Technology - What's Your Verdict?

[SquidAU]

...it would seem that snicko isn't either, and I see no reason they shouldn't have access to this...

I think the umpires were wired to the stump mike anyways? So snicko was used, just not the graphic for it!

 

[Scaly piscine]

Erm how exactly does it change anything?

Hawkeye in Tennis is tracking the balls actual path, not predicting if it would've landed on the line or not.

As I said at the end, it could easily say whether a ball pitched on the stumps or outside leg. Or if you wanted you could super-impose the path of the ball up to the point of contact with the pads onto the replay.

 

[Dasa]

Another thing I would like to see which I think would resolve some issues is the super-slomo closeup that we saw in the UK. In watching the Super Series, I never even saw this used in the TV coverage, so I assume it wasn't available for the third umpire to help their decisions, either (it would seem that snicko isn't either, and I see no reason they shouldn't have access to this). The slomo closeup is a fantastic tool - it really makes calls that look quite difficult far more evident and conclusive. I wonder if it's a licensing issue? As to third umpire usage, there might also be a factor in terms of how fast those images can be processed. Either way, the sooner this can be used, the better, as I think it would do a hell of a lot to improve confidence in the decisions being made.

The super slo-mo was used at times...I remember Bill Lawry seeing a super slo-mo of Dravid's defence and going on and on about it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think the technology is pointless. When it goes up stairs to the third-umpire he has to be able to say "yes thats definately out", or "no, thats definately not out", none of this benefit of the doubt bullsh*t. In the meantime I'd much prefer the drama that comes along with the on-field umpires decision.

The filter is there for a reason...

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think that now that they've tinkered with the idea, even if they renege on it temporarily - it's inevitable that they keep on using it. Every time there is a bad decision now, commentators will say "I'm sure if they could have referred that to the 3rd umpire, they would have made the right decision", and when a team sees it as having cost them the game, then they'll kick up a stink about it too.

The other side of the coin is that umpires don't want to "do a Rudi" and fire someone out when replays show that they probably weren't out. This means that, as happened a fair bit with the introduction of the 3rd umpire for run-outs, there will be far too much referred to the video man, and thus far too much time occupied through the deliberation of decisions. In addition, often with just basic replays, it is just guess work for the video umpire, and while it may be a more educated guess, chances are they will still be wrong at various stages.

I personally hope that they get rid of it, and add a cyclops type mechanism for no-balls to help the umpires concentrate solely on decisions.

 

[C_C]

Erm how exactly does it change anything?

Hawkeye in Tennis is tracking the balls actual path, not predicting if it would've landed on the line or not.

Dude, there is no difference really.
Once you have the equipment to track a ball's path and its aspects accurately, projecting its path is merely the application of simple Newtonian mechanics.

 

[marc71178]

So when has Hawkeye successfully followed the somewhat unique to England concept of the swinging once the ball goes past the batsman then?

It follows a straight line as if there were no obstruction - hence it's perfect for Tennis line calls...

 

[C_C]

So when has Hawkeye successfully followed the somewhat unique to England concept of the swinging once the ball goes past the batsman then?

It follows a straight line as if there were no obstruction - hence it's perfect for Tennis line calls...

I fail to understand why you cant conceptualise a very simple thing such as projecting the path of a delivery given you know the speed, the angle and the angular momentum of the ball ( thus you can figure out deviation changes).
It is very very simple projection stuff - that is, once you have equipment sensetive enough to measure all these variables.
High speed zoom cameras can measure it more accurately than the human eye can.
And if the hawkeye is good for tennis calls, it is good for cricket calls. Tennis has underspin/topspin/overspin to it as well and that is the same sort of simulation as the ball swinging.
Ofcourse it wont count late swing because technically speaking, late swing is an optical illusion - there is no such thing as late swing really. It is just conventional swing that looks like late swing due to the angle of delivery and the bounce of the ball.

 

[vic_orthdox]

somewhat unique to England concept of the swinging once the ball goes past the batsman then?

And Ian Bishop.

 

[marc71178]

And if the hawkeye is good for tennis calls, it is good for cricket calls. Tennis has underspin/topspin/overspin to it as well and that is the same sort of simulation as the ball swinging.

Except in tennis there is no obstruction and absolutely no debate as to what the ball is doing (since it is then irrelevant)

 

[C_C]

Except in tennis there is no obstruction and absolutely no debate as to what the ball is doing (since it is then irrelevant)

What do you mean there is absolutely no debate about 'what the ball is doing' in tennis ?
In tennis, the ball does considerable stuff, like dip due to topspin or float due to underspin and obstruction or not, it is just a rather simple modelling involving newtonian laws.
I repeat, as long as you have equipment sensetive enough to measure the speed, angle and angular momentum on the ball, projecting its path is a piece of cake and will be far more accurate than the human eye. Period.

 

[marc71178]

With a ball there is no doubt in Tennis where it has bounced, because there's nothing put in its way to bring up any doubt (because if it hits something then it doesn't matter whether it would've hit the line or not)

So when and where the ball bounces is irrelevant.

 

[C_C]

With a ball there is no doubt in Tennis where it has bounced, because there's nothing put in its way to bring up any doubt (because if it hits something then it doesn't matter whether it would've hit the line or not)

So when and where the ball bounces is irrelevant.

Irrelevant.
The point is, in tennis, just like in cricket, you are simulating based on velocity and anglular momentum, thus you can efficiently predict the path of the ball , regardless of whether it has bounced or not.

 

[marc71178]

No, that is irrelevant - Hawkeye in Tennis is there to follow the path of a ball before bouncing (thus removing any spin factor) and without obstructions - thus just making the tight line calls accurate.

If that was all it was needed for in Cricket then Cricket as we know it is going to be played with full tosses all the time.

 

[C_C]

No, that is irrelevant - Hawkeye in Tennis is there to follow the path of a ball before bouncing (thus removing any spin factor) and without obstructions - thus just making the tight line calls accurate.

If that was all it was needed for in Cricket then Cricket as we know it is going to be played with full tosses all the time.

No it is very relevant to cricket, since the fundamental control systems and modelling is the same for hawkeye - be it tennis or cricket. The principles related to predicting the ball's movement in Cricket and Tennis is pretty much just the same and when hawkeye is showing close line-calls in tennis, it *IS* projecting the path as well. Which is why you see a hawkeye projection and not a freeze-frame look that was common until just a couple of years ago.

Whether you like it or not, fact remains that technology can do the job better than a human umpire can.
Hawkeye may not be perfect but it is damn sight better than erroneous ***tagenarian umpires.
And if sufficient investment is made, you can easily come up with an algorithm sophisticated enough to render human umpiring completely inferior.

 

[Slow Love™]

There's an interesting discussion on the pros and cons of the technology debate going on right now between the cricinfo writers at the Wicket to Wicket blog:

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/wicket_to_wicket/archives/technology_in_umpiring/index.php