**Official** Pakistan v New Zealand in the UAE 2014

[Flem274*]

i think it's because hawkeye can only predict off known info right? if it hit the foot at the same time as or just immediately after (as in really immediately) landing then there might not be enough "info" to predict it sliding down more.

dunno.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Wow the ball did actually come back in that much.

 

[Hurricane]

Haha the look on the coaching staff's faces.

 

[Athlai]

3 more in the next 20 overs. C'arn.

 

[Flem274*]

just bowl yorkers boulty

 

[duffer]

i think it's because hawkeye can only predict off known info right? if it hit the foot at the same time as or just immediately after (as in really immediately) landing then there might not be enough "info" to predict it sliding down more.

dunno.

If you're hit on the full it's assumed the ball will go straight, regardless of the previous trajectory.

 

[OverratedSanity]

i think it's because hawkeye can only predict off known info right? if it hit the foot at the same time as or just immediately after (as in really immediately) landing then there might not be enough "info" to predict it sliding down more.

dunno.

I think it went a bit haywire because Hawkeye has issues picking up where exactly the impact with the pad occurred, especially when it's almost a half volley. When it's pitched that far up, even an inch of variation here or there about where it impacted the pad can totally **** up the angle of deviation off the surface and where it was heading. The slightest bit of variation in point of impact wildly changes the angle of extrapolation.

 

[straw man]

i think it's because hawkeye can only predict off known info right? if it hit the foot at the same time as or just immediately after (as in really immediately) landing then there might not be enough "info" to predict it sliding down more.

dunno.

Hawkeye will take the point the ball bounces and the point of impact on the batsman's pad, and extrapolate from that. It will ignore the path before pitching (because it's irrelevant). In this case though, it's a very short distance between pitching and the impact with the batsman, so any small errors in measurement will have a large impact on the projected path.

Anyway, offsetting that against the equally questionable and not-overturnable Latham decision .

 

[OverratedSanity]

If you're hit on the full it's assumed the ball will go straight, regardless of the previous trajectory.

Wasn't a full toss though

 

[Flem274*]

nice hit trent

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Beauty!!!

 

[Flem274*]

holy ****

 

[OverratedSanity]

OMG Boult!!! Haha awesome. That's definitely reverse right? Straightened beautifully.

 

[straw man]

Wow

 

[Flametree]

That's good bowling...

 

[Blocky]

Game on.. beautiful bowling Boult.

 

[Meridio]

****ing brilliant bowling Boult!!

 

[Flem274*]

can't reverse it

 

[Hurricane]

Boult!!!!

 

[vandem]

Wow the ball did actually come back in that much.

No. I think the very short distance between ball hitting ground and foot means not enough of a post-bounce path for tracker to be accurate.

IIRC Martin Crowe believes that ball tracker should only be used up to the point of impact. Until now I didn't quite realise his point