Whither Hawk Eye?

[keyboardist]

Here is an article I wrote on HawkEye. Need to know how folks feel about the technology. http://www.thecricketist.com/2011/09/to-hawk-or-not-to-hawk.html Is it right to force upon cricket a technology that is inconsistent and creates more confusion than it quells. For that matter, even HotSpot has been found to be in wanting as far as accuracy is concerned. It is perhaps presumable that in hot subcontinental conditions, HotSpot may fail to pick up temperature difference on impact. But in low temperatures, where the impact is likely to cause a sharp increase on the impact surface as compared to the ambient, why has it failed? If anybody has any verifiable information on how this technology works, please share. Share your opinion. PS: I am a great supporter of tech. But a misfiring technology does no good to none.

[CSK Fan]

Nice article, thanks

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[keyboardist]

It is the usual regurgitation of what are nothing but percieved flaws on H/E they will not stand a closer impartial scrutiny for example this tidbit : How do you know that FPS rates are pathetic for certain broadcasters ? Do you have any genuine data to back up your claim ? I can come up with an article that quite simply states that all cameras used are of high FPS ... then what ? Your word against mine. Meaning they both mean jack unless they are are substantiated thru some neutral and trustworthy sources. The next example that you use is that of Dravid caught behind. What the fudge has that got anything to do with technology ? The only thing that we learnt from the dismissal was that the 3rd umpires IQ level were not suitable to hold that job. The technology (hot spot) did its job now if the pathetic 3rd ump decideds to use his own freakin brain and over-rule tech evidence the problem is with the bloody 3rd umpire. But hey atleast we have progressed from people using : "Ohhh does it work on bouncy pitches as well as dust bowls and pitches with uneven bounce" pathetic excuse.

Question on difference of FPS: The answer lies in the quoted text. At the risk of sounding redundant, I must say again that you can easily make out the difference in Camera standards from the quality of broadcast. A brief research on telecasting will tell you that a HDTV broadcast goes at a high 50 ~ 60 P. Regular ones go at 25 ~ 30 P. Hard data. No need for word against word. Dravid's Dismissal: You miss the point. The decision process goes something like this - third umpire will have the benefit of the decision assist systems but there is no clear parameter as to which is given a higher priority. In one case, a HotSpot feed may be in conflict with the audio grab and in the other the vice-versa. Without uniformity of standards, such situations will remain debatable and controversial. As for the "usual regurgitation", until the technology is deemed flawless by one and all, such remonstrations will keep coming. Trust me, your desire for an impartial verdict is no more urgent than mine:two_thumbs_up:

[Geoff Boycott]

Dravid's Dismissal: You miss the point. The decision process goes something like this - third umpire will have the benefit of the decision assist systems but there is no clear parameter as to which is given a higher priority. In one case, a HotSpot feed may be in conflict with the audio grab and in the other the vice-versa. Without uniformity of standards, such situations will remain debatable and controversial.

You clearly state in your post "This time though the technology in question was Hot Spot" and then ask questions about the audio? No technology is perfect, but in most cricket fans opinion, hotspot and hawkeye are more accurate than humans. BCCI will come on board soon.

[keyboardist]

You clearly state in your post "This time though the technology in question was Hot Spot" and then ask questions about the audio? And that jeopardizes the conjecture how? Besides, the premise of the argument is the circumstantial and relative assignment of merit on cues available in the decision making process. No technology is perfect, but in most cricket fans opinion, hotspot and hawkeye are more accurate than humans. BCCI will come on board soon. Since when are the opinions of fans a determining factor in decisions related to laws of the game? Whether or not BCCI comes on board is of little significance. The greater argument is, the admittance of technology as a replacement of or betterment to human judgement is predicated on the reliability of it. So long as the veracity of any technology is beyond reproach, I dare say, it must be kept under the most severe scrutiny.

