Why BCCI is right about Hawkeye

[CG]

From wikie- Hawk eye Method of operation- All Hawk-Eye systems are based on the principles of triangulation using the visual images and timing data provided by at least four high-speed video cameras located at different locations and angles around the area of play.[2] The system rapidly processes the video feeds by a high-speed video camera and ball tracker. A data store contains a predefined model of the playing area and includes data on the rules of the game. In each frame sent from each camera, the system identifies the group of pixels which corresponds to the image of the ball. It then calculates for each frame the 3D position of the ball by comparing its position on at least two of the physically separate cameras at the same instant in time. A succession of frames builds up a record of the path along which the ball has travelled. It also "predicts" the future flight path of the ball and where it will interact with any of the playing area features already programmed into the database. The system can also interpret these interactions to decide infringements of the rules of the game.[2] The system generates a graphic image of the ball path and playing area, which means that information can be provided to judges, television viewers or coaching staff in near real time. The pure tracking system is combined with a backend database and archiving capabilities so that it is possible to extract and analyse trends and statistics about individual players, games, ball-to-ball comparisons, etc. Doubts Hawk-Eye is now familiar to sport fans around the world for the views it brings into sports like cricket and tennis. Although this new technology has for the most part been embraced, it has been recently criticised by some, particularly some specific, high profile calls[citation needed]. The Australian media in cricket were critical of a specific LBW appeal made by Anil Kumble when Andrew Symonds was batting. The ball, as suggested by Hawk-Eye, would have bounced over the stumps, but to the naked eye looked absolutely out.[21] In the Nadal-Federer final at Wimbledon in 2008, a ball that appeared out was called in by 1mm, a distance well within the advertised margin of error.[22] Some commentators have criticized the system's 3.6mm statistical margin of error as too large.[23] Others have noted that while 3.6mm is extraordinarily accurate, this margin of error is only for the witnessed trajectory of the ball. Its use in broadcasts to predict the trajectory of a ball had it not hit a batsman is less certain, especially in situations where the conditions of the turf would affect its future trajectory, i.e. where the ball is headed to the ground or has only a short hop before hitting the batsman.[24] Currently, the system is not used officially in such circumstances, though it is used in television broadcasts and analysis. In 2008, an article in a peer-reviewed journal[25] consolidated many of these doubts. The authors acknowledged the value of the system, but noted that it was probably fallible, and that its failure to depict a margin of error gave a spuriously accurate depiction of events. The authors also argued that the probable limits to its accuracy were not acknowledged by players, officials, commentators or spectators, who treated it as depicting unchallengeable truth. For instance, they argued that Hawk-Eye may struggle with predicting the curved trajectory of a cricket ball after bouncing: the time between a ball bouncing and striking the batsman may be too short to generate the three frames (at least) needed to plot a curve accurately. The article also argued that Hawk-Eye's depiction of line decisions in tennis ignored such factors as the distortion of the ball on bouncing and the less-than-complete precision with which the lines on the court are drawn. The makers of Hawk-Eye strongly attacked many of these claims, but the authors have not withdrawn them. proof- cKHbH6BahJ0 Look at the first dismissal that is of shewag in the video of the bowling of murali, Look closely the ball first touches the front pad then slides to the back pad from the impact with the front pad ,now front foot pad was outside legstump so shewag should have been given not out if hawk eye had shown the deflection but it didnot show the ball had hit shewag firstly on the frontpad then back but just showed it just hit the backpad and shewag was given out.

[Trichromatic]

proof- cKHbH6BahJ0 Look at the first dismissal that is of shewag in the video of the bowling of murali, Look closely the ball first touches the front pad then slides to the back pad from the impact with the front pad ,now front foot pad was outside legstump so shewag should have been given not out if hawk eye had shown the deflection but it didnot show the ball had hit shewag firstly on the frontpad then back but just showed it just hit the backpad and shewag was given out.

So, basically this is your argument why it should not be used. 1. Umpires have been worse than hawk-eye. 2. It effectively removes howlers. 3. For maginal decisions, if we can accept umpires decisions whose accuracy is much less than hawk-eye, then why not accept hawk-eye decision? 4. Ball track prediction has improved a lot since 2008 (from that video).

[CG]

So, basically this is your argument why it should not be used. 1. Umpires have been worse than hawk-eye. 2. It effectively removes howlers. 3. For maginal decisions, if we can accept umpires decisions whose accuracy is much less than hawk-eye, then why not accept hawk-eye decision? 4. Ball track prediction has improved a lot since 2008 (from that video).

