Why BCCI is right about Hawkeye

[Trichromatic]

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.

Belief is NOT science. If you want technology' date=' argue with science not with beliefs![/quote'] Observation and interpretation based on that are itself part of the Science. For most of the decisions no one can prove that whose decision was correct - umpire or hawk-eye. You are discarding hawk-eye on the basis of those decisions. Were umpires better than hawk-eye? If yes then how? But there are always some instances when hawk-eye was certainly better. Obvious umpiring errors. Those are the decisions about which people cry for decades. Are such instances more frequent with hawk-eye? Take the example of ball hitting high on the pads when batsman is already far from the crease and umpires give them as out. In that case 100 out 100 people will say that it was a wrong decision. Sorry, I didn't get you. Can you change your sentence to make it bit more clear? @mcenley : Bit irrelevant question. There was never a proof that hawk-eye is better than umpires and method never suggested that it will proved either in few years. It can't be said that hawk-eye was used on experimental basis, because as per your argument there couldn't have been any result of such experiment. Then why it was used introduced at all? Ironically BCCI was the board who introduced it in international cricket. Off-topic : Science is based on the belief with proper reasoning. One cannot separate belief with Science.

[CG]

Sorry I am on mobile what I meant was after the ball strikes the pad the ball is shown to go at 90 degree in a straight line,the red.line shows straight line path after ball hits the pitch

[Trichromatic]

Sorry I am on mobile what I meant was after the ball strikes the pad the ball is shown to go at 90 degree in a straight line' date='the red.line shows straight line path after ball hits the pitch[/quote'] No sir, while in the first image, the red line shows the straight path which is way down the leg-stump, the predicted path is slightly different than that. But this was compared from the pitch of the ball. In 3rd picture, comparison is made from the point of the impact. If a line perpendicular to the the crease was drawn from the point of impact then we would have got the green path which according to hawk-eye innovation would have been unusual deviation. The predicted path shown by blue line is a straight line. You can verify the same from different views. Many umpires are worse than him and he's still part of the elite panel.

[CG]

No sir, while in the first image, the red line shows the straight path which is way down the leg-stump, the predicted path is slightly different than that. But this was compared from the pitch of the ball. In 3rd picture, comparison is made from the point of the impact. If a line perpendicular to the the crease was drawn from the point of impact then we would have got the green path which according to hawk-eye innovation would have been unusual deviation. The predicted path shown by blue line is a straight line. You can verify the same from different views. Many umpires are worse than him and he's still part of the elite panel.

where does it say so ? its clearly visible only deviation is from the pitch ,the original hawkeye predicted path is clearly perpendicular after thepoint of impact with pad.

[Crookbond]

Observation and interpretation based on that are itself part of the Science.

You never mentioned observation & interpretation earlier. To interpret observations, you should have the ground truth. Any idea on who would provide the ground truth here?

For most of the decisions no one can prove that whose decision was correct - umpire or hawk-eye. You are discarding hawk-eye on the basis of those decisions. Were umpires better than hawk-eye? If yes then how?

There's a reason why the umpire stands where he is on the field near to the bowling crease. If we can have the tons of cameras at the places where the umpire stands (which is practically not possible), there's no reason to believe any technology would be better than the umpires.

But there are always some instances when hawk-eye was certainly better. Obvious umpiring errors. Those are the decisions about which people cry for decades. Are such instances more frequent with hawk-eye? Take the example of ball hitting high on the pads when batsman is already far from the crease and umpires give them as out. In that case 100 out 100 people will say that it was a wrong decision.

There are more than one instance where umpires are better! You have pulled out a convenient example to suit your argument. There are simpler cases where Hawk-Eye has failed. Sorry, I didn't get you. Can you change your sentence to make it bit more clear?

@mcenley : Bit irrelevant question. There was never a proof that hawk-eye is better than umpires and method never suggested that it will proved either in few years. It can't be said that hawk-eye was used on experimental basis' date=' because as per your argument there couldn't have been any result of such experiment. Then why it was used introduced at all? Ironically BCCI was the board who introduced it in international cricket. [/quote'] It was introduced to eliminate howlers. Now, it's not only eliminating howlers but has led to marginal calls and more complexity (of an already complex game!). Lets not get political here. Once again the above makes little sense. Science is NOT belief with reasoning. Science is observation with reasoning. There's a daylight difference between belief and science.

[Crookbond]

No sir, while in the first image, the red line shows the straight path which is way down the leg-stump, the predicted path is slightly different than that. But this was compared from the pitch of the ball. In 3rd picture, comparison is made from the point of the impact. If a line perpendicular to the the crease was drawn from the point of impact then we would have got the green path which according to hawk-eye innovation would have been unusual deviation. The predicted path shown by blue line is a straight line. You can verify the same from different views. Many umpires are worse than him and he's still part of the elite panel.

Why did you even mention Bowden in the first place? I believe it was a mistake. Accept it. :agree:

[Trichromatic]

There are more than one instance where umpires are better! You have pulled out a convenient example to suit your argument. There are simpler cases where Hawk-Eye has failed.

