my stance is that if you are going to introduce a system with the claim that you are going to improve things, you have to demonstrate that improvement. Before you spend millions of dollars on it.
a) we as fans have no information on reliability of HE prediction. claims by HE. no information.
b) Yes. Put in a proper training program for umpires. Stop using umpires whose eyeballs are beyond sell by date.
c) the same training programs for LBW's can also be use to test how well HE can predict
Thats not what is claimed. if HE is at best 50-50 why spend millions of dollars on it?
Solution is fairly straightforward and was proposed a decade ago
1) public demonstrate HE capability. ICC through fans support funds HE and uses it in a very public way.
The proposed test is fairly straight forward. Capture HD footage to to plot delivery trajectory under various conditions and bowlers. truncate the footage 2-3 meters from stumps and have HE predict the path. If it matches the the actual path within the limits claimed by HE, its all good.
2) put umpires though the same test: show them the truncated footage and have them make a call on location at stumps
This way everyone knows 1) how good HE is 2) which umpires are good
and you have a great training tool for umpires
1. Technology is always better than naked eye.
You are basically implying technology is worse than naked eye. However, that doesnt make sense as technology has always been able to make things easier
2. Hawkeye is
able to get rid of howlers like inside edge and "ball pitched outside leg".
3. Marginal decisions remain at mercy of umpire and thats why umpires call remains
. If your assumption is umpires predict trajectory of the ball better, then you should actually have no issue of Hawkeye because unless greater than 50 percent of ball is hitting or missing the stump as per Hawkeye, we are actually siding with what the umpire says on that particular call.
4. If your issue is ball is doing something else after pitching in real life, and doing something else on Hawkeye,
then most of the umpiring decisions should be opposite of what Hawkeye says. But we see in 90 percent of the time what the umpire says Hawkeye just confirms it. So why isnt there an open discrepancy if Hawkeye is so poor at predicting trajectory of ball.
5. Even if we dont have proof, proper reasoning and deductive analysis leads us to the conclusion that despite its quacks, Hawkeye has definitely improved the overall standard of umpiring decisions.
my stance is that if you are going to introduce a system with the claim that you are going to improve things, you have to demonstrate that improvement. Before you spend millions of dollars on it.
a) we as fans have no information on reliability of HE prediction. claims by HE. no information.
b) Yes. Put in a proper training program for umpires. Stop using umpires whose eyeballs are beyond sell by date.
c) the same training programs for LBW's can also be use to test how well HE can predict
Thats not what is claimed. if HE is at best 50-50 why spend millions of dollars on it?
Solution is fairly straightforward and was proposed a decade ago
1) public demonstrate HE capability. ICC through fans support funds HE and uses it in a very public way.
The proposed test is fairly straight forward. Capture HD footage to to plot delivery trajectory under various conditions and bowlers. truncate the footage 2-3 meters from stumps and have HE predict the path. If it matches the the actual path within the limits claimed by HE, its all good.
2) put umpires though the same test: show them the truncated footage and have them make a call on location at stumps
This way everyone knows 1) how good HE is 2) which umpires are good
and you have a great training tool for umpires
. Technology is always better than naked eye.
You are basically implying technology is worse than naked eye. However, that doesnt make sense as laws of optics prove that naked eye is limited with regards to "perception of visual objects".
2. Hawkeye is
able to get rid of howlers like inside edge and "ball pitched outside leg".
3. Marginal decisions remain at mercy of umpire and thats why umpires call remains
. If your assumption is umpires predict trajectory of the ball better, then you should actually have no issue of Hawkeye because unless greater than 50 percent of ball is hitting or missing the stump as per Hawkeye, we are actually siding with what the umpire says on that particular call.
4. If your issue is ball is doing something else after pitching in real life, and doing something else on Hawkeye,
then most of the umpiring decisions should be opposite of what Hawkeye says. But we see in 90 percent of the time what the umpire says Hawkeye just confirms it. So why isnt there an open discrepancy if Hawkeye is so poor at predicting trajectory of ball.
5. Even if we dont have proof, proper reasoning and deductive analysis leads us to the conclusion that despite its quacks, Hawkeye has definitely improved the overall standard of umpiring decisions.
So my thinking is because a few of Hawkeye decisions, dont make sense to you, you are basically questioning the value and accuracy of Hawkeye
when in reality the real question you shoule be asking, using deductive reasoning, has the Hawkeye made more right calls and made the game more fairer overall?
If the answer is yes, your theoretical conjecture of Hawkeye not being accurate is just a personal bias and not based on any scientific reasoning.
Thanks!
en.wikipedia.org
