***Official West Indies in New Zealand***

[Manee]

He actually should've had 9. Both McIntosh and McCullum were dropped off his bowling. Having said that, while he bowled well, there were still plenty of loose deliveries being served up. He bowled best right at the end, when the light was gloomy and the kiwi's were running scared. He generally looked better yesterday, where he kept it tight and his short ball had McIntosh in trouble often.

The wickets
How: pulled a long hop straight to square leg. Batsman error.
Flynn: clever slower ball that the batsman popped back to the bowler. Bowler's wicket.
Taylor: lazy stroke to a good ball. 50/50
Ryder: even lazier waft to a wide half volley. Batsman error.
Vettori: caught out by the pace trying to run it down fine. Bowler's wicket.
Mills: dubiously given out lbw. Bowler's wicket
Patel: good bouncer into the ribs that was parried to short leg. Bowler's wicket.

Thanks. Pace the same as normal, ranging from 135-147kph?

 

[Bahnz]

After reading up on Hawkeye and seeing that it's used for brain surgery and missile path tracking, I have absolutely no problem with the accuracy of Hawkeye either.

I dunno, I've seen Hawkeye make some clear mistakes over the years. It's certainly not 100%, and to be honest I was damn sure that the ball swung more on the TV replay than it did in the Hawkeye estimate.

And yep, Edwards was pretty consistently in that pace bracket.

 

[TT Boy]

Thanks. Pace the same as normal, ranging from 135-147kph?

He was quick. Always above 140 from what I saw. The wicket to me looks like a bigger road than the last test so fair effort from both Edwards and O'Brien and to both batting sides in making a game out of it all.

 

[Uppercut]

I dunno, I've seen Hawkeye make some clear mistakes over the years. It's certainly not 100%, and to be honest I was damn sure that the ball swung more on the TV replay than it did in the Hawkeye estimate.

And yep, Edwards was pretty consistently in that pace bracket.

Clear mistakes? How, exactly?

Billy Bowden said, "hawkeye tends to overestimate the height issue, it can't be as good as someone who's been umpiring for years". Well, that's bollocks. Hawkeye takes into account every piece of information the umpire has, and more, and uses it to calculate scientifically where the ball was likely to end up. Noone can ever discover the exact position of anything moving, but it's significantly more accurate than any man's eyes, prone to the optical illusions and difficult judgements of speed and lateral movement caused by only seeing the ball from one angle. Those, like Bowden, who can't admit it, are arrogant fools.

 

[Bahnz]

Clear mistakes? How, exactly?

Billy Bowden said, "hawkeye tends to overestimate the height issue, it can't be as good as someone who's been umpiring for years". Well, that's bollocks. Hawkeye takes into account every piece of information the umpire has, and more, and uses it to calculate scientifically where the ball was likely to end up. Noone can ever discover the exact position of anything moving, but it's significantly more accurate than any man's eyes, prone to the optical illusions and difficult judgements of speed and lateral movement caused by only seeing the ball from one angle. Those, like Bowden, who can't admit it, are arrogant fools.

I can recall several mistakes off the top of my head, and not just in cricket. I recall a ball in a test match in Australia a couple of years ago (I forget the exact match), when Hawkeye plainly failed to pick up the spin off the pitch.

And there have been several famous incidences in tennis where TV replays have clearly picked up the ball landing out when Hawkeye called it in. It's a useful tool, but by no means fool proof.

 

[Jigga988]

I can recall several mistakes off the top of my head, and not just in cricket. I recall a ball in a test match in Australia a couple of years ago (I forget the exact match), when Hawkeye plainly failed to pick up the spin off the pitch.

And there have been several famous incidences in tennis where TV replays have clearly picked up the ball landing out when Hawkeye called it in. It's a useful tool, but by no means fool proof.

There definitely hasn't been many famous incidences in tennis involving hawk-eye. It is proven in tennis that the margin of error in hawsk-eye is like 0.02cm. Obviously tennis is different to cricket as in cricket hawk-eye has to predict the route of the ball, and i dont go by hawk-eye as gospel and i dont think hawk-eye alone should ever be used to decide an lbw, I would much rather have umpires decide.

 

[Uppercut]

I can recall several mistakes off the top of my head, and not just in cricket. I recall a ball in a test match in Australia a couple of years ago (I forget the exact match), when Hawkeye plainly failed to pick up the spin off the pitch.

And there have been several famous incidences in tennis where TV replays have clearly picked up the ball landing out when Hawkeye called it in. It's a useful tool, but by no means fool proof.

I don't remember it ever being obviously wrong in tennis and if it's close hawk-eye is more likely than the human eye (which is a lot more limited than people tend to believe) can pick up. But your point is right essentially, it's not a perfect tool or an exact science. But 99.9% of the time when people say that Hawk-eye is wrong about its predictive element they're letting their eyes deceive them. I completely agree with the sentiments of "if it's just nicking the stump you can't give it" but for someone like Bowden to say he knows better than it does is just unfounded arrogance IMO.

 

[Jigga988]

"if it's just nicking the stump you can't give it" but for someone like Bowden to say he knows better than it does is just unfounded arrogance IMO.

I would at least like to see some consistency with the 'if it's just nicking the stump you cant give it' idea.

 

[Uppercut]

I would at least like to see some consistency with the 'if it's just nicking the stump you cant give it' idea.

The referral system as it stands is a bit of a mess because umpires don't like changing their colleagues' decisions. If hawk-eye was made available it would have to be applied consistently, yes.

 

[Manee]

Just saw very brief highlights of the New Zealand innings on Sky Sports and have a strong feeling of 'meh' regarding Fidel's bowling.

 

[Atreyu]

Anybody else watching these Sinclair highlights? Wtf happened to him

 

[Cam7]

Anyone who wants a better understanding of the technologies behind "Hawkeye", "Snicko" and the "Hot Spot" should watch today's Dilmah Tea Party during the tea break (at 4:20pm).

 

[Durham_CCC]

Two spinners opening this morning.

Should be interesting first few overs

 

[Atreyu]

Marshall isn't looking too good here. Looks like he will get out at any time IMO

 

[Langeveldt]

Booking in.. Nice to see some cricket that doesn't make me have a heart attack

 

[Atreyu]

21 runs off that over. Ouch. Gayle rushing to his 50

I think that hit Pad first. Fair enough to be given not out though.

 

[Uppercut]

NZ need Gayle and they need him quick. Chanderpaul will be in there for as long as he wants but he won't hurt them the way Gayle will.

 

[Durham_CCC]

Very close that, Vettori unlucky.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I honestly think Mark Richardson rivals Ian Healy in the commentary box for ****ness.

 

[roseboy64]

1 referral left.