What's new

[VIDEOS] Problems with Hawkeye ball-tracking?

Hawk-Eye has acknowledged a human error in declaring Rilee Rossouw as not out during a PSL game between Quetta Gladiators and Islamabad United. The incident occurred due to an operator error, where incorrect ball tracking data was broadcast, leading to an incorrect outcome.
 
MenInG said:
Another shocker for Hawk-Eye?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1761662003519574206
Click to expand...

But Finn thinks it's fine!

Finn: Root a huge scalp for India
Steven Finn, speaking on TNT Sports:

"An excellent review. From the naked eye, to me, it looked like it pitched outside leg stump but clearly the drift Ashwin gets means that Root had to depart.

"You can see the passion from Ashwin’s celebration that shows just what that wicket means to India. Crawley is playing well, but Root was the glue that the England middle order could have played around.

"A huge scalp for India."
 
Vaughan was taught a lesson in the twitter responses lol He totally ignored the Stokes dismissal and focuses on three reds.
 
BouncerGuy said:
another shocker of a decision or fair enough?
Click to expand...

How on earth is it a "shocker" ? :yk


The rule for pitching is clear cut. If more than half the ball is pitching in line (>=51%) , then it is considered to be pitching in line..there is no uncertainity over it because it's not a prediction. It actually happened in real time unlike the " ball hitting/missing the stumps" prediction.
 
Mesozoic said:
How on earth is it a "shocker" ? :yk


The rule for pitching is clear cut. If more than half the ball is pitching in line (>=51%) , then it is considered to be pitching in line..there is no uncertainity over it because it's not a prediction. It actually happened in real time unlike the " ball hitting/missing the stumps" prediction.
Click to expand...
Well, I would say that it was close. Matter of whiskers actually. Have to give benefit of doubt to DRS.

Khz3vfH.png
 
Mesozoic said:
Well there you go.. you've answered your own question.

It'd have been a "shocker" if the ball is way outside the line of leg stump and still it showed to be pitching in line.
Click to expand...
Most of the dodgy calls were against India. One ball hit the top of upper thigh. Ball barely grazed the leg stump. Given instantly.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
Most of the dodgy calls were against India. One ball hit the top of upper thigh. Ball barely grazed the leg stump. Given instantly.
Click to expand...

Seems Rohit said it before the tea break that Umpires won't give close decisions in India's favour.
 
Former England captain Michael Vaughan says TV cameras should be placed on Decision Review System operators in order to provide "transparency".

England have been frustrated by a number of DRS decisions during their ongoing tour of India.

"I'm not saying anyone is cheating," said Vaughan.

"I'm trying to give an answer for when a decision is made and we all disagree with it. If the person on Hawk-Eye is filmed it puts the noise to bed."

Basingstoke-based Hawk-Eye is providing the ball-tracking information for England's series in India.

England's Joe Root appeared to be aggrieved on the third day of the fourth Test when he was given out on review to India off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin.

BBC
 
cricketjoshila said:
And why should it be told to every random guy on the street?

Its told to the client who is paying for the service.
Click to expand...
Dude...I'm not why you're willing to be so confident on the ICC's behalf. Do you have access to a statement where they assert that they have seen tests of the predictive accuracy of the technology and are satisfied?

I accept you're probably annoyed with rpant's continuous hectoring but you don't have to be the iCC and Hawkeye's shill. Just accept you have your doubts but are willing to accept it.
 
Content credit to a handle on twitter.
India Innings:
- Shubman Gill - Umpire's Call on Impact
- Rajat Patidar - Umpire's Call on Hitting
- Ashwin - Umpire's Call on Hitting
- Akash Deep - Umpire's Call on Hitting

England Innings:
- Ben Duckett - Umpire's Call on Hitting - Given Not Out
- Ollie Pope - Given Not Out, India successfully reviewed to reverse it on 3 Reds
- Bairstow - Given Not Out, India successfully reviewed to reverse it on 3 Reds
- Ollie Robinson - Given Not Out, looked plumb, 3 reds on replays, India didn't have reviews left

That's 8-0 to England. Not a single decision where England were on the wrong side in this test!

England Second innings:

Ollie Pope - Given out, umpire's call on review.
Joe Root given not out - successfully reviewed by India - three reds.
Ben Stokes - given not out, umpire's call.

10/11 on field decisions in England's favor so far.

Above post is Courtesy of a Twitter handle i follow.

I don't know what is England complaining about.

Gavaskar said it right, they are one whining team.

The series isn't over. Test match is nicely poised. But whining has started.
 
Red-Indian said:
Dude...I'm not why you're willing to be so confident on the ICC's behalf. Do you have access to a statement where they assert that they have seen tests of the predictive accuracy of the technology and are satisfied?

I accept you're probably annoyed with rpant's continuous hectoring but you don't have to be the iCC and Hawkeye's shill. Just accept you have your doubts but are willing to accept it.
Click to expand...


Statements made by BCCI in 2016 said they were satisfied. Anil kumble himself attended the tests at MIT.

Kohli was present during the presentation.

They all said they are ok with the technology. After this BCCI accepted the DRS.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Content credit to a handle on twitter.
India Innings:
- Shubman Gill - Umpire's Call on Impact
- Rajat Patidar - Umpire's Call on Hitting
- Ashwin - Umpire's Call on Hitting
- Akash Deep - Umpire's Call on Hitting

England Innings:
- Ben Duckett - Umpire's Call on Hitting - Given Not Out
- Ollie Pope - Given Not Out, India successfully reviewed to reverse it on 3 Reds
- Bairstow - Given Not Out, India successfully reviewed to reverse it on 3 Reds
- Ollie Robinson - Given Not Out, looked plumb, 3 reds on replays, India didn't have reviews left

That's 8-0 to England. Not a single decision where England were on the wrong side in this test!

England Second innings:

Ollie Pope - Given out, umpire's call on review.
Joe Root given not out - successfully reviewed by India - three reds.
Ben Stokes - given not out, umpire's call.

