Hawkeyes Accuracy.

[yoda]

The issue isn't the degree of hawkeye's accuracy. the issue is how accurate hawkeye would be relative to the dumb **** cocksucking umpires we have today. i feel confident in saying that it is far more accurate than your average international umpire. at the very least, using hawkeye on referred appeals would eliminate the howlers made so often by the incompetent chumpires. that alone, makes hawkeye worth having.

+1

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[f.b.m]

Forget accuracy ... I would have hawkeye simply because it is un-biased.

This is exactly the reason why I support hawkeye.. despite its 'question marks' on accuracy. As for verifying accuracy, someone should really do a proper study. Ask a couple of international bowlers to bowl on an actual wicket (preferrably one in overcast conditions or with uneven bounce) without a batsman, take a cutoff length (say, 1.5 - 2.5 m from the stumps) and compare hawkeye's predictions to what actually ended up happening. Full reply later (after my exams, lawlzz.)

[f.b.m]

ps: I dont get why people like to criticize hawkeye's height calls from a purely front on angle. Case in point: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qm443-zdaY]YouTube- Kumble near Hat-Trick v Australia Sydney 2008[/ame] Hawkeye's opinion: http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/kumble%20to%20symonds.pdf

[CSK Fan]

Says who?!

Its in the rules buddy. If a batsmen is hit on the full(full toss)

[thevortex]

Its in the rules buddy. If a batsmen is hit on the full(full toss)

Can you show me these rules, My two cents? I am sure I dont need to tell you that the line of the ball does matter - even if it hits the batsman on the full.

ps: I dont get why people like to criticize hawkeye's height calls from a purely front on angle. Case in point: YouTube- Kumble near Hat-Trick v Australia Sydney 2008 Hawkeye's opinion: http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/kumble%20to%20symonds.pdf

OK. I have heard this viewpoint once too often. Do you perhaps believe that the square leg umpire would be the best person to judge the height aspect of an LBW decision? We are losing out; more importantly the game is losing out on the millimetres game. Cricket is not about millimetres. It is about eliminating glaring errors. How many matches have been stopped because of an umpiring blunder. If it is not yet apparent to many here, players do take the umpires' decisions in their stride while many have come out with strong statements against Hawkeye. That should not go unnoticed. I see nothing wrong in the main umpire judging the height, length, line and special circumstances, if any, before giving the decision (LBW appeal).

This is exactly the reason why I support hawkeye.. despite its 'question marks' on accuracy. As for verifying accuracy, someone should really do a proper study. Ask a couple of international bowlers to bowl on an actual wicket (preferrably one in overcast conditions or with uneven bounce) without a batsman, take a cutoff length (say, 1.5 - 2.5 m from the stumps) and compare hawkeye's predictions to what actually ended up happening. Full reply later (after my exams, lawlzz.)

This is what I have been demanding - from the very beginning. And the people who pride themselves of having a scientific and/or statistical bent of mind just have to accept that they have zilch, zip, nada as far as scientific, 3rd party verified proof is concerned.

[f.b.m]

OK. I have heard this viewpoint once too often. Do you perhaps believe that the square leg umpire would be the best person to judge the height aspect of an LBW decision?

Maybe, maybe not. I think hawkeye is much better placed.

We are losing out; more importantly the game is losing out on the millimetres game. Cricket is not about millimetres. It is about eliminating glaring errors.

I think you completely missed my point with the Kumble lbw shout. My point was that hawkeye shouldn't be criticized ('was on the booze') for height calls from a front on angle. And yes agreed we're losing out. This is what I posted couple of days ago:

at least hawkeye is unbiased and fair if nothing else. At least for me, thats much more important than any tiny implementation of the lbw rule like half the ball clipping the bail or whatever else..

to which you replied :

You say that the ball clipping the top of the bail is 'tiny'. You would not if you were the batsman, f.b.m.

My only concerns are whether the rules are clear, which they are in the case of hawkeye, not so much in the case of human umpires, and most importantly whether the decision making is unbiased, not influenced by aggressive appeals, fatigue, etc, etc.. Again, no prizes for guessing who wins here.

How many matches have been stopped because of an umpiring blunder. If it is not yet apparent to many here, players do take the umpires' decisions in their stride while many have come out with strong statements against Hawkeye. That should not go unnoticed.