Would you like to give some convenient examples of such simpler cases in last 1 year?

Why did you even mention Bowden in the first place?

Because he is a (relatively) good umpire.

[Crookbond]

Would you like to give some convenient examples of such simpler cases in last 1 year?

Well known people have already pointed out such examples and I have linked you to the myriad of Cricinfo articles on all relevant threads

Because he is a (relatively) good umpire.

You are using exceptions as norms. Taufel, Dar & Gould are exceptions. I find one thing particularly amusing though. If the CEO's and heads of ball tracking technologies (like Hawk Eye, Virtual Eye) are going on air confirming that their technologies may not be the better than the umpires, I don't see any reason why "anyone" can have a leap of faith in it. All this after one doesn't understand nits-grits of the technology. Test cricket has done pretty decent without DRS for more than a century. It can live without it for another century.

[Vijay.Sharma]

So, basically this is your argument why it should not be used. 1. Umpires have been worse than hawk-eye.

Any data to substantiate that claim? Please don't go on a tangent and bring up stats from the WC or the decisions of Hawk-Eye because they are not relevant to the question asked. The claim made is HawkEye > Umpire accuracy. Any data to prove this accuracy? As far as I am aware, no independent testing/validation has been done to even begin to make that comparison.

2. It effectively removes howlers.

True. And that is why I am for it.I hope this makes my stance clear as far as Hawk-Eyes relevance to UDRS. I bolded it especially so you know that I am in this discussion only to correct (or get corrected) regarding the umpire v/s HawkEye accuracy claim made.

4. Ball track prediction has improved a lot since 2008 (from that video).

Similar to first point....any data to substantiate this claim? Or are you going to accept someone else's claims and consider it gospel truth?

[Vijay.Sharma]

International umpiring accuracy is much lesser than that' date=' 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.[/quote']Vibhash, I think you are confusing metrics here and trying to compare two fundamentally different "accuracy" metrics as coming from the same underlying process. Umpire's decision accuracy is evaluated by the laws of the game Whereas HawkEye's accuracy is evaluated based on the actual path of the ball. Umpire's decision accuracy includes all decisions like wides, no-balls, catches, bowleds. And in case of LBW's an umpire's decision is anyway considered correct unless the ball ttouched the bat before the pad. You cannot use Hawk-Eyes prediction path to show the umpire was wrong. HawkEye does not even come into the picture here. You use actual footage to show if the call was correct. Whereas HawkEye's accuracy involves ball prediction. Prediction accuracy is evaluated based on what the actual path was. I hope the above helps you understand why umpire accuracy and HawkEye accuracy are incomparable because they are not measuring the same process.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Well known people have already pointed out such examples and I have linked you to the myriad of Cricinfo articles on all relevant threads You are using exceptions as norms. Taufel, Dar & Gould are exceptions. I find one thing particularly amusing though. If the CEO's and heads of ball tracking technologies (like Hawk Eye, Virtual Eye) are going on air confirming that their technologies may not be the better than the umpires, I don't see any reason why "anyone" can have a leap of faith in it. All this after one doesn't understand nits-grits of the technology. Test cricket has done pretty decent without DRS for more than a century. It can live without it for another century.

Well said. Although I believe they can be used for eliminating howlers. And they should not be used for anything else than howlers. But howler is subjective and that is what causes problems in coming to a common understanding of a howler. In every game, a 50-50 decision that goes our way becomes a good decision and when it goes the other way it becomes a howler :winky:

[Trichromatic]

Any data to substantiate that claim? Please don't go on a tangent and bring up stats from the WC or the decisions of Hawk-Eye because they are not relevant to the question asked. The claim made is HawkEye > Umpire accuracy. Any data to prove this accuracy? As far as I am aware, no independent testing/validation has been done to even begin to make that comparison.

No, like someone said earlier, the owners of technology themselves say that there is no way for now to prove that hawk-eye is better. Same is true other way. No way to prove it's worse than umpires.

Similar to first point....any data to substantiate this claim? Or are you going to accept someone else's claims and consider it gospel truth?

Here accuracy depends precision, frame rates of camera etc. For each measurement there is margin of error. Here I'm basing it on what BCCI said, accuracy has gone upto 97%, but it's still not 100%.

True. And that is why I am for it.I hope this makes my stance clear as far as Hawk-Eyes relevance to UDRS. I bolded it especially so you know that I am in this discussion only to correct (or get corrected) regarding the umpire v/s HawkEye accuracy claim made.

I also want it for the same reason. Purpose of adding WC stats was to show that in most of the cases (upto 80 %) decisions given by hawk-eye and umpires are same. Rest 20% includes howlers and other decisions where it is difficult to say that hawk-eye led to a wrong decision. Some marginal calls might have been changed in past. Teams had 2 reviews and they didn't hesitate to go for it in case of 1st marginal call. Now there is only 1 review. Can we expect that the number of decisions changed by hawk-eye will reduce because players won't take chances in case of marginal calls (like where ball shown to be hitting top of stumps and umpire says not out). Rather they will take chances only when they are fully sure. Will it bring down the percentage of dissimilar decisions between hawk-eye and umpires?

