ICC - UDRS for world cup 2011 but Hot Spot unlikely

[CSK Fan]

Even if they are using gazillion cameras, collating data and superimposing the images bit by bit, you think they would get it absolutely one hundred percent correct? If you think yes, then it is not worth discussing. Theypredict space-crafts trajectories and supernovas using similar methods. Cricket is just a game Well, if you do watch cricket then I am stumped as to how you cannot spot the erroneous depictions of Hawkeye. Or perhaps your eyes are far more accurate than any number of commentators and players who have raised objections - including one Roger Federer, by the way :). But well, what does he know...:) What on earth are you talking about? What commentators? how come you are seeing and hearing something no one esle has? Even a slight error is discussed in details on camera. When it was first introduced, all the old players, umpires, etc where completely against H/E. How come none of them ever pointed out these inconsistancies you are claimig even once in any match? I dont recall any. Maybe we need to borrow your tinted glasses to catch them?.

In Bold above You are intentionaly missing the point and you are doing it very much on purpose. The issue is not about the 100% accuracy of H/E. The issue is whether it would remove umpiring errors. It does, on a large scale. And thats all that matters

[thevortex]

But why were YOU happy with an utterly unscientific and error ridden system and never even so much as second guessed them ?

This could have a long answer. But short answer - they are adequate. The players think so. And I never said I do not second guess them or am very happy with them each and every time. They are human. But rather than this being an excuse for inaccuracy, I believe that umpires such as Taufel are raising the game to a new peak. Hawkeye pales and shivers when compared to Taufel. It simply has no clue. Does not say much for technology.

That is unfortunately your problem and your way of getting out of this pickle. There simply exist NO bucknoresque howlers by Hawkeye. Their asses would have been fired by now had there been even a single one like what your buddies Bucknor and Benson did. You have simply NO case here and are arguing based on theory.

No, Bossbhai. And you have ignored what I wrote later on. It is that you are too far gone to be swayed by individual examples. Like I said, if I do come across any in the future, I might post them - but only if you really have your eyes open and more importantly your mind open. Your call.

Where did I assume anything ? If I had to rely on assumptions why would I go to the extent of grabbing a frame to prove my point ? Are you trying to say that what hawkeye is showing is way-off from the camera image ? Clear answers please.

You assume that Hawkeye is accurate. Capiche? :)

[thevortex]

In Bold above You are intentionaly missing the point and you are doing it very much on purpose. The issue is not about the 100% accuracy of H/E. The issue is whether it would remove umpiring errors. It does, on a large scale. And thats all that matters

My two cents - you have come in late on this discussion. I dont know if you read my previous posts on this subject. I am not saying that Hawkeye is not more accurate than some of the umpires. According to Richardson, Hawkeye has a 3% improvement over human umpires as far as accuracy goes. And yes, those are numbers out of thin air which you and Bossbhai and others supporting Hawkeye willingly believe and endorse. I dont. More importantly, to repeat what I have already said, if Hawkeye were to improve on the accuracy front (as compared to human umpires) and NOT introduce even one error owing to technology - I AM ALL FOR IT. Unfortunately, that is not so. Hawkeye - owing to both implementation and actual methodology - introduces new errors. And that is something which is anathema. You can refer to any form of research or development project in real time. See if they introduce a new technology or methodology if it introduces newer errors. Hope this helps.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

I dont think I have ever used those numbers but the simple fact that daylight robbery by umpires has come to an end is plain for everybody to see the moment they started UDRS in general and hawkeye in particular for lbws.

Is this another way to say that you have zilch to show as far as scientific data is concerned? :)

Really ? here sample this ... this is the famous lbw which Taufel apologized to Tendulkar laters. YouTube- Tendulkar and Ganguly 'Taufelled' Or this http://blog.taragana.com/sports/2009/10/05/umpires-apologise-to-umar-akmal-over-lbw-howler-34648/ let me know if you need more. Now I dare you to find a single howler of that sort by Hawkeye whether it is being used in UDRS or not.