I think we agree that umpiring blunders are something that we want to get rid of. Matches havent been stopped for slow over rates, doesnt mean its ok. And how many players have come out with strong statements against umpires? Besides, you would never find a statement that says "hawkeye is biased against me".

I see nothing wrong in the main umpire judging the height, length, line and special circumstances, if any, before giving the decision (LBW appeal).

Except he can make loads of mistakes due to crowd pressure, bias, etc, etc. Also he isnt best placed to judge height calls which affects taller batsmen (Alistair Cook) a bit. Hawkeye has 6 cameras; much better placed to make such calls.

This is what I have been demanding - from the very beginning. And the people who pride themselves of having a scientific and/or statistical bent of mind just have to accept that they have zilch, zip, nada as far as scientific, 3rd party verified proof is concerned.

There should be another option in the poll: I DON'T CARE! I support the use of hawkeye (even better if the entire lbw decision is automated, no umpires in it at all) for reasons other than its accuracy. It is inherently better in many regards compared to human umpires. As far as its accuracy is concerned, its decent enough in my view (just saying anecdotally, from what I've seen) although it would be nice to have a proper study done.

[f2000560]

There are other probable samples, f200560 (you have got to give me a different handle to write your name:)). We just need to look at footage. When the ball is spinning, Hawkeye is so very lost. The same with prodigious swing. There are other problems as well - as in the tendency to depict almost every ball as grazing the leg stump even when it is speared into the batsman and would go down the leg side harmlessly. We are not designing or guiding spacecraft are we? Pardon the pun - but cricket is a simple game. I ask a simple question. Has Hawkeye's accuracy been measured? If so, give me the numbers. If not, just say so that you love technology for its own sake and we can move on. I am in the IT field, My two cents. And to believe that computers can trump human intuition and/or intelligence is just plain hogwash. Says who?!

you can call me ashwin i think with prodigious spin and swing. the variety that warne and wasim produce sometimes even the umpires are reduced to taking "educated" guesses i think there are a couple of videos that illustrate this point there are a couple of biases both probably acting sub consciously which umpires are prone to. a. Making up for a previous error : Once aware of a glaring error they sort of become extra conservative / aggressive to sort of counter / negate their previous calls. can't think of any immediate incidents but this is human nature. b. Sub consciously giving the benefit to the perceived stronger team : I think this has been raised before in this fora. of course then there are events like sydney which is plain bizarre !! H/E is unbiased not prone to such errors err just one question though how many cameras are placed in cricket i know there are six in tennis ?

[akshayxyz]

Most of the arguments against Hawkeye's accuracy are of the type.. H/E doesn't consider XYZ parameter in its calculation of the predictive path. So are you suggesting that some "Shakoor Rana" can calculate it better. Who, most likely, cant even do a mental calculation of 19*17 under 1 minute!!! And add to that conditions, that severely affect the objectivity of such calculations, e.g. when Pakistan / India is one of the playing side!. Btw, do you know, there are so many possible errors when you communicate over internet.. chat or email or blog or whatever...(.e.g., server side errors, lost network packets, even if u overcome client side problems - IE/FFox crashing, windows crashing..etc) So, going by your logic - shall we go back to flying pigeons, until we perfect the internet/computer technology???

[thevortex]

Maybe' date=' maybe not. I think hawkeye is much better placed. [/quote'] I dont get this. On what basis are you saying that Hawkeye is much better placed?

I think you completely missed my point with the Kumble lbw shout. My point was that hawkeye shouldn't be criticized ('was on the booze') for height calls from a front on angle. And yes agreed we're losing out. This is what I posted couple of days ago: to which you replied : My only concerns are whether the rules are clear, which they are in the case of hawkeye, not so much in the case of human umpires, and most importantly whether the decision making is unbiased, not influenced by aggressive appeals, fatigue, etc, etc.. Again, no prizes for guessing who wins here.

Why indeed should Hawkeye NOT be criticized? Because of some romantic notion that there should be an easy break-in period in which technology should be allowed to grow and make mistakes? Pray why? And please - talk of Hawkeye specific rules gives me a headache. There are so many holes in there that you could think of making those lovely, yummy South Indian snacks with them! :)

I think we agree that umpiring blunders are something that we want to get rid of. Matches havent been stopped for slow over rates, doesnt mean its ok. And how many players have come out with strong statements against umpires? Besides, you would never find a statement that says "hawkeye is biased against me". Except he can make loads of mistakes due to crowd pressure, bias, etc, etc. Also he isnt best placed to judge height calls which affects taller batsmen (Alistair Cook) a bit. Hawkeye has 6 cameras; much better placed to make such calls.