10/11 on field decisions in England's favor so far.

Above post is Courtesy of a Twitter handle i follow.

I don't know what is England complaining about.

Gavaskar said it right, they are one whining team.

The series isn't over. Test match is nicely poised. But whining has started.
Click to expand...

I quite like how you conveniently left out the majority of the decisions that favoured India...
 
rpant_gabba said:
so how exactly the margin of error established?
Click to expand...

We have already established that Nobody other than HawkEye + ICC knows that info. We have also established that Other than you and a handful of other pedantics nobody that really matters in this topic ( which would be the ICC + players ) really cares about the margin of error/accuracy. Their complaints are more to do with the umpires call aspect of DRS which is a different topic.

We have also established that you do not have any reliable source to disprove the stated accuracy claims by HE.

So given the above facts, do you mind explaining why you feel soo strongly about this topic .. so much soo that you feel the need for aggro as substitute for any lack of evidence/substance ?.​
 
cricketjoshila said:
Statements made by BCCI in 2016 said they were satisfied. Anil kumble himself attended the tests at MIT.

Kohli was present during the presentation.

They all said they are ok with the technology. After this BCCI accepted the DRS.
Click to expand...
So are you actively opposing giving the data to fans and fanatics or just saying it doesn't matter?

If it's the first I don't understand. If it's the second, sure I guess it's okay if you're utterly convinced but it's still a slightly weird position to take that data needn't be made available to the cricket data obsessed.
 
uppercut said:

We have already established that Nobody other than HawkEye + ICC knows that info. We have also established that Other than you and a handful of other pedantics nobody that really matters in this topic ( which would be the ICC + players ) really cares about the margin of error/accuracy. Their complaints are more to do with the umpires call aspect of DRS which is a different topic.

We have also established that you do not have any reliable source to disprove the stated accuracy claims by HE.

So given the above facts, do you mind explaining why you feel soo strongly about this topic .. so much soo that you feel the need for aggro as substitute for any lack of evidence/substance ?.​
Click to expand...
guess its from basic logic.

If nasser is going to get on TV and preach, he better be able to back up what he said.

Until those answers become public, question will be asked, in particular when the technology is used in such a public way.

BTW they do care about the margin of errors, otherwise, ben stokes wouldn't be moaning about umpires calls and nasser woulnd't have to vomit what he is told.
 
What a whiny tweet from Vaughan. He was okay with trajectory of ball hitting the upper thigh and barely grazing the stumps both for height and line instead of missing completely but he has problem with 3 reds. No issue 1 red + 2 oranges. 5 of them as a matter of fact.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Content credit to a handle on twitter.
India Innings:
- Shubman Gill - Umpire's Call on Impact
- Rajat Patidar - Umpire's Call on Hitting
- Ashwin - Umpire's Call on Hitting
- Akash Deep - Umpire's Call on Hitting

England Innings:
- Ben Duckett - Umpire's Call on Hitting - Given Not Out
- Ollie Pope - Given Not Out, India successfully reviewed to reverse it on 3 Reds
- Bairstow - Given Not Out, India successfully reviewed to reverse it on 3 Reds
- Ollie Robinson - Given Not Out, looked plumb, 3 reds on replays, India didn't have reviews left

That's 8-0 to England. Not a single decision where England were on the wrong side in this test!

England Second innings:

Ollie Pope - Given out, umpire's call on review.
Joe Root given not out - successfully reviewed by India - three reds.
Ben Stokes - given not out, umpire's call.

10/11 on field decisions in England's favor so far.

Above post is Courtesy of a Twitter handle i follow.

I don't know what is England complaining about.

Gavaskar said it right, they are one whining team.

The series isn't over. Test match is nicely poised. But whining has started.
Click to expand...
This ! Not a word here from Stokes or the Eng press. DRS was meant to remove howlers - and thats how it is supposed to work and it is in this case. None of the above are howlers. All very close calls. Teams should stop complaining about DRS and stop playing the victim card. So many went against Ind - and no issues whatsoever. Teams should stop moaning and whining on DRS and address their mediocrity and inefficiencies.
 
rpant_gabba said:
guess its from basic logic.

If nasser is going to get on TV and preach, he better be able to back up what he said.

Until those answers become public, question will be asked, in particular when the technology is used in such a public way.
Click to expand...

Anything but logic. If logic dictated your viewpoints on this subject of "Right to Testing Data before use/adoption" you should never be taking any medications given the large number of medications that are withdrawn only after the disastrous consequences came to light after the medications were approved by entities that you claim have immense trust to such extent that you do not see the need to cross verify that data. This is not like one or two medications BTW.​

But whereas in the case of HE ... by nature its work is publicly visible day-in-and-day out ( and most importantly you can tell if it did a reasonable job or not thru naked eyes ). In that regard except for rare exceptions no-one in their right mind can accuse it of being faulty other than hiding behind pedantic reasons like "Show me the Testing Data else its all bakwas kinda mindset".

So I ask again ... what is the real agenda here ?


rpant_gabba said:
BTW they do care about the margin of errors, otherwise, ben stokes wouldn't be moaning about umpires calls and nasser woulnd't have to vomit what he is told.
Click to expand...

You are just plain wrong on this. All those who question the umpires call are actually happy with the technology making the yes/no decision by completely overruling the umpire even if the ball just kissed the stumps. They do not want the umpires decision to stand when HE is showing the ball to be hitting. Therefore what they are asking is once the decision is referred HE becomes "The Umpire". Whatever the onfield umpire's decision was it does not influence the eventual outcome. This is what they mean when they want umpires call eliminated.
 
uppercut said:
<snip>​
Click to expand...
Sorry bro you are way too affected by the bucknors to think rationally about this.

Anyway, we have HE operator who is stridently anti-india trying to choke on it, we have vaughan kicking up a whinefest on twitter,

between this series and PSL , it hasn't been a good month for crapeye
 
rpant_gabba said:
Sorry bro you are way too affected by the bucknors to think rationally about this.
Click to expand...