It is flawed still if the ball hits front then back pad it will not show the deviation. 1-umpires are not worse than hawk eye ,hawkeye predicts path using databasew,human error will still be there 2-how it removes howlers ? if we use only the picth mat we could remove the lbw howler 3-all lbw decisons are marginal 4-hawk eye does not accurately calculate swing,seam ,curve it just shows a straight line patch between impact and stumps

[Trichromatic]

It is flawed still if the ball hits front then back pad it will not show the deviation. 1-umpires are not worse than hawk eye ,hawkeye predicts path using databasew,human error will still be there 2-how it removes howlers ? if we use only the picth mat we could remove the lbw howler 3-all lbw decisons are marginal 4-hawk eye does not accurately calculate swing,seam ,curve it just shows a straight line patch between impact and stumps

1. It's not very difficult to realize that hawk-eye is better than umpires. Umpires have accuracy of 90%. Hawk-eye is more accurate. Databases are related to the playing conditions like ground, dimensions. I never said that errors will NOT will be there, I said there will be less error. Please mark the difference. 2. It removes howlers when it is used to determine where the ball was pitched and "impact of the ball" which is determined very accurately. It's not erroneous as the ball tracking and certainly much better than umpires. BCCI rejected this also, why? 3. Not all LBW decisions are marginal. Some decisions are howlers, which won't be eliminated now. Get ready to see cases when umpires will give batsman out even ball is 10 cm outside the leg-stump and there will no one to correct it. For non-howlers it has been found to be better than umpires. 4. It doesn't show a straight line. You're wrong here. It takes into account whatever has happened to the path of the ball before hitting to predict what will be path of the ball and never draws a straight patch. Here is what Niranjan Shah said

Even the accuracy level of the system is suspect. I'm told that the accuracy has gone up to 97% from 92%. It is not 100% still. I cannot fathom so much money spent for so little returns.

International umpiring accuracy is much lesser than that, somewhere around 90%. Note that 10% from umpires tend to obvious error while others which are marginals calls in which one can't surely say that umpires were right are considered as right decisions. For UDRS, this small error is still for marginal calls where going by the exemption given to on-field umpires, same can be done for DRS also. Anyways, I don't mind if BCCI wants to use the system only when it's 100% correct. But I still can't understand what was the problem with pitch mat and line of impact which is much more accurate.

[urbestfriend]

2. It removes howlers when it is used to determine where the ball was pitched and "impact of the ball" which is determined very accurately. It's not erroneous as the ball tracking and certainly much better than umpires.

This...I can understand the BCCI's decision to oppose ball tracking which is not 100% correct , but whats the point of opposing ball pitching and point of impact?

BCCI rejected this also, why?

Probably because of financial reason?

[Trichromatic]

Probably because of financial reason?

Wow! financial problems for BCCI, since when? Hot-spot is most expensive technology used in cricket. All cricket boards can afford hawk-eye, but not the hot-spot. But BCCI went for hot-spot only. It certainly can't be financial reason. It would be shame if BCCI can't spend few thousand dollars extra for a test match. Per test match cost is $25000 (approx Rs 1125000 - too much for BCCI?) and most part of it contributed by hot-spot.

[CG]

1. It's not very difficult to realize that hawk-eye is better than umpires. Umpires have accuracy of 90%. Hawk-eye is more accurate. Databases are related to the playing conditions like ground, dimensions. I never said that errors will NOT will be there, I said there will be less error. Please mark the difference. 2. It removes howlers when it is used to determine where the ball was pitched and "impact of the ball" which is determined very accurately. It's not erroneous as the ball tracking and certainly much better than umpires. BCCI rejected this also, why? 3. Not all LBW decisions are marginal. Some decisions are howlers, which won't be eliminated now. Get ready to see cases when umpires will give batsman out even ball is 10 cm outside the leg-stump and there will no one to correct it. For non-howlers it has been found to be better than umpires. 4. It doesn't show a straight line. You're wrong here. It takes into account whatever has happened to the path of the ball before hitting to predict what will be path of the ball and never draws a straight patch. Here is what Niranjan Shah said International umpiring accuracy is much lesser than that, somewhere around 90%. Note that 10% from umpires tend to obvious error while others which are marginals calls in which one can't surely say that umpires were right are considered as right decisions. For UDRS, this small error is still for marginal calls where going by the exemption given to on-field umpires, same can be done for DRS also. Anyways, I don't mind if BCCI wants to use the system only when it's 100% correct. But I still can't understand what was the problem with pitch mat and line of impact which is much more accurate.

1-database how ever accurate will never be able to visualize match condition,ball wear,pitch wear we still have a guy operating hawkeye and even a fraction of a mistake in camera angles ,production values will be significant . 2-we can use it with out ball tracking. 4-it shows a straight line between impact at pad and stump you can check.

[Trichromatic]

Here is the stats for UDRS usage in WC.

In all, 162 decisions have been reviewed so far, of which 35 have been upheld (ie, the original decision has been changed), while 127 have been struck down. That means 21.60%, or about one in five appeals, have been successful. Of these, the success rate for batsmen has been 23.19% (16 out of 69), while for the fielding team it's 20.43% (19 out of 93).

