*Official* - Road to India in South Africa - 2010-11

[Jarquis]

Yeah. I'll say it again, Hawkeye isn't perfect. Hawkeye saying 6% =/= 6%, that's why the element of doubt is there.

 

[Shri]

It shouldn't be used in the first place if there is an element of doubt.

 

[Teja.]

Australia v England: Ponting unimpressed with technology | Cricket News | The Ashes 2010-11 | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Jarquis]

It shouldn't be used in the first place if there is an element of doubt.

Why? It's more accurate and less of a doubt than the human eye ffs

 

[Teja.]

While UDRS is a stupid system, Human umpiring is worse.

 

[Contra]

Can someone also tell me why there are only 2 referrals instead of 3? I only got to know when I was watching the Ashes. I was like wtf.

2 referrals is nothing..

 

[Shri]

Why? It's more accurate and less of a doubt than the human eye ffs

That contradicts your previous posts. If you are fine with a 6% deviation with the hawk eye, you should be okay with the % of deviation with the human eye too.

 

[Blaze 18]

Yeah, not bothered. And the way it is being used in the ashes does not seem to convince me either. Hate the 'on field umpire's call stands if the decision is marginal' part.

The UDRS system only seeks to eliminate howlers so I guess that is fair enough.

 

[Jarquis]

No I shouldn't, not if the % deviation of the human eye is > that of Hawkeye

 

[Blaze 18]

Can someone also tell me why there are only 2 referrals instead of 3? I only got to know when I was watching the Ashes. I was like wtf.

2 referrals is nothing..

Isn't it two unsuccessful referrals ?

 

[Shri]

No I shouldn't, not if the % deviation of the human eye is > that of Hawkeye

How do you know for certain that the human eye margin of error is over 6% when 95%(not sure) of umpiring decisions are correct anyway without the UDRS?

 

[Jarquis]

I picked 6% as a random number ftr.
The point was if such a small part of the ball is hitting the stumps, how can you be sure it was hitting or not when you account for the slight inaccuracy? Or whether it'd even disturb the bails with such a small portion of the ball?
You can't guarantee that with Hawkeye only, so the umpire's call stands.

It's not perfect but Hawkeye will improve the number of correct decisions and that's all that should matter really.

 

[Contra]

Isn't it two unsuccessful referrals ?

Yeah it use to be 3 previously though.

 

[M0rphin3]

Hawk eye uses the data from 4+ cams from various angles, which is much more accurate than the view we get.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's the height of arrogance to look at something from HawkEye and think "Nah, that's wrong." It's far, far more accurate than your eyesight, which is the precisely the reason it gets used.

 

[Prince EWS]

If it is hitting the stumps, it is hitting the stumps. Doesn't matter if it is 6% or 1%. If it is used extensively, people will get used to it and realize that it is actually fair.

Yeah. I agree. This could be cricket's ultimate answer to the balance-between-bat-and-bowl problem we've been having for a decade or two now. If HawkEye says you're out lbw - even marginally - then pack 'em.

 

[ankitj]

Road to India in South Africa? No bounce and seam movement then?

 

[Shri]

Road to India in South Africa? No bounce and seam movement then?

Check the first few pages. All puns done to death.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Australia v England: Ponting unimpressed with technology | Cricket News | The Ashes 2010-11 | ESPN Cricinfo

Not really relevant to the UDRS.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, not bothered. And the way it is being used in the ashes does not seem to convince me either. Hate the 'on field umpire's call stands if the decision is marginal' part.

Think if decision is marginal, it should go to batsman EVERY time, myself.. The ol' benefit of doubt rule.