Hawkeye founder on 'umpires call' debate

[RossTaylorsBox]

Magnificent and also an extremely good point.

 

[Coronis]

I mean seriously though, there’s no umpires call in tennis and I’ve seen calls overturned on a millimeter.

 

[honestbharani]

I mean seriously though, there’s no umpires call in tennis and I’ve seen calls overturned on a millimeter.

Because in tennis, it is about what happened, not some predictive path.

 

[Coronis]

Because in tennis, it is about what happened, not some predictive path.

Oh I get that but still. Isn’t the margin for umpires call ridiculously large too?

 

[Howe_zat]

The idea the umpire's call region was ever anything to do with the accuracy of Hawkeye has only ever been a myth. And quite an obvious one if you think for a moment about how Hawkeye could possibly work. Some of us have been calling it out for near a decade (which I'll provide a link to as quoting in this thread seems a dangerous affair). I doubt this interview will have much impact, though I'd like it to.

 

[Daemon]

The idea the umpire's call region was ever anything to do with the accuracy of Hawkeye has only ever been a myth. And quite an obvious one if you think for a moment about how Hawkeye could possibly work. Some of us have been calling it out for near a decade (which I'll provide a link to as quoting in this thread seems a dangerous affair). I doubt this interview will have much impact, though I'd like it to.

Yep, spot on with that linked post.

 

[Nintendo]

Wonder if this was the guy getting midget's to do differential equations on epstein's island and not big man stevo.

 

[Nintendo]

Also, am I confused here or is his reply at the end a bit weird? The technology being more accurate than the margin in umpire's call doesn't mean that umpire's call can't help account for that, even if it's not the primary purpose.

 

[Ashes81]

Hang on, the guy who founded Hawkeye is called Hawkins? ****ing hell.

So if his name was say Paul Sparrow rather than Paul Hawkins, would it be called Sparroweye

At least he wasn't called Paul Japs

 

[SteveNZ]

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 don't think they quite say that, but they are complicit in the ridiculousness by saying human judgement should have any part in the system.

A great day for justice, this, incidentally. Now no more can anyone repeat the BS dogma about margins for error etc, and any other BS related to a system that should be solely based on the technology and nothing to do with the on-field call. Doubt anything will change, however.

 

[SteveNZ]

Also, am I confused here or is his reply at the end a bit weird? The technology being more accurate than the margin in umpire's call doesn't mean that umpire's call can't help account for that, even if it's not the primary purpose.

What is the primary purpose, other to undermine a superior decision making process?

 

[Coronis]

I don't think they quite say that, but they are complicit in the ridiculousness by saying human judgement should have any part in the system.

A great day for justice, this, incidentally. Now no more can anyone repeat the BS dogma about margins for error etc, and any other BS related to a system that should be solely based on the technology and nothing to do with the on-field call. Doubt anything will change, however.

Oh my sweet summer child.

 

[ataraxia]

Half of this is true.

Disappointed tbh.

 

[kyear2]

I guess to the powers that be, this is akin to using the "soft signal" when referring catches etc and quite honestly keeping some power or relevancy in the hands of the umpires.

 

[SteveNZ]

Oh my sweet summer child.

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

 

[R!TTER]

Because in tennis, it is about what happened, not some predictive path.

Well it also depends on ball tracking, besides how are they calculating the impact on ground? Are there actual sensors on/near the lines or what? If not there's still a massive element of prediction going on - fells like half the forum doesn't even understand how this tech works

Sane goes for cricket but there's multiple impacts & impact points we have to consider especially wrt lbw.

 

[Spark]

Well it also depends on ball tracking, besides how are they calculating the impact on ground? Are there actual sensors on/near the lines or what? If not there's still a massive element of prediction going on - fells like half the forum doesn't even understand how this tech works

Sane goes for cricket but there's multiple impacts & impact points we have to consider especially wrt lbw.

I don't think you understand how this tech works if you think that this is a remotely difficult problem with the camera technology we've had for years now.

 

[Spikey]

what am I supposed to believe in regards to umpires call

 

[R!TTER]

I don't think you understand how this tech works if you think that this is a remotely difficult problem with the camera technology we've had for years now.

Maybe I don't, because I haven't actually seen/read on any sources of their data collection, but you do understand that without actual sensors on the ground you're guesstimating where the ball has bounced, don't you? Secondly with tennis at least at the initial impact the surface area of contact would be smaller, then just before the ball bounces, the area expands. It isn't rocket science - heck the projection part, for hawk eye based lbws, is decades old established science. Ever heard of guided missiles?

 

[Spark]

Maybe I don't, because I haven't actually seen/read on any sources of their data collection, but you do understand that without actual sensors on the ground you're guesstimating where the ball has bounced, don't you? Secondly with tennis at least at the initial impact the surface area of contact would be smaller, then just before the ball bounces, the area expands. It isn't rocket science - heck the projection part, for hawk eye based lbws, is decades old established science. Ever heard of guided missiles?

I could give the data generated by the Hawkeye cameras - the location of the ball frame-by-frame, one every hundredth of a second or so or whatever they use - and give it to a 1st year physics student and I would be disappointed if they did not get the correct answer to within 5cm. It's not at all a difficult problem, the difficulty lies in automating the process and making it fast.