Unlike you Iam open to admit that provided you ACTUALLY PROVE that Bucknor was better than HE. Go ahead lets see the facts. Show me a few Bucknoresque howlers and they also have to largely impact one team and decisively alter the result of the testmatch.

Tag me if and when you find such evidence that anyone can scrutinize thru naked eyes without having to fall back to pedantics.

rpant_gabba said:
Anyway, we have HE operator who is stridently anti-india trying to choke on it, we have vaughan kicking up a whinefest on twitter,

between this series and PSL , it hasn't been a good month for crapeye
Click to expand...

Well then you should have plenty of ammo to answer the question I asked above ? What seems to be stopping you from making that "Bucknor List" ?
 
uppercut said:
Unlike you Iam open to admit that provided you ACTUALLY PROVE that Bucknor was better than HE. Go ahead lets see the facts. Show me a few Bucknoresque howlers and they also have to largely impact one team and decisively alter the result of the testmatch.

Tag me if and when you find such evidence that anyone can scrutinize thru naked eyes without having to fall back to pedantics.



Well then you should have plenty of ammo to answer the question I asked above ? What seems to be stopping you from making that "Bucknor List" ?
Click to expand...
doing the test that I propose would answer that question of umpire vs HE.

if calling for data is pedantics in your book, i'm pedantic.
 
Whining about DRS won't make it bad. Lot of calls were dead on. Few of them are marginal which is the same with naked eye decision. Too many variables involved in making lbw calls in real time. Unless you attach something to the ball there is no way you can come up with accurate trajectory prediction of the ball after impact. If a batsman gets hit on the full well outside the crease ball's trajectory will be assume to be straight. Hawkeye won't know what the bowler was trying to do. It might turn big and miss the stumps after pitching.
 
rpant_gabba said:
doing the test that I propose would answer that question of umpire vs HE.
Click to expand...

But since YOU are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that HE is crap .... lets see what YOU got in the form of real tangible evidence ( Other than hiding behind lack of data ).

rpant_gabba said:
if calling for data is pedantics in your book, i'm pedantic.
Click to expand...

When you declare that HE is crap in the absence of the data that you are demanding then you become pedantic ... especially when HE's work is publicly visible and you can easily tell if there has been a blunder. You also keep forgetting that the broadcast cameras are not operated by HE technicians and they have enough long senses and angles to call out any egregious howlers by HE.


BTW Virtual eye is another company that ICC uses for LBW decisions. Do you similarly doubt their Tech as well ? lol​
 
uppercut said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
we will going around in circles till kingdom come.
uppercut said:
BTW Virtual eye is another company that ICC uses for LBW decisions. Do you similarly doubt their Tech as well ? lol​
Click to expand...
Yup. This has been discussed in great detail 10+ years ago on rec.sport.cricket.

It doesn't matter who makes the claim.

I'm surprised you don't seem to appreciate how ridiculous it has gotten.

Millions of dollars are spent on a technology that, IMO, hasn't proved its performance claims.

BCCI and indian playes were roasted over the coals for questioning it

Now, we have former captain's implying HE team is cheating and wants to put camera's in the HE van.

All this can be put rest so easily and yet hasn't happened after 10+ years.
 
rpant_gabba said:
we will going around in circles till kingdom come.
Click to expand...

Thats because your entire case revolves around hiding behind this pedantry: "No data = Evidence of Faulty system"

Do you realize how illogical that is ? I mean on the one hand you cannot deny that HE plays out in the public and anyone can call out howlers but at the same time you have so far not produced one single such data point.

So using your own pedantic logic I can very well say that since you have no data you have no case !!

So if you are such a stickler to data driven analysis and decision making .... start by eating your own proverbial dogfood and come up with data that I can look at.


rpant_gabba said:
Yup. This has been discussed in great detail 10+ years ago on rec.sport.cricket.

It doesn't matter who makes the claim.

I'm surprised you don't seem to appreciate how ridiculous it has gotten.

Millions of dollars are spent on a technology that, IMO, hasn't proved its performance claims.

BCCI and indian playes were roasted over the coals for questioning it

Now, we have former captain's implying HE team is cheating and wants to put camera's in the HE van.

All this can be put rest so easily and yet hasn't happened after 10+ years.
Click to expand...


Do you have any evidence in the form of publicly available footage using which you can independently prove that HE is a very faulty system not worthy of its price tag ? Answer Yes/No.

If you want this discussion to continue , then answer that simple question above with a YES/NO. Else thanks much and this ends here.
 
Red-Indian said:
So are you actively opposing giving the data to fans and fanatics or just saying it doesn't matter?

If it's the first I don't understand. If it's the second, sure I guess it's okay if you're utterly convinced but it's still a slightly weird position to take that data needn't be made available to the cricket data obsessed.
Click to expand...

Fans or whoever wants the data can ask Hawk eye, if Hawk eye wants it may or may not give.

That doesn't make a difference to me.

The actual stakeholders the clients have seen the data and are satisfied. That's enough for me.
 
rpant_gabba said:
well worth a read

brokencricketdreams.com

Technology in Cricket (The Definitive Guide): Economics & Cost of the Review System, DRS, Hawkeye, Ultraedge, LED Bails, and More! | Broken Cricket Dreams Cricket Blog

The complete guide to technology in cricket: Cost, Impact, and History. From DRS, Hawkeye, and Hotspot to LED Bails and SpiderCams!
brokencricketdreams.com brokencricketdreams.com
Click to expand...


you should read and understand your own pieces of evidence that you are using to make your case.

here is why ... (tid-bit from the article you supposedly quoted to make your point):

------

Impact/Features:​

DRS has certainly impacted cricket for the positive. Although it has taken a few years to evolve, the DRS has definitely helped cricket in getting rid of the howlers (recall, 2008 Sydney Test).

