[VIDEOS] Problems with Hawkeye ball-tracking?

[Cricketrenew]

Doesn't appear to be swinging at all?

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

When the line becomes blue it seems to be swerving in the air, further away from the stumps, it should be hitting or clipping not missing by a mile as there is not enough spin when the line is red.

It may be due to viewing angles, honestly it can't be missing by that much even if batsman is so far down the pitch.

The end of the blue line is where it passes the stumps.

Looking at that image it does look to be dodgy.

 

[HitWicket]

When the line becomes blue it seems to be swerving in the air, further away from the stumps, it should be hitting or clipping not missing by a mile as there is not enough spin when the line is red.

It may be due to viewing angles, honestly it can't be missing by that much even if batsman is so far down the pitch.

The end of the blue line is where it passes the stumps.

Looking at that image it does look to be dodgy.

Of course the ball appears to curve away from this angle, it's moving down due to gravity.

 

[Danyaalr01]

When the line becomes blue it seems to be swerving in the air, further away from the stumps, it should be hitting or clipping not missing by a mile as there is not enough spin when the line is red.

It may be due to viewing angles, honestly it can't be missing by that much even if batsman is so far down the pitch.

The end of the blue line is where it passes the stumps.

Looking at that image it does look to be dodgy.

It's simple Physics, the ball must dip due to gravity. If you drew a straight line, it should have ended up on the same line as where the ball ended, but above, but of course the ball must dip, that is why it appears to be curving. It's not curving, it's just the front on angle that gives that illusion.

 

[Major]

Based on Australia vs South Africa and now Australia vs Sri lanka, its obvious that there is an issue with Hawk Eye. The team that is using the hawk eye is not using it properly, and thus many wrong decisions are being made.

Australia vs South Africa



Hawk Eye Result:


Then today, Australia vs Sri Lanka


Point of Impact



What Hawk Eye showed



Notice that the frame are both different? Look at the leg of the batter

 

[hafizexpress]

The last one. Is that the same batsman and ball as the hawkeye picture? I didn't watch this match but surely those are two different incidences

 

[ArabKnight]

It seems like they use boot-leg modified Hawkeye software in India.

Tendulkar lbw Ajmal, WC11 SF @ Mohali is an example of dodgy Hawkeye in India.

 

[Major]

The last one. Is that the same batsman and ball as the hawkeye picture? I didn't watch this match but surely those are two different incidences

its same

 

[WengerOut]

Cue Tendulkar, 2011 SF references... They cannot stop crying..

 

[Saanji]

Cue Tendulkar, 2011 SF references... They cannot stop crying..

The same Hawkeye proved so favorable for Pakistan against india this time but still crying about 2011.
2 d vs 3 d .. really physics

 

[emranabbas]

The same Hawkeye proved so favorable for Pakistan against india this time but still crying about 2011.
2 d vs 3 d .. really physics

Why is it you people can't have a proper cricketing conversation without involving india pakistan? What's yout obsession?

Op is a respectable member of this forum and I'm 100 percent certain he would point out this issue even if it was in pakistan or anywhere in this world

 

[Mesozoic]

The "point of impact" shown in the OP is a few frames after the actual point in case of Steve Smith. The ball actually hit him in the middle of the pad lining and then slid to the right.

In case of Warner, it's just unfortunate that Joel Wilson gave him out. He was on the backfoot so even if the ball was kissing the stumps ever so lightly, he was a gonner and that's what happened.

 

[Front Foot Pull]

There are 3 front-on cameras adjacent to each other but only 1 is exactly in-line with the stumps.

Hawkeye/virtual eye again has separate high fps cameras to track the ball and then they superimpose that info on to the in-line broadcast camera to show us the final ball tracking.

If the director shows us the initial close up replay from one of the other 2 front-on cameras then you can't compare it with the final ball tracking from in-line camera.

In short, you are shown footage from two slightly different angles but things are working as they should.

 

[Major]

did anyone notice the Rizwan lbw? It should had been plumb as the replayed showed the ball leg spinned, but the hawk eye showed sliding to umpries call

 

[Saanji]

did anyone notice the Rizwan lbw? It should had been plumb as the replayed showed the ball leg spinned, but the hawk eye showed sliding to umpries call

On a serious note, 2d vs 3d and slightly different broadcast camera angle

 

[ArabKnight]

did anyone notice the Rizwan lbw? It should had been plumb as the replayed showed the ball leg spinned, but the hawk eye showed sliding to umpries call

I mean that’s what I said in the match thread. They got mad at me.

 

[Asad T]

When Hotspot says "no", but Ultra-edge says "yes" but some interesting insight by former elite unpire, Simon Taufel as to why the spike on ultra-edge looked delayed:

https://x.com/i/web/status/1740526671193845976

 

[Cricket Warrior]

It's a clear indicator that technology is not 100% accurate so why not stick with humans instead of these fancy tools?

