Hawkeye technology

[coffee_rules]

I am not advocating a rush to hawkeye and snicko immediately' date=' but just the tramlines would have shown the ball hit Tendulkar marginally outside off, and just one replay without any technology would have been enough to see Dravid was out. Give the umpires one replay and tramlines and most howlers will go away.[/quote'] That brings us to a very important discussion. How do you use Hawkeye or any other alternative technology for LBWs? If we start using it, we will see sub-200 scores in every innings. If the batsmen is shown out to a ball that is swinging like a banana pitched outside the line and hitting the middle stump..then a lot of batsmen will not have fat averages. I feel technology can still be used for bump catches, catches off pads.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[ranj]

Ian Harvey raised a good point during the lunch break yesterday. He said that, as a first port of call, the third umpire should be ruling all no ball decisions through the fixed cam. That'll allow the umpire to concentrate on what's happening 22 yards away. I agree with doing that in the interim.... first to give the necessary technology a proper chance to be developed and substantiated, and also to see whether the general rate of incompetence actually did decline. I agree with Shwetabh about the tram lines too. There's no contention in that, it's either pitched outside or is hasnt.

[yoda]

If we start using it, we will see sub-200 scores in every innings.

Not necessarily. We will see the real scores, whatever they may be.

[kabira]

hawkeye should not be used.. without hawkeye you can make decision with the technology and good thing rather most imp. thing it will be consistent..

[Sachinism]

yeh hawkeye for LBW's would just end up in matches with some low scores there needs to be another solution

[yoda]

hawkeye should not be used.. without hawkeye you can make decision with the technology and good thing rather most imp. thing it will be consistent..

How can you get consistency when every ump has to use his own judgement about whether a ball is going to hit the stumps or not?

[yoda]

only reason you can argue against hawkeye is if you think it is inaccurate. it shouldn't really matter if it means lower scoring matches.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

good point there Yods ... plus this will cause batsmen to strengthen their technique .

looks like folks are focussed too much on catches as those have been the contentious ones this series.

[coffee_rules]

Do you want to see LBW decisions given to Murali for pitching the rough turning and the batsmen pads it away only to walk back to the pavilion? I don't want to see any software judging how much a ball would spin or swing or even bounce ... how much ever accurate the algorithm is ..to give a batsman out LBW. I am only talking about LBWs. I agree that used along with tramlines, Hawkeye can be used to judge if a ball is pitched in line and given some perimeters of where it would hit the stumps middle-leg or middle-off .. at around 2/3s height to the stumps...

[yoda]

Do you want to see LBW decisions given to Murali for pitching the rough turning and the batsmen pads it away only to walk back to the pavilion? I don't want to see any software judging how much a ball would spin or swing or even bounce ... how much ever accurate the algorithm is ..to give a batsman out LBW. I am only talking about LBWs. I agree that used along with tramlines' date=' Hawkeye can be used to judge if a ball is pitched in line and given some perimeters of where it would hit the stumps middle-leg or middle-off .. at around 2/3s distance to the stumps...[/quote'] just go by the rule book. if you offer no shot, ball does not have to pitch in line, hawkeye or not. if you offer no shot, ump needs to determine if the ball will hit the stumps. you think an ump(especially one of the incompetent ones working for the ICC) is the best judge of the turn and whether the ball will hit the stumps? give me a half decent technology over these (ch)umps anyday who are only good enough to count from 1 to six (learnt on the job :D).

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[DesiChap]

yeh hawkeye for LBW's would just end up in matches with some low scores there needs to be another solution

That is a copout. You want accuracy or false positives?

[DesiChap]

Do you want to see LBW decisions given to Murali for pitching the rough turning and the batsmen pads it away only to walk back to the pavilion? I don't want to see any software judging how much a ball would spin or swing or even bounce ... how much ever accurate the algorithm is ..to give a batsman out LBW. I am only talking about LBWs. I agree that used along with tramlines' date=' Hawkeye can be used to judge if a ball is pitched in line and given some perimeters of where it would hit the stumps middle-leg or middle-off .. at around 2/3s height to the stumps...[/quote'] Ball pitching outside legstump IIt is a NOTOUT. For outside the off stump pitched ball, I would take the hawkeye over the umps anyday. At least the hawkeye will be consistent. We will get consistency and a definete improvement in the so called ICC % of correct decisions that the ICC pull out off its wazoo !

[yoda]

Ball pitching outside legstump IIt is a NOTOUT. For outside the off stump pitched ball' date=' I would take the hawkeye over the umps anyday. At least the hawkeye will be consistent. We will get consistency and a definete improvement in the so called ICC % of correct decisions [b']that the ICC pull out off its wazoo !

:D