Hawkeyes Accuracy.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Bossbhai - as you have been kind enough to mention my take on Hawkeye, how about making your views clear as well, in this thread?

[Chandan]

Bossbhai, A better question would have been, is UDRS better than just having umpires? UDRS includes hawk-eye, hotspot along, slow motions etc, along with umpire's judgement. I'm okay with UDRS which will get better as everyone gets used to it and its chinks in the implementations are ironed out.

[Gunner_Mania]

Bossbhai, A better question would have been, is UDRS better than just having umpires? UDRS includes hawk-eye, hotspot along, slow motions etc, along with umpire's judgement. I'm okay with UDRS which will get better as everyone gets used to it and its chinks in the implementations are ironed out.

Chandan - We have had that poll before. Thevortex is not against UDRS per se, he just doesn't believe that the Hawkeye tool has been verified independently that its projected path is accurate and hence this question. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=212607

[thevortex]

Chandan - this is the common pit that everybody falls into. There is a reason why Bossbhai specifically mentions Hawkeye. I do NOT have issues with the UDRS. Hawkeye is the only element of the UDRS system I have a problem about. And the one that he and I have been discussing about. Hence the wording of the poll. I mention this because it would not do for people to identify Hawkeye with UDRS as a whole. It is just one part of it. Not surprisingly, the most contentious part :).

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[hitman1980]

The funny part here is the error margin for an umpire is in many inches if not feet ... whereas its in millimeters for Hawkeye.

Now if even after using this technology u say the error margin is there, than wht's the use of this technology?? A technology should be used if there is no doubt abt its accuracy .. If its not reliable than I don't think humans can do anymore harm ...

[Desi Cartman]

Now if even after using this technology u say the error margin is there, than wht's the use of this technology?? A technology should be used if there is no doubt abt its accuracy .. If its not reliable than I don't think humans can do anymore harm ...

:wall: Margin of error of a Human > of Hawkeye .. Thats the whole point of using technology

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/?page_id=1012 There are links to two documents on that page that explain all the accuracy related questions. The bad news for thvortex is that as per the document the Independent review of H/E was done by MCC in May'2008. What more there is an email address listed for the inventor Paul Hawkins who it appears takes a lot of pain in explaining any dubious decisions. There is even a challenge out for the commentators if they can prove him wrong he will donate 10K pounds to a charity of their choice else the commies pay 1K pound to the Lords Taverns. This document has been out there for sometime and I resisted posting it just to see how people have a mind block that is pretty much unshakeable. Iam pretty sure this document will also not make much difference to their mindset.

I, Sir point you to this :winky: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=944713&postcount=53

[hitman1980]

:wall: Margin of error of a Human > of Hawkeye .. Thats the whole point of using technology

U must be joking .. right? The whole point of using technology is stopping mistakes to happen and not checking if machine make lesser mistakes or not .. but if mistakes still happens then wht's the use of this technology .. no point in using it .. btw hawkeye do make lots and lots of mistake but the thing is u can't see it cos there is no one u can compare it with .. But for human error u can compare it with hawkeye (which itself is faulty)

[TumTum]

What a coincidence such a thread came up, I am a firm believer that Hawkeye at times is inaccurate. Do you all remember the match in NZ where they went for Hawkeye (non official one, just for the commentators) it showed the ball was way way above the stumps (nearly head high) whilst live it looked a really close lbw shout. If Hawkeye can break down like this, what will happen if it breaks down but in an important match but the error margin is small enough to think its working properly but big enough to change the decision of the final call?

[CSK Fan]

U must be joking .. right? The whole point of using technology is stopping mistakes to happen and not checking if machine make lesser mistakes or not .. but if mistakes still happens then wht's the use of this technology .. no point in using it ..

So reducing the number of errors and hence making the game more fair is not desirable at all?. Its either let it be 0% error right from the word go or suffer the insufferable umpires?

[thevortex]

I have come to believe that nothing can shake Bossbhai's rigid and uncompromising faith in Hawkeye. Forget that there are no numbers out there, there is no independent verification and all such small things. These piffling things cannot be held against technology - such is Bossbhai's stand, as much as I understand of it, at any rate.

[hitman1980]

@My two cents How can u say it reduces errors? We just know tht this technology is still not perfect and if given a chance to compare it with a perfect technology, then only we can say if it make any impact .. So just can't use any buggy thing in the name of technology .. Umpires r doing the job for past 100 years so I guess we can wait 4-5 years more till we get perfect technology... rather than using a technology which itself is error prone ..

[CSK Fan]

I have come to believe that nothing can shake Bossbhai's rigid and uncompromising faith in Hawkeye. Forget that there are no numbers out there' date= there is no independent verification and all such small things. These piffling things cannot be held against technology - such is Bossbhai's stand, as much as I understand of it, at any rate.

Yes, the ICC and MCC consist of fools who have taken up an unreliable technology and introduced them in cricket

[thevortex]

Yes' date=' the ICC and MCC consist of fools who have taken up an unreliable technology and introduced them in cricket[/quote'] Are we really surprised. The ICC as a body is one which has repeatedly and consistently made its name out of sitting there and doing nothing. Its inefficiency exceeds any reasonable proportions and as a governing body it is nowhere near being compared with similar bodies in other sports. Do you agree? And I dont know that they simply and gullibly implemented Hawkeye. The hasty implementation and the ownership of Hawkeye too are factors that cannot be ignored. I will repeat again something that I said elsewhere. If only Hawkeye were to be used in the ongoing French Open, things would be made so much clearer. And Hawkeye would have had no place to hide.