So unless you have made a U-Turn in your stance I am not sure why you are using that article to support your anti-HE stance.
 
uppercut said:
you should read and understand your own pieces of evidence that you are using to make your case.

here is why ... (tid-bit from the article you supposedly quoted to make your point):

------

Impact/Features:​

DRS has certainly impacted cricket for the positive. Although it has taken a few years to evolve, the DRS has definitely helped cricket in getting rid of the howlers (recall, 2008 Sydney Test).

So unless you have made a U-Turn in your stance I am not sure why you are using that article to support your anti-HE stance.
Click to expand...
The focus is on the cost aspect. You know hard numbers and data. Guess that went over your head.
 
rpant_gabba said:
The focus is on the cost aspect. You know hard numbers and data. Guess that went over your head.
Click to expand...

The bigger point is that it is worth that price tag which obviously went waaaay above your head. And I see that you conveniently ducked my question in post# 273. Not surprising.
 
uppercut said:
The bigger point is that it is worth that price tag which obviously went waaaay above your head. And I see that you conveniently ducked my question in post# 273. Not surprising.
Click to expand...
That is a guess on his part, just like HE guessing where the ball might have gone
 
rpant_gabba said:
That is a guess on his part, just like HE guessing where the ball might have gone
Click to expand...

Wrong again .... he clearly mentions that it was tested by MIT. There is even a link to CI article regarding the details of that. So unless you have reasons to believe that this testing was faulty... you have no case.

Also as I have said numerous times .... its not guess work because HE's work is publicly visible on a near daily basis. If it was sooo faulty it would have been history by now. People are not fools to keep pretending that it is working while it is handing out one howler after another like Bucknor did. There is no hiding place in the age of social media.

And before you feel like indulging in another round of mindless circular discussion please respond to my post # 273. My guess is you will expertly pretend that there is no such thing as post 273.

Link to HE Testing article published on CI : HawkEye Testing
 
uppercut said:
Wrong again .... he clearly mentions that it was tested by MIT. There is even a link to CI article regarding the details of that. So unless you have reasons to believe that this testing was faulty... you have no case.

Also as I have said numerous times .... its not guess work because HE's work is publicly visible on a near daily basis. If it was sooo faulty it would have been history by now. People are not fools to keep pretending that it is working while it is handing out one howler after another like Bucknor did. There is no hiding place in the age of social media.

And before you feel like indulging in another round of mindless circular discussion please respond to my post # 273. My guess is you will expertly pretend that there is no such thing as post 273.

Link to HE Testing article published on CI : HawkEye Testing
Click to expand...

what is publicly availiable is a nice graphics for the gullible ones.

HE predictive feature claims it can do some thing that has not be done before. It hasn't demonstrated to the public.

you are welcome to fall for it. bit like the religious folk. I'm not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rpant_gabba said:
yes. unlike you, not getting carried away by the MIT name.


what is publicly availiable is a nice graphics for the gullible ones.
Click to expand...


Yeah because MIT has this track record of fooling people I suppose in your bizzarro world ?

rpant_gabba said:
The only one mindless here is you. more like brainless.

HE predictive feature claims it can do some thing that has not be done before. It hasn't demonstrated to the public.

you are welcome to fall for it. bit like the religious folk. I'm not.
Click to expand...

So the reason why you are religiously dodging answering post# 273 is ..... ? And then you have the cheek to accuse me of being brainless and gullible. If you are soo intelligent why not start providing straight answers instead of dodging straight forward questions ?
 
uppercut said:
Yeah because MIT has this track record of fooling people I suppose in your bizzarro world ?
Click to expand...
Previous the claim by icc was cambridge. turned out it wasn't. now the claim is MIT. MIT is an institute of higher education, generate and distributes knowledge, made its reputation by publishing methodologies and data and putting it to peer review. not by saying just trust us folks. why hasn't happened here?
uppercut said:
So the reason why you are religiously dodging answering post# 273 is ..... ? And then you have the cheek to accuse me of being brainless and gullible. If you are soo intelligent why not start providing straight answers instead of dodging straight forward questions ?
Click to expand...
Simple. I'm not here to compare Bucknors to HE. That is strawman you want to hoist.

Umpires have to guess what the ball might have done. That to date is unmeasurable/unquantifiable.

HE claims it can predict to a quantifiable accuracy. 15 years later, still not evidence of that claim.
 
rpant_gabba said:
Previous the claim by icc was cambridge. turned out it wasn't. now the claim is MIT. MIT is an institute of higher education, generate and distributes knowledge, made its reputation by publishing methodologies and data and putting it to peer review. not by saying just trust us folks. why hasn't happened here?
Click to expand...

That sounds like a slam dunk libel case against ICC ... do you really think that the ICC is soo stupid ? Seriously ... to what extent will you go to hang on to your wild conspiracy theories ? I mean this news was broadcast on mainstream media !!


rpant_gabba said:
Simple. I'm not here to compare Bucknors to HE. That is strawman you want to hoist.
Click to expand...

Whether you like it or not Bucknor is the reason why HE and technology shot into prominence in cricket. Pioneer for the wrong reasons.

rpant_gabba said:
Umpires have to guess what the ball might have done. That to date is unmeasurable/unquantifiable.
Click to expand...

And why are you ok with the fact that umpires did not owe so much as an explanation for their decisions ? Infact they enjoyed unbridled immunity from any scrutiny. How do you reconcile with that considering the high road that you want to take in the case of HE wherein unless and until you have evidence in black and white + certified by a supreme court judge.​

rpant_gabba said:
HE claims it can predict to a quantifiable accuracy. 15 years later, still not evidence of that claim.
Click to expand...

And what is your evidence to the contrary ? I am asking for like the 10th time. And pretty sure you will now dodge this again.

