thevortex Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 lol who told you this ? :D Have you heard of the adage - 'Acts speak louder than words' ? Have you ever seen me quote content from an internet stream? On the other hand, have you done it? Add 2 and 2 together.
thevortex Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 I know that. Which is why I asked you that question. But this is where I would expect logic to step in i.e in clean bowled there is no ambiguity. The TV footage will cleary show where the ball hit .. just simply compare with H/E. End of story. Why the hell do you have to worry about the fine print ? Do you read, Bossbhai? I have laid it all out. You would think there would be no ambiguity, right? Look at one instance I pointed out. Clean bowled in reality. Check Hawkeye's representation. And share your thoughts.
thevortex Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 It takes literally few minutes to dig up Highlights footage which is what I posted. What you are asking for wont be in the highlights because guess what it wasnt worth it. So it would need ball by ball footage which I dont have. This is why I say you never really read my posts or understand them. What part have I not understood or read? I dont understand your claim. The one I pointed out may or may not be in the highlights. Did you check that? By the way read through all the posts I made which you did not bother to respond to. Read Cricinfo's commentary on the same ball which said, it was going down the leg side. Then see Hawkeye's representation.
thevortex Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 I did this exercise many months ago .. didnt make any difference to you at that time. Whats the guarantee that you will not use the same excuses ? In your mind, Bossbhai, nothing is guaranteed except for Hawkeye's assurances - however obtuse, abstruse and vague they may be. There is nothing to be done about it. :)
thevortex Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 What footage is unambiguous? When it is Hawkeye how can it be unambiguous? :) And what is this? Do I see you say that the onfield cameras are correct? Just in another thread you were waxing eloquent about how they were wrong and only the Hawkeye cameras were right? Could it be that you are confused?
thevortex Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 errr because when it hits the stumps it doesnt leave much to your imagination So is that a Yes(You will accept)/No (you wont accept) See the examples given. Even when reality is bowled, Hawkeye does not understand it. And by the way, dont preach to the choir. And answer the questions!
thevortex Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 Found it :). By the way, the Hawkeye tab does not come up unless you click on a couple of tabs within the Full Scorecard. Maybe a glitch. And by the way watch that last over by Muralitharan on your lovely Hawkeye. And explain it to all of us about why Hawkeye did not figure that that last delivery of the Indian innings was not bowled according to it!!! Bumping this up for the Hawkeye aficionados to see. The reality was clean bowled. Do look at the Hawkeye representation.
kabira Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 ^are you talking about hawkeye on the CI website?? LOL. I thought you were comparing with the actual live version.
thevortex Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 ^are you talking about hawkeye on the CI website?? LOL. I thought you were comparing with the actual live version. Well, at least you accept the that the Hawkeye on Cricinfo is awful. Bossbhai does not even want to admit that. By the way, how do we know the live version would not show the same thing? Because conveniently those ball projections are not shown when the batsman is out bowled.
21cent Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Even if Hawk-eyes has its faults, I still support it. As it will indiscriminately make the wrong or right decisions, giving every one a fair chance. As of now people cry foul about decisions going against them, but if hawk eye is mandated (even if it is faulty at times), it will make consistent decisions regardless of teams and pressure of the situation.
thevortex Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 OK chalk one more down against Hawkeye! Mishra to Jayawardene, Jayawardene's first ball - ball pitches on perhaps the outer half of the line of the legstump and just does not turn enough. It was going mostly straight on. Hawkeye shows the ball clipping the inside of leg stump!!! People who watched - please chime in with what you think. Would that ball have clipped the inside of leg stump? Was there any chance of that?? Oh and by the way, Charu Sharma had me rolling around with laughter when he tied himself up in knots trying to defend this. He first stated (rightly) that the decision seemed doubtful, then when Hawkeye showed it hitting the stump, recanted his statement and said, there should be no doubt because Hawkeye has corroborated the verdict!
kabira Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 ^are you talking about LBW?? If so, that was definately out.
thevortex Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 Please read the question again. Yes it was the LBW. Jayawardene's first ball against Mishra. And do you believe that Hawkeye was right in showing that the ball would have hit the inside of leg stump???
Lord Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 I thought it would have hit leg stump,wouldnt have been dissapointed if it was turned down
thevortex Posted August 6, 2010 Posted August 6, 2010 I thought it would have hit leg stump' date='wouldnt have been dissapointed if it was turned down[/quote'] Actually I would have turned it down 9 times out of 10, if not 10 times :). That ball should not have got a wicket. But the key question though is whether there would be anybody who believes that that ball would have hit the inside of leg stump!
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