Hawkeyes Accuracy.

[gaurav92]

Well in my opinion, the advancement of technology in cricket has improved the game.With the latest innovation of the Hot Spot, Snicko etc. the only question arises is why isn't that being used everywhere to make correct decisions if the umpire is not sure, or he has wrongfully given that out/not out.So i think that the Hawk Eye must be used more because it gives 90-95 % accuracy while the umpires doesn't even give about 70%.Yes you may say that its not convincing but if we completely stick to the hawk eye it will be fair for both the sides.We have seen the quality of umpiring standards going down with the advancement of technology, so why not allow the third umpire to reverse any decision made wrongfully by the umpire if e is 100% satisfied with the technology. hawk Eye may not give accuracy on Day 5 with the low bounce, or on a good bouncy track as to whether the ball will hit/miss the stumps, but it will definitely give a better idea when one sees where the batsman is struck, whether its struck him on the line, and above.below the knee roll.With that the third umpire can make a call whether its out or not out.It isn't that we are getting good decisions from the umpires without using the Hawk Eye , so why not give it a Go.I think that Hawk Eye and the referral system should be allowed in all the formats of the game, i know its time consuming,but as soon as we are used to it, it will take lesser time for implementing decisions as everyone knows the procedure after having a look at it for a couple of series.

[drizzle]

It is more important to look at the bigger picture and look at the complete package, which is the UDRS. Under the UDRS, more than half the ball must be in or out of line of hitting or not hitting the stumps. Therein lies the crux of the debate. Surely, the hawkeye must be accurate within half the size of the cricket ball.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Sorry? 99%? Proven? Care to elaborate?

Are you ****ing serious ????

[Gunner_Mania]

thevortex - My question to you is - Do you believe that Hawkeye does not get a single decision right and is absolute garbage or do you think that it does get its fair share of decisions right, but not always. Based on our discussions across multiple threads, I believe it is the second one. The way the UDRS is is implemented is that Hawkeye is an aid to the umpire and not a tool over ruling the umpire, unless ofcourse the umpire has had a massive howler. As a player yourself, you would want to avoid the howlers as much as possible. Hawkeye - in its present form with whatever tolerable level of inaccuracy is a tool that aids umpire which leads to the betterment of the game. The way you are suggesting is Hawkeye must be used only if it is 100% accurate and certified would lead to the point where you don't need umpires and just technology would suffice. Is that what you want or where the umpires that Bossbhai and others are pointing out as biased being able to get help so that they make better decisions and dont come across as unbiased? May be not the perfect example, but to use an analogy Satnavs are not perfect, they dont always give you perfect directions to the doorstep, but they are hugely useful aid for navigation and at certain roundabouts they give wrong direction but as a human I have the final call to take the right exit. Just because I use a satnav to drive, I dont give just depend on it fully and follow it blindly.

[thevortex]

No cricketer worth his salt is going to go with a system like Hawkeye. And it does not make any sense to talk about Hawkeye being accurate enough within half the size of the cricket ball. Is that acceptable when batsmen are being given out when Hawkeye shows or imagines that the ball might strike the outermost portion of the leg stump - shaving it or kissing it or whatever? You guys think that is the way cricketing decisions are made? I am being very serious here and have a healthy respect for the folks in here. There is a certain way to look at the game as a spectator. But that is not necessarily the way you look at it as a player. And the way Hawkeye delivers decisions and they way the whole system is implemented by ICC is just not on. This is all just common sense. Of course feel free to disagree. I am certainly not here to convince anybody against his will.

[thevortex]

Incidentally, Gunner, I just answered your specific query. And you are right in your surmise. I definitely think Hawkeye gets more decisions right than wrong. Which means its accuracy percentage is certainly greater than 50%. But other than Richardson and the people who have implemented Hawkeye, nobody else knows the real accuracy percentage - no matter what people here think. I am not saying that it should be used only when it is 100% accurate. Just take a look at my last post. To use Hawkeye as the final authority (I know you say that the umpire still is the final authority - but I will come to that) is absolutely faulty - especially when you give a batsman out on decisions involving millimetres! Please do recognize that the concept of 'benefit of doubt' is being done away with. That is not just a tradition. It is the basis on which cricketing records for so long have been built. Now, I hope people dont bring this down by attributing this akin to batsmen being given lives or something similar. That is of course far from the truth. Its very simple. A batsman gets one chance to bat. Bowlers get several chances, repeatedly to get him out. So the benefit of doubt should go to the batsman. That is the logic. Hawkeye does not and CANNOT operate in such an environment. About Hawkeye superceding umpires - consider this. There is an LBW shout and the umpire gives not out. The fielding team asks for a referral and the TV umpire sees a replay where Hawkeye shows the ball absolutely ephemerally kissing the top of the bail. Can he give it a not out? Or even if he conveys the view to the main umpire - will the main umpire give it not out. I understand that it is within his power to say yes or no. But has it happened? I would love to know if it has. Also please note the glorified messenger boy role of the 3rd umpire in this case. On the other hand - how should technology be used? Just as in the run out scenario. The main umpire is not sure, it goes to the 3rd umpire and therein rests the final authority. Not with the technology per se, but with the 3rd umpire's visual perception of the technological perspective. I would like for something similar in the case of Hawkeye as well. Expand the concept to account for benefit of doubt - if that can be done. Then it can be somewhat closer to a workable system - to start with. Right now, it is a disaster. I am sure, those here involved in actually playing the game will see the sense in this case. And thanks Gunner for at least taking the time to understand what I have been repeating ad nauseam. :)

