[VIDEOS] Problems with Hawkeye ball-tracking?

[Executioner]

The inspiration for this thread was the LBW appeal from Tahir against Hafeez. I though that looked plumb and i felt the ball should not have gone so easily over the stumps. Even from the side on angle did didn't feel like that. Yet the ball comfortable went over the stumps.

Now I am not saying that the Hawkeye is biased against any team. It is just that I have seen many matches where the ball from the spinners missing the stumps for height. Now this does not particularly apply to pacers but rather pacers. I feel at times, the hawk-eye might not be too accurate for spinners as it is for pacers.

It is often quite the case when it comes to matches in the subcontinent. I have seen DRS decisions against and in favor of Bangladesh going in favor for Bangladesh because the ball just leaped over the stumps so easily. And mind you everytime I have felt that there might be a need to tweak the hawkeye.

What to do you lads think?

 

[Boi]

It hit his stomach.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Lol. He was not out. Look at the raw image, he was very far down the crease.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Glad the batting side wasn’t India.

A lot of people would be crying here over it and we would have ourselves a 10 page thread within a day

 

[Hawkeye]

It was totally fine and expected.

The ball hit way above his kneecap, had it been in front of the leg it would've been above the knee pad.

I can confirm that the tracking was fine, look at the height and then talk. Don't make a drama out of it, just for the sake of it.

Also, I'm much more accurate than the naked eye. It's the best you have.

 

[Executioner]

It hit his stomach.

He was done on his knees. I was expecting umpire's call or perhaps miss by a cm, but that missed by a big margin.

But several instances i have seen the ball rising too high against spinners.

 

[Hawkeye]

Glad the batting side wasn’t India.

A lot of people would be crying here over it and we would have ourselves a 10 page thread within a day

Yes, that is also true.

Our PAK fans would have made a drama out of it, just like the Ajmal's dismissal. Emotions run high, people are rarely objective when it happens to their team.

Hawkeye, however, has no emotions. Only facts. A prediction 98% correct.

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

If you look at the side on view the ball was clearly gonna go over

 

[Executioner]

It was totally fine and expected.

The ball hit way above his kneecap, had it been in front of the leg it would've been above the knee pad.

I can confirm that the tracking was fine, look at the height and then talk. Don't make a drama out of it, just for the sake of it.

Also, I'm much more accurate than the naked eye. It's the best you have.

I don't create drama for the sake of it. And I don't have particular agenda here as I don't dislike Pakistan if that is what you are thinking. I have seen Bangladesh players survive LBW because hawkeye said the ball bounced over the stumps and that still felt weird to me.

 

[Hawkeye]

I don't create drama for the sake of it. And I don't have particular agenda here as I don't dislike Pakistan if that is what you are thinking. I have seen Bangladesh players survive LBW because hawkeye said the ball bounced over the stumps and that still felt weird to me.

No, I'm not saying you have an agenda. Totally not.

Just saying, the flight of the ball and trajectory was going over the stumps. It's not just you, our PAK brothers also love to create drama out of Hawkeye predictions -- Ajmal was the biggest case.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Yes, that is also true.

Our PAK fans would have made a drama out of it, just like the Ajmal's dismissal. Emotions run high, people are rarely objective when it happens to their team.

Hawkeye, however, has no emotions. Only facts. A prediction 98% correct.

Tendulkar was plumb out though. I’m surprised that many Pakistani fans have been manipulated to believe the DRS footage shown that day wasn’t altered.

Today though it looked not out clearly. I was sitting with my cousin brother and I declared it was going over the stumps the moment it happened

 

[Hawkeye]

Tendulkar was plumb out though. I’m surprised that many Pakistani fans have been manipulated to believe the DRE footage shown that day wasn’t altered.

Nice try there.

Anyways, parosis also do make a drama out of Hawkeye predictions. It's not only us Pak folks.

 

[Swashbuckler]

I think it is because of the spin generated, more the spin more the bounce. In tennis topspin shots bounce more than normal flat shots especially when the pace is less. That is what makes Nadal so difficult to play on clay, he imparts ridiculous rpms on the ball and it bounces shoulder high.

 

[Itachi]

I think it is because of the spin generated, more the spin more the bounce. In tennis topspin shots bounce more than normal flat shots especially when the pace is less. That is what makes Nadal so difficult to play on clay, he imparts ridiculous rpms on the ball and it bounces shoulder high.