 

[charlie007]

When Hotspot says "no", but Ultra-edge says "yes" but some interesting insight by former elite unpire, Simon Taufel as to why the spike on ultra-edge looked delayed:

https://x.com/i/web/status/1740526671193845976

This is a dangerous precedent. Now if the ball brushes the pad instead of just going through like shown in the above video, would you then determine if the spike was delayed after hitting the bat’s edge or was it because it brushed the pad?

 

[rpant_gabba]

So what has HE "gotten away" with so far ? Give me some of the worst examples.

they a provided fancy graphics at an exorbitant price with little to no information of its efficacy while convincing the gullible that it has predictive accuracy is of thw order of few mm's w/o any demonstrable evidence.

Snake oil if you ask me.

 

[uppercut]

they a provided fancy graphics at an exorbitant price with little to no information of its efficacy while convincing the gullible that it has predictive accuracy is of thw order of few mm's w/o any demonstrable evidence.

Snake oil if you ask me.

Lets assume that this is true. Whats the net impact of this outright deception to the cricketing world considering that HE is been around for atleast a decade if not more?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Lets assume that this is true.

A logical person would say, that should be the default position to start with.

Whats the net impact of this outright deception to the cricketing world considering that HE is been around for atleast a decade if not more?

~$0.3M per test ( +ODI and tournaments) going to HE which other wise might have put to better use.

The hood winking of the cricketing fans that HE predictions are accurate to the extent they claim is an act of fraud. If that doesn't bother you, we are wasting each other times.

It has had huge impact on umpire development.

All that cash could have spent on developing umpire program which could have porduced more competent umpires, instead of relying on unproven graphics.

As I said earlier, to me, HE the cricket version of homeopathy.

 

[uppercut]

A logical person would say, that should be the default position to start with.

~$0.3M per test ( +ODI and tournaments) going to HE which other wise might have put to better use.

The hood winking of the cricketing fans that HE predictions are accurate to the extent they claim is an act of fraud. If that doesn't bother you, we are wasting each other times.

It has had huge impact on umpire development.

All that cash could have spent on developing umpire program which could have porduced more competent umpires, instead of relying on unproven graphics.

As I said earlier, to me, HE the cricket version of homeopathy.

another one is the iraq WMD narrative. Fake narratives undermine good systems. US credibility was shot to hell in had basket with the fake WMD story pushed by bush/cheney.

Of course the latest one is the 2020 stolen election narrative.

So the impact is just monetary not much impact on outcomes of important cricket matches ... correct ?

 

[rpant_gabba]

So the impact is just monetary not much impact on outcomes of important cricket matches ... correct ?

IMO, we have no way ascertaining what the impact is. that is the rub.

and in the process you have wrecked the chance developing good umpires.

eg india tour of SL with virtual eye. SL got every single review right. India not so much

 

[uppercut]

IMO, we have no way ascertaining what the impact is. that is the rub.

You actually do.!! ..


does anyone despise the HE owner/ceo/inventor like we despise Bucknor/Hair/Billy etc ?


Please just Reply with a simple yes/no to the above question.

 

[rpant_gabba]

You actually do.!! ..


does anyone despise the HE owner/ceo/inventor like we despise Bucknor/Hair/Billy etc ?


Please just Reply with a simple yes/no to the above question.

poor line of thinking.

not going to resort to technical/scientific fraud to counter crooked umpires.

Thats where I draw the line and you are welcome to draw yours.

have the intellectual integrity to admit that you are resorting to using unproven claptrap to counter some the biased umpires.

 

[uppercut]

poor line of thinking.

not going to resort to technical/scientific fraud to counter crooked umpires.

So those of us who despise Bucknor are frauds/corrupt?

Whats the rationale behind this?

 

[CricketCartoons]

A logical person would say, that should be the default position to start with.

~$0.3M per test ( +ODI and tournaments) going to HE which other wise might have put to better use.

The hood winking of the cricketing fans that HE predictions are accurate to the extent they claim is an act of fraud. If that doesn't bother you, we are wasting each other times.

Do you have evidence that hawk eye predictions are fraud?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Do you have evidence that hawk eye predictions are fraud?

burden of proof is on part of HE. thought that would be obvious to a logical guy like you

HE claimed their technology was ready for primetime before 2010

then they said they had to make improvements

Then they claimed in 2012 tech verified by Cambridge professor. Turned out he was lecturer no longer associated with Cambridge and al of 14 deliveries with no details on what the nature of the testing was.

Then came the 2016 test at MIT

 

[rpant_gabba]

This thread is fro discussing the credibilty HE predictions.

there is no data that is shown to the public that it is any thing more than fancy graphics

 

[rpant_gabba]

Do you have evidence that hawk eye predictions are fraud?

burden of proof is on part of HE. thought that would be obvious to a logical guy like you

HE claimed their technology was ready for primetime before 2010

then they said they had to make improvements

Then they claimed in 2012 tech verified by Cambridge professor. Turned out he was lecturer no longer associated with Cambridge and al of 14 deliveries with no details on what the nature of the testing was.

