Hawkeye founder on 'umpires call' debate

[RossTaylorsBox]

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

Reckon this is the biggest reason people get confused.

 

[SteveNZ]

Oh come on, man. We're talking about decisions made in a game. A game!

I respect you and all but you're being dramatic.

Don't be part of the discussion then. He's explaining very well a system that relates to a professional environment. An industry. Not just a game.

Because arbitrarily deciding that Hawkeye getting specific sorts of decisions wrong in a specific way that can be accounted for with specific measures represents all Hawkeye decisions being inaccurate and flawed to the degree that no Hawkeye decision is to be really trusted is a form of anti-thinking, which I think needs to be eradicated wherever it appears.

Upwards of 95% of Hawkeye decisions are accurate to within degrees of error which would be physically impossible for humans to achieve by several orders of magnitude. I'm very confident that's the case. There are many systems in the world which are extremely complicated and rely on very complex, difficult-to-model physical processes with substantial error bras on them. Hawkeye is not one of them.

I dunno if this counts as straw man, but yeah...just because Hawkeye said Zampa turned a ball once doesn't mean it's a trash system.

And the second bolded part is what I argue long and hard, every time. I don't know if people want the technology to be perfect, or they can't handle some level of inaccuracy, but yet we incorporate human error into it which has levels of inaccuracy off the charts - for myriad reasons that are not the case with Hawkeye technology.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah no system is going to be 100% accurate but the one we have is already ridiculously more accurate than your average umpire.

Unless people have actual suggestion to improve the actual technology (which I haven’t seen in this thread yet) I don’t get what the last couple of pages have even been whinging about.

 

[silentstriker]

You're looking for perfection in prediction, and you won't find it in any physical system because you will have variables that cannot all possibly be accounted for. Based on the data available, it is consistently significantly superior to any human and I don't think there's any doubt about that.

It's like the best chess engines do not play perfect chess but they would consistently annihilate any and all human players and it wouldn't be close and so picking one vs other to win is not really something that's up for debate anymore.

I think the best reason for keeping umpires call may be that without it, the game would go too far into the bowlers favor (even though of course both sides can benefit depending on the decision) since it seems a lot more balls actually end up hiting the stumps than any of us would have expected pre-DRS and how umpires tend to judge LBWs.

 

[Coronis]

You're looking for perfection in prediction, and you won't find it in any physical system because you will have variables that cannot all possibly be accounted for. Based on the data available, it is consistently significantly superior to any human and I don't think there's any doubt about that.

It's like the best chess engines do not play perfect chess but they would consistently annihilate any and all human players and it wouldn't be close and so picking one vs other to win is not really something that's up for debate anymore.

I think the best reason for keeping umpires call may be that without it, the game would go too far into the bowlers favor (even though of course both sides can benefit depending on the decision) since it seems a lot more balls actually end up hiting the stumps than any of us would have expected pre-DRS and how umpires tend to judge LBWs.

May have been desirable around DRS’ inception, less so now.

 

[Owzat]

Ha, if you mean they still can...then true. But the inventor has just debunked that myth (unless he's bull****ting)

I seem to recall some decade or two ago when it came in that someone said/reported that they tested it bowling at unguarded stumps and it wasn't infallible ie would predict not hitting and hit or vice versa...

be very hard to find now, but unless someone just said it and no substance then I'm not sure it's any less reliable than claiming a person who invented a system "debunked a myth", hardly like he would be impartial.....

FWIW I think most review systems were designed to overturn "clangers" and if it is supposedly close and thus called umpire's call then obviously not a clanger so remains

not hard to work out, sadly VAR in football seems hell bent on proving offside and such rather than accept if you are drawing lines and giving offside by fingernails then maybe just leave decision as it was because not CLEARLY a wrong one whichever way it was given (although that may be part of the problem, they leave it to VAR)

 

[Owzat]

You're looking for perfection in prediction, and you won't find it in any physical system because you will have variables that cannot all possibly be accounted for. Based on the data available, it is consistently significantly superior to any human and I don't think there's any doubt about that.

It's like the best chess engines do not play perfect chess but they would consistently annihilate any and all human players and it wouldn't be close and so picking one vs other to win is not really something that's up for debate anymore.