Topspin means?

 

[Swashbuckler]

Topspin means?

In tennis, why does topspin serve bounce higher than flat serve?

When the player hits the ball with top spin, it makes the ball, well, spin.

By spinning, the ball will modify the airflow around itself and thus create an air pressure profile which will deflect the ball : this is the Magnus effect.

So by applying top spin on the ball the way tennis players do, the ball is rotating in the direction of the trajectory. This will bend the trajectory downwards. If you look at the ball's speed as a vector, the vertical component of the top-spun ball's velocity is greater than the normal served ball.

You simply direct the ball more vertically into the ground with a top spin. So after contact with the ground, the ball with top spin will leave the ground more vertically than a normal ball.

Since you are familiar with the sport, you might also have noticed that after contact, the top-spun ball will slightly accelerate towards you. This comes from the fact that part of its rotation has transfered itself into horizontal momentum. If you let a spinning ball fall vertically on the ground, after contact, it will fly out flat in some direction. I think this is also one of the reason why top spin serves are so hard to handle.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64640/in-tennis-why-does-topspin-serve-bounce-higher-than-flat-serve

 

[Executioner]

No, I'm not saying you have an agenda. Totally not.

Just saying, the flight of the ball and trajectory was going over the stumps. It's not just you, our PAK brothers also love to create drama out of Hawkeye predictions -- Ajmal was the biggest case.

I have seen Bangladesh fans say that after the LBW shout against Raina in 2015 WC, hawkeye result was altered so that the ball pitches marginally outside leg. Victim mentality. Absolute nonsense.

And I am not saying there is irregularity with Hawkeye, rather i feel the ball from spinners bounce a bit higher than my liking(regularly)

 

[Executioner]

Mike Hussey sharing the same sentiment: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/video_audio/1190660.html

Now to me, that looked out but knowing that the DRS makes the ball bounce a lot i knew that the decision would be overturned because of the error here. Shakib got lucky tbh and he is not the only one.

 

[GrandMaster]

Rashid to Shakib looked plumb to me but as per DRS it was missing the stump.

 

[Captain caveman]

Lot of people making fun of OP, but i have for a long time thought drs is not so accurate with spin bowling!
Its straight forward to predict the trajectory of a pacers delivery even taking into account of seam and swing.
Technically, much more difficult to predict spin and bounce of a spin delivery, especially if contact is outside the batting crease!
As for hafeez's decision, looks correct, as from the side view shown on tv pictures, ball was at least level with the top of the bails and was rising when it made contact with hafeez.

 

[Saj]

I think it's been set to playing in Australia or South Africa mode.

Some of those deliveries are not going over the stumps by the margin that hawkeye is showing.

 

[Titan24]

He was forward and ball hit his stomach.

Also hawkeye isnt that difficult of a simulation to carry out as it just measures the angle and bounce of the ball taking while taking into account the distance it has to travel and carries on the ball with same trajectory. If they cant have this not so difficult thing right than I dont know what to say.

However, controversies have always remained, in WC 2011 Tendulkar’s dismissal off Ajmal’s bowling was denied by hawkeye which was pretty surprising. I also remember dismissal of Shan Masood in tests where he was bowled a yorker (Not exactly sure about the bowler) and bowl moves in hawkwye simulation after pitching towards the stumps which it could never have measured as ball hit straight on the foot and looked like going towards legside.

 

[Shaddy86]

I think it's been set to playing in Australia or South Africa mode.

Some of those deliveries are not going over the stumps by the margin that hawkeye is showing.

I thought it would use the data gathered from that match/pitch and see how other deliveries have bounced on certain lengths and predict accordingly.

 

[Captain caveman]

Sorry, as someone who used to be a software engineer, its very difficult to predict the spin on a ball.
Lets take the ball of the last century, warne to gatting,i know the ball hit the wickets, but for arguments sake lets say gatting got in the way of the ball, do you think drs would have given that out?
No chance!

 

[Titan24]

Sorry, as someone who used to be a software engineer, its very difficult to predict the spin on a ball.
Lets take the ball of the last century, warne to gatting,i know the ball hit the wickets, but for arguments sake lets say gatting got in the way of the ball, do you think drs would have given that out?
No chance!

I think that ball pitched outside leg so hawkeye wouldnt have given it out.