How many - in this day and age - still believe that umpires hold a bias against specific teams? I, for one, certainly believe that any and all mistakes that umpires make are due to the situation and their judgment or lack thereof rather than bias. I think people are stuck in a bygone age if they still think that bias is a problem. And once this is ruled out - then Hawkeye has no other reason to be present? And before I get sidetracked - here is the main thing. When introducing something new we MUST make sure that it does not introduce errors of its own. That is just a basic rule of integration - whether you talk of a software program or a service or just plain anything. If the newly introduced element introduces yet another flux, what sort of system do you have? A simple word for that would be chaos. About player statements, I think you should look up teams' and captains' feedback on Hawkeye. It has consistently been iffy and almost never fully supportive. You dont think all that matters?

There should be another option in the poll: I DON'T CARE! I support the use of hawkeye (even better if the entire lbw decision is automated, no umpires in it at all) for reasons other than its accuracy. It is inherently better in many regards compared to human umpires. As far as its accuracy is concerned, its decent enough in my view (just saying anecdotally, from what I've seen) although it would be nice to have a proper study done.

Now you have made it amply clear. You DONT CARE if Hawkeye is accurate or not. In that case I dont see any point in further discussion on this point with you. No offense meant whatsoever. For the simple reason that I care about accuracy and I do not blindly believe that umpires hold biases against teams and/or individuals.

[akshayxyz]

to BossBhai - you may want to edit the poll questions. As not many people have a good grasp of the concept of accuracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision As of now, IMO, it is fair to say H/E is relatively more accurate (and precise too) than human umpires, and I don't see humans getting better at it. Though we can always make H/E better, by introducing more parameters.

[thevortex]

you can call me ashwin i think with prodigious spin and swing. the variety that warne and wasim produce sometimes even the umpires are reduced to taking "educated" guesses i think there are a couple of videos that illustrate this point there are a couple of biases both probably acting sub consciously which umpires are prone to. a. Making up for a previous error : Once aware of a glaring error they sort of become extra conservative / aggressive to sort of counter / negate their previous calls. can't think of any immediate incidents but this is human nature. b. Sub consciously giving the benefit to the perceived stronger team : I think this has been raised before in this fora. of course then there are events like sydney which is plain bizarre !! H/E is unbiased not prone to such errors err just one question though how many cameras are placed in cricket i know there are six in tennis ?

I guess we agree then that Hawkeye is prone to different kind of errors? Here is the thing. Everybody holding Hawkeye aloft on their shoulders and trying hard to crush the umpires' underfoot hold up placards for the Sydney Test or some godforsaken umpire like Shakoor Rana or the famous Bucknor-Benson duo. A few old-timers will indeed recall the shoulder-before-wicket fracas. Does this not endemically show you that these are exceptions? That for the most part players and people are happy with the umpires' show out there? I am NOT anti-technology. I have made that point enough times. You want referrals - that is great. You want technology - that is even better. But use proven technology and implement it properly and with due care for both the rules and spirit of the game. What I am NOT FOR is championing the cause of a technology due to possible commercial wrangles and/or some other pressure. And just for the novelty aspect too is not a great reason. Do a thorough check of Hawkeye - place accuracy results out there in front of the fans, who are the true stakeholders of the game and then implement it so that millimetres dont matter and in every case a 'not out' is never given 'out'. In the process I am perfectly fine if a few 'outs' slip by the system. They call this the principle of natural justice. What is happening today is shambolic. We may not realize it today. But you will all be up on your feet, screaming hellfury when Sehwag is on 299 and Hawkeye gives a dubious referral decision. Why wait till that? Why not implement proper technology with an eye towards preserving the rules and spirit of the game in every way possible?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Btw, do you know, there are so many possible errors when you communicate over internet.. chat or email or blog or whatever...(.e.g., server side errors, lost network packets, even if u overcome client side problems - IE/FFox crashing, windows crashing..etc) So, going by your logic - shall we go back to flying pigeons, until we perfect the internet/computer technology???