[yoda]

Yea, let's continue with clueless bozo the clowns/chumps till we can find technology that is 100% accurate.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[keyboardist]

The cameras used for H/E are fixed cameras and the feeds from them are not broadcast so that you can seen on the tv screen. so how do you know they are substandard? And you don't need HD cameras to track a ball and just because it is a HD camera doesnt mean that its FPS will be better than the one that is needed for H/E. So it comes down to how do you know that the FPS and technical specs of the H/E cameras is inferior ? And this has got what to do with the Actual technology in question i.e : Hotspot ? It is entirely a problem of headless administrators running the game with vested interests. So where are the impartial sources that you have used to backup your "concerns" on technology ? Anybody who has followed the game knows how infinitely better the decision making has become as it has put an abrupt end to unscrupulous umpires wrecking Test Matches. Remember Mr. Bucknor ? This fact alone makes the technology worth its weight in gold. I will gladly take one Hughes dismissal every so many tests. Sorry you have no case here and in such circumstances the usual tactic is to shout hard and long that the Technology is flawed using half truths hoping that if it is repeated often enough it somehow becomes a fact.

The cameras used for H/E are fixed cameras and the feeds from them are not broadcast so that you can seen on the tv screen. so how do you know they are substandard? And you don't need HD cameras to track a ball and just because it is a HD camera doesnt mean that its FPS will be better than the one that is needed for H/E. So it comes down to how do you know that the FPS and technical specs of the H/E cameras is inferior ? Fixed or moving is not the question here. Question is the dogged defense put up by broadcasters that only their TV cameras be allowed. You need to read the post and the reply closely. I have given you hard data that 1. For H/E to function properly, FPS must be >= 240 There is no question of "better" or "worse" FPS. It is a technical specification. An HD camera by definition has a higher FPS. This is not an opinion but a fact. And this has got what to do with the Actual technology in question i.e : Hotspot ? It is entirely a problem of headless administrators running the game with vested interests. Administrators at all times have had and will continue to have vested interests, "headless" or not. Technology has to cohabit in such circumstances. Or, administrative reform must precede technology implementation if that is the greater ill. So where are the impartial sources that you have used to backup your "concerns" on technology ? Anybody who has followed the game knows how infinitely better the decision making has become as it has put an abrupt end to unscrupulous umpires wrecking Test Matches. Remember Mr. Bucknor ? This fact alone makes the technology worth its weight in gold. I will gladly take one Hughes dismissal every so many tests. Sorry you have no case here and in such circumstances the usual tactic is to shout hard and long that the Technology is flawed using half truths hoping that if it is repeated often enough it somehow becomes a fact How is cross verifiable fact a "half truth"? Impartial sources are the tech specs available in the public domain. As I said, research. I can write a post on that aspect if you care. The technology hasn't even found a whole round acceptance and you are talking about infinitely better test matches!!!!! It is not me who raised the question on H/E. There was a conference of the elite ICC umpires in Sri Lanka where this issue was discussed. Here are a few links if you care. http://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-australia-2011/content/story/531324.html http://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-australia-2011/content/story/530864.html How does a technology that has verifiable issues become the gold standard and people who bring it to question, bearers of "half truth"? And the article clearly states that the technology alone is not in question. A technology is as good as the people who use it. You conveniently skirted the Hughes incident. Perhaps, you would be no less inclined to ignore the Dhoni incident when a wrong footage was replayed for the no-ball verification. That is why the emphasis on the fact that inputs to this S/W must be uniform. People operating it must be well versed with it. It is not a technology bashing crusade but a call for uniformity. Would you not agree that if there is a rule stating that Technologies A, B & C under such and such technical specifications are to be used for UDRS for all international matches, the whole process would be far more consistent and transparent. That is the larger point here.

Sorry you have no case here and in such circumstances the usual tactic is to shout hard and long that the Technology is flawed using half truths hoping that if it is repeated often enough it somehow becomes a fact

I present facts and arguments, not sentimental allegiance. Let's be objective. Back up your claims with data on the specs used for H/E verification. I will be more than willing to admit your premise if there is data for it.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Pagalpanti]

Tony Greig brought up the same point as well in his blog. Shows the difference quality of camera makes in end decision. DRS is here to stay but there is far too much inconsistency which ICC need to resolve ASAP. They need to find a sponsor for DRS and not leave it to boards.