In short you got evidence ? YES / NO
 
uppercut said:
That sounds like a slam dunk libel case against ICC ... do you really think that the ICC is soo stupid ? Seriously ... to what extent will you go to hang on to your wild conspiracy theories ? I mean this news was broadcast on mainstream media !!
Click to expand...
LMAO. guess you have transferred your field of expertise to law now? i live in the most litigious country in the world. Good thing there also the 1st amendment.

Why don't tell what was libellous about my statement

Let me help you by by posting it again.

"Previous the claim by icc was cambridge. turned out it wasn't. now the claim is MIT. MIT is an institute of higher education, generate and distributes knowledge, made its reputation by publishing methodologies and data and putting it to peer review. not by saying just trust us folks. why hasn't happened here?"

which part is libel?

uppercut said:
Whether you like it or not Bucknor is the reason why HE and technology shot into prominence in cricket. Pioneer for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
get this thro your head: don't care about bucknors
uppercut said:
And why are you ok with the fact that umpires did not owe so much as an explanation for their decisions ? Infact they enjoyed unbridled immunity from any scrutiny. How do you reconcile with that considering the high road that you want to take in the case of HE wherein unless and until you have evidence in black and white + certified by a supreme court judge.​
Click to expand...
Becos there is claim that it is any thing other than a guess.
uppercut said:
And what is your evidence to the contrary ? I am asking for like the 10th time. And pretty sure you will now dodge this again.
Click to expand...
We are back to burden of proof. It is on those who make a positive claim

why is it that hard for you to comprehend?
uppercut said:
In short you got evidence ? YES / NO
Click to expand...
burden of proof. read the concept.
 
here is the cambridge claim debunked.


Previous employment​

  • 2011--2017: running Computer Vision Consulting, Limited (now closed).
  • 2010--2011: University of Cambridge, University Lecturer in the Engineering Department.
  • 2008--2011: University of Cambridge, Research Associate in the Machine Intelligence Laboratory.
  • 2006--2008: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Associate in the ISR-2 group.
At the time of doing the evaluation for ICC, Ed Rosten had no association with cambridge
 
rpant_gabba said:
LMAO. guess you have transferred your field of expertise to law now? i live in the most litigious country in the world. Good thing there also the 1st amendment.

Why don't tell what was libellous about my statement

Let me help you by by posting it again.

"Previous the claim by icc was cambridge. turned out it wasn't. now the claim is MIT. MIT is an institute of higher education, generate and distributes knowledge, made its reputation by publishing methodologies and data and putting it to peer review. not by saying just trust us folks. why hasn't happened here?"

which part is libel?
Click to expand...


The part where whoever used the name of MIT/Cambridge without permission of those institutions ( which is what you are implying ). And BTW this is not covered by 1st amendment and I live in that same country.


rpant_gabba said:
get this thro your head: don't care about bucknors

Becos there is claim that it is any thing other than a guess.
Click to expand...

Dont care what you care for or not. It is a fact of cricketing history. Live with it.

rpant_gabba said:
We are back to burden of proof. It is on those who make a positive claim

why is it that hard for you to comprehend?

burden of proof. read the concept.
Click to expand...


Because I don't represent HE and therefore I am not responsible for their claims nor do I owe you anything ( I said this upfront and a long time ago in this discussion). I have no conflict of interest in this matter. So this is a private matter between 2 private citizens and both have no control/influence over this.

But since you are soooo god damn convinced that HE is selling snake oil and there are millions of gullible buyers ( except you ofcourse) I am asking you to prove it by providing some credible evidence ( and since you stoutly claim to be a evidence based individual the expectation is that you are in possession of such clinching evidence ... so where is it ?? ). This should be really easy to compile and furbish as Hawkeye's work is very public.

Now considering that you have dodged this simple question over and over again the one and only conclusion is that you are the one selling snake oil ?
​
 
uppercut said:
The part where whoever used the name of MIT/Cambridge without permission of those institutions ( which is what you are implying ). And BTW this is not covered by 1st amendment and I live in that same country.
Click to expand...
Its the ICC. they were careful enough to couth in language of plausible deniability.

Cambridge associated (even though he wasn't at that time)--> turns into to tested at cambridge for the uninformed.

BTW, its is comical how you ignored the MIT rep earned through publishing and peer review. Maybe ICC should follow what MIT and Cambridge normally do. Publish and put it to peer review

uppercut said:
Dont care what you care for or not. It is a fact of cricketing history. Live with it.
Click to expand...
immaterial to HE's claim
uppercut said:
Because I don't represent HE and therefore I am not responsible for their claims nor do I owe you anything ( I said this upfront and a long time ago in this discussion). I have no conflict of interest in this matter. So this is a private matter between 2 private citizens and both have no control/influence over this.

But since you are soooo god damn convinced that HE is selling snake oil and there are millions of gullible buyers ( except you ofcourse) I am asking you to prove it by providing some credible evidence ( and since you stoutly claim to be a evidence based individual the expectation is that you are in possession of such clinching evidence ... so where is it ?? ). This should be really easy to compile and furbish as Hawkeye's work is very public.​
Click to expand...
What about HE's work is public other than the graphics for the gullible idiots.?

care to show the predcitive algorithm? the test methodology? how they arrived at accuracy claim?
uppercut said:
Now considering that you have dodged this simple question over and over again the one and only conclusion is that you are the one selling snake oil ?​
Click to expand...
can't help you if your don't understand burden of proof. don't feel bad. Its common thing among religious folks
 
rpant_gabba said:
What about HE's work is public other than the graphics for the gullible idiots.?
Click to expand...

Prove that people are gullible idiots. Since you automatically position yourself as the intelligent one who is also data/test driven what is your evidence to back that up ? . The onus is squarely on you because you are the one that is making a sweeping claim.

Note: I am not saying that you are right or wrong. Infact if you are right you can actually sue the pants out of HE and ICC.



rpant_gabba said:
care to show the predcitive algorithm? the test methodology? how they arrived at accuracy claim?


can't help you if your don't understand burden of proof. don't feel bad. Its common thing among religious folks
Click to expand...