So, 78.4% decisions were not changed. That's ok. 21.6 % decisions were changed. These 21.6% consist of : 1. Those scenarios in which umpires decisions can't be said as entirely wrong if DRS was not there. Marginal calls basically. In those cases we can say that same benefit of doubt should be given to DRS also. You can say that ball might have been hitting the leg-stump so umpire was right or it might not have hit the leg-stump, so DRS was right. Here DRS is as good as umpires because of the persistent error in hawk-eye itself which prevents us from saying that umpires' decision was totally wrong. In this case DRS = Umpires imo. 2. Those scenarios in which even a simple viewer, commentators can say after replay that the decision given by umpire. These cases happen more often. Maybe around 10 times in WC, if we go by average number of wrong decisions given by umpires. DRS removed this and everyone is satisfied. 3. Situations when decision by DRS can be questions. There were 2 decisions, one of Ian Bell and other of Sachin. But we have eliminated all those scenarios now by removing hawk-eye.

[Crookbond]

1. It's not very difficult to realize that hawk-eye is better than umpires. Umpires have accuracy of 90%. Hawk-eye is more accurate. Databases are related to the playing conditions like ground, dimensions. I never said that errors will NOT will be there, I said there will be less error. Please mark the difference.

Hawk-eye can't be more accurate than umpires. It can eliminate howlers. Hawk-Eye doesn't take a lot of playing conditions into picture (or is bad at predicting stuff) like swing, spin and bounce. I do a lot of research on predictive modeling and state-of-the-art systems don't scale up to better than human accuracies. The brain is still the best computer. The DRS statistics posted are a little bit out of context.

[Crookbond]

This...I can understand the BCCI's decision to oppose ball tracking which is not 100% correct , but whats the point of opposing ball pitching and point of impact? Probably because of financial reason?

Pitch maps aren't perfect either.

[Trichromatic]

4-it shows a straight line between impact at pad and stump you can check.

:facepalm: over 2 two years of DRS usage and you concluded that. Assumptions should be made only when there is no other option or when you're not in a situation to use that option. Anyways back to the point, here are few images from official explantion of Sachin's decision by Hawk-eye innovation to ICC. Can't see how it shows straight line from impact to stumps. Side view of the predicted path Red line is the straight line from pitching point to the stumps. Path predicted by Hawk-eye differs from it. This image shows what would it be like if the straight line was drawn from impact to stumps. Note that these images were not created by me.

[Trichromatic]

Pitch maps aren't perfect either.

Which technology used in sports is perfect? Is pitch map better than umpires? What do you say about this? A man with his eye can see an 80mph ball and analyze better where it pitched? How many frames of visual images are processed by human brain and what's the number of frames generated and processed by camera. Then we see slow motion and numerous replays which umpires don't.

[achilles]

I can write my own wikipedia page.

[achilles]

Secondly, lets not let one odd decision here and there influence your judgement. I will take Hawk eye in its present form 100 times over the Bucknors and Hairs of the world.

[Trichromatic]

I can write my own wikipedia page.

Is that suppose to be a news? What's your point?

[Trichromatic]

Secondly' date=' lets not let one odd decision here and there influence your judgement. I will take Hawk eye in its present form 100 times over the Bucknors and Hairs of the world.[/quote'] Exactly. I support DRS with ball-tracking technology not because it believe it's 100% correct, rather I believe that it's better than most of the umpires. There are only few umpires like Aleem Dar, Simon Tauffel, Bowden who, I think are as good as hawk-eye or better than that.

[Crookbond]

Which technology used in sports is perfect? Is pitch map better than umpires? What do you say about this? A man with his eye can see an 80mph ball and analyze better where it pitched? How many frames of visual images are processed by human brain and what's the number of frames generated and processed by camera. Then we see slow motion and numerous replays which umpires don't.

So, you are fine with a computer making an error but not a human making a mistake! Matrix is the real deal after all. There is NO data, experiment to prove Hawk-Eye /Virtual Eye or any ball tracking technology is better than the umpire. The heads of the companies themselves say so. I wonder what makes us take such a leap of faith in technology.

Which technology used in sports is perfect?

Read more about Goal-Line technology and guess what it's based on. :-)

[Crookbond]

Exactly. I support DRS with ball-tracking technology not because it believe it's 100% correct, rather I believe that it's better than most of the umpires. There are only few umpires like Aleem Dar, Simon Tauffel, Bowden who, I think are as good as hawk-eye or better than that.

Belief is NOT science. If you want technology, argue with science not with beliefs!

[CG]

You say bowden man do you watch cricket

[CG]

:facepalm: over 2 two years of DRS usage and you concluded that. Assumptions should be made only when there is no other option or when you're not in a situation to use that option. Anyways back to the point, here are few images from official explantion of Sachin's decision by Hawk-eye innovation to ICC. Can't see how it shows straight line from impact to stumps. Side view of the predicted path Red line is the straight line from pitching point to the stumps. Path predicted by Hawk-eye differs from it. This image shows what would it be like if the straight line was drawn from impact to stumps. Note that these images were not created by me.

Mate your images are further proof about what I was saying the path of the ball after striking the pad is at 90 not the picth degre as shown by the adjacent red line that's why sachin was wrongly given notout