a spinning or late-swinging, full-pitched ball that's hitting the batsman half a metre down the wicket. Maybe they could go with Hawk-eye if it's 98% (or whatever other percentage you like) sure of whether or not the ball is hitting the wicket and otherwise go with the umpire.

 

[evdo1706]

In my view the "prediction" shouldn't be used. The only thing that should be used is whether it hit in line and how high it was hit...then the ON FIELD umpire makes a judgement call.

You don't need Hawk Eye for that, slow-mo and pitch mat do the job. It's a judgement call afterall. LBW by the definition is a judgement call.