I already told you I don't care what HE claims or not as I have no affiliation with them therefore I don't owe you any explanation on their behalf ( infact I cannot !!) .. But since you are telling me I am a gullible fool to believe in their technology the burden of proof is on you to prove that their tech is faulty.

Furthermore since you claim to be a data+test driven individual I expect you to provide very specific instances of where HE bungled up big time to such an extent that it wrecked test matches just like Bucknor or any umpire in the past did. ( That is my own personal benchmark and is infact the genesis of technology in cricket )​

To make it easier for you ... I will promise not to rely on media articles as evidence to HE's accuracy. Instead I will solely rely of video evidence + judgement + cricketing knowhow + common sense + basic science to determine if a LBW decision is a howler or not. Is that fair ?
 
uppercut said:
Prove that people are gullible idiots. Since you automatically position yourself as the intelligent one who is also data/test driven what is your evidence to back that up ? . The onus is squarely on you because you are the one that is making a sweeping claim.
Click to expand...
LMAO. running away from a positive claim

Let me repost the claim

"Hawkeye's work is very public"

Post the sources
uppercut said:
Note: I am not saying that you are right or wrong. Infact if you are right you can actually sue the pants out of HE and ICC.
Click to expand...
Cambridge probably has better things to do. Like generating data and publishing with peer review
uppercut said:
I already told you I don't care what HE claims or not as I have no affiliation with them therefore I don't owe you any explanation on their behalf ( infact I cannot !!) .. But since you are telling me I am a gullible fool to believe in their technology the burden of proof is on you to prove that their tech is faulty.​
Click to expand...

uppercut said:

Furthermore since you claim to be a data+test driven individual I expect you to provide very specific instances of where HE bungled up big time to such an extent that it wrecked test matches just like Bucknor or any umpire in the past did. ( That is my own personal benchmark and is infact the genesis of technology in cricket )​
Click to expand...
Once again: burden of Proof.

HE/ICC: we can predict position of ball within mm's at stumps based on measurement up to 3m away and it has never been done before

Me: Prove it

I'm under no obligation to provide anything to negate HE/ICC. Its all on ICC/HE.

uppercut said:
To make it easier for you ... I will promise not to rely on media articles as evidence to HE's accuracy. Instead I will solely rely of video evidence + judgement + cricketing knowhow + common sense + basic science to determine if a LBW decision is a howler or not. Is that fair ?
Click to expand...
Word salad which amount to nothing in my book
 
rpant_gabba said:
LMAO. running away from a positive claim

Let me repost the claim

"Hawkeye's work is very public"

Post the sources

Cambridge probably has better things to do. Like generating data and publishing with peer review



Once again: burden of Proof.

HE/ICC: we can predict position of ball within mm's at stumps based on measurement up to 3m away and it has never been done before

Me: Prove it

I'm under no obligation to provide anything to negate HE/ICC. Its all on ICC/HE.


Word salad which amount to nothing in my book
Click to expand...

Lets do this VERY VERY SLOWLY. Please provide yes/no answers ONLY.


Do you think I work or Iam affiliated to HawkEye ? Yes/No
 
uppercut said:
well its very important in the context of this discussion ... so decide and let me know.
Click to expand...
no, its not.

you want carry the water for HE bcos your brain has been bukcnored

I on the other hand prefer not to switch to untested unproven system to to some thing that has never been done before.

thats it.
 
rpant_gabba said:
no, its not.

you want carry the water for HE bcos your brain has been bukcnored

I on the other hand prefer not to switch to untested unproven system to to some thing that has never been done before.

thats it.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I find your position quite untenable.

When I used deductive logic to make an inference that hawkeye is getting most of the decisions right, you said that there were 3 possible scenarios and we needed proof to see which one was true.

I am still inclined to give you benefit of the doubt.

But looking at the entire discussion pattern with various positions you have taken you have already decided

1. Hawkeye is not accurate

2. You would rather the similar amount be invested in training umpires rather than dodgy technology

3. Until and unless you get irrefutable evidence that Hawkeye works, you trust the naked eye more than a machine.

Now isnt that quite a leap from your original 3 point scenario you expostulated when I tried to use deductive reasoning.

There is a scentific term for what you are doing right now. And no its not "burden of proof" as you think Hawkeye should provide.

A pre-determined mindset and "proof to the contrary or I stick to my original thinking" is called …............ (blank filled by anyone who knows scientific method).

Which is why your position, as I said, is almost untenable.
 
rpant_gabba said:
no, its not.

you want carry the water for HE bcos your brain has been bukcnored
Click to expand...

Not until you prove that Bucknor was right. Remember it was not just Bucknor ... there were a whole list of abominable umpires who completely foo-barred numerous Test matches, And unlike you I can actually prove that with facts.


rpant_gabba said:
I on the other hand prefer not to switch to untested unproven system
to to some thing that has never been done before.

thats it.
Click to expand...

so what was the "System" that the cricketing world relied on prior to HE and what was the data to back up that system ... lol ?
 
Dr_Bassim said:
To be honest, I find your position quite untenable.

When I used deductive logic to make an inference that hawkeye is getting most of the decisions right, you said that there were 3 possible scenarios and we needed proof to see which one was true.

I am still inclined to give you benefit of the doubt.

But looking at the entire discussion pattern with various positions you have taken you have already decided

1. Hawkeye is not accurate

2. You would rather the similar amount be invested in training umpires rather than dodgy technology

3. Until and unless you get irrefutable evidence that Hawkeye works, you trust the naked eye more than a machine.

Now isnt that quite a leap from your original 3 point scenario you expostulated when I tried to use deductive reasoning.

There is a scentific term for what you are doing right now. And no its not "burden of proof" as you think Hawkeye should provide.

A pre-determined mindset and "proof to the contrary or I stick to my original thinking" is called …............ (blank filled by anyone who knows scientific method).

Which is why your position, as I said, is almost untenable.
Click to expand...
We have gone though any iterations of this.