Then came the 2016 test at MIT

 

[rpant_gabba]

So those of us who despise Bucknor are frauds/corrupt?

Whats the rationale behind this?

Fraud is acceptable to you if it deals with the likes of bucknor

 

[jnaveen1980]

ICC is the one that approves it right? So you have to ask ICC. Not Hawkeye. ICC represents all countries. So they already approved it.

 

[rpant_gabba]

ICC is the one that approves it right? So you have to ask ICC. Not Hawkeye. ICC represents all countries. So they already approved it.

HE as the vendor/provider made the accuracy claim. not ICC. ICC imply was gullible enough to buy the cock & bull story and approved it usage as early as 2009. The first they deployed was Virtual-eye by a NZ company.

then they resorted to the much advertised independent testing "at cambridge". in 2012.

few holes in that.

1) testing wasn't at Cambridge. It was by someone who was at some point associated with Cambridge

2) it was all of 14 deliveries from the Aus -Sa series

I actually wrote the tester.

>>>
Dear Dr. Rosten,

I ran across your name in regards to the accuracy of the Hawkeye
system used in Cricket to predict the path of the ball.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/569949.html

1) Will any of the testing information be available to the public?

2) How were the tests conducted? In a cricket ground? using a bowling
machine? If players were used to bowl instead of a bowling machine,
were both spinners and fast bowlers used?

3) How exactly did you verify the accuracy of Hawkeye? did you feed
the system partial footage of deliveries that made it to the keeper?

Given that this system is being used for public consumption and your
research is being used to endorse its use, I'm hoping you will be able
to shed some light on this matter.<<<


and this was the reply

>>>
I'd be happy to talk about the ball tracking once I get the go ahead
from the ICC. In the mean time, I've been asked to direct all
enquiries to Colin Gibson at the ICC (colin.gibson@icc-cricket). If
you would like, I can contact you when I can talk about the work.

Regards,

-Ed<<<

 

[CricketCartoons]

burden of proof is on part of HE. thought that would be obvious to a logical guy like you

HE claimed their technology was ready for primetime before 2010

then they said they had to make improvements

Then they claimed in 2012 tech verified by Cambridge professor. Turned out he was lecturer no longer associated with Cambridge and al of 14 deliveries with no details on what the nature of the testing was.

Then came the 2016 test at MIT

So you don't have evidence of it being fraud. And since there is no evidence of it being correct, you have concluded that it is evidence of it being fraud.

In other words, absence of evidence is evidence of absence for you?

 

[jnaveen1980]

HE as the vendor/provider made the accuracy claim. not ICC. ICC imply was gullible enough to buy the cock & bull story and approved it usage as early as 2009. The first they deployed was Virtual-eye by a NZ company.

then they resorted to the much advertised independent testing "at cambridge". in 2012.

few holes in that.

1) testing wasn't at Cambridge. It was by someone who was at some point associated with Cambridge

2) it was all of 14 deliveries from the Aus -Sa series

I actually wrote the tester.

>>>
Dear Dr. Rosten,

I ran across your name in regards to the accuracy of the Hawkeye
system used in Cricket to predict the path of the ball.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/569949.html

1) Will any of the testing information be available to the public?

2) How were the tests conducted? In a cricket ground? using a bowling
machine? If players were used to bowl instead of a bowling machine,
were both spinners and fast bowlers used?

3) How exactly did you verify the accuracy of Hawkeye? did you feed
the system partial footage of deliveries that made it to the keeper?

Given that this system is being used for public consumption and your
research is being used to endorse its use, I'm hoping you will be able
to shed some light on this matter.<<<


and this was the reply

>>>
I'd be happy to talk about the ball tracking once I get the go ahead
from the ICC. In the mean time, I've been asked to direct all
enquiries to Colin Gibson at the ICC (colin.gibson@icc-cricket). If
you would like, I can contact you when I can talk about the work.

Regards,

-Ed<<<

You got the right answer from them. He made claims to the ICC. Not you. He just has to provide evidence to the ICC, not everyone who wants to know. Sitting in front of the TV people interpret things the way they want to.

 

[rpant_gabba]

So you don't have evidence of it being fraud. And since there is no evidence of it being correct, you have concluded that it is evidence of it being fraud.

In other words, absence of evidence is evidence of absence for you?

In this case, i'm heavily leaning towards that.

rolled out in 2009. used in a very public setting. claims predictive accuracy of few mm's.

aren't you a tade bit curious how they managed to validate their prediction and why there has been no public demo of its effectiveness?

