• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Hawkeye founder on 'umpires call' debate

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I would be more worried the errors being made when determining the impact point, which is usually the problem when hawkeye massively ****s up it's tracking. Whether it's an automatic process or being manually done, it needs to be fixed because it's an embarrassment when it happens and even more so that there is no process to "review" the review when it's clearly wrong. Everyone just goes along with the clearly wrong information.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Suck it @OverratedSanity . Never understood why people still try to argue that the margin for error with hawkeye (even with human manual intervention for certain aspects) is worse than half blind umpires judging in real time. It’s a ridiculous stance and you should feel dumb if you are in that camp.

It’s not perfect but it’s far superior. Relying on a worse method for close decisions makes zero sense.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Never understood why people still try to argue that the margin for error with hawkeye (even with human manual intervention for certain aspects) is worse than half blind umpires judging in real time. It’s a ridiculous stance and you should feel dumb if you are in that camp.
I can't believe anyone has ever said that, or even though that. I demand proof
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
Suck it @OverratedSanity . Never understood why people still try to argue that the margin for error with hawkeye (even with human manual intervention for certain aspects) is worse than half blind umpires judging in real time. It’s a ridiculous stance and you should feel dumb if you are in that camp.

It’s not perfect but it’s far superior. Relying on a worse method for close decisions makes zero sense.
I can't believe anyone has ever said that, or even though that. I demand proof
always thought that the argument was more like, if it's in the MoE, the call on the field could be correct and so it would be wrong to overturn it, given that a review is a review of the on field decision and isn't a making of the decision afresh

is how i have understood it
 

Top