Technology - What's Your Verdict?

[C_C]

This is the same hawkeye that actually couldn't cope with Warne in the summer then?

Elaborate, sil vous plait.

 

[marc71178]

Warne bowled a ball that Hawkeye actually refused to count as a ball since it turned so far.

 

[C_C]

Warne bowled a ball that Hawkeye actually refused to count as a ball since it turned so far.

And 1 faux pass negates the categoric advantage it has had over the naked eye for hundreds of balls ?!

 

[marc71178]

What categoric advantage is that?

Because it's not yet done much to prove anything.

And if the umpires were able to concentrate on just one end they'd be able to get things a lot more correct.

 

[Richard]

I don't agree.

If I open a thread about the uses of technology, I don't want to

Well, news-flash - what you want isn't the be-all-and-end-all, or anything close to.

 

[Scaly piscine]

What categoric advantage is that?

Because it's not yet done much to prove anything.

And if the umpires were able to concentrate on just one end they'd be able to get things a lot more correct.

Because you were obviously there when they were testing to tell use it's 'not yet done much to prove anything', and of course you've been doing your own in depth evaluation of it over the past few months as well no doubt.

 

[C_C]

What categoric advantage is that?

Because it's not yet done much to prove anything.

And if the umpires were able to concentrate on just one end they'd be able to get things a lot more correct.

The categoric advantage is its accuracy - ability to predict the path of a delivery within a cm or two- which is more accurate than the human eye/mind combination.

Nevermind the fact that the hawkeye is not even state of the art tracking and trajectory calculation instrument - it is not even an 'average' one - if you were to employ even an 'average' one, its accuracy and consistency would be better than any human umpire can manage.
That is a fact i can prove easily - i can supply you information about numerous products and their capabilities in trajectory calculations and tracking algorithms.

 

[Richard]

Except one of the set of comments relate to the subject matter - the other is being forced onto us yet again.

Not really - the "subject-matter" is the use of technology in the current state, not if it had been so 4 years ago.
Not that that makes the comment one that shouldn't have been made.

 

[Richard]

Except there's a difference between evolution of discussion and you repeating the same tripe in several threads.

The second is actually a form of the first.

 

[Richard]

I'm in favour of minor additions that leave the main decisions in the hands of the umpire, but not of the major things like Snicko and Hawkeye because I don't trust them enough.

And your mistrust of Snicko is utterly silly, the chances of the human eye and ear making a mistake are ALWAYS more likely.
As such, Snicko will ALWAYS give a better chance of a fair decision.

 

[Richard]

And if the umpires were able to concentrate on just one end they'd be able to get things a lot more correct.

There's absolutely no reason to suppose that.
We'll only find-out if the calling of no-balls is indeed removed from their workload and everything else left.

 

[marc71178]

The second is actually a form of the first.

No, 1 is enjoyable, the other is akin to spamming...

 

[Craig]

And yet you keep responding to them which makes you just as bad IMO.

If it so pointless, ignore it and don't post. Is it really that hard?

 

[Craig]

If you are wondering I am in favour of technology. Anything to make the game better and get the right decision. Also an umpire will always back his judgement first before going upstairs? They only go because they aren't sure. It is no as though they are lazy and are wimping out of making a call.

 

[howardj]

Well, the experiment is over, what did people make of it? Myself, I thought it was rather revealing that the only two howlers in the match came from when Rudi didn't consult the video umpire - Inzy and Boucher's dismissals. All in all, Im in favour of retaining it.

 

[lionheart]

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.

 

[steds]

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.

*waits for James to link this.*

 

[Slow Love™]

Well, the experiment is over, what did people make of it? Myself, I thought it was rather revealing that the only two howlers in the match came from when Rudi didn't consult the video umpire - Inzy and Boucher's dismissals. All in all, Im in favour of retaining it.

I think that the general consensus seems to be that it all went down pretty well. Myself, I was quite happy with how it went, and I think we got excellent results when the decisions were referred.

But there are certainly some issues in terms of implementation. We still saw, as you mentioned, a couple of horror calls that weren't referred - and this will happen now and then. People's expectations need to be reasonable, in terms of the fact that this will not completely eliminate errors. The main objective is to be "more accurate" rather than "100% perfect", and improve confidence in the umpiring standards. I do think that a decision like Boucher's in the first innings should always be referred, and that was poor from Koertzen.

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.

I read an article in the Age last night, in which opinions as to the increased technology usage were somewhat split amongst the four players asked about it. Ponting was quite positive and felt it had been useful to have, and so did MacGill. But McGrath wasn't very keen on it, and Graeme Smith expressed some doubt as well.

 

[Scaly piscine]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/4350868.stm

Hawk-Eye to help tennis umpires

The Hawk-Eye ball-tracking system is to be used at all tournaments on the international tennis circuit.
Hawk-Eye, which uses cameras to follow the ball's trajectory and provide the data for a computer graphic, will aid umpires with line calls.

It has been used at all Grand Slam and Masters Series events for the last three years, but only on television.

Now it has been ratified by the International Tennis Federation it will be used at international tournaments.

"This is a huge vote of confidence in Hawk-Eye and confirmation that it's the only system capable of delivering the accuracy demanded by the tennis authorities," said Peter Salmon, chief executive of the Television Corporation, which owns Hawk-Eye.

The use of Hawk-Eye was ratified by the International Tennis Federation and the ATP and WTA Tours.


Will be interesting to see how it goes and if that will change some of the ridiculous "My naked eye knows better than Hawk-Eye" attitudes around here. I guess this also shows that it could potentially be used for cricket without massive delays - for things like whether a ball pitched on the stumps at least.

 

[marc71178]

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.