When the data is already available i.e angle and bounce of the ball till it hits the pad, it shouldnt be difficult to carry on the ball in the same trajectory for the remaining distance towards the stumps.

 

[Titan24]

I thought it would use the data gathered from that match/pitch and see how other deliveries have bounced on certain lengths and predict accordingly.

A top spinner with extra bounce or uneven bounce will always be wrongly estimated if that was the case. Not sure why Hawkeye will have to assume or fed anything when the trajectory of any ball along with bounce is already there which just needs to be carried on towards the stumps.

If they really do this what you are saying than it would always be risky in my opinion as bowl not always bounces consistently throughout the match. I think it doesnt have to assume or being fed anything as bounce and direction of the ball is already measured till it hits the pad and simulation carries out the rest of the path towards the stumps.

 

[Captain caveman]

I think that ball pitched outside leg so hawkeye wouldnt have given it out.

When the data is already available i.e angle and bounce of the ball till it hits the pad, it shouldnt be difficult to carry on the ball in the same trajectory for the remaining distance towards the stumps.

Yes sir you are right, the ball did pitch outside leg!
Poor example by me!
What i am trying to say is that if the ball hits the player before it has completely finished its deviation from the spin put on the ball, then it will be almost impossible for hawkeye to judge the correct trajectory of the ball because the ball has not completed its spin and may or may not go on to hit the stumps.
I hope i have explained myself better now.
Apologies for the earlier example.

 

[Sherlock]

I cannot fathom the thought of Rashid Khan's delivery to Shakib yesterday going over the stumps. Even the umpire had a wry smirk and an expression of "WTH"

 

[Itachi]

If there is no DRS, then people will complain. More often, indian posters were labelled BCCI cheer leaders when they showed the same concern.

If there is DRS, then people will complain that it is not perfect enough (by the way, which we were telling since beginning)

I want to ask. What do people want? Everyone seems to complain but no one has an answer to the problem.

 

[Titan24]

Yes sir you are right, the ball did pitch outside leg!
Poor example by me!
What i am trying to say is that if the ball hits the player before it has completely finished its deviation from the spin put on the ball, then it will be almost impossible for hawkeye to judge the correct trajectory of the ball because the ball has not completed its spin and may or may not go on to hit the stumps.
I hope i have explained myself better now.
Apologies for the earlier example.

No issues at all. I understand the point you are making and cant deny that Hawkeye can never be 100%, but its as good as its gets at the moment in cricket.

 

[Executioner]

If there is no DRS, then people will complain. More often, indian posters were labelled BCCI cheer leaders when they showed the same concern.

If there is DRS, then people will complain that it is not perfect enough (by the way, which we were telling since beginning)

I want to ask. What do people want? Everyone seems to complain but no one has an answer to the problem.

We are not talking about DRS being faulty. It's still ideal BUT I have seen some several examples where the ball from the spinner bounces too much at times.

 

[HitWicket]

I think it's been set to playing in Australia or South Africa mode.

Some of those deliveries are not going over the stumps by the margin that hawkeye is showing.

The laws of physics don't change depending on the country you're in.

 

[HitWicket]

Yes sir you are right, the ball did pitch outside leg!
Poor example by me!
What i am trying to say is that if the ball hits the player before it has completely finished its deviation from the spin put on the ball, then it will be almost impossible for hawkeye to judge the correct trajectory of the ball because the ball has not completed its spin and may or may not go on to hit the stumps.
I hope i have explained myself better now.
Apologies for the earlier example.

A balls either pitched or it hasn't. If it hasn't pitched then obviously there's no issue with predicting the spin. If it has pitched then you've got a pitching reference point and an impact reference point that will show the spin.

 

[Captain caveman]

No issues at all. I understand the point you are making and cant deny that Hawkeye can never be 100%, but its as good as its gets at the moment in cricket.

Yes i agree!
Better to have hawkeye than not to.
Before hawkeye there were so many dodgy decisions!
I guess i am being over critical, i don't think they will ever be a 100% perfect system!

 

[Captain caveman]

A balls either pitched or it hasn't. If it hasn't pitched then obviously there's no issue with predicting the spin. If it has pitched then you've got a pitching reference point and an impact reference point that will show the spin.

A fuller delivery or a batsman trying to get to the pitch of the ball to smother the spin and in both cases the ball hits the batsman pad infront of the stumps, there is no way of telling if the ball will hit the wickets or spin away from the wickets as the spin has been smothered when it impacts the batsman's pad!

