Why BCCI is right about Hawkeye

[Trichromatic]

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.

When those trial at least people expect that the changes will be analyzed and a conclusion will be drawn based on the analysis. But here, like you said there was no way to draw a conclusion itself.

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.

Is that suppose to a news? Is there a way to know that Virtual Eye is better than Hawk-eye? How do knowledgeable folks consider so?

[Trichromatic]

@mcenley : You would like to read this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/8190200/The-Ashes-2010-Hawk-Eye-founder-claims-rival-system-is-not-being-so-eagle-eyed.html

In contrast to Hawk-Eye’s more automated system, Virtual Eye uses an operator to look at the screen and select the frame which best represents the point of impact.

And I noticed that some people were arguing about choice of frame in Sachin v Richards thread.

[Vijay.Sharma]

I think Vibhash and Mcenley, you guys, are already in agreement as far as the bigger picture is concerned that of UDRS, xEye specifically being useful for the game to eliminate howlers as much as possible.

[Trichromatic]

I think Vibhash and Mcenley' date=' you guys, are already in agreement as far as the bigger picture is concerned that of UDRS, xEye specifically being useful for the game to eliminate howlers as much as possible.[/quote'] Probably we need to use Harsha's argument that game has survived 100 years and it will survive in future without it. :P

[TrueWorldChamps]

World Cup 2011, Ind vs Eng group stage match's Ian Bell LbW Decision was horrible even when reviewed to third (alas at 2.5 m rule). that might be one the reason.

[Crookbond]

Probably we need to use Harsha's argument that game has survived 100 years and it will survive in future without it. :P

Yes, It was Tim Bresnan who first said it and I echo his sentiments.

[Crookbond]

@mcenley : You would like to read this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/8190200/The-Ashes-2010-Hawk-Eye-founder-claims-rival-system-is-not-being-so-eagle-eyed.html And I noticed that some people were arguing about choice of frame in Sachin v Richards thread.

This is a troll-like comment. You can do better! I have posted varied links from knowledgeable people from authentic sources like Cricinfo and you show be a Telegraph CO UK link! TOI-let papers are far and many out there. And btw, obviously Hawk Eye would say Virtual Eye isn't good! Virtual Eye would obviously say Hawk Eye isn't good. If you could search the link you posted, you must have also found this : Virtual Eye - Response to Hawkins Open Letter http://bit.ly/npn4KT The argument of FPS was in a different context. Obviously, someone's brain is peanut size to get it.

[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.

Told you so.

[Vijay.Sharma]

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' date=' dimensions. I never said that errors will NOT will be there, I said there will be less error. Please mark the difference.[/quote']I think I asked you this once before...can you please show us uninformed mortals one scientific study that tells us more about the accuracy of hawk eye. Please note the folks here are educated enough to differentiate between assertions in the air and scientific studies about accuracy of instruments. In this Hawk Eye's case you would be doing what is called a Gage R & R Study (typically) to see if the variation caused by the Gage is acceptable or not. Please educate us about your Hawk Eye's accuracy percentage and how it was arrived at

[CG]

I think I asked you this once before...can you please show us uninformed mortals one scientific study that tells us more about the accuracy of hawk eye. Please note the folks here are educated enough to differentiate between assertions in the air and scientific studies about accuracy of instruments. In this Hawk Eye's case you would be doing what is called a Gage R & R Study (typically) to see if the variation caused by the Gage is acceptable or not. Please educate us about your Hawk Eye's accuracy percentage and how it was arrived at

I told vibash that hawkeye calculates straight line path after the ball pitches on ground to the point it hits batsman and also proved it with a video of shewag dismissal where he was struck outside off stump on his leftpad but the ball deflected from his left pad to right pad and hawk eye showed ball hit his right pad first and was given out.