 

[rpant_gabba]

You got the right answer from them. He made claims to the ICC. Not you. He just has to provide evidence to the ICC, not everyone who wants to know. Sitting in front of the TV people interpret things the way they want to.

Yup. I interpret it as graphics designed to fool simpletons

 

[cricketjoshila]

This thread is fro discussing the credibilty HE predictions.

there is no data that is shown to the public that it is any thing more than fancy graphics

Why should it be shown to every guy on the street?

The ICC and the boards and players were shown the data. That's enough.

 

[uppercut]

Fraud is acceptable to you if it deals with the likes of bucknor

Unless you want to prove that HE is equally or more corrupt than the despicable umpires like Bucknor you have no case.

So now is the time to back HE or Bucknor and/ or l Bucknor's admirers.. where do you stand?



Note;

I will say this in advance..... you will either. try to deflect or move the goal post but I will repea keep reminding you of the original discussion

 

[jnaveen1980]

Yup. I interpret it as graphics designed to fool simpletons

I don't think they are fools sitting there to buy an expensive technology for graphics.

 

[Red-Indian]

Why should it be shown to every guy on the street?

The ICC and the boards and players were shown the data. That's enough.

I'm very much on rpant's side here. What harm would it do to publish the data on the testing and accuracy for everyone to look at?

Say as below.

1000 deliveries were recorded - a mix of leg/off/left arm spinners, seam/swing bowlers etc. with no batter facing them.
Hawkeye was asked to predict their trajectory based on a fictional point of impact. These were compared with actual trajectory and were found to be accurate to a factor of 99.6%.

That would build trust and set a standard for new technologies who want to bid to replace it.

 

[uppercut]

In this case, i'm heavily leaning towards that.

rolled out in 2009. used in a very public setting. claims predictive accuracy of few mm's.

aren't you a tade bit curious how they managed to validate their prediction and why there has been no public demo of its effectiveness?

I would be if my eyes and cricketing brains disagree with whats being shown on the screen.

Since you are sooo unhappy with the tech why dont you start by cataloging the horrendous mistakes made by HE ?

 

[jnaveen1980]

I'm very much on rpant's side here. What harm would it do to publish the data on the testing and accuracy for everyone to look at?

Say as below.

1000 deliveries were recorded - a mix of leg/off/left arm spinners, seam/swing bowlers etc. with no batter facing them.
Hawkeye was asked to predict their trajectory based on a fictional point of impact. These were compared with actual trajectory and were found to be accurate to a factor of 99.6%.

That would build trust and set a standard for new technologies who want to bid to replace it.

That serves nothing since it knows the actual path they will come up with 100% accurate recordings. They do show stats like how many balls from a bowler actually hits the stumps how many misses the stumps. Predictive technology can only be accurate to a certain degree as it depends on pitch conditions. atmospheric conditions. They always maintained Hawk eye is not a replacement for umpire. It is only an aiding tool to eliminate howlers. I did not see any howlers.

 

[Red-Indian]

That serves nothing since it knows the actual path they will come up with 100% accurate recordings. They do show stats like how many balls from a bowler actually hits the stumps how many misses the stumps. Predictive technology can only be accurate to a certain degree as it depends on pitch conditions. atmospheric conditions. They always maintained Hawk eye is not a replacement for umpire. It is only an aiding tool to eliminate howlers. I did not see any howlers.

That's the point right...in a scientific environment, provide it video and data only up to fictional point of impact so it can predict trajectory from there and see how that compares with actual trajectory.

I'm fully cognizant that predictive technology is only accurate up to an extent and I'm also perfectly willing to accept uncertainty just like we've been able to accept neutral umpire decisions for years.

It's just weird that a technology would not have publicly available data on tested accuracy. After all, Cricket is paying millions for it. If it can't be proved to be more accurate, maybe we shift that investment to more training for Umpires and more neutral umpire availability.

 

[uppercut]

burden of proof is on part of HE. thought that would be obvious to a logical guy like you

HE claimed their technology was ready for primetime before 2010

then they said they had to make improvements

Then they claimed in 2012 tech verified by Cambridge professor. Turned out he was lecturer no longer associated with Cambridge and al of 14 deliveries with no details on what the nature of the testing was.

Then came the 2016 test at MIT

Have you asked your doctor for irrefutable evidence backed by independent randomized placebo controlled clinical trial data before taking any medication prescribed by him/her?

More importantly if there is no such evidence that you can independently verify to your satisfaction ... will you reject that medication even if it could possibly save your life?

 

[jnaveen1980]

That's the point right...in a scientific environment, provide it video and data only up to fictional point of impact so it can predict trajectory from there and see how that compares with actual trajectory.

I'm fully cognizant that predictive technology is only accurate up to an extent and I'm also perfectly willing to accept uncertainty just like we've been able to accept neutral umpire decisions for years.

