An agreed 6th day?

[slugger]

That is of course assuming you believe the findings of the technology - hawkeye is far from accurate enough as it doesn't take into account the overhead conditions sufficiently.

i wonder if the umpires take into account the conditions.

It's all just numbers and physics amosphere + ball speed = height and distance. (everything can be converted into numbers) swing or spin maybe difficult however if the 3rd umpire wants some sort of authority over the decision then he could put the guess work into that part of the equation. i mean if you think about it every decision up to this point has been nothing but guess work.

 

[xan_pro]

well, when australia dont need even 5 full days, why need a 6th day

 

[shankar]

That is of course assuming you believe the findings of the technology - hawkeye is far from accurate enough as it doesn't take into account the overhead conditions sufficiently.

It doesnt need to take into account overhead conditions. All it needs to do is to capture the path of the ball and see if it'll hit the stumps if it carries on in the same path.

 

[marc71178]

Which ignores anything like the after-pitch swing that happens then.

What a superb system that is (!)

 

[shankar]

Which ignores anything like the after-pitch swing that happens then.

What a superb system that is (!)

How does it ignore after-pitch swing? All it needs to do is capture the path of the ball till it hits the pads. It then predicts if the ball would have hit the stumps IF it had gone along the the same curve as it did prior to hitting the pad.

 

[Mr Casson]

How does it ignore after-pitch swing? All it needs to do is capture the path of the ball till it hits the pads. It then predicts if the ball would have hit the stumps IF it had gone along the the same curve as it did prior to hitting the pad.

I agree with Shankar. The overhead conditions are evident in what the ball is doing, while it is being tracked.

 

[marc71178]

How does it ignore after-pitch swing? All it needs to do is capture the path of the ball till it hits the pads. It then predicts if the ball would have hit the stumps IF it had gone along the the same curve as it did prior to hitting the pad.

You just answered it yourself.

The case where the ball swings after bouncing - Hawkeye cannot cope with it, because of the nature of the actual swing.

 

[shankar]

You just answered it yourself.

The case where the ball swings after bouncing - Hawkeye cannot cope with it, because of the nature of the actual swing.

Hawkeye tracks the ball till it hits the pad NOT till it hits the wicket. So all it has to do is to extrapolate the curve.

 

[Mr Casson]

You just answered it yourself.

The case where the ball swings after bouncing - Hawkeye cannot cope with it, because of the nature of the actual swing.

For accuracy's sake, is that much different to an umpire having to assume that a ball hitting the batsman on the full will travel straight ahead?

 

[slugger]

makes ya laugh. technology is not bias or show's favoritism, assumption is minimal. As the trajectory of the ball can be traced as the information the cameras record will give you the information re: speed, swing, height etc. in actual fact all the ball information through-out the day can be loaded into a computer and create library of data.

 

[vic_orthdox]

For accuracy's sake, is that much different to an umpire having to assume that a ball hitting the batsman on the full will travel straight ahead?

possibly the worst rule going around. there's no way you should be given out for being hit on the pads by a ball that won't hit the stumps.

 

[marc71178]

Hawkeye tracks the ball till it hits the pad NOT till it hits the wicket. So all it has to do is to extrapolate the curve.

Which ignores the whole concept, thus suggesting it doesn't happen...

 

[Tom Halsey]

My instinct is that a 6th day isn't right, but I couldn't back it up as it's really only an instinct.

 

[shankar]

Which ignores the whole concept, thus suggesting it doesn't happen...

Ignores what concept?

 

[marc71178]

Of the late swing.

 

[Mr Casson]

Of the late swing.

There's no way an umpire can factor that in either.

 

[shankar]

Hawk-eye probably takes the positions the ball had been at varying times before it hit the pad, fits a curve to its path and predicts if that path would have taken it through the stumps.
Now I think your crib is that the ball might suddenly swing the other way or suddenly increase the rate at which it is swinging. In which case:

1. How will the umpire ever be able to predict this given that it is completely random. The ball has not given any hint in its movement that it's about to do this.

2. If you answered that the umpire would be able to predict this based on his knowledge of the previous delivery, then the umpire would be wrong in his decision because the rules of cricket do not ask for the umpire to exactly predict what the ball would have done if the pad had not been in the way. What it asks the umpire to do is to predict if the ball would hit the stumps if it continues on its path before hitting the pads.

 

[marc71178]

There's no way an umpire can factor that in either.

They can though.

By witnessing it in previous balls they can take it into account, something a computer program cannot do.

 

[tooextracool]

no umpire can do that, quite simply because every ball is completely different, and you cant expect every ball to swing to the same extent as the ball previous.

 

[Tom Halsey]

They can though.

By witnessing it in previous balls they can take it into account, something a computer program cannot do.

No two balls are remotely the same.