***Official*** South Africa in New Zealand 2012

[wellAlbidarned]

Okay that was a weird Hawkeye path.

 

[Flem274*]

And that's the game.

I don't begrudge Taylor that one. He can't keep saving these useless ****s forever.

 

[straw man]

Oh ****. Thought we were doing ok at 64/3 with Williamson exceeding all expectations. Then that.

Btw am getting the feeling that Virtual Eye is a crappy imitator of Hawk Eye

 

[thierry henry]

The impact point shown there is about half a ball inside the actual impact point, wtf is going on?

 

[Blakey]

Are the BC's seriously -4 for 4?

 

[straw man]

Some total moron on the radio, forgotten his name, repeating that old misunderstanding that lbw when hit on the full means the umpire has to suddenly assume the ball will go straight, as in wicket-to-wicket line.

 

[Flem274*]

Can we at least let Williamson score a fifty please?

 

[straw man]

Can we at least let Williamson score a fifty please?

Will do it in edges at this rate. But yeah, that would be good.

 

[greg]

It's surely got to reach a point soon where the owners of Hawkeye start making some sort of noises about VirtualEye. It's cr*p! But because 99% of viewers (and players?) assume they're all the same system, Hawkeye's reputation gets damaged by Virtual Eye's dubious performance. The tracking on that LBW just looked all wrong, which rarely happens with Hawkeye.

Do the two systems actually supposedly work on the same basis, or are there actual technical differences? Do they treat swing in the same way, for example?

 

[Spark]

If Steyn is genuinely getting controlled reverse then this could be pure carnage.

EDIT: oops. only two balls left.

Tomorrow morning, then.

 

[greg]

Some total moron on the radio, forgotten his name, repeating that old misunderstanding that lbw when hit on the full means the umpire has to suddenly assume the ball will go straight, as in wicket-to-wicket line.

I'm not sure what the situation is here with swing - do they have to assume no further swing after the ball hits the pad? I know they are supposed to assume no spin for spinners if the ball hasn't bounced (for obvious reasons).

 

[BeeGee]

About ****ing time.

Now how badly will we **** our second innings up?

Pretty bad.

 

[thierry henry]

It's surely got to reach a point soon where the owners of Hawkeye start making some sort of noises about VirtualEye. It's cr*p! But because 99% of viewers (and players?) assume they're all the same system, Hawkeye's reputation gets damaged by Virtual Eye's dubious performance. The tracking on that LBW just looked all wrong, which rarely happens with Hawkeye.

Do the two systems actually supposedly work on the same basis, or are there actual technical differences? Do they treat swing in the same way, for example?

Yep. The path Taylor's lbw took on VirtualEye seemed to be completely devoid of the very obvious swing. Also, somehow it managed to get the impact point wrong. It was outrageous tbh, I honestly think that was missing.

 

[Spark]

I'm not sure what the situation is here with swing - do they have to assume no further swing after the ball hits the pad? I know they are supposed to assume no spin for spinners if the ball hasn't bounced (for obvious reasons).

Yes. Once it hits the pad, it's assumed to go on straight.

 

[thierry henry]

Yes. Once it hits the pad, it's assumed to go on straight.

Yes but the path Steyn's ball was on BEFORE hitting the pad was taking it sharply from off to leg, in this case surely the continuation of that path would have it clipping leg at best

 

[Flem274*]

Radiosport denying they have an infatuation with fast bowling.

 

[Hurricane]

I'm not sure what the situation is here with swing - do they have to assume no further swing after the ball hits the pad? I know they are supposed to assume no spin for spinners if the ball hasn't bounced (for obvious reasons).

My understanding is that the ball will continue its current trajectory - so if it is a big hooping inswinger then you assume it will continue at the same angle - but not that it will swing even more.

umpiring in club games this is a common source of controversy.

 

[straw man]

It's surely got to reach a point soon where the owners of Hawkeye start making some sort of noises about VirtualEye. It's cr*p! But because 99% of viewers (and players?) assume they're all the same system, Hawkeye's reputation gets damaged by Virtual Eye's dubious performance. The tracking on that LBW just looked all wrong, which rarely happens with Hawkeye.

Do the two systems actually supposedly work on the same basis, or are there actual technical differences? Do they treat swing in the same way, for example?

Mostly agree - isn't the ICC supposed to be getting independent testing of these systems done at the moment?

Also the Hawkeye guys have been proactive in talking about the pros and cons of the system and how they're improving things - seem like a professional outfit. Less sure about Virtual Eye.

 

[Hurricane]

Yes. Once it hits the pad, it's assumed to go on straight.

post the law...if you have the time.

 

[straw man]

I'm not sure what the situation is here with swing - do they have to assume no further swing after the ball hits the pad? I know they are supposed to assume no spin for spinners if the ball hasn't bounced (for obvious reasons).

Yeah no further swing assumed after impact. What the guy on the radio was saying was that if full toss the umpire should suddenly the assume the ball is going to miraculously travel a wicket-to-wicket line. ie. parallel to the path between middle stump at one end and middle stump at the other.

It's just amazing that a commentator who is supposed to know the game can think this.