Let mesummarize my view

Pre HE: LBW is guess by the umpire as what the ball might have done. Its a guess. nothing better to work with.

HE: We can predict to 2.5cm accuracy from trajectory data available 3m away.

In my line of profession, If I take such a thing to my boss without the supporting data, I'll be shown the door. If we took it to the customer and told to them to spend $20-30M per year on such a thing, we will laughed out and blacklisted. and we actually have been.

In the case of HE, 15 years later, there is no demonstrated evidence, no information on methods used for testing, no information on how they arrived at the accuracy claim.

not sure how one can use deductive reasoning to verify that technology is accurate at doing something, while claiming teh deductive reasoning of umpires is not accurate enough.

HE falls apart if the accuracy is +/- 5cm instead of claimed 2.5cm.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. After 15 years and raking in $100M+ in fees, its about time for HE and ICC to show their cards.
 
uppercut said:
Not until you prove that Bucknor was right. Remember it was not just Bucknor ... there were a whole list of abominable umpires who completely foo-barred numerous Test matches, And unlike you I can actually prove that with facts.




so what was the "System" that the cricketing world relied on prior to HE and what was the data to back up that system ... lol ?
Click to expand...
sorry bro this is not going go anywhere.
 
rpant_gabba said:
We have gone though any iterations of this.

Let mesummarize my view

Pre HE: LBW is guess by the umpire as what the ball might have done. Its a guess. nothing better to work with.

HE: We can predict to 2.5cm accuracy from trajectory data available 3m away.

In my line of profession, If I take such a thing to my boss without the supporting data, I'll be shown the door. If we took it to the customer and told to them to spend $20-30M per year on such a thing, we will laughed out and blacklisted. and we actually have been.

In the case of HE, 15 years later, there is no demonstrated evidence, no information on methods used for testing, no information on how they arrived at the accuracy claim.

not sure how one can use deductive reasoning to verify that technology is accurate at doing something, while claiming teh deductive reasoning of umpires is not accurate enough.

HE falls apart if the accuracy is +/- 5cm instead of claimed 2.5cm.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. After 15 years and raking in $100M+ in fees, its about time for HE and ICC to show their cards.
Click to expand...

Even if I take your line of reasoning, you have inherent flaws in your inductive method.

If you brought something like this, you would be laughed out the door. However, you are not the end game target and ICC is the one benefitting from Hawkeye. It is they, not you, who should be laughing at data provided.

But they are not laughing rather they are supporting the data (provided or unprovided) to make Hawkeye a part of every game.

This could possibly mean only a few things.

1. ICC didnt do their due diligence before accepting Hawkeye and were suckered into it.

2. ICC was satisfied with the preliminary data provided and deemed it verifiable enough to lay the foundation of Hawkeye

3. ICC were never interested in the data because they wanted the game to remove howlers that umpires were making.

If its 3, Hawkeye is doing a good job. Better than umpires, and I am sure you dont have an issue with Hawkeye removing howlers.

If its either 1 or 2, which your argument seems to link to, then you should still have a neutral position about the Hawkeye. Either it works or its way off target. No two ways about it. Right?

My only fault with your inductive reasoning is that you are not neutral to begin with, even for an inductive argument. You have a preconceived notion that Hawkeye doesnt really work, has a huge margin of error, umpires work better than Hawkeye because their prediction is better than Hawkeyes prediction so they should invest more in umpire training; ICC is an incompetent body and so on.

You are already biased against Hawkeye and every argument you make in this thread is supporting your preconceived bias.

By the way, I have no issue with you launching a tirade against Hawkeye and asking for statistical proof to believe Hawkeye works. Some people are unable to accept deductive logic and want inductive proof to accept something works and that is fine.

My only issue was you are not following scientific method as you are trying to convince others in the thread; your bias precludes you from doing so.

Asking for burden of proof is fair.

Making others believe that you are neutral and you are following a scientific method and reasoning while being inherently biased is "intellectual dishonesty" and I will call out any poster who tries to do it here.
 
rpant_gabba said:
sorry bro this is not going go anywhere.
Click to expand...

lol what a cop out .... entirely your problem due to obvious reasons ... but not surprising however. Come back here when you have direct answers to my posts especially to my post # 273 in this thread.

And I will stick my neck out and say this .... you will go to the ends of the earth to avoid answering that question ... reason? ... well look at @Dr_Bassim post just above this which is waaay more articulate than what I could come up with.
 
Dr_Bassim said:
You are already biased against Hawkeye and every argument you make in this thread is supporting your preconceived bias.
Click to expand...
I'll plead guilty to that. Just as I'd and have been against any process that claims to do what no one else done before.
Dr_Bassim said:
Some people are unable to accept deductive logic and want inductive proof to accept something works and that is fine.
Click to expand...
deductive reasoning is acceptable when the prediction from HE is used for amusement purpose

Inductive reasoning is required when quantitive claims are made and turn key decisions are made based on those quantitative claims.
 
rpant_gabba said:
I'll plead guilty to that. Just as I'd and have been against any process that claims to do what no one else done before.

deductive reasoning is acceptable when the prediction from HE is used for amusement purpose

Inductive reasoning is required when quantitive claims are made and turn key decisions are made based on those quantitative claims.
Click to expand...

All good bro.

As long as you know you are biased, you can carry on this discussion.

Asking for proof is fair and I wont hold you back on that.

Good luck.
 
Dr_Bassim said:
All good bro.

As long as you know you are biased, you can carry on this discussion.

Asking for proof is fair and I wont hold you back on that.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, it is not just against HE and its not personal.

It is strictly technical. Just my MO and has served me well in my career

as always, good chat.
 
rpant_gabba said:
I'll plead guilty to that. Just as I'd and have been against any process that claims to do what no one else done before.
Click to expand...


wrong again ... the old school umpires got away with horrific cricketing crimes and no one could do anything about it ... not even BCCI.