 

[HitWicket]

A fuller delivery or a batsman trying to get to the pitch of the ball to smother the spin and in both cases the ball hits the batsman pad infront of the stumps, there is no way of telling if the ball will hit the wickets or spin away from the wickets as the spin has been smothered when it impacts the batsman's pad!

The ball has still either pitched, turned and hit the pad (giving you reference points) or hit the batsman on the full.

 

[Captain caveman]

A fuller delivery or a batsman trying to get to the pitch of the ball to smother the spin and in both cases the ball hits the batsman pad infront of the stumps, there is no way of telling if the ball will hit the wickets or spin away from the wickets as the spin has been smothered when it impacts the batsman's pad!

Rashid khan of afghanistan bowls alot of these full deliveries in line with the stumps and alot of the time the ball spins past the stumps, but if one of these deliveries were to hit the batsman's pad , it would almost certainly be given lbw, but there is no way of really knowing if the ball would hit the stumps because the spin on the ball is smothered!

 

[Captain caveman]

The ball has still either pitched, turned and hit the pad (giving you reference points) or hit the batsman on the full.

Let me try again!
There has to be sufficient gap from when the ball pitches and begins to spin and when the ball impacts on the batsman's pad, for hawkeye to use these two reference points to work out the path of the ball.
But if the delivery is fuller or the batsman has got to the pitch of the ball, then the gap is non existent as far as hawkeye is concerned, to give a realistic pathway of the ball.

 

[HitWicket]

Let me try again!
There has to be sufficient gap from when the ball pitches and begins to spin and when the ball impacts on the batsman's pad, for hawkeye to use these two reference points to work out the path of the ball.
But if the delivery is fuller or the batsman has got to the pitch of the ball, then the gap is non existent as far as hawkeye is concerned, to give a realistic pathway of the ball.

Could you provide some examples of where you believe this has happened causing inaccuracies?

 

[Third Man]

Could you provide some examples of where you believe this has happened causing inaccuracies?

He's probably right, though. Do you really think Hawkeye is accurate enough to judge the trajectory of a delivery that has a pitch-to-impact distance of mere centimeters? I don't think it is.

 

[cricket_cfa]

Trajectory is drawn by which software

 

[Indiafan]

Yes sir you are right, the ball did pitch outside leg!
Poor example by me!
What i am trying to say is that if the ball hits the player before it has completely finished its deviation from the spin put on the ball, then it will be almost impossible for hawkeye to judge the correct trajectory of the ball because the ball has not completed its spin and may or may not go on to hit the stumps.
I hope i have explained myself better now.
Apologies for the earlier example.

Which is the same case for the umpires, isn't it? And in all these examples the umpires original decision will stand

 

[Captain caveman]

Could you provide some examples of where you believe this has happened causing inaccuracies?

Brother, lets forget about it, i'm too nervous about the pak vs NZ game today!

 

[Captain caveman]

Which is the same case for the umpires, isn't it? And in all these examples the umpires original decision will stand

You had to spoil my argument!
I was hoping no one would realise this!
Yes, it is, but traditionally, it has been accepted that umpire decisions on lbw are on the basis of the umpires best opinion.
Whereas hawkeye is supposed to scientifically/mathemathically correct!
And this shows that it is not.
Lets say the umpire gives the lbw decision not out and the bowling side review the decision. Then if drs does its "fantasy" pathway to be hitting the stumps(as well as pitching in line and impact in line), drs will over rule the umpire and give the decision as out.
But how does drs know that the ball WILL hit the stumps, if the spin on the ball has been smothered on impact with the batsman's pads?!!

 

[Captain caveman]

He's probably right, though. Do you really think Hawkeye is accurate enough to judge the trajectory of a delivery that has a pitch-to-impact distance of mere centimeters? I don't think it is.

Thank you bro!
You are one of the few who understands what i am trying to say!

 

[Executioner]

If I am not wrong If the ball hits the pad or on the full then Hawkeye would assume there is no turn or seam movement?

 

[Captain caveman]

If I am not wrong If the ball hits the pad or on the full then Hawkeye would assume there is no turn or seam movement?

If what you are saying is correct, then that is a GIGANTIC flaw in hawkeye!

 

[shaaik]

If what you are saying is correct, then that is a GIGANTIC flaw in hawkeye!