It's just weird that a technology would not have publicly available data on tested accuracy. After all, Cricket is paying millions for it. If it can't be proved to be more accurate, maybe we shift that investment to more training for Umpires and more neutral umpire availability.

Umpires can be influenced by many things. Even things like excessive appealing. Bullying by players. Nithin Menon for example despite being a good umpire has at times allowed crowd to influence his decisions. Apart from general human errors you have other types of factors like this. back in the 80s/90s there was no social media. Nowadays umpires will be under tremendous pressure. From time to time somebody will be throwing temper tantrum without any proof. This technology has been in place for more than a decade.

 

[kumjsr]

Have you asked your doctor for irrefutable evidence backed by independent randomized placebo controlled clinical trial data before taking any medication prescribed by him/her?

More importantly if there is no such evidence that you can independently verify to your satisfaction ... will you reject that medication even if it could possibly save your life?

You don't become doctor by making claims.

 

[uppercut]

Have you asked your doctor for irrefutable evidence backed by independent randomized placebo controlled clinical trial data before taking any medication prescribed by him/her?

More importantly if there is no such evidence that you can independently verify to your satisfaction ... will you reject that medication even if it could possibly save your life?

Actually I want the resident doctors to chime in on this topic .. just curious to know if any of your patients have asked you this very technical question when you have prescribed any medication/test to them... if so what is the percentage of such patients that ask this question and refuse using it if they don't get a satisfactory answer.


@cricketjoshila
@Mamoon
@Dr_Bassim

 

[Red-Indian]

Umpires can be influenced by many things. Even things like excessive appealing. Bullying by players. Nithin Menon for example despite being a good umpire has at times allowed crowd to influence his decisions. Apart from general human errors you have other types of factors like this. back in the 80s/90s there was no social media. Nowadays umpires will be under tremendous pressure. From time to time somebody will be throwing temper tantrum without any proof. This technology has been in place for more than a decade.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it that we have no right to know to what extent it is scientifically accurate and that we should trust them? What if a competitor turns up and says they have better technology? How would we evaluate them?

I'm honestly not trying to be combative here. I actually think Hawkeye does a pretty good job. I just don't see why they should be exempted from scrutiny whether they've been around for a decade or not. Umpires have been around for a hundred and fifty years. We don't exempt them from scrutiny.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it that we have no right to know to what extent it is scientifically accurate and that we should trust them? What if a competitor turns up and says they have better technology? How would we evaluate them?

I'm honestly not trying to be combative here. I actually think Hawkeye does a pretty good job. I just don't see why they should be exempted from scrutiny whether they've been around for a decade or not. Umpires have been around for a hundred and fifty years. We don't exempt them from scrutiny.

Scrutiny has to come from ICC. If they are satisfied what can anyone do? So far dissatisfaction comes from select players who have issues with a decision or two. Unless there is a clear evidence that margin of error is bigger i am not sure ICC will take any action. May be slight tweaking that's it. Like instead of half the ball may be 3/4 of the ball has to clip the stumps. Something like that.

 

[Red-Indian]

Scrutiny has to come from ICC. If they are satisfied what can anyone do? So far dissatisfaction comes from select players who have issues with a decision or two. Unless there is a clear evidence that margin of error is bigger i am not sure ICC will take any action. May be slight tweaking that's it. Like instead of half the ball may be 3/4 of the ball has to clip the stumps. Something like that.

To your comparison with medication, we don't blindly trust the Drugs Controller or the FDA (in the US). We require manufacturers to openly publish their test results and lots of independent journalists, experts etc. look at them.

I don't suspect ICC of the level of malfeasance of say FIFA but I do definitely doubt their competence and to some extent their honesty when large amounts of money are involved like we're paying to Hawkeye.

 

[uppercut]

Umpires have been around for a hundred and fifty years. We don't exempt them from scrutiny.

Thats categorically false. Exhibit A - Steve Bucknor who had a long career and was never under any sort of pressure for 99% of it.

In fact he majorly enjoyed the immunity that the job granted him and actually doubled down and punished teams who dared to speak up

BTW the man still draws a pension from ICC which is entirely funded by cricket fans like you and me.

 

[jnaveen1980]

To your comparison with medication, we don't blindly trust the Drugs Controller or the FDA (in the US). We require manufacturers to openly publish their test results and lots of independent journalists, experts etc. look at them.

I don't suspect ICC of the level of malfeasance of say FIFA but I do definitely doubt their competence and to some extent their honesty when large amounts of money are involved like we're paying to Hawkeye.