Akshayxyz - your example is the perfect obfuscation done on the pretext of extrapolation. By the way it is not about Hawkeye not considering a few parameters. It is about Hawkeye's imaginative potential. You guys are ready to believe whatever Hawkeye thinks WILL happen. Without basis. I ask that you do not be surprised when there are calls for proof of accuracy to be revealed. It is but natural for anybody serious about their cricket.

[Gunner_Mania]

They call this the principle of natural justice. What is happening today is shambolic. We may not realize it today. But you will all be up on your feet' date=' screaming hellfury when Sehwag is on 299 and Hawkeye gives a dubious referral decision. Why wait till that? Why not implement proper technology with an eye towards preserving the rules and spirit of the game in every way possible?[/quote'] Hellfury will be even bigger when Sehwag is on 299 and we decide to stick with a human and not use available technology and the umpire gives a dubious decision. If it is a case of umpires are 95% accurate and hawkeye is 97% accurate I would take Hawkeye any day rather than saying, I will stick with 5% human error rather than reducing it by 2% because technology is not 100% right.

[Gunner_Mania]

Akshayxyz - your example is the perfect obfuscation done on the pretext of extrapolation. By the way it is not about Hawkeye not considering a few parameters. It is about Hawkeye's imaginative potential. You guys are ready to believe whatever Hawkeye thinks WILL happen. Without basis. I ask that you do not be surprised when there are calls for proof of accuracy to be revealed. It is but natural for anybody serious about their cricket.

Just as you are ready to believe whatever the umpire thinks WILL happen. Give a scenario to umpire X and Y, th possibility of both giving different decision exists. Give the same scenario to Hawkeye multiple times the result will be the same.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Manny_Pacquiao]

They call this the principle of natural justice. What is happening today is shambolic. We may not realize it today. But you will all be up on your feet, screaming hellfury when Sehwag is on 299 and Hawkeye gives a dubious referral decision. Why wait till that? Why not implement proper technology with an eye towards preserving the rules and spirit of the game in every way possible?

how is that even possible with a technology that has been proven to be 99% accurate ?

[CSK Fan]

Can you show me these rules, My two cents? I am sure I dont need to tell you that the line of the ball does matter - even if it hits the batsman on the full. .

DUH, of course the line of the ball would matter. I was just saying that if its hits the batsmen on the full, it is considered that the ball will not swing, seam spin or behave in any other manner but go straight on with the line And do you have third party, scinetific, independent proof of umpire's accuracy?

[thevortex]

Hellfury will be even bigger when Sehwag is on 299 and we decide to stick with a human and not use available technology and the umpire gives a dubious decision. If it is a case of umpires are 95% accurate and hawkeye is 97% accurate I would take Hawkeye any day rather than saying, I will stick with 5% human error rather than reducing it by 2% because technology is not 100% right.

That is where you are wrong - in my opinion. An umpiring error will draw nowhere near the amount of flak and/or ridicule as a technology error. You know why? I was talking about something which no umpire would give out on field but one which might be given out on account of Hawkeye saying that it would kiss the top of the bail or tickle the outermost edge of leg stump. Are we as naive as to miss the point even in such cases? And what is it with the percentage game? It is not as if these are all some sort of established numbers anyway.

Just as you are ready to believe whatever the umpire thinks WILL happen. Give a scenario to umpire X and Y' date=' th possibility of both giving different decision exists. Give the same scenario to Hawkeye multiple times the result will be the same.[/quote'] Absolutely and that is called the human element. And yes, I agree that a machine is far more consistent than a human being can be. And when you consider that different human beings are involved, then yes, consistency in itself is being redefined again and again. But then - you have to decide whether this adds to the game or detracts from it!!! You decide - do we play all games at belters like at Johanessburg where SA chased a record score? Or do we play on all kinds of wickets - even slow and low ones and nasty, bouncy ones? How about we ask a machine to lay out a particular kind of wicket every time? Left to the T20 leagues, they would not bat an eye at this sort of thing. They would take it every time. Imagine - they could even ensure a minimum amount of sixers to the crowd and the audience! Would we as fans do it? Lets just say - I doubt it.

how is that even possible with a technology that has been proven to be 99% accurate ?

Sorry? 99%? Proven? Care to elaborate?