[Crookbond]

No' date=' like someone said earlier, the owners of technology themselves say that there is no way for now to prove that hawk-eye is better. Same is true other way. [b']No way to prove it's worse than umpires.

Why introduce it then? Use it for entertainment not decision making

Here accuracy depends precision, frame rates of camera etc. For each measurement there is margin of error. Here I'm basing it on what BCCI said, accuracy has gone upto 97%, but it's still not 100%.

So, Accuracy depends on precision. Great, wonderful insight!

Purpose of adding WC stats was to show that in most of the cases (upto 80 %) decisions given by hawk-eye and umpires are same.

If both of them are same, let the umpires do their job and the human aspect of the game prevail.

Rest 20% includes howlers and other decisions where it is difficult to say that hawk-eye led to a wrong decision

Similarly, it's difficult to say if hawk-eye was right and the umpire was wrong. Just like Warren Buffet says, When in doubt, don't.

[Trichromatic]

Why introduce it then? Use it for entertainment not decision making

That's what I asked earlier also. Hawk-eye was not better in past. Why it was introduced in first place? Why it was used for 2 years in international games and why boards will still be using it? Weren't they aware of this earlier or it was used for 2 years just for entertainment on the field?

So, Accuracy depends on precision. Great, wonderful insight!

For a complex system, it will. Here I'm referring to the precision of various components used for the whole system. :)

[Crookbond]

Well said. Although I believe they can be used for eliminating howlers. And they should not be used for anything else than howlers. But howler is subjective and that is what causes problems in coming to a common understanding of a howler. In every game' date= a 50-50 decision that goes our way becomes a good decision and when it goes the other way it becomes a howler :winky:

ROTFL! Absolutely. I am all for technology but not something like the ball predicting technology (Hawk Eye or Virtual Eye). First, we don't have anyway to validate it's prediction. Second, it removes the human element in the game. Third, there are so many factors which predictive path technology can't take into consideration like swing, bounce, ball landing on the seam etc. My personal opinion is to use ball tracking technology for no-balls and relieve umpires from watching the line and concentrate on the much difficult LBW.

[Crookbond]

That's what I asked earlier also. Hawk-eye was not better in past.

How did you conjecture this?

Why it was introduced in first place? Why it was used for 2 years in international games and why boards will still be using it? Weren't they aware of this earlier or it was used for 2 years just for entertainment on the field?

It was used on a trial basis. Lets say a technology is perfect, it's not plug and play like a USB drive. It takes a lot of rule rewriting to introduce it into the game. It has turned an already complex game into complex squared! Even the time duration for a review isn't a definite amount. There are other factors too : including the human aspect of the game. Goal-line technology is perfect yet not introduced for the same reason. And by the way, just because people use or dont use it is not a measure of its accuracy. SuperSub too was introduced. Powerplays were different. There's now been another change in powerplay. It's all a pilot. If you really want me to push this on you, any reason why this wasn't made compulsory till now if it was so perfect? Please don't bring the political angle here. You might want to read JPEG2000 and IPv6. Both are better than it's predecessors though they are still aren't used.

For a complex system, it will. :)

Dude, Seriously? :omg:

[Vijay.Sharma]

No' date=' like someone said earlier, the owners of technology themselves say that there is no way for now to prove that hawk-eye is better. Same is true other way. No way to prove it's worse than umpires.[/quote']So, you'd rather take HawkEye's word instead of the Umpires because no one has tested HawkEye and therefore neither can we prove Umpire > HaekEye or HawkEye > Umpire. Shouldn't it be status quo in such a case? And status quo would be Umpire > HawkEye. (the Null Hypothesis). Or are you even arguing this point at all?

[Trichromatic]

My personal opinion is to use ball tracking technology for no-balls and relieve umpires from watching the line and concentrate on the much difficult LBW.

Ball-tracking for no-balls? Why use it for no-balls when it can be done with simple traditional replays? Do you mean use it for checking whether high full toss is above waist or not? I agree ICC should relieve umpires from this duty. It doesn't make much sense for them to check bowlers' front foot and back foot at the same time.

[Trichromatic]

It was used on a trial basis.

Trial for what? There was no way to check whether it's would better or not. When you don't know how to determine that, then why try it?

[Crookbond]

Trial for what? There was no way to check whether it's would better or not. When you don't know how to determine that' date=' then why try it?[/quote'] Why are pink balls tried and done away? Split innings are tried too. Trial is a pilot. It can fail or it can fly. Ball tracking technology hasn't failed but it hasn't flied either. It may be the future but it's not the current. To answer your original question, you should ask the ICC. There are a lot of things which were tried and used or thrown away. Don't use this fact to make the argument for ball tracking technology. PS: Hawk Eye is NOT the only ball tracking technology. Virtual Eye is another one and considered by knowledgeable folks to be better than Hawk Eye.