They may be incompetent. But i don't think there is any glaring deficiency with technology that warrants scrutiny. At the end of the day all the claims like "That ball was definitely missing the stumps" is also based on our own visual interpretation rather than any accurate technology. We still accept the trajectory of ball from bowler's hand till the impact, after impact we don't accept it because it doesn't go in our favor. I am not sure one can come up with analysis that would make sense in cricket given the nature of different surfaces. Especially surfaces with variable bounce. When it hits certain spot it bounces higher, There are million different combination you have with respect to pitch. So there will be some degree of error always. That is where the umpire calls come into picture.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Unless you want to prove that HE is equally or more corrupt than the despicable umpires like Bucknor you have no case.

So now is the time to back HE or Bucknor and/ or l Bucknor's admirers.. where do you stand?

not going to accept some illogical straw man binary

Note;

I will say this in advance..... you will either. try to deflect or move the goal post but I will repea keep reminding you of the original discussion

let me repeat again, not going to not going to accept straw man binary

 

[rpant_gabba]

I don't think they are fools sitting there to buy an expensive technology for graphics.

so appealing to authority.

 

[rpant_gabba]

That serves nothing since it knows the actual path they will come up with 100% accurate recordings. They do show stats like how many balls from a bowler actually hits the stumps how many misses the stumps. Predictive technology can only be accurate to a certain degree as it depends on pitch conditions. atmospheric conditions. They always maintained Hawk eye is not a replacement for umpire. It is only an aiding tool to eliminate howlers. I did not see any howlers.

need a bit more imagination.

Provide HE only partial footage, cut it off 2-3 m before the stumps and ask it to predict.

compare HE prediction with actual path from full footage.

thats your single blind study which test HE's ability

 

[rpant_gabba]

Have you asked your doctor for irrefutable evidence backed by independent randomized placebo controlled clinical trial data before taking any medication prescribed by him/her?

There is a well established system for bringing drugs to market which was developed and refined over the years. most people put their trust in that system

I've been making the comparison to Homeopathy all along. guess you missed that

More importantly if there is no such evidence that you can independently verify to your satisfaction ... will you reject that medication even if it could possibly save your life?

you seemed to like straw man arguments.

My trust is in the system.

What i wouldn't do is inject bleach or shine laser into my veins

 

[rpant_gabba]

They may be incompetent. But i don't think there is any glaring deficiency with technology that warrants scrutiny.

how do you know?

At the end of the day all the claims like "That ball was definitely missing the stumps" is also based on our own visual interpretation rather than any accurate technology. We still accept the trajectory of ball from bowler's hand till the impact,

Becos there is established science to back that up going back to decades

after impact we don't accept it because it doesn't go in our favor.

not at all. I don't accept it period. becos there hasnlt been any demonstrated evidence that is possible to do it to the accuracy claimed by HE and required for cricket.

I am not sure one can come up with analysis that would make sense in cricket given the nature of different surfaces. Especially surfaces with variable bounce. When it hits certain spot it bounces higher, There are million different combination you have with respect to pitch. So there will be some degree of error always. That is where the umpire calls come into picture.

the question is what is that error? you are welcome to take HE's word. not everyone has to

 

[rpant_gabba]

Actually I want the resident doctors to chime in on this topic .. just curious to know if any of your patients have asked you this very technical question when you have prescribed any medication/test to them... if so what is the percentage of such patients that ask this question and refuse using it if they don't get a satisfactory answer.


@cricketjoshila
@Mamoon
@Dr_Bassim

you are asking the wrong question.

The question should be.

Option a: medication with known limitation

Option b: untested medication which will cost 10X of option a with no guarantee it is any better.

 

[jnaveen1980]

need a bit more imagination.

Provide HE only partial footage, cut it off 2-3 m before the stumps and ask it to predict.

compare HE prediction with actual path from full footage.

thats your single blind study which test HE's ability

How can you check for all kind of pitches. Some turns more, some turns less, Some bounce more some spot. So human element is needed in conjunction with predictive technology.

 

[jnaveen1980]

how do you know?

Becos there is established science to back that up going back to decades

not at all. I don't accept it period. becos there hasnlt been any demonstrated evidence that is possible to do it to the accuracy claimed by HE and required for cricket.

the question is what is that error? you are welcome to take HE's word. not everyone has to

How do you know there is deficiency? It is almost 99% in agreement with naked eye. Unless you can prove the path is completely bonkers each and every time you cannot make a claim it is not accurate. So far there is no pattern that can point to flaw in the technology. Due to wide range of pitches, indentation on the pitches the bounce, turn, swing, seam movement path can vary wildly. So it makes sense we have someone on the ground that can factor this as well. That is where umpire's call come into picture.

 

[rpant_gabba]

How do you know there is deficiency?

Once again burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

HE: I can predict path of the ball to +/- 2.5cm 2-3m down the line
Me: Prove it

end of story

It is almost 99% in agreement with naked eye. Unless you can prove the path is completely bonkers each and every time you cannot make a claim it is not accurate. So far there is no pattern that can point to flaw in the technology. Due to wide range of pitches, indentation on the pitches the bounce, turn, swing, seam movement path can vary wildly. So it makes sense we have someone on the ground that can factor this as well. That is where umpire's call come into picture.