So if your claim is that the HE system is worse than the old school umpires then the onus is entirely on you to explain that with reasoning and evidence.
 
rpant_gabba said:
Just to be clear, it is not just against HE and its not personal.

It is strictly technical. Just my MO and has served me well in my career

as always, good chat.
Click to expand...


If you want to be technical then you should be more technical and thorough than the system and people you are challenging ... otherwise you will be very easily called out.

So far all you are doing is hiding behind the well known fact that HE/ICC do not publish testing date. That does not mean anything at all for the simple reason that they dont owe anything to the public other than those who they are contractually obligated to.

Dont like how that is setup ... well your bigger/better priority is to go against ICC and how they conduct their business ( whats your track record in calling them out BTW even if token ?? )
 
HawkEye Founder Provides Explanation Over Joe Root's LBW Controversy In Ranchi Test

There was a massive controversy surrounding Joe Root's LBW dismissal during the fourth Test match against India in Ranchi with several ex-cricketers even criticising the technology for what they thought was a erroneous DRS review.

During England's second innings, Ashwin's delivery crashed into Root's pads but the umpire was not convinced about the LBW shout. India went for a review and the replay showed that although it seemed like the majority of the ball pitched outside the leg-stump, the technology deemed it fair and gave it out. Some experts and fans were not happy with the decision but Paul Hawkins, the founder of HawkEye, provided an explanation regarding the controversial decision.

Speaking with Simon Hughes on ‘The Analyst' podcast, Hawkins explained the reason.

“So, firstly, you measure the width of the stumps on each day. So that then becomes the line between what's pitched in line and what's not pitched in line. And it was a very close one. It's one that in tennis, you will occasionally get a 0 or 0 scenario and tennis have decided that it's not out until it's not 0. Mm, it's 1. So actually, in tennis, we shift the bounce mark just for a presentation perspective. So a 0 becomes a 1, so you can clearly see the mark. But that's just a presentation thing,” Hawkins said.

“There's nothing different with the tracking or the answer. It just makes it clearer to the viewer. It would have been clearer on TV if the track had come off the ball. So you can see the ball more clearly over the line, which happens automatically if the ball has pitched outside leg stump,” he added.

Meanwhile, India consolidated their second spot in the World Test Championship (WTC) standing following their five-wicket win against Ben Stokes' England in the fourth Test at Ranchi.

The hosts, led by Rohit Sharma, took an unassailable 3-1 lead in the five-Test series.

India's point-percentage jumped from 59.52 to 64.58 following the hard-fought win and they further extended the gap with Australia (55%) and Bangladesh (50%), third third and fourth-placed teams, respectively.

England, on the other hand, are languishing at eighth with 19.44%, just a spot ahead of bottom-placed Sri Lanka, who are yet to open their account. India have so far played eight Tests in the current WTC cycle, winning five, losing two and drawing one match.

NDTV
 
Yet another controversy sparked during the WPL game.

This is a delivery of leg-spin. The ball lands quite near to the foot. The projection of Hawkeye interprets it as a straight ball or googly, indicating it would hit the middle stump. It would be interesting to hear an explanation from Hawkeye on this. Is it more likely for errors to occur when the ball lands very close to where it impacts the pads? It’s worth noting that Joe Root’s LBW was also a half-volley.


View attachment 9Zs-pkP3KGXgGJG8.mp4
TNcNtIe.png
 
BouncerGuy said:
Yet another controversy sparked during the WPL game.

This is a delivery of leg-spin. The ball lands quite near to the foot. The projection of Hawkeye interprets it as a straight ball or googly, indicating it would hit the middle stump. It would be interesting to hear an explanation from Hawkeye on this. Is it more likely for errors to occur when the ball lands very close to where it impacts the pads? It’s worth noting that Joe Root’s LBW was also a half-volley.


View attachment 142535
TNcNtIe.png
Click to expand...
Paging @HitWicket this does not look good. its clear to the eye its a leg break.

queue up the apologists
 
HitWicket said:
Nothing on the super slow mo that suggests there was any significant turn.
Click to expand...
from the hands you see the leg spin and the pitch and impact you can clearly the leg break.

pitch and impact are close. Its definetly not a straight one or googly
 
There was a clear leg spin in the video and should have be missing the stumps. Yet another blunder by the Hawkeye. This is getting problematic now. This kind of decisions can ruin the whole game.
 
BouncerGuy said:
There was a clear leg spin in the video and should have be missing the stumps. Yet another blunder by the Hawkeye. This is getting problematic now. This kind of decisions can ruin the whole game.
Click to expand...
but the operator of HE doesn't think its turning much.

LMAO
 
rpant_gabba said:
from the hands you see the leg spin and the pitch and impact you can clearly the leg break.

pitch and impact are close. Its definetly not a straight one or googly
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're seeing any kind of notable turn after pitching. The ball pitches and then goes straight on to the top of the boot, exactly where Hawkeye has the impact. You're being deceived by the optical illusion of it then bouncing up onto the pad.
 
Yet another controversy sparked this time during the Sri Lanka vs Bangladesh T20 game. It was not Haweye that was at fault this time but it was the 3rd umpire who made a mess of this decision. That was out clear-cut.

ICC?? Are you sleeping??

View attachment c8Upo2HGOWDBPzl1.mp4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
[PICTURE] “If a batter decides to leave the ball and it's still hitting the stumps, I think that should be out": Chris Woakes
Replies
12
Views
572
BunnyRabbit
B
BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
Proposal of single-ball rule after 25 Overs in ODIs – Will it work?
Replies
7
Views
350
Hellion
H
Ball Blazer
[VIDEO] Rishabh Pant throws ball in anger as massive controversy erupts
Replies
45
Views
989
Snowflake
S
Major
Direct throws should be the new key to winning matches
Replies
0
Views
102
Major
Major
BouncerGuy
New ICC Rules (June 2025): Stop Clock in Tests, One Ball in ODIs, and More
Replies
40
Views
2K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Back
Top