Hawkeye founder on 'umpires call' debate

[Athlai]

That is a bold name change

 

[Dick Rockett]

Even Spam has a use by date.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

DRS > Cevno watching on TV.

 

[SteveNZ]

This is not true.

Which ones?

OK, I may have to revise that given there is a soft signal in league, although that is there because often the try-scoring action can be obscured by bodies. I don't imagine that would happen if that wasn't obscured.

 

[Athlai]

NFL is ****ing abhorrent for it for one

 

[OverratedSanity]

OS has. He needs to sack up and apologise for his low IQ.

Still waiting for the coward

There's nothing to argue because my skepticism is less to do with the ball tracking tech and more to do with the manual element of setting the impact point. Saying mpire's call is overriding the tech isn't entirely accurate because a key part of the process which affects the predictive path of the ball is in the hands of another potentially useless human.

I listened to Simon Hughes' entire hour long podcast episode there and this wasn't properly discussed. I've seen enough lbws where impact point doesn't seem right (mayank agarwal's lbw in south africa a few years ago being the main example) for me to not completely be on board with it. If there's some proof out there about how accurately they actually set impact point and how they build the track off it, I'll concede.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There's nothing to argue because my skepticism is less to do with the ball tracking tech and more to do with the manual element of setting the impact point. Saying mpire's call is overriding the tech isn't entirely accurate because a key part of the process which affects the predictive path of the ball is in the hands of another potentially useless human.

I listened to Simon Hughes' entire hour long podcast episode there and this wasn't properly discussed. I've seen enough lbws where impact point doesn't seem right (mayank agarwal's lbw in south africa a few years ago being the main example) for me to not completely be on board with it. If there's some proof out there about how accurately they actually set impact point and how they build the track off it, I'll concede.

Exactly correct, and I reiterate my earlier comment:

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.

There needs to be some kind of system in place when the tracking comes back and it's obviously really ****ing wrong for the on field (or 3rd) umpire to be like "whoa wait a minute, that's obviously wrong, let's try input those impact points again".

Because it seems to be happening quite often, which puts doubt on every ball tracking result

However the system right now is still 100x better than it was before DRS

 

[Athlai]

You think hawkeye has a guy in a box guessing where the ball stopped?
It's recorded from multiple cameras and tracked through the air until the ball's path is interrupted. There isn't a manual component to that tracking.

As far as I'm aware the position of the "batsman" that gets faded out or whatever is entirely the broadcaster just making a graphic so the viewer's can visualise it.


"hawkeye" is the path of the ball arc

 

[Athlai]

Which is obviously why it's still important to have video of the ball hitting pads/snicko etc but the pitch and wickets are stationary and that is what hawkeye is calibrated against.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You think hawkeye has a guy in a box guessing where the ball stopped?
It's recorded from multiple cameras and tracked through the air until the ball's path is interrupted. There isn't a manual component to that tracking.

The first impact point with the pad is never 100% accurate. There are multiple frames where it makes contact. Crappy fps cameras make this worse.

 

[Athlai]

The first impact point with the pad is never 100% accurate. There are multiple frames where it makes contact. Crappy fps cameras make this worse.

You're complaining about a visualisation on broadcast that is not what determines the hawkeye ball arc.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You think hawkeye has a guy in a box guessing where the ball stopped?
It's recorded from multiple cameras and tracked through the air until the ball's path is interrupted. There isn't a manual component to that tracking.

As far as I'm aware the position of the "batsman" that gets faded out or whatever is entirely the broadcaster just making a graphic so the viewer's can visualise it.


"hawkeye" is the path of the ball arc

As I said "Whether it's an automatic process or being manually done"

Regardless doesn't really matter what causes it. What matters is the end result is really, clearly wrong far too often, and we're forced to just go along with it

But anyway if it's not the impact point being wrong then what causes it?

 

[Athlai]

The only actual problem hawkeye can have is if the ball bounces and hits the batsman in too short a space (like less than half a metre) but thats also the hardest for an umpire regardless. After that I'd back hawkeye to be entirely accurate unless they ****ed up the calibration entirely and it's literally the first ball of the day (they check and confirm the calibration ball by ball).

 

[Dick Rockett]

Which is obviously why it's still important to have video of the ball hitting pads/snicko etc but the pitch and wickets are stationary and that is what hawkeye is calibrated against.

The pitch and wickets may be but the cameras can never quite be. Which may be accounted for in the margin of error, idk.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The only actual problem hawkeye can have is if the ball bounces and hits the batsman in too short a space (like less than half a metre) but thats also the hardest for an umpire regardless. After that I'd back hawkeye to be entirely accurate unless they ****ed up the calibration entirely and it's literally the first ball of the day (they check and confirm the calibration ball by ball).

Bro, it does happen lol. In games of cricket that matter




and sometimes in womens games

 

[Athlai]

This is from Hawkins himself:

340 frame per second cameras. Ball is circa 10 pixels, and we find the centre to circa 1/3 pixel. Also factor in the extra accuracy through triangulation from 6 different angles. You will find that it becomes under 40 cm where error can increase, which is what we have said.

So every frame, 6 cameras from 6 angles are capturing and placing the ball within a 3-dimensional space to predict how it will move in the air and eventually land. It's just physics. But us armchair ****wits watching from a slightly off centre view think we know better because we're morons.

 

[Athlai]

The pitch and wickets may be but the cameras can never quite be. Which may be accounted for in the margin of error, idk.

Hawkeye cameras are all setup pre-game and not used on broadcast at all. Entirely stationary.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Bro, it does happen lol. In games of cricket that matter

I remember at least one occasion where ball tracking simply wasn't available. The team on the rough end of the decision just had to suck it, which I found extraordinary.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Hawkeye cameras are all setup pre-game and not used on broadcast at all. Entirely stationary.

Cameras can be affected by the wind. The objects they are mounted to (e.g. buildings) can also vibrate or sway due to wind or people moving around on/in them.

 

[Spark]

Cameras can be affected by the wind. The objects they are mounted to (e.g. buildings) can also vibrate or sway due to wind or people moving around on/in them.

The impact of this is negligible tbh.