Because HE is trying to predict the path of a turbulent physical phenomenon and the track record of current technology being able to predict turbulence is poor.

The uncertainty quoted by HE in the early stages (around 2014) was +/-2.5 cm at stumps. width of the stump is 3.2 cm. In the best case scenario (is you trust HE) clipping the stump could also mean missing the stump by a significant margin.

Don't you want to know what the worst case scenario is?

 

[rpant_gabba]

How can you check for all kind of pitches. Some turns more, some turns less, Some bounce more some spot. So human element is needed in conjunction with predictive technology.

My focus is testing HE ability nothing more.

Yes, it should be tested for all conditions ideally.

simple capture footage from bowling all over the world with differnet bowlers, spin, swing etc using recommended camera's.

cut of footage 2-3m from stump. give it to.

you know the actual path. If HE prediction matches actual path within error margin, no problems

 

[HitWicket]

Once again burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

HE: I can predict path of the ball to +/- 2.5cm 2-3m down the line
Me: Prove it

end of story

Because HE is trying to predict the path of a turbulent physical phenomenon and the track record of current technology being able to predict turbulence is poor.

The uncertainty quoted by HE in the early stages (around 2014) was +/-2.5 cm at stumps. width of the stump is 3.2 cm. In the best case scenario (is you trust HE) clipping the stump could also mean missing the stump by a significant margin.

Don't you want to know what the worst case scenario is?

The path of the ball is hardly turbulent. All Hawkeye has to do is extend the path of the ball in a straight line and apply gravity, it's as simple as that.

Their stated error margin has never been anywhere close to 2.5cm.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Their stated error margin has never been anywhere close to 2.5cm.

the file has gone away, the post on usenet still there

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/

HawkEye maths, please help!!!

groups.google.com

The HawkEye Accuracy document states;
Hawk-Eye is able to deliver a system which meets the following
performance criteria:
• Pitching point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to be
2.6mm)
• Interception point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to
be
2.6mm)
• Prediction of where the ball passes the stumps:
o In all “normal” LBW instances under 15mm and average error of 5mm
o In “extreme” LBW instances under 25mm
An “extreme” LBW is one where there is less than 40cm of travel
between pitching
point and interception point and the batsman is hit over 2 meters from
the stumps.
The current protocol has a 45mm umpire call “margin”.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Once again burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

HE: I can predict path of the ball to +/- 2.5cm 2-3m down the line
Me: Prove it

end of story

Because HE is trying to predict the path of a turbulent physical phenomenon and the track record of current technology being able to predict turbulence is poor.

The uncertainty quoted by HE in the early stages (around 2014) was +/-2.5 cm at stumps. width of the stump is 3.2 cm. In the best case scenario (is you trust HE) clipping the stump could also mean missing the stump by a significant margin.

Don't you want to know what the worst case scenario is?

That is why more than half the ball has to hit the stumps. Everyone is aware there is certain degree of error. That is why they even have umpire's call. It is impossible to predict the accurate path. This is their claim. I found this in a tennis article. They are happy with hawk eye in Tennis.

How accurate is Hawk-Eye?

Hawkins said that Hawk-Eye's margin of error averaged about 3.6 millimeters (0.14 inches) and that the system was around 99.9 percent accurate. "Hawk-Eye isn't infallible, but it's pretty damned close," he said.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Let me tell you this. I have no problem with Hawk eye. I only havce problem with players who selectively whines about Hawk-eye

 

[rpant_gabba]

The path of the ball is hardly turbulent. All Hawkeye has to do is extend the path of the ball in a straight line and apply gravity, it's as simple as that.

path of spinning/seaming ball with a wobble after hitting the ground is a straight line? one with a thick seam and uneven wear?

Lets do each other favor and ignore each other and not waste bandwidth

 

[rpant_gabba]

That is why more than half the ball has to hit the stumps. Everyone is aware there is certain degree of error. That is why they even have umpire's call. It is impossible to predict the accurate path. This is their claim. I found this in a tennis article. They are happy with hawk eye in Tennis.

In tennis they are actually measuring the actual path. not predicting where the ball might have gone 2-3m from the last measurement. don't know why people get this mixed up

How accurate is Hawk-Eye?

Hawkins said that Hawk-Eye's margin of error averaged about 3.6 millimeters (0.14 inches) and that the system was around 99.9 percent accurate. "Hawk-Eye isn't infallible, but it's pretty damned close," he said.

1) its a stated claim with nothing to back it up

2) Is that in tennis or cricket?

3) should be easy enough to demonstrate if a commoner like me can come with a test.

 

[jnaveen1980]

In tennis they are actually measuring the actual path. not predicting where the ball might have gone 2-3m from the last measurement. don't know why people get this mixed up

1) its a stated claim with nothing to back it up

2) Is that in tennis or cricket?

