luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, I know. I've worked with computers for 25 years and they are still all out to get me.Lions81 said:(the important stuff snipped)
and so Marc and LE, you don't have to be scared of computers. Embrace them!
-
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.
High time ICC have a check on the umpires
- Thread starter biased indian
- Start date
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Hawkeye will stand on one leg when the score reaches 111.Sehwag309 said:
No...that's when hawk-eye is at its best and the umpire is most vulnerable. By immediately after pitching I meant after travelling a small but finite distance(the other case i've considered below).In this case the umpire wouldnt have seen clearly how much the ball would have bounced and seamed and he makes his judgement based on his prior knowledge of the wicket. But that decision has a good chance of being wrong as that particular ball may behave differently (i.e. bounce lower or seam less). Whereas since hawk-eye would have captured its path from the point of pitching to the point where it meets the pad, it knows the angle at which it left the ground and hence it predicts correctly the destination of the ball (based on the fallible but necessary assumption that the ball wouldnt behave unpredictably in the air).marc71178 said:
If the ball meets the pads on the full the umpire has to assume that it would have continued along the same path as before pitching.The fact that the ball would/may have pitched on the ground and may have taken some deviation through spin, or the roughness of the ground, due to that pitching IS OF NO INTEREST to the umpire. He does not have to guess the amount of deviation that the ball may have taken due to this imaginary pitching. All the umpire is concerned with is the path of the ball before it was intercepted and then mentally extend that path to judge whether it would have taken the ball onto the wickets. Clearly as I've said before hawk-eye can do this and more accurately than the umpire.
As regards to time-wastage I agree. I dont want hawk-eye to replace the umpires. I am just arguing that it is far more accurate than the umpire.
No. you misunderstood me. That assumption is so that unpredictable quirks of the ball (like wobbling or late swing) ,which nobody can predict due to the nature of fluid-dynamics, dont have to be taken into account. What you point out is the overall swing which is easily predicted based on the movement of the ball prior to meeting the pad.marc71178 said:
The experience that the umpire has is a rough,extremely fallible guide because every individual ball need not follow the pattern. The best thing to do is to judge each ball based on its path prior to meeting the pad. Of course the umpire cannot do this for every ball. So he has to compromise and use his experience of the wicket whereas hawk-eye doesnt have this weakness and hence doesnt need this experience. So hawk-eye is far more accurate.
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I reckon that we ought to apply Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle to this problem.
Anyone got a box and a few cats?
Anyone got a box and a few cats?
Lions81
U19 Cricketer
I think Hawkeye can be programmed to account for variations of the ball in air. Marc and Lucky Eddie seem to underestimate the level of sophistication involved in Hawkeye. Hawkeye is more accurate than a human being! Face it. Asking me to provide evidence is like Aquinas' infinite regression dilemma. Clearly one can keep asking questions forever and ever and try to stifle the main point of the argument. I would ask, since more people than not would say that a computer is more accurate than a human being in this regard, what scientific evidence you two have to the contrary? I haven't seen any technical specs or articles detailing these facts you have about Hawkeye. Marc claims that Hawkeye would assume the ball went straight. Prove it.marc71178 said:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I was told a couple of years ago that the programming of Hawkeye was based upon the tracking of 1000 deliveries of different types bowled by Angus Fraser. That may have been a joke.Lions81 said:
I certainly don't underestimate the sophistication of the software, having been involved in providing software solutions for a quarter of a century myself.
There seems little doubt in my mind that Hawkeye is a wonderful tracking tool and it has much to offer the game, but the one thing it does not have going for it is the 'hmmmm' factor - rational thought.
I watched yesterday's play from St John's with great interest, especially the Hawkeye replays, and yes, the predicted path does allow for curves. One, though, which had a few people baffled was an inswinger (one of the few which moved during the day) which appeared to strike the batsman a gnat's whisker outside the line of off stick. "Great decision, umpire." came the call from the commentators. Then they 'removed' the batsman from the frame, rotated the Hawkeye image and the ball seemed to be missing off stump by almost a foot and swinging away - as though it was a completely different delivery altogether (which I suspect it was).
No, I don't underestimate the level of sophistication involved - I'm a programmer and I know other programmers - and believe me, I'm surprised how some of them can remember to breathe in after breathing out.
Lions81
U19 Cricketer
Haha, fair enough. But I still don't see what is wrong with allowing the umpire Hawkeye as a tool to help him/her make a decision.luckyeddie said:
Imagine this scenario: the bowler is running in to the batsmen, 50,000 spectators are screaming at the top of the lungs, the ball pitches, the fielding team is in an uproar appealing for an LBW, and now the umpire has to make a decision in a 2-3 second window. Did the ball hit the bat first? Well the umpire couldn't hear it. Did it pitch in line? It was a 90 mph delivery, and the umpire couldn't judge it well. Well normally the umpire will give the benefit to the batsman and say not out. Maybe on this occasion he says out. Well, let's imagine a world with Hawkeye. The umpire refers the appeal to the third umpire, who views the delivery on hawkeye. Hawkeye gives the third umpire a decision, but the third umpire can replay the delivery from many angles and makes the final determination as to whether it was out. Then he puts on the appropriately-colored light, and the crowd roars with approval/disapproval.
What's so wrong with that? Notice the presence of the umpire (for those who were worried Hawkeye would put umpires out of a job) as well as the possibility that a human could overrule the computer if he felt the computer was wrong. And, in my opinion, the few seconds before a decision is given out/not out (exemplified by the wait for the third umpire's decision on a run out) are among the most exhilarating moments of the game.
Swervy
International Captain
the top and bottom of it all is that the LBW is a matter of opinion (for example, did a batsman offer a shot etc), things like runouts etc are matters of fact,hence we have replays with the 3rd umpire that help out with runouts, these things cannot be done with LBW's
Run-outs are reducible to matters of fact...but LBWs can ultimately be reduced to matters of opinion only. But the opinion as expressed by technology is a better informed opinion than the umpire's and hence a better one. (Not to put down the umpires they do the best with what they've got)Swervy said: