As if i have been tabulating a list .Go on then, when has it been shown up then. If it's "time and time again" as you assert you'll be able to give us a long list of such events...
No need for such a shakeup all of a sudden ,tbh.According to Samaa TV Pakistan : Waqar/Afridi To Be Axed. Pakistan team will have new captain, vice captain and coach. It has also been learnt that senior players (Misbah, Younus, Razzaq, Kamran) will have no place in the national team.
wtf, that's stupid. Afridi should be captaining the side until he decides he doesn't want to.According to Samaa TV Pakistan : Waqar/Afridi To Be Axed. Pakistan team will have new captain, vice captain and coach. It has also been learnt that senior players (Misbah, Younus, Razzaq, Kamran) will have no place in the national team.
Go on then, name these instances - and no, just because you with the naked eye don't agree does not mean that hawkeye is wrong, so those are not examples.As if i have been tabulating a list .
Though i pretty much remember that same statement technology better than watching at home being made to me a couple of times before and to others too on a few occasions here.
No way! Waqar has worked wonders with Umar Gul. Gul has never looked more consistent or quick than recently. Riaz has also come along loads with his stint in the side. It is just a shame that Pakistan, at no point, have had Waqar and Wasim working in official roles. Wasim, amongst all the incoherent broken English nonsense, made some points about Riaz which suggests that he could, given the time, improve his bowling to swing the ball back into the right hander. Moreover, I think Afridi has done a very good job as skipper.According to Samaa TV Pakistan : Waqar/Afridi To Be Axed. Pakistan team will have new captain, vice captain and coach. It has also been learnt that senior players (Misbah, Younus, Razzaq, Kamran) will have no place in the national team.
It isn't programmed to track any specific deliveries, it tracks whatever it picks up from the delivery itself.Is it true that hawkeye has not been configured to track the trajectory of doosras? Read that was the case in some site earlier today.
So basically you are saying that we need a 3rd parrallel technology to overrule the hawkeye?Go on then, name these instances - and no, just because you with the naked eye don't agree does not mean that hawkeye is wrong, so those are not examples.
By being shown up you need proof as to why it is wrong, not "I don't think so therefore it's wrong"
Nonsense.According to Samaa TV Pakistan : Waqar/Afridi To Be Axed. Pakistan team will have new captain, vice captain and coach. It has also been learnt that senior players (Misbah, Younus, Razzaq, Kamran) will have no place in the national team.
As Salman pointed out, that channel's credibility is highly doubtful. I would be shocked if any of the above happened.According to Samaa TV Pakistan : Waqar/Afridi To Be Axed. Pakistan team will have new captain, vice captain and coach. It has also been learnt that senior players (Misbah, Younus, Razzaq, Kamran) will have no place in the national team.
When was this? Will need more proof than you just stating it TBH.So basically you are saying that we need a 3rd parrallel technology to overrule the hawkeye?
Human comprehension on some situations better than technology which has not been configured to deal with different type of variations and odd events that occur in some cases.
The umpires had hawkeye to show that they were wrong, but hawkeye can only be shown to be wrong on occasions by applying common sense.
For example in a test at bangalore hawkeye has previously shown due to inconsistent bounce reaction a ball bouncing below the knees to be going above the stumps.
I guess you would say prove it ,not based on human judgement alone but does it really need to be?
If all the ball did the same thing after pitching and followed the same trajectory and did nothing abnormal then it would be 100 % accurate ,but lthat is not the case on many occasions.
Law of physics if applied to text may show in football that the ball hitting the crossbar and then bouncing and hitting it again could not have crossed the line ,but there have been cases where it has due to the spin exerted.
yeah rightYuvi = complete softie
Shane Warne bowled Andrew Strauss with a ball in 2005 which Hawkeye showed missing the stumps.When was this? Will need more proof than you just stating it TBH.
And hawkeye accounts for spin/swing/drift. And your football example is invalid - we're not trying to predict at what angle the ball will bounce off the stumps after hitting them - simply if they will hit the stumps or not.
I don't think you quite know how Hawkeye works. It tracks the ball from the bowler's hand, takes tons of photos over the course of it's motion and tracks it, tracking the swing, revolutions on the ball, and they track it's motion right after it hits the pitch up to the point it hits the pad/bat. In then uses all this data it has to complete the track of the ball. It has a very low error margin, which is half the width of a cricket ball (11.6 cm) if they have to predict a length of 2.5 m.
Given the way it works, that's not true at all.Is it true that hawkeye has not been configured to track the trajectory of doosras? Read that was the case in some site earlier today.
i remember something similar. but, apparently, hawkeye was recallibrated afterwards and is, though not foolproof, at least idiotproof.Shane Warne bowled Andrew Strauss with a ball in 2005 which Hawkeye showed missing the stumps.
Everyone was shocked, not least the bails, which were laying on the ground.