Yes, ball hitting pads on the full is assumed to follow a same trajectory as before hitting the pad.

 

[Captain caveman]

Yes, ball hitting pads on the full is assumed to follow a same trajectory as before hitting the pad.

But that is a BLATANT FUDGE as a ball from a spinner will spin if there was no contact with the pad!
DRS IS FLAWED!

 

[Executioner]

But that is a BLATANT FUDGE as a ball from a spinner will spin if there was no contact with the pad!
DRS IS FLAWED!

No actually that is pretty correct.

Because being able to predict the spin is VERY difficult. It depends upon the the orientation and texture of the surface ON which the ball landed and the condition of the ball which landed on the surface and also the rotation of the ball. As an engineer myself i can safely say that to assess all these things are almost impossible with current technology. Even if it was possible it would be impossible

IT IS ALMOST impossible to predict the turn of the ball. More often than not, ball goes on straight so ball should be assumed to go on straight. And tbh the ball from the spinners barely hit the ball on the pads on the full, its an absolute anamoly and even should the ball hit the pads/feet on the full it is likely that the ball hits the stump on the full or just in front of the stumps in which case the spin on the ball should not really be altering the trajectory after the ball passes the stumps.

 

[Captain caveman]

No actually that is pretty correct.

Because being able to predict the spin is VERY difficult. It depends upon the the orientation and texture of the surface ON which the ball landed and the condition of the ball which landed on the surface and also the rotation of the ball. As an engineer myself i can safely say that to assess all these things are almost impossible with current technology. Even if it was possible it would be impossible

IT IS ALMOST impossible to predict the turn of the ball. More often than not, ball goes on straight so ball should be assumed to go on straight. And tbh the ball from the spinners barely hit the ball on the pads on the full, its an absolute anamoly and even should the ball hit the pads/feet on the full it is likely that the ball hits the stump on the full or just in front of the stumps in which case the spin on the ball should not really be altering the trajectory after the ball passes the stumps.

Thats what i said initially, its impossible to determine the spin on a close pitch to impact decision!
It occurs more often than you think, with a fuller delivery and when the batsman tries to get to the pitch of the ball to smother the spin!
Everything else you said is a fudge to cover the fact that it is impossible to give a predicted pathway for the ball after such an impact with any degree of certainty!
HENCE, DRS IS FLAWED!

 

[ARK Rafay]

Well there was one DRS where Hawkeye showed a googly delivery going the other way. When it was cleared in the replay that bowler bowled a googly.

This technology is not good enough

 

[Captain caveman]

Hawkeye was originally developed to determine whether the ball was in or out of the lines in tennis courts.
There was no object(batsman) blocking or impacting on the tennis ball, so its trajectory could be accurately followed!
This is not the case in cricket where a batsman can disrupt the trajectory of the ball and then hawkeye has to PREDICT what the balls pathway would be. This is fine if the ball is moving in a straight line, but if the ball is deviating due to seam, swing or especially spin, this is more difficult to predict and impossible to predict if the ball impacts full on batsman's pad!
i.e. pitch to impact distance minimal!

 

[HitWicket]

But that is a BLATANT FUDGE as a ball from a spinner will spin if there was no contact with the pad!
DRS IS FLAWED!

No it's not, it's following the laws of the game. It would be flawed if it showed any spin at all.

 

[Captain caveman]

Well there was one DRS where Hawkeye showed a googly delivery going the other way. When it was cleared in the replay that bowler bowled a googly.

This technology is not good enough

Thank you!
Excellent point!
This i beieve has happened a few times!

 

[Captain caveman]

No it's not, it's following the laws of the game. It would be flawed if it showed any spin at all.

Sorry, i don't understand your point.
Please explain further.

 

[HitWicket]

Sorry, i don't understand your point.
Please explain further.

The laws of the game state that if a ball hits the batsman on the full then it should be assumed the ball will not spin.

 

[Executioner]

No actually that is pretty correct.

Because being able to predict the spin is VERY difficult. It depends upon the the orientation and texture of the surface ON which the ball landed and the condition of the ball which landed on the surface and also the rotation of the ball. As an engineer myself i can safely say that to assess all these things are almost impossible with current technology. Even if it was possible it would be impossible

IT IS ALMOST impossible to predict the turn of the ball. More often than not, ball goes on straight so ball should be assumed to go on straight. And tbh the ball from the spinners barely hit the ball on the pads on the full, its an absolute anamoly and even should the ball hit the pads/feet on the full it is likely that the ball hits the stump on the full or just in front of the stumps in which case the spin on the ball should not really be altering the trajectory after the ball passes the stumps.

