thevortex Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Domaink - I dont think you answered my pivotal question there. The way UDRS was implemented in the first place was such that the 3rd umpire was able to view Hawkeye's ball path upto the point of impact. Even though I was not overjoyed with this, I could live with this. However sometime down the line - without any sort of public announcement - the ICC made it such that 3rd umpires would view the predicted path of Hawkeye as well. What do you think prompted that change? And why? What was the basis and rationale behind that decision? Does not this appear even a little bit suspicious on their part? And need I mention that Wisden has stake in Hawkeye....
Lord Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Domaink - I dont think you answered my pivotal question there. The way UDRS was implemented in the first place was such that the 3rd umpire was able to view Hawkeye's ball path upto the point of impact. Even though I was not overjoyed with this, I could live with this. However sometime down the line - without any sort of public announcement - the ICC made it such that 3rd umpires would view the predicted path of Hawkeye as well. What do you think prompted that change? And why? What was the basis and rationale behind that decision? Does not this appear even a little bit suspicious on their part? And need I mention that Wisden has stake in Hawkeye.... n why should they not have made the change?the whole point of having UDRS is to minimise the umpiring error that a human eye makes.wats the point of it if the 3rd umpire makes the same mistake even after watching the replay?i remember wen the Hawkeye was used only upto point of impact,in the 3rd test against SL in 2008 series.an LBW appeal off Kumble was turned down,he appealed it for review.the replays clearly showed the ball hitting dead in front to the batsman(Samaraweera. IIRC).Somehow the 3rd umpire decided that it was no out n withheld the decision.later wen thy showed the predictive part of it,as expected it was hitiing middle of middle.would u want that to happen? another incident in WI v Eng game wen Chanders was hit way above knee roll but was given out Chanders reviewed it but 3RD Umpire Harper withheld the decision,later it was shown that ball was going six feet above the stumps,is that allright with u? n wats the point of using it upto the point of impact anyways?
thevortex Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Lord - the point of using it up until the point of impact is that you are not relying on anything virtual or reconstructed. I thought I had explained it in my earlier post. :) By the way if the decision was so simple, why not announce it? Why start off without the predicted path and then suddenly go whole hog?
Lord Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Lord - the point of using it up until the point of impact is that you are not relying on anything virtual or reconstructed. I thought I had explained it in my earlier post. :) By the way if the decision was so simple, why not announce it? Why start off without the predicted path and then suddenly go whole hog? Hawkeye upto the point of impact is also virtual?who is to say its 100% accurate?n if it is accurate,it just extends the path of the ball after the point of impact.its not like the ball will change direction mid air n btww can u recall the incident of 2008 series in SL that i'm referring to?
The Outsider Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 If an umpire extrapolates the path of a ball that is fine, but if a computer simulation does it it's not? That's just weird logic. The leg before decision by definition is an extrapolation.
thevortex Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Hawkeye upto the point of impact is also virtual?who is to say its 100% accurate?n if it is accurate,it just extends the path of the ball after the point of impact.its not like the ball will change direction mid air n btww can u recall the incident of 2008 series in SL that i'm referring to? Precisely why I mentioned that while the earlier situation was acceptable it was still not ideal :). Good point though and one I am fully aware of. Another reason I do not really rate Hawkeye highly. Sorry Lord ji - my memory is among my weakest aspects and I probably dont remember the incident you speak of. If an umpire extrapolates the path of a ball that is fine' date=' but if a computer simulation does it it's not? That's just weird logic. The leg before decision by definition is an extrapolation.[/quote'] Nothing weird about this at all, Outsider. After all it is only a human who has powers of intuition, is it not? :)
Lord Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Precisely why I mentioned that while the earlier situation was acceptable it was still not ideal :). Good point though and one I am fully aware of. Another reason I do not really rate Hawkeye highly. n wats the ideal situation? Sorry Lord ji - my memory is among my weakest aspects and I probably dont remember the incident you speak of. here is cricinfo commentary on that.like u,my memory is also weak.I said the ball was hitting middle of middle but it was actuallu hitting top half of middle.still enuf for me: 56.6 Kumble to Samaraweera, no run, Kumble asks for the review for a lbw decision. It landed on back of length, outside off stump, skidded towards middle and off and hit the pad. The doubt that might rise is that whether it hit the bat at the same time but the side-view replay show that it hit the pad first. And it looks out. Decision still pending. It hit the inner half of the front pad. Hold on .. the verdict is NOT OUT. Kumble has a word with the umpire and walks away disappointed. Tendulkar, sitting in the dressing room, signals it was out - he put up the index finger up. And also suggests it was skidding on rather than bouncing. Controversy here. Anyway that's that. Let's carry on. Perhaps, the umpire reckoned it would have bounced over. The virtual eye says it would have hit the top half of the middle stump are such things acceptable to u Nothing weird about this at all, Outsider. After all it is only a human who has powers of intuition, is it not? :) n human is also prone to faults n bias,isnt it?
thevortex Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Bossbhai - I wish you had seen that live. I think we might have been able to meet on some middle ground - however fanciful that idea seems now :). But seriously I dont really argue for the sake of it. My opinions of Hawkeye are ones formed of repeated viewing of its performance over various games and series in various conditions. It is OK if we disagree. I would respect your viewpoint while still disagreeing. But I sure do hope you dont dismiss this as some frivolity. Lord - the ideal situation is one where Taufel unerringly spots the line and length of the ball and makes the right decision :). Jokes apart I think I made my stand clear in many of my posts in this thread as well as the other one (the article quoted). There are any number of examples of human errors. I think we might be missing the point if Hawkeye is positioned as 'better' just because of these errors. I will try and come back with my suggestions on this subject sometime later - time permitting. Maybe in the form of an article. Thank you for sharing your thoughts everybody.