3) should be easy enough to demonstrate if a commoner like me can come with a test.

Sorry you are over-analyzing. DRS is there for howlers. Inside edges, pitched outside the leg, leg before is always not going ot be accurate no matter what technology you coem up with. You can nitpick any technology. Human beings cannot predict the path either. So we use as a combination. This micro analyzing will fall on deaf ears. Rightfully.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Sorry you are over-analyzing. DRS is there for howlers. Inside edges, pitched outside the leg, leg before is always not going ot be accurate no matter what technology you coem up with. You can nitpick any technology. Human beings cannot predict the path either. So we use as a combination. This micro analyzing will fall on deaf ears. Rightfully.

there has been no data to analyze.

anyway, you trust HE claims. I don't

our discussion has reached its end point.

 

[jnaveen1980]

there has been no data to analyze.

anyway, you trust HE claims. I don't

our discussion has reached its end point.

Not just me 99% of the public trusts. Even the one who complains are only being selective. You probably fall under the group of 0.01%.

 

[HitWicket]

the file has gone away, the post on usenet still there

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/

HawkEye maths, please help!!!

groups.google.com

The HawkEye Accuracy document states;
Hawk-Eye is able to deliver a system which meets the following
performance criteria:
• Pitching point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to be
2.6mm)
• Interception point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to
be
2.6mm)
• Prediction of where the ball passes the stumps:
o In all “normal” LBW instances under 15mm and average error of 5mm
o In “extreme” LBW instances under 25mm
An “extreme” LBW is one where there is less than 40cm of travel
between pitching
point and interception point and the batsman is hit over 2 meters from
the stumps.
The current protocol has a 45mm umpire call “margin”.

You're aware that a millimetre is not the same as a centimetre, right...? 2.6mm is very different from 2.6cm.

path of spinning/seaming ball with a wobble after hitting the ground is a straight line? one with a thick seam and uneven wear?

Lets do each other favor and ignore each other and not waste bandwidth

We were discussing the ability of the technology to predict the path after impact. That is simply the extension of the path before impact with a straight line and applying gravity.

 

[rpant_gabba]

You're aware that a millimetre is not the same as a centimetre, right...? 2.6mm is very different from 2.6cm.

that is the pitching accuracy. read a bit more carefully about the prediction accuracy

We were discussing the ability of the technology to predict the path after impact. That is simply the extension of the path before impact with a straight line and applying gravity.

glad you think so.

 

[HitWicket]

that is the pitching accuracy. read a bit more carefully about the prediction accuracy

glad you think so.

So you're referring to the 25mm (that had been reduced to 10mm by 2015) margin in very certain situations where Hawkeye won't be used to overrule a decision anyway?

 

[rpant_gabba]

So you're referring to the 25mm (that had been reduced to 10mm by 2015) margin in very certain situations where Hawkeye won't be used to overrule a decision anyway?

Thats a claim. just like the 2.5 cm claim before

1) no information on testing methodology

2) no test data

 

[HitWicket]

Thats a claim. just like the 2.5 cm claim before

1) no information on testing methodology

2) no test data

I'm not really here to debate your tin foil hat theories regarding the independent testing that's been carried out, just to educate you on how simple the system is and how little it actually has to do for the prediction side of things (i.e extend as a straight line and apply gravity as I've mentioned before).

 

[rpant_gabba]

I'm not really here to debate your tin foil hat theories regarding the independent testing that's been carried out, just to educate you on how simple the system is and how little it actually has to do for the prediction side of things (i.e extend as a straight line and apply gravity as I've mentioned before).

thanks for the education.

you are a wonderful teacher.

your wisdom knows no limits

 

[cricketjoshila]

I'm very much on rpant's side here. What harm would it do to publish the data on the testing and accuracy for everyone to look at?

Say as below.

1000 deliveries were recorded - a mix of leg/off/left arm spinners, seam/swing bowlers etc. with no batter facing them.
Hawkeye was asked to predict their trajectory based on a fictional point of impact. These were compared with actual trajectory and were found to be accurate to a factor of 99.6%.

That would build trust and set a standard for new technologies who want to bid to replace it.

You or I may want whatever but we are not the authority. The boards, the ICC and the players have access to the data and they are the decision makers.

HE gives its technology to the boards not the public.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Actually I want the resident doctors to chime in on this topic .. just curious to know if any of your patients have asked you this very technical question when you have prescribed any medication/test to them... if so what is the percentage of such patients that ask this question and refuse using it if they don't get a satisfactory answer.


@cricketjoshila
@Mamoon
@Dr_Bassim

Usually the authority before approving the Medicine goes through the data.

Such trials and their data is available publically.

But the patient is the end user here and have the right to know about the data.

Just like ICC and other boards and their players are the end user and have access to the data.