stop the challenge!

[Mitchell Madness]

the challenge was brought in to stop the cheating by the sub-continent teams when it came to close catches, not to challenge every LBW decision.

LBW has far too many variables, there is no garuntee that hawk-eye/eagle-eye is correct in its PREDICTION, and that is exactly what it is, a PREDICTION


What the umpire says in relation to LBW should be the final decision

 

[Cousin Jed]

What if a batsmen smashes it into his pads and the umpire misses it?

 

[Badesumofu]

How do you, or any of us, know how accurate Eagle Eye is? The people who's job it is to determine that say it is accurate.

I personally don't like the fact that batsman who are given out can now hang around for five minutes deciding whether or not to challenge, but I also like the idea that bad decisions shouldn't turn matches anymore. I also like that teams have no recourse if they have used their challenges and get a bad one, it kind of makes them complicit (because they wasted their challenges) and takes some of the arbitrary luck out of the game.

A wicket is such a huge event that I think you need some kind of system, given the technology is there.

 

[BONG RIPS MKII]

now if i understand hawkeye correctly, and i don't, the hussey lbw ball would have bounced clean out of the stadium if it hadn't hit anything

 

[legend166]

I don't see how Hawkeye isn't accurate for the vast majority of cases.

It's maths. You do it in highschool. The whole issue was being able to get an accurate enough reading of the ball through the air. They said they were filming it at around 240 frames per second these days. Sounds good enough to me.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

now if i understand hawkeye correctly, and i don't, the hussey lbw ball would have bounced clean out of the stadium if it hadn't hit anything

pretty much...

whos to say the ball wouldnt have had a dramatic dip and taken the bails off
also, whos to say if hawk-eye says the ball would have taken off or leg stump, or the bails, wouldnt have missed?

I am all for leaving it there for the catches that get challenged like it was orriginally intended

 

[red+black]

How about all the lefties that get given out LBW by incompetent umpires when the ball clearly pitches outside leg stump? Most umpires don't comprehend that if you're going to take a guess when a right arm bowler bowls over the wicket to a left hand batsman, you'll be right more often to give it not out.

 

[legend166]

pretty much...

whos to say the ball wouldnt have had a dramatic dip and taken the bails off
also, whos to say if hawk-eye says the ball would have taken off or leg stump, or the bails, wouldnt have missed?

I am all for leaving it there for the catches that get challenged like it was orriginally intended

Physics.

 

[aussie1st]

There have been some shockers over the time and they have changed the match. While there are some downsides such as waiting around that is the main one.

I trust in the developers of Eagle Eye, they would have tested it against thousands of deliveries to confirm Eagle Eye was correct.

 

[Borisdog]

I'm tipping a few Aussie Batsmen would have liked it in the 2005 Ashes in Pomland - jeez we got some shockers in that series.

 

[Zeke]

Eagle Eye > Hawk Eye

 

[philohk]

the challenge was brought in to stop the cheating by the sub-continent teams when it came to close catches, not to challenge every LBW decision.

LBW has far too many variables, there is no garuntee that hawk-eye/eagle-eye is correct in its PREDICTION, and that is exactly what it is, a PREDICTION


What the umpire says in relation to LBW should be the final decision

pretty much...

whos to say the ball wouldnt have had a dramatic dip and taken the bails off
also, whos to say if hawk-eye says the ball would have taken off or leg stump, or the bails, wouldnt have missed?

I am all for leaving it there for the catches that get challenged like it was orriginally intended

Two posts, two brilliant statements. Keep it coming!

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Two posts, two brilliant statements. Keep it coming!

so obviously you cannot remember 3 years ago when the indians and sri lankans were claiming catches which dropped well short? this is what brought the challenge system in

as for the dramatic dip statement, i gues syou never saw shane warne bowl?
great flight and the ball dipped out of nowhere occassionally.... it can, and does happen

 

[Ruck Machine]

The challenge system is great!

Also the accuracy of the new system is much higher as it captures more than twice as many frames (240) as in the past (110).

Some teams seem to use them very well ... others suck at using them.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The technology itself is fine, they've shown in "scientific" testing that the predictions are within 99.8% of actual. The problem as I understand it is it still relies on human interpretation to work out the 'point of contact'.

For most deliveries that provides enough data to extrapolate out a flight path (using velocity, angle of upwards trajectory and momentum to devise a "landing point" from which the 'parabolic curve' can be projected back - providing a flight path which either intersects the stumps, or does not). Even with 240 fps, the difference of a mm in measuring error can result in a changed decision.

I like the "umpire's call" when it's within half-a-ball width - but it shouldn't be considered a 'bad' referral and cost the team a challenge. Ideally I'd like to see the umpires do it themselves - but when that happened in a previous series every second decision went upstairs.

 

[Underdog]

I like the "umpire's call" when it's within half-a-ball width - but it shouldn't be considered a 'bad' referral and cost the team a challenge. Ideally I'd like to see the umpires do it themselves - but when that happened in a previous series every second decision went upstairs.

Indeed. Just like how run outs have gone from an umpires decision to almost always a third umpire decision.

 

[Ochre]

as for the dramatic dip statement, i gues syou never saw shane warne bowl?
great flight and the ball dipped out of nowhere occassionally.... it can, and does happen

so by that logic, a ball by a fast bowler could turn square occasionally?

 

[BarneyBent]

as for the dramatic dip statement, i gues syou never saw shane warne bowl?
great flight and the ball dipped out of nowhere occassionally.... it can, and does happen

That is a ridiculously stupid statement. The ball would dip out of nowhere because of the rotations he put on it as it flew through the air. After bouncing, that is lost and the ball's trajectory (once established after the bounce) is consistent.