Lord Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Lord - the ideal situation is one where Taufel unerringly spots the line and length of the ball and makes the right decision :). Jokes apart I think I made my stand clear in many of my posts in this thread as well as the other one (the article quoted). There are any number of examples of human errors. I think we might be missing the point if Hawkeye is positioned as 'better' just because of these errors. I will try and come back with my suggestions on this subject sometime later - time permitting. Maybe in the form of an article. Thank you for sharing your thoughts everybody. Taufel cant stand in every game.n other umpires r bad.even Taufel has made wrong decisions(like SRT in Trent Bridge).why is that acceptable wen we have slightly better option.why allow howlers to change the course of the game? n btw i would like your opinion on that incident i qouted.thanks
Gunner_Mania Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Bossbhai - I wish you had seen that live. I think we might have been able to meet on some middle ground - however fanciful that idea seems now :). But seriously I dont really argue for the sake of it. My opinions of Hawkeye are ones formed of repeated viewing of its performance over various games and series in various conditions. qN-7Wg1ddLg Here is the video for which Bala wrote the article mentioned earlier - oh and I am just being pedantic here, it was the 4th test and not the 3rd as mentioned in his article - It comes in at around the 10 minute mark. This is from the Sky sports coverage. Make up your minds on that decision.
Gunner_Mania Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 1526 - WICKET - Strauss lbw b Parnell 22 (Eng 48-3) It's Wayne Parnell's first Test wicket, and it's a huge one, the England captain. The issue there was height, and the replays showed it was clipping the top of middle. England getting a damn good thrashing thats another version from BBC ball-by-ball http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/8461521.stm And another from cricbuzz: Parnell to Strauss, out Lbw!! Another one bites the dust! Parnell gets his first test wicket as Strauss misses a good length delivery that was angled into him, hit high on the back leg and Hawkeye reckons that would have clipped top of middle! Strauss lbw b Parnell 22(45) [4s-3] http://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-scorecard-archives/commentary/1660 His argument would be they are basing it on Hawk-eye. He believes Hawk-eye was incorrect with its predicted path. So the commentary on the sports sites does not matter.
Gunner_Mania Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Ya but he claims it was shown as kissing the bails which wasnt as per these 3 sources. And if there was some hanky-panky there would have been a lot of drama. None of these sources thought anything wrong about the decision. The cricinfo bulletin also mentions that the review was asked more in desperation rather than conviction. And keep in mind that the original decision by the umpire without the aid of H/E was out . Absolutely agree Bumble says the exact same thing on commentary.. I got tired of arguing with him about this on another thread. I couldn't get the link to this video earlier. Hope it works.
thevortex Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 Bossbhai - Cricinfo comments leave a lot to be desired and you are selling yourself short if you rely on them one hundred percent. Half the time they cannot even get it right as to whether it is a drop catch or a bump ball! You can even check in the recent India-Australia series. And yes, I still say that that decision was lacking in cricketing sense. Here the issue is not one of the main umpire being right. He was actually wrong. But the 3rd umpire sees a video generated by Hawkeye showing the ball hitting the top of the middle stump. Anybody watching that ball live would know that that ball would not have hit the stumps. Also anybody who watched that ball live would know that there was no way an umpire could declare that out. But the problem here is that a batsman is out even if Hawkeye shows the ball clipping the minutest portion of the stumps. Now tell me guys - how is that fair? Anyway I believe we are not going to agree on this. Until Hawkeye is accredited and verified as to accuracy in various conditions, the technology would stand out as something introduced mysteriously and implemented extremely poorly. This is non-debatable by the way. As I have mentioned time and again I can only wonder how you stat-minded souls can accept just about any system over the manual umpires even when there are no independent verifications available for the gadget and when the implementation leaves room for suspicion more than anything else. But lets agree to disagree.
Gunner_Mania Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 And yes, I still say that that decision was lacking in cricketing sense. Here the issue is not one of the main umpire being right. He was actually wrong. But the 3rd umpire sees a video generated by Hawkeye showing the ball hitting the top of the middle stump. Anybody watching that ball live would know that that ball would not have hit the stumps. Also anybody who watched that ball live would know that there was no way an umpire could declare that out. Why was it lacking in cricket sense? The on field umpire gave it out. Without Hawk eye it would have stood. There would have been no argument. The umpire watching that ball live thought it was out and gave it out. Strauss checked, Hawk eye said it wasn't sure. It was 50-50. Umpire's decision stood. But the problem here is that a batsman is out even if Hawkeye shows the ball clipping the minutest portion of the stumps. Now tell me guys - how is that fair? . The argument the other way would be that if the umpire had originally given not out, it would have been not out.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now