I think the best reason for keeping umpires call may be that without it, the game would go too far into the bowlers favor (even though of course both sides can benefit depending on the decision) since it seems a lot more balls actually end up hiting the stumps than any of us would have expected pre-DRS and how umpires tend to judge LBWs.

honestly don't think it matters in football, cricket, whatever sport, how accurate a decision or review system is as long as it isn't obviously wrong and stays given wrong (or reversed to obviously wrong) AND the players accept the decision and system

problem with VAR is fans, players and managers won't accept it. maybe overanalysis of decisions to minute detail thus killjoy of any decision, people would rather have a (relatively) quick decision that isn't clearly wrong than one ripped to bits to find the "absolute" truth - fans will disbelieve decisions if you don't get their faith in the process, accuse of bias and worse, players too

even if you scrapped the systems people would just go back to blaming officials, Dickie Bird was a good umpire but he and Shep were respected and their decision was accepted. Think Bucknor also, and others, lot of time for a few of the officials regardless if they make the occasional mistake


also think re umpire's call there is an element of protecting the officials from criticism, margin of error/benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire, no chance with VAR and refs in football

 

[TheJediBrah]

Unless people have actual suggestion to improve the actual technology (which I haven’t seen in this thread yet) I don’t get what the last couple of pages have even been whinging about.

Not strictly improving the technology, but the system:

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" (or fix whatever the thing that messed it up was)

 

[Dick Rockett]

Don't be part of the discussion then.

Why wouldn't I? Because I found his "anti-thinking" comment over the top? I think you're overestimating how much I care about this, or any other topic on here.

CW is just a bunch of random people yakking on the internet. I think it's you guys who are taking it all a bit seriously.

FWIW, I'm not anti-Hawkeye. I think it's a good system and it makes decisions far more accurate. I just don't believe it's infallible and that the umpire's call rule is a good way of acknowledging that and keeping umpires relevant. I really don't think that's an unreasonable take.

You can argue all you like about professionalism and industry, but ultimately we're all just people who enjoy a game, and my personal view is that I like the system as it is. If that means some people think I'm dumb or ignorant or whatever, that's on them.

 

[SteveNZ]

Why wouldn't I? Because I found his "anti-thinking" comment over the top? I think you're overestimating how much I care about this, or any other topic on here.

CW is just a bunch of random people yakking on the internet. I think it's you guys who are taking it all a bit seriously.

FWIW, I'm not anti-Hawkeye. I think it's a good system and it makes decisions far more accurate. I just don't believe it's infallible and that the umpire's call rule is a good way of acknowledging that and keeping umpires relevant. I really don't think that's an unreasonable take.

You can argue all you like about professionalism and industry, but ultimately we're all just people who enjoy a game, and my personal view is that I like the system as it is. If that means some people think I'm dumb or ignorant or whatever, that's on them.

If you don't care, don't care. But I don't think it's anyone's place to say who is taking it too seriously or not. I enjoyed Spark's insights. I don't think you're dumb or anything like that. If you don't want to think too deeply, that's completely cool.

Incidentally, CW is a great outlet for someone like me - I have a family who give zero Fs about cricket, or know anything about it, and I feel like I want to discuss what is going on because it's a passion/obsession for me. I absolutely love it.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I don't think it's anyone's place to say who is taking it too seriously or not.

If you don't want to think too deeply, that's completely cool.

 

[Coronis]

Why wouldn't I? Because I found his "anti-thinking" comment over the top? I think you're overestimating how much I care about this, or any other topic on here.

CW is just a bunch of random people yakking on the internet. I think it's you guys who are taking it all a bit seriously.

FWIW, I'm not anti-Hawkeye. I think it's a good system and it makes decisions far more accurate. I just don't believe it's infallible and that the umpire's call rule is a good way of acknowledging that and keeping umpires relevant. I really don't think that's an unreasonable take.

You can argue all you like about professionalism and industry, but ultimately we're all just people who enjoy a game, and my personal view is that I like the system as it is. If that means some people think I'm dumb or ignorant or whatever, that's on them.

Your posts would indicate otherwise tbh