Dare? Bossbhai - one can only wake up those who are sleeping. You are not ready to countenance any criticism of Hawkeye. This is diametrically opposite to my stand where I am noncommittal about criticism over the umpires and disagreeing only when their integrity is brought into question. You on the other hand, have not been able to conceptualize that your Hawkeye could commit even one error in all these years of being used in sport - cricket and tennis. Errors are rife and all over. I have posted several in the Hawkeye accuracy thread. If you are really interested, go read that. As far as I am concerned, there is no changing your mind. Like I said, you have a preference for Hawkeye, just state it and be done with it. Dont just go around saying that Hawkeye cannot make a mistake. That is just illogical at so many different levels, that I am not even going to expand upon that. By the way, Taufel at least has the guts and the conscience to learn from mistakes and apologize. More than can be said about Hawkeye. And Bossbhai - thanks for shattering your case yourself once again - that is precisely the kind of human element that the game of cricket needs. :)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Did you read the pdf documents on the accuracy thread ?

Did you read anything that I have been posting? Do you consider that pdf as independent verification of the accuracy of Hawkeye? Did you even read what Gunner_Mania pulled up for you about this pdf document - which was an older post of mine? Please - there is just zip as far as scientific, independent verification as far as Hawkeye is concerned. Just accept and be done with it.

I thought you said H/E starts shivering the moment Taufel stands as an umpire

Yes, indeed. Hawkeye does not stand a chance.

Where are the videos if errors are "all over"

Just watch live games, Bossbhai. Like I said - even though you selectively quote from my post, the answer is still there. It is not as if anything is going to change your mind.

I dont have a preference for H/E and I would gladly take a Martian if they get it right all the time ... but I absolutely loath the umpires who think they can get lbws right all the time concentrating ball-after-ball for 100s of overs and at the same time checking for no-balls and where the ball pitched .... this is not a job for humans unless you are sold on the "charm" factor. And sadly there isnt any shortage of gullible people in this world. Look at yourself ! Taufel makes Hawkeye shiver you said ... :--D

So you think Hawkeye gets it right all the time? Hang on just a second, Bossbhai. Let me finish holding my belly and laughing... :) OK - now, you can continue to believe whatever you do - absolutely without basis. I think I understand it even. You think Hawkeye is great because you believe your eyes. But you do not believe the umpires can do the same. Makes perfect sense. Thanks :)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

Is this another way to say that you have zilch to show as far as scientific data is concerned? :) :)

:hysterical: He has been showing examples after examples of absolute umpiring howlers but you are yet to come with ONE SINGLE example of hawk eye error of that magnitude. In the parlance of one of my old profesor,' you have been royaly fked by BossBhai' please show scientific data for the accuracy of umpires. If we had waited for everything to be 100% accurate before we introduced it, computers, automobiles, heck, any invention and innovation in the world would never have been implemented and we would be living in the stone age with your umpires

[CSK Fan]

So you think Hawkeye gets it right all the time? Hang on just a second, Bossbhai. Let me finish holding my belly and laughing... :) OK - now, you can continue to believe whatever you do - absolutely without basis. I think I understand it even. You think Hawkeye is great because you believe your eyes. But you do not believe the umpires can do the same. Makes perfect sense. Thanks :)

Enough of your ranting. Put up examples or shut up! You are yet to show ONE SINGLE example of an obviouis hawk eye error and you are pretending there are things up your sleeve. Its time to call your bluff. Youtube has hundreds of videos of cricket involving hawk eye. If it is all out there as you claim, surely you will have ONE SINGLE example? I just have to google umpiring howlers and i get 100s of hits. Where are the hawk eye ones? If you have any example show them here. Or else stop claiming things based on your own imagination P. S - If you are serious about noticing errors in most matches, it would be a good idea to get your eyes tested for this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astigmatism_(eye)

[thevortex]

My two cents - your posts do not deserve a response. Watch your language if you want a response.

[thevortex]

No but in there it says that verification was conducted by MCC do you dispute this ?

When are you going to realize that Hawkins' version does not construe independent verification? Also it is his statement that the MCC verified. I asked for published proof. Does this constitute that?

Why is he apologizing after a boo-boo then ?

Because he is human. :)

I do much more than you and I dont find anything fishy. Many others also dont find anything fishy. Are all of us lying ? . Its YOUR responsibility to present evidence to back up your case. Merely stating that there exists a smoking gun doesnt amount to evidence (There isnt even a dead body here BTW :--D) . If you were to say that in a court the judge might strip your legal license.

How do you know what I watch and dont watch? Lets not presume. Suffice it to say that I watch a lot of cricket and play it too. I never said you guys are lying. You are all just a bit too gullible. And what happened to your claim that Hawkeye is right 'all the time'?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

My two cents - your posts do not deserve a response. Watch your language if you want a response.

that and the fact that you dont have any answer. I am sorry but dont have much patience for people who make tall claims without backing it up

[thevortex]

MCC is Not owned by Hawkins :banghead:

Oh, that is news! Now, lets see this whitepaper that MCC has published, shall we? I am waiting...