Ofcourse everything has flaws. But it's the best alternative we had right now

 

[savecricket]

Is hawkeye being doctored?



Just draw a straight line from where the ball pitches to where the ball hits the pad and follow that through - you'll find the balls projected path would have hit the stumps, HOWEVER Hawlkeye is suggesting it's missing the wickets by a long way. I can't believe the ball is missing the stumps by that much of a margin. Is the technology being doctored? it was kohli afterall.. hmmmmm….

 

[Hitman]

) Wasn’t the hawkeye also tampered in the 2011 WC during the Ind vs Pak match, according to Pak fans?

 

[JattMaula]

) Wasn’t the hawkeye also tampered in the 2011 WC during the Ind vs Pak match, according to Pak fans?

Hawkeye doctoring is not a joke, hitman! Millions of teams suffer every year.

 

[Hitman]

Hawkeye doctoring is not a joke, hitman! Millions of teams suffer every year.

Absolutely. Now why don’t you prove your claim instead of making blanket statements?

 

[savecricket]

Absolutely. Now why don’t you prove your claim instead of making blanket statements?

Why don’t you prove it isn’t? Surely your eyes can see the image and how the path of the ball is suggesting it should hit the stumps but halkeye is significantly changing the trajectory

 

[Hitman]

Why don’t you prove it isn’t? Surely your eyes can see the image and how the path of the ball is suggesting it should hit the stumps but halkeye is significantly changing the trajectory

That’s not called evidence, that’s called suspicion. You claimed something, the onus is one you to prove your claim.

And if you can’t do so, just shut up! Anyone could see the ball was missing the stumps by a big margin, the hawkeye proved it.

 

[savecricket]

You are foolish if you think halkeye hasn’t CHANGED the trajectory of the ball. It’s debatable when the ball bounces higher or lower but from right to left it’s basic maths. Try using a ruler Mr hitman. The evidence is there, you’re too simple to have this debate

 

[Hitman]

You are foolish if you think halkeye hasn’t CHANGED the trajectory of the ball. It’s debatable when the ball bounces higher or lower but from right to left it’s basic maths. Try using a ruler Mr hitman. The evidence is there, you’re too simple to have this debate

You are the one who brought in a conspiracy theory, not me. It’s upto you to prove it. Not upto me to use a ruler. The only fool around here is you.

Just like you fans cried foul when DRS went against you in the 2011 WC SF, and yet the rest of the world didn’t bat an eyelid on your claims.

 

[savecricket]

It’s called proof but like I said you’re far too simple to understand basic maths.
You’re the only “fan” to be moaning against the evidence. Maybe because it’s against India. Your bias is distorting your eyesight it seems.

 

[Hitman]

It’s called proof but like I said you’re far too simple to understand basic maths.
You’re the only “fan” to be moaning against the evidence. Maybe because it’s against India. Your bias is distorting your eyesight it seems.

You are bringing conspiracy theories, and yet it’s me who is biased? )

I’m the only fan moaning against the evidence? What evidence? Please bring it to light.

 

[savecricket]

You are bringing conspiracy theories, and yet it’s me who is biased? )

I’m the only fan moaning against the evidence? What evidence? Please bring it to light.

Not my fault you’re obtuse. Blinded like most of the fans you’re associated with

 

[Hitman]

Not my fault you’re obtuse. Blinded like most of the fans you’re associated with

Yea, I was the one who brought up a conspiracy theory, and ultimately unable to provide proof of my claim.

Sure!

 

[Abdullah719]

Calm down guys. No need for personal comments

 

[Cricketrenew]

Technology is open to abuse. The Tendulkar incidence was a typical instance, there has been many others too. Seen some debatable ones in the Ashes also. It still makes the game fairer as many obvious umpiring mistakes are checked. There must be some kind of double check of the figures and results done in matches otherwise it is open to corrupt practices.

Don't convince yourself that all is good as it is not. At the end of the day we just want correct decisions.
Not world cups won or lost on dodgy technology or umpiring.

 

[savecricket]

Technology is open to abuse. The Tendulkar incidence was a typical instance, there has been many others too. Seen some debatable ones in the Ashes also. It still makes the game fairer as many obvious umpiring mistakes are checked. There must be some kind of double check of the figures and results done in matches otherwise it is open to corrupt practices.

