vvvslaxman Posted April 6, 2011 Author Posted April 6, 2011 Lol' date=' someone put it on padosis :cantstop:[/quote'] Just noticed :cantstop: . But there are some guys who continue to live in denial.
Karan114 Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 Just noticed :cantstop: . But there are some guys who continue to live in denial. I know...that combination of bitterness and delusion is just hilarious after a while
yoda Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 Hafeez & Zulqarnain are better batsmen than Sehwag in UK. Do you have a daily limit on your troll post count?
cowboysfan Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 Actually this is the part that hawk eye missed. after impact it takes a right turn and slightly behind and then bounces and lands behind the stump and from there it takes off knocks the stumps from the behind. :hysterical::hysterical: just like the magic bullet which killed JFK,just brilliant.
CSK Fan Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 Lol' date=' someone put it on padosis :cantstop:[/quote'] Guilty as charged
Prakat Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Actually this is the part that hawk eye missed. after impact it takes a right turn and slightly behind and then bounces and lands behind the stump and from there it takes off knocks the stumps from the behind. So just the one ball then?
Anakin Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 So just the one ball then? Yes, the magic one ball theory
TheWall Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Actually this is the part that hawk eye missed. after impact it takes a right turn and slightly behind and then bounces and lands behind the stump and from there it takes off knocks the stumps from the behind. :omg::omg::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
meloveindia Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 kisi ko kahin pe badi jor ki LAL MIRCHI lagi hai, abhi tak dard ho rahi hai - pata nahin kab tak hota rahega, LAL MIRCHI badi solid thi it was clear not-out, STFU and move on
Zero_Unit Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I think the main question should be asked is DID PAKISTAN TAKE MONEY TO DROP SACHIN 4 X? ... how bout you go discuss that you boneheads! always with dirty conspiracy....
nospam Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 NOT OUT!!! Iframe: Open in new window Source: Hawk-Eye analysis CWC semi final India v Pakistan: Sachin LBW explained
Stuge Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I think the main question should be asked is DID PAKISTAN TAKE MONEY TO DROP SACHIN 4 X? ... how bout you go discuss that you boneheads! always with dirty conspiracy.... thats stupid Pakistani logic to discredit India's win .
maaki Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I dont buy this explanation. Watching replays over and over again .. i def think tendulkar was plumb with ball hitting leg stump. Hawk eye has accuracy issues thats why it cannot be relied for prediction beyond a certain distance.. This leads me to believe that there might be other cases where for shorter distances there might be issues as well.. The company wants to sell their technology so will never accept a mistake.. I think icc needs to review which decisions can be relied on hawk eye.. If u ask me for overturning the ball should be missing by almost half a ball rather than 1 mm that was shown on the tv. Hawk-Eye company publishes analysis of Sachin Tendulkar lbw reprieve Hawk-Eye Innovations has defended the accuracy of its tracking technology used during the Cricket World Cup's most controversial umpiring moment, when an lbw decision against Sachin Tendulkar was reversed during India's semi-final against Pakistan. Ian Gould gave Tendulkar out lbw to Saeed Ajmal and shook his head with mystification when the decision was overturned on referral – a moment that may have cost England's leading official his chance to umpire in the World Cup final. Conspiracy theories abounded. Ajmal claimed he had bowled an arm ball that Hawk-Eye had somehow misread and there was even speculation that the wrong delivery had somehow been super-imposed, perhaps as part of a deliberate plot. Stephen Carter, the managing director of Hawk-Eye Innovations, has now published details of the Tendulkar reprieve on the company's website to counter the rumours. "The path Hawk-Eye showed was accurate and the Decision Review System was used correctly to overturn the umpire's original decision," Carter said. "The Hawk-Eye track lines up perfectly with the video of the real ball from release to impact point. "The commentators said on air that Tendulkar had been 'caught on the crease'. From the front-on angle it does look like Tendulkar has been hit when batting in his crease. However, Tendulkar was almost two metres out of his crease when struck." The analysis seems to disprove Ajmal's contention that he bowled an arm ball, with the line clearly showing a slightly turning off-spinner. Carter said that Ajmal also bowled this delivery from wider on the crease than any other ball in his spell – evidence not in their report to the International Cricket Council – which backs up Hawk-Eye's analysis that the ball would have missed leg stump. As to the suggestion that the wrong ball was superimposed, Carter regards that as the sort of lurid theory that could develop only in an India v Pakistan World Cup semi-final. "Theoretically it is possible but in a practical sense you couldn't superimpose a wrong ball," he said. "It would not line up perfectly and it would be perfectly obvious to everybody." Hawk-Eye routinely sends the ICC a study of any decision that is overturned on referral and this is passed down to the umpire for further analysis. "The system is devised so that umpires can have all the feedback they need," he said. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/apr/06/hawk-eye-sachin-tendulkar-lbw-reprieve
akshayxyz Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I dont buy this explanation. Watching replays over and over again .. i def think tendulkar was plumb with ball hitting leg stump. Hawk eye has accuracy issues thats why it cannot be relied for prediction beyond a certain distance.. This leads me to believe that there might be other cases where for shorter distances there might be issues as well.. The company wants to sell their technology so will never accept a mistake.. I think icc needs to review which decisions can be relied on hawk eye.. If u ask me for overturning the ball should be missing by almost half a ball rather than 1 mm that was shown on the tv. Unless you are being sarcastic - you are being dumb in that statement.^
Legend of Dhoni Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Tendulkar%2520DRS.pdf?PHPSESSID%3Dbae35aa261ea55935bc449320fad2a3d&pli=1
maaki Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 U do realize indian cricket team never trusted this system for a reason.. I guess they are dumb and sarcastic too.. This tech is not reliable and Tendulkars reprival is the best example.. For the decision to stand there had to be 100% certainty the ball missed by 1 mm.. i serious doubt hawk eye can predict the path so accurately, otherwise there would no distance from wicket criteria in the first place.. Unless you are being sarcastic - you are being dumb in that statement.^
vvvslaxman Posted April 8, 2011 Author Posted April 8, 2011 U do realize indian cricket team never trusted this system for a reason.. I guess they are dumb and sarcastic too.. This tech is not reliable and Tendulkars reprival is the best example.. For the decision to stand there had to be 100% certainty the ball missed by 1 mm.. i serious doubt hawk eye can predict the path so accurately, otherwise there would no distance from wicket criteria in the first place.. Same way we can argue.... Wahab Riaz's delivery was not inline. First reaction appeared to be pitching outside the leg stump line.
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