And this is the reason why hawkeye should shiver ? :hysterical:

Absolutely. Be hysterical as much as you want. Because see your logic is : you believe in Hawkeye because you trust your eyes. But if anybody else trusts their eyes, you cry foul. How very logical!

Talk is cheap ... lets see some real examples of Hawkeyes screwups ( other than the imaginary ones)

Contrary to that, meaningful discussion and conversation is never cheap. It is supposed to be always stimulating. And it was - till now. I dont see any meaning in continuing further on these lines. Take a look at the Strauss dismissal I wrote about. That was a wholly botched up implementation of Hawkeye. Even the recent Cook one I wrote about was still a botch up - although on a minor scale, this time from the depiction viewpoint, not the implementation. There are others that dont come to mind.

[thevortex]

that and the fact that you dont have any answer. I am sorry but dont have much patience for people who make tall claims without backing it up

My two cents - either you have not read my responses or do not understand them in toto, if you claim that I have no answer. My claims are neither tall nor dubious. In the first place I am making no claim. It is those people who vociferously and aggressively market Hawkeye and the section of fans who are blindly take them up on their word that are making claims. I am asking for proof to those claims. Is that so hard to understand? You talk of 'being right all the time'. More than 90% - some people even say 99%??? What is all this? Obviously all this is not so important to you given your tone and your language. I am interested in a discussion not a slanging match.

[The Outsider]

Without the intention of getting into a protracted discussion over a topic, I am quite frankly bored of talking about, just wanted to make a couple of points : 1. There should be an independent and fair analysis of Hawk Eye and the results should be made public. However, this should hold true for all other technology aids being used as well like Snickometer and Hot Spot, which are being used to make decisions. Hawk Eye is being unfairly targeted. Where are the independent verifications and statistical analysis of Snicko and Hot Spot? 2. After having watched a lot of cricket, I can safely conclude that Hawk Eye is not a disaster nor a completely bogus and inaccurate tool. There are odd occasions when one might not agree with the predicted path, specially with regards to the height but not more than any umpire that I have seen. Why trust my eyes more than the umpires' eyes? Well, I can analyze the accuracy of Hawk Eye through slow motion and watching the event multiple times so see if Hawk Eye got it right, and the umpire has a split second to make that call in the process of looking up first from the point of observing a no ball. At the very least it is as accurate as any umpire I have seen and comes with the added advantage of not being under the influence of the pressure exerted through appeals, the fatigue that sets in after standing for 5 hours in the Madras humidity, and is able to block out the deafening noise at the Eden Gardens. I am pretty happy with it's implementation so far in the new UDRS system and hopefully things can only improve.

[thevortex]

The Outsider - I think I answered some of your points in this post - http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1087661&postcount=69

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

vortex, I don't think you understand how UDRS works.

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.

Yes. Not only 'can' he give it not out in the scenario you described above, he has no option but to give it not out. The above scenario has happened many times already.

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.

This is precisely how Hawk Eye is being used in the UDRS as of now. The only difference is that instead of the third umpire pressing a button, the on field umpire raises or not raises his finger. Here is how UDRS works for Hawk Eye referrals : There are 3 aspects to consider : 1. The ball pitched in line (if outside leg) 2. The ball hit in line 3. The ball was going to hit the stumps Now consider these scenarios : 1. A batsman is given out and refers. In this case the third umpire will look at Hawk Eye and uphold the decision ie. give the batsman out if either it was a : a. A clear call on all 3 - the entire ball pitched in line, hit in line, and was hitting the stumps b. A partial call on any 3 - part of the ball pitched in line, hit in line, or was hitting the stumps He will give it not out ie. overturn the decision if : a. Either the entire ball pitched outside the line, hit outside the line, or was entirely missing the stumps. 2. A batsman is given not out and the fielding team refers. The third umpire will uphold the decision ie. give not out if : a. The entire ball pitched outside the line, hit outside the line, or was entirely missing the stumps. b. Part of the ball pitched outside the line, hit outside the line, or was marginally hitting the stumps. He will give it out ie. overturn the on field decision if : a. The entire ball pitched in line, hit in line, and the entire ball was hitting the stumps.