[Gunner_Mania]

To use Hawkeye as the final authority (I know you say that the umpire still is the final authority - but I will come to that) is absolutely faulty - especially when you give a batsman out on decisions involving millimetres! Please do recognize that the concept of 'benefit of doubt' is being done away with. That is not just a tradition. It is the basis on which cricketing records for so long have been built. Now, I hope people dont bring this down by attributing this akin to batsmen being given lives or something similar. That is of course far from the truth. Its very simple. A batsman gets one chance to bat. Bowlers get several chances, repeatedly to get him out. So the benefit of doubt should go to the batsman. That is the logic. Hawkeye does not and CANNOT operate in such an environment. About Hawkeye superceding umpires - consider this. There is an LBW shout and the umpire gives not out. The fielding team asks for a referral and the TV umpire sees a replay where Hawkeye shows the ball absolutely ephemerally kissing the top of the bail. Can he give it a not out? Or even if he conveys the view to the main umpire - will the main umpire give it not out. I understand that it is within his power to say yes or no. But has it happened? I would love to know if it has.

If the umpire says not out and Hawkeye shows that a part of the ball is clipping the bails, the umpires decision will stand he will not be over ruled, but if he did say out, then that will also stand.

Also please note the glorified messenger boy role of the 3rd umpire in this case. On the other hand - how should technology be used? Just as in the run out scenario. The main umpire is not sure, it goes to the 3rd umpire and therein rests the final authority. Not with the technology per se, but with the 3rd umpire's visual perception of the technological perspective. I would like for something similar in the case of Hawkeye as well. Expand the concept to account for benefit of doubt - if that can be done. Then it can be somewhat closer to a workable system - to start with. Right now, it is a disaster. I am sure, those here involved in actually playing the game will see the sense in this case. And thanks Gunner for at least taking the time to understand what I have been repeating ad nauseam. :)

Like I said on another of the posts, the main umpire does not say he is not sure, he says I am sure I have made my decision with what I have seen with my own eyes, but they players are not sure. Can you tell me if I've got it absolutely wrong, if so I'll change it, if not my decision will stay. If you are not sure becaus the technology is 100% right, then the players will accept my verdict. So the 3rd umpire is not playing a glorified messenger boy, but telling the umpire in the middle if he is right or wrong.

[thevortex]

But in essence he is a messenger boy, Gunner - because he is not taking any decision. How in the world are we really solving the problem if the main umpire does not get to see the Hawkeye version of things - given that you are throwing the ball back at him?!!!! Dont you have a problem with that line of thinking? Also do you agree with the other items that I mentioned in post 69?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[drizzle]

vortex, coming back to the point of day 5 bounce, the ball hits the pitch and then bounces up and then strikes the batsmen's pad. The trajectory of the ball can be determined from how it has bounced after hitting the pitch. Its not like the ball is hitting the batsmen's pad on the full and then determining how it will bounce. It extrapolates from the trajectory the ball has already provided after hitting the deck. If that's not enough for you, then the UDRS further compensates any errors using measures such as more than half the ball must be in line with the stumps, etc. I think a more important you need to ask yourself is whether the hawkeye is more accurate than the umpire?

[thevortex]

Wrong. That is what YOU assume. H/E has been verfied by MCC which has nothing to do with Paul Hawkins.

Really? And how many times have I asked you for MCC's white paper on this subject? You really do have a very short memory. Either that or simply put on your rose tinted glasses and fail to see anything which does not say 'Hail Hawkeye'! :) There is - get this - zero independently verified statistic as far as Hawkeye is concerned. Now you can either accept this and move on or you can obfuscate. Does not change the status quo.

[thevortex]

vortex' date=' coming back to the point of day 5 bounce, the ball hits the pitch and then bounces up and then strikes the batsmen's pad. The trajectory of the ball can be determined from how it has bounced [b']after hitting the pitch. Its not like the ball is hitting the batsmen's pad on the full and then determining how it will bounce. It extrapolates from the trajectory the ball has already provided after hitting the deck. If that's not enough for you, then the UDRS further compensates any errors using measures such as more than half the ball must be in line with the stumps, etc. I think a more important you need to ask yourself is whether the hawkeye is more accurate than the umpire?

Drizzle - I have answered this before. Please read the two threads on Hawkeye (one the poll and the other a discussion on Hawkeye's possible involvement in the ODI World Cup) for more on this. In short, my problem with Hawkeye is it introduces newer errors and does not comprehend the concept of benefit of doubt. Oh and that is all apart from the legitimacy of its 'predicted path'.