The Outsider Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Australia 2nd innings - Lord's test. Ponting LBW Asif 0(6) Simple question - do you agree with the Hawk Eye representation that with the natural slope of the pitch the ball would have slanted down leg or was the umpire right? BTW, I am glad :punter: got cut off, so no biases of who got the decision. :winky:
thevortex Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Just a note. I really would encourage people to watch the actual action and if possible the Hot Spot representation which is superimposed over the real time action.
Clarke Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 This challenges conventional wisdom like nothing else .. it seemed plumb at normal speed but hawk eye said otherwise. Were we wrong all these decades ?
thevortex Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 This challenges conventional wisdom like nothing else .. it seemed plumb at normal speed but hawk eye said otherwise. Were we wrong all these decades ? That was absolutely plumb indeed. Leave alone normal speed. Just watch Hot Spot representation which superimposed the ball impact with the real time action. Ponting was out dead in front. Ponting knew. Which was why there was not even a small head shake. Hawkeye is technology for the TV. It will be dangerous to let such technology govern the sport totally.
msb1991 Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 It is brilliant how the tremendously fallible (you just have to google 'optical illusion') human eye is always believed to be more reliable than hawkeye technology in predicting the path of the ball.
asterix Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Commentators were talking about a natural slope at Lords which Hawkeye would've taken into consideration (some sort of programming etc.) which normal eye/brain wouldn't have taken into consideration. Still, I selected 'not sure option'..
Clarke Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 ^ The natural slope affects the direction of the delivery after it has pitched, which is no different from seam movement. Does the slope require additional considerations i am not aware of ?
jusarrived Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 when batsmens on the move , its always difficult to judge ..It looked close in slow motion , not plumb when u saw it in real time ..The Hawkeye was probably right...Ponting was unlucky for a change & am not complaining ;)
CSK Fan Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 That was absolutely plumb indeed. Leave alone normal speed. Just watch Hot Spot representation which superimposed the ball impact with the real time action. Ponting was out dead in front. Ponting knew. Which was why there was not even a small head shake. Hawkeye is technology for the TV. It will be dangerous to let such technology govern the sport totally. Do you really have any idea how the human eye works and how it deals with two dimensional pictures? I will give you a clue, there is a reason the leg umpire is required for 'some' descisions.
yoda Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 I voted not sure/don't care in this case. Now, regarding Hawk-eye itself, has it been tested for purposes for cricket with varying types of deliveries and are there any numbers out there regarding it's accuracy? I read somewhere that it is accurate within 5 mm with some claiming that number is closer to 1 inch. My question is have they asked people to bowl real deliveries, spin/pace/swing/seam to try to get what percent of times does it get it right - as in showing if the ball is hitting the stumps or not. Is it better than Bucknor, better than rest, better than Taufel, worse than Bucknor? Would be good to know where it stands in terms of accuracy when compared to it's competitors.
fineleg Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 yoda, Even a blind bat will be better than Bucknor & De Silva.
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 While I realize the futility of arguing with you on this subject ... what you dont realize is that the camera angles that are used for normal replays dont always give you the precise story. Hawkeye has cameras that operate at twice the frame rate and incorporate data from 6 different angles. The footage from Clean bowled is a great way to confirm H/E's accuracy as there is no ambiguity there. PS: Kindly spare me the " Show me the certificate from God" spiel :banghead: Hawkeye has got a certificate alright. A certificate of 'unreliability' from your own Goddy :). Other than that it has got absolutely zilch to show for. Accept that and move on. I dont care if it uses a million cameras. It is absolutely nonsensical to believe that simply using more cameras makes it more right. By that dint, putting more managers or workers on a project should get the job done quicker, eh?! Do you really have any idea how the human eye works and how it deals with two dimensional pictures? I will give you a clue' date=' there is a reason the leg umpire is required for 'some' descisions.[/quote'] Thanks for the clue. Now, see if you can find the footage with the Hot Spot representation. I am sure that will show you something which might come as a potential surprise if you still have an open mind.
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 I voted not sure/don't care in this case. Now, regarding Hawk-eye itself, has it been tested for purposes for cricket with varying types of deliveries and are there any numbers out there regarding it's accuracy? I read somewhere that it is accurate within 5 mm with some claiming that number is closer to 1 inch. My question is have they asked people to bowl real deliveries, spin/pace/swing/seam to try to get what percent of times does it get it right - as in showing if the ball is hitting the stumps or not. Is it better than Bucknor, better than rest, better than Taufel, worse than Bucknor? Would be good to know where it stands in terms of accuracy when compared to it's competitors. Yoda - the Hawkeye supporters dont care about all that. Perhaps they are satisfied by the 'Hawk' in the name and assume that its sight is as good as that of the legendary predatory bird! :)
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Yeah and the video comming out of a single camera (that you were using to contest that Ricky Ponting decision) that isnt even guaranteed to be properly alligned is accurate ehh ? :--D Well, I regularly play cricket using this camera :). So, it is not that bad hopefully. Anybody having played cricket for some amount of time will realize that Hawkeye - at most times - is optimisitic as far as the ball hitting the stumps is concerned. It does not happen that way in real life. And sometimes, as in this Ponting case, it inexplicably adds to the movement of the ball and says that it will slide down by a big margin! Do you really believe (question also to those others who said that Hawkeye was correct in this instance) that Ponting would walk away without any show if he thought that the ball was missing leg stump by that margin? Hawkeye is a fine spectator tool. Keep it where it needs to be.
Roshanrocks Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 can someone please post the video here of both the hawkeye and the hotspot? how can i make my decision without a video
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 That is because you STILL JUST dont understand the concept and science behind it. Its not Hawkeye's fault. Its entirely your fault. Right. And it is science exactly because of what evidence, Sherlock? Quit spouting mumbo jumbo and hiding behind big words like science. Hawkeye has nothing to back it up. You are trusting your eye just as I am mine. As simple as that.
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