[keyboardist]

Lets see the evidence. How do you know the FPS should be >=240 and that the broadcasters don't supply such cameras. Where is the proof to substantiate this ? It is not my job to research this. If you want to make allegations it is imperative that you do due dilligence and put forth that data along with the sources from where the data was obtained. Otherwise your article is worth very little. This is a completely different topic and has got absolutely nothing to do with the Actual technology being discussed. But you trying to club it with technology is just a dishonest attempt to magnify the supposed problems with technology. Where was this cross verification done ? You just merely made a claim that H/E cameras are of low quality. Pls show me evidence to that effect is all I am asking. And I did not ignore the Hughes issue. I clearly said that I will gladly take one Hughes issue over a gazillion tests rather than suffer fools like Bucknor. It is a absolute no brainer and is just plain simple common sense.

It is not our job to prove or disprove the effectiveness of technologies used in a game, that is the prerogative of the administrators. As students of the game, our responsibility is to voice our opinion on different aspects of it that may require refinement. That, precisely was what was attempted in the article. It wasn't an allegation but an opinion, an explanation if you may. An attempt to make sense of the inconsistencies of a predictive system (HawkEye) when operating under different conditions with assumptions that the technology, when viewed as a blackbox is error free. This explanation may be right, may not be so. There may exist an alternate explanation, another reason why the inconsistencies occur. As said before, the burden of proof is on the administrators, not us. To prove wrong a hypotheses, one merely need sight a singular instance where it fails to hold. That is how logic works. But it does not mean the hypotheses cannot be strengthened with further logic so that the failure in that instance is rectified. That is precisely what is being proposed here. If there be a public affirmation that a standard of uniformity so far as input feeds to HawkEye are concerned is indeed maintained, we will see this premise losing ground. The premise here is a logical construct from the fact that varying camera standards, as evident from the varying picture quality, undermine the feed input thereby afflicting the accuracy of the technology in question. If the broadcasters come up with a disclosure stating the contrary, the opinion will be re-evaluated. The article discusses the author's views on two different kinds of technologies, namely, Hawk Eye which is a predictive technology and Hot Spot, Snicko, Field Audio etc which are deterministic. The questions raised on the matter of the predictive technology pertain to the inconsistencies under different operating conditions. In the matter of the latter, it is the order of precedence with which the technologies are to be used when the results are not unanimous. The author did not question the intent or integrity of the administrators at any point, rather it was suggested in the response comment. Allow us to say this, you accord yourself such luxury of free opinion as to name call an avuncular West Indian umpire a fool and yet berate us as dishonest for merely offering a solution to a problem that you yourself suggested. Surely, you can allow us some of the same long leash as you assume for yourself. We feel this particular discussion has stretched a bit too far. Clearly, we have divergent thoughts on the issue. Having said that, we respect your opinion. We feel happy that there are such determined defenders of technology and the world surely can do with more of your kind. Especially, when arguments are dished out against the use of technology for such sentimental reasons as traditions and rituals, it is only pertinent that people such as you, dogged defenders of efficiency over emotion as you are, stand to the defense of reason and rational. In fact, what you and we stand for is not that much different. You root for a technology, we root for the same technology with a higher degree of finesse. But say, should this technology, which offers to make the "benefit of doubt" concept irrelevant in the game, be itself made a beneficiary of it, wouldn't it be sad irony? Much as we would like to share your faith and belief in the system, at this point, we reserve our decision.

[akshayxyz]

Point to be noted: More often than not, the very same set of tech and in this case, specifically Hawkeye (whenever used by the broadcasters), is used to validate/certify the quality of umpiring.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[keyboardist]

I don't agree that these are merely opinions. Even then there must be some sort of credible basis to form these opinion and they are just completely missing in this case. One single wrong LBW does not amount to evidence. And your assumption that technology is error free is also wrong. The makers of H/E themselves will tell you that. It doesn't amount to fact unless it is substantiated with some credible source. I'am sorry but I cannot take your word on this matter. Long leash ? Steve Bucknor wreaked many a test matches in his "Illustrious" career that stretched beyond 100 test matches. Other luminaries that need mention are Ashoka De'Silva and Daryl Harper. Do you really think that even the worst camera out there can come anywhere near the performances of these umpires ? Even the very best of umpires make about 2-3 mistakes in a series. This is the sort of "leash" that was accorded to us fans of technology. So the moment H/E comes anywhere remotely close to wrecking as many tests as these gentlemen did you would have had your leash.