Don't convince yourself that all is good as it is not. At the end of the day we just want correct decisions.
Not world cups won or lost on dodgy technology or umpiring.

My point precisely. I can’t see why Halkeyes blue line swerved so much to the left after the actual trace of the ball is completely linear.

 

[Hitman]

Another reprieve for Kohli. Once more DRS is manipulated

 

[Indiafan]

Technology is open to abuse. The Tendulkar incidence was a typical instance, there has been many others too. Seen some debatable ones in the Ashes also. It still makes the game fairer as many obvious umpiring mistakes are checked. There must be some kind of double check of the figures and results done in matches otherwise it is open to corrupt practices.

Don't convince yourself that all is good as it is not. At the end of the day we just want correct decisions.
Not world cups won or lost on dodgy technology or umpiring.

Yea of course, it's the human eye which is correct and not technology. Its not like emotional people saw what they wanted to see in the Tendulkar instance. No it has to bee technology which was manipulated

And of course despite the creators saying multiple time that there is simply no way to manipulate hawk eye in such short time people like you are so so sure it's open to corruption. Just because you cannot handle the emotion of a decision going against you

 

[Indiafan]

View attachment 94280

Just draw a straight line from where the ball pitches to where the ball hits the pad and follow that through - you'll find the balls projected path would have hit the stumps, HOWEVER Hawlkeye is suggesting it's missing the wickets by a long way. I can't believe the ball is missing the stumps by that much of a margin. Is the technology being doctored? it was kohli afterall.. hmmmmm….

Yes in this picture you are not getting the depth of the image, that is the distance the ball still needs to travel. It seems to you that a straight line will hit the stumps as in this 2D pic it will look like the ball will have only few inches to travel after hitting the pad when in reality it will need to travel few feet giving enough time to spin past the stumps

If you draw a straight line and its hitting the stumps, in reality it will be ahead of the stumps with a few feet to tracek

This is why the human eye is so unreliable, hawk eye looks at it in 3D while you are looking at a 2D picture with no depth perception here

 

[Danyaalr01]

View attachment 94280

Just draw a straight line from where the ball pitches to where the ball hits the pad and follow that through - you'll find the balls projected path would have hit the stumps, HOWEVER Hawlkeye is suggesting it's missing the wickets by a long way. I can't believe the ball is missing the stumps by that much of a margin. Is the technology being doctored? it was kohli afterall.. hmmmmm….

I don't see anything wrong with that hawk eye. You would be able to see better if you had side on video in sync with a hawk eye to see how much the ball had to travel. It's not as simple as drawing a straight line with your mouse or finger. Also it's still missing when you draw a straight line.

 

[Cricketrenew]

Yea of course, it's the human eye which is correct and not technology. Its not like emotional people saw what they wanted to see in the Tendulkar instance. No it has to bee technology which was manipulated

And of course despite the creators saying multiple time that there is simply no way to manipulate hawk eye in such short time people like you are so so sure it's open to corruption. Just because you cannot handle the emotion of a decision going against you

I work with technology, facts and figures can be fudged very quickly and easily.
Creators are not going to say anything negative about their product as that's like shooting yourself in the foot.

The other image on this thread shows the batsman is hit on the front foot and the back foot is out of the crease. The impact is on middle and off stump, so more chance of missing as long as there is an angle with far to go. In this case it does not look right.

With Tendulkar's decision he was hit closer to the stumps and the ball had less angle on it.

There has been many others where either the Technology is not right or the person operating is manipulating. In any case it doesn't matter with so much headlines about corruption a neutral party checking figures does not hurt in fact, it would be better for cricket. It can be done after a match.

 

[Cricketrenew]

I don't see anything wrong with that hawk eye. You would be able to see better if you had side on video in sync with a hawk eye to see how much the ball had to travel. It's not as simple as drawing a straight line with your mouse or finger. Also it's still missing when you draw a straight line.

The ball should be going in a straight line after pitching it seems to be swinging?

 

[jagatk]

The ball should be going in a straight line after pitching it seems to be swinging?

He is a spinner who is spinning the ball, why on earth does it have to go in a straight line?

 

[HitWicket]

The ball should be going in a straight line after pitching it seems to be swinging?

Doesn't appear to be swinging at all?