Even then there must be some sort of credible basis to form these opinion and they are just completely missing in this case. The camera theory is not something that only we propound. From day 1, this has been the most debated part of Hawk Eye. One single wrong LBW does not amount to evidence. Why Not? And your assumption that technology is error free is also wrong. An argument is made on a certain premise. As we mention, there are many such. Technology being erroneous is one such. And if anything, it strengthens our case. It doesn't amount to fact unless it is substantiated with some credible source. I'am sorry but I cannot take your word on this matter. Don't. We happen to have very established and elite umpires and thinkers on our side. This is the sort of "leash" that was accorded to us fans of technology. So the moment H/E comes anywhere remotely close to wrecking as many tests as these gentlemen did you would have had your leash. So what is the case now? Who makes less errors?

[Geoff Boycott]

cant believe that the reason given for not using hawkeye is that it is not 100% accurate ' date=' then what about run out cameras which has helped in sorting out close runout/stumpings ? even they arent 100% accurate ,we have seen often in tight runouts that the middle frame where the bail has been dislodged is missing or fielders or umpires block the camera's view . so should these excuses be showcased to ban run out cameras as well ?[/quote'] This.

[Pagalpanti]

cant believe that the reason given for not using hawkeye is that it is not 100% accurate ' date=' then what about run out cameras which has helped in sorting out close runout/stumpings ? even they arent 100% accurate ,we have seen often in tight runouts that the middle frame where the bail has been dislodged is missing or fielders or umpires block the camera's view . so should these excuses be showcased to ban run out cameras as well ?[/quote'] Well its not really about accuracy. Its about consistency. Some news report say that ICC used 'hawkeye lite' for World cup which meant using camera of low fps which doesn't really help increasing hawkeye's accuracy. Whereas Australian broadcasters use the high end one which uses the 230 fps camera. Which allows it to be more accurate. Obviously technology is here to stay but there should be consistency, we've seen how hawkeye failed in SL series.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CG]

Well its not really about accuracy. Its about consistency. Some news report say that ICC used 'hawkeye lite' for World cup which meant using camera of low fps which doesn't really help increasing hawkeye's accuracy. Whereas Australian broadcasters use the high end one which uses the 230 fps camera. Which allows it to be more accurate. Obviously technology is here to stay but there should be consistency, we've seen how hawkeye failed in SL series.

You can use ultra slow motion cameras still hawkeye will never be able to predict the path of the ball ,Fact is if the ball hits a batsman on front pad first and then on back pad then hawleye will show point of contact only on back pad it cannot pick small changes ,also it always predicts a straight line path after the ball has hit the pads.it was meant to be a visual enhancement for viewers its hard to predict turn and bounce of pitches using human brain let alone computer data.

[keyboardist]

If this is the case where are the numerous bad decisions made by Hawkeye ? Can we see a sufficiently long list ? Define bad decisions. Because its statistically negligible. The odds of this happening are smaller than someone dying in a plane crash. Whereas getting screwed by the likes of Bucknor, Ashoka, Harper, Hair, Doctrov , Bowden etc is a near certainity. Pure Common sense/common knowledge. I don't mean to get personal here but If you don't understand and recognize such a bleedingly obvious thing you either have a hidden agenda or have some real problems with yourselves that you need to worry more about than H/E or hotspot. Thanks for the candor. We appear to share such hidden agendas and real problems of ourselves with a certain Simon Taufel and Co. and are OK with it. Your concern for our problems though is much appreciated. In the spirit of giving free advice and going by your language, you appear to have some anger issues. Don't get beat up friend. There is enough room for all of us here. It would if there was data that was voluminous enough for people to be worried about. As of now you have a grand total of ONE Single decision. Grand total of ONE Single decision that got discussed big time. Inconsistencies are evident in matches all around. And people are worried mate, people are worried big time. That is why there was this big Umpire's conference in Sri Lanka on UDRS even before the Hughes incident. Feel free to produce their findings on the FPS ratings of the camera which is your main gripe. As soon as it is available to us in public domain, we will be happy to oblige. ICC kind of sits on such reports for a long time before letting it out. huh is this a joke or what ? take a wild guess. Glad that atleast one of our jests got taken in the right humor. Enough said. Let's say you are entitled to your opinion and so are we. Let's just hope the whole thing gets sorted out and we see more accurate decisions being made in the ground. Cheer up