Of the referral system, etc.

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

footwork wrote:Do you think in ten/fifteen years this debate over technology will be moot, as the technology itself becomes more refined?

Undoubtedly. My gripe is that if you use the referral system it must be used to its fullest extent. That's what annoyed me about the Strauss LB decision.

A question for you, do you not think even without the technology that there was doubt there? Just as with the Boucher lbw?

Yes there was. That's my point. Technology is supposed to take away the doubt but if you use it half-heartedly it creates more.

A queston for you. Would Strauss have been given out caught behind on the evidence presented for the inside edge?

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

footwork wrote:Do you think in ten/fifteen years this debate over technology will be moot, as the technology itself becomes more refined?

Undoubtedly. My gripe is that if you use the referral system it must be used to its fullest extent. That's what annoyed me about the Strauss LB decision.

A question for you, do you not think even without the technology that there was doubt there? Just as with the Boucher lbw?

Yes there was. That's my point. Technology is supposed to take away the doubt but if you use it half-heartedly it creates more.

A queston for you. Would Strauss have been given out caught behind on the evidence presented for the inside edge?

Haven't seen the Strauss one I'm afraid, so I can't comment. I was in the car listening to that one, sorry.

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

footwork wrote:Do you think in ten/fifteen years this debate over technology will be moot, as the technology itself becomes more refined?

Undoubtedly. My gripe is that if you use the referral system it must be used to its fullest extent. That's what annoyed me about the Strauss LB decision.

A question for you, do you not think even without the technology that there was doubt there? Just as with the Boucher lbw?

Yes there was. That's my point. Technology is supposed to take away the doubt but if you use it half-heartedly it creates more.

A queston for you. Would Strauss have been given out caught behind on the evidence presented for the inside edge?

Haven't seen the Strauss one I'm afraid, so I can't comment. I was in the car listening to that one, sorry.

fair enough.

taipan wrote:

smo wrote:From what i've seen in this test match, hawk eyes predictions have been bang on compared to tv replays.

Really???

Yes.

Do you think the introduction of the referral system is the biggest change to Test crickets since the leg side rule?

smo wrote:

taipan wrote:

smo wrote:From what i've seen in this test match, hawk eyes predictions have been bang on compared to tv replays.

Really???

Yes.

Do you think the introduction of the referral system is the biggest change to Test crickets since the leg side rule?

The bodyline change?

Actually no. The changes to the LBW rule, the front foot no ball and covering pitches are far bigger imho.

The Marcus North one today has added a question to the whole subject. Perfectly reasonable lbw decision overturned because Hawkeye said it was going over (and well over) the top of the stumps, something which I suspect most people would think was utter bollocks having seen it.

Here in the UK they've been discussing that in the studio at tea, and Mark Butcher made the very good point that he's uneasy that something that only a year ago was talked about as a "viewing aid" is now treated as gospel.

The North decision looked dead wrong.

I suppose they've tested Hawkeye's predictions thoroughly against actual ball behaviour? Wondering how bounce, state of the pitch etc are factored in.

furriner wrote:The North decision looked dead wrong.

I suppose they've tested Hawkeye's predictions thoroughly against actual ball behaviour? Wondering how bounce, state of the pitch etc are factored in.

HawkEye, when Shane Warne bowled Strauss around his legs with a vicious turner couldn't handle it and refused to accept that the ball acutally happened.

It also, in the ICC WXI v Aus Super Test (IIRC) showed a delivery from Glenn McGrath that bowled Sraeme Smith to have actually missed the stumps.

If, however, the ICC is going to allow its use, then they should go all-or-nothing.

Having said that, I don't think they should allow its use.

There was also a MacGill wrong'un that bowled someone (possibly in the SuperTest) that Hawkeye showed as a leg break and missing the stumps by about 3 feet

I now invite those who have pointed to a perceived grievous error by hawkeye to write in with your top 10 human umpiring errors.

Human beings don't claim or imply perfection. Hawkeye does, and over-rules even a correct human.

When the third umpire was first introduced for run outs, stumpings etc. there was a similar outcry. Yet the game is better for those changes.

The referrals will follow the same path. It will make the game better in the long run. It is not perfect and will evolve but the bottom line is that it will be consistent and take away the howlers if nothing else.

Interestintly here is MuMu's whinge on the same subject:

The umpires screwed us, it is not that I am over the hill

Line decisions are a question of fact. Hawkeye will never be a question of fact, because even the modelling of what is meant to have happened (i.e. BEFORE the predictive element) is not a question of fact, but an analysis of the most statistically likely path.

I am not sure that Line decisions are that factual. Several line decisions take a long time and get somewhat subjective due to parallax errors, smudged lines, foot / bat in the air etc.

Hawkeye/snicko etc will be more consistent than any human and most importantly the referrals take away the howlers such as the ball pitching outside leg, inside edges etc.

You don't need Hawkeye for those kinds of howlers actually do you?

And you're correct about those line decisions, yet you seem to be quite happy to believe a nice colourful graph that guesses about what has happened, and guesses even more about what will happen. How do you know it's more accurate? Go on, tell me how you know that. How will you ever know if it's wrong? And do explain to me why it was called nothing more than a "viewer aid"or a guide only a year ago, yet is now apparently never to be questioned.

I am not saying that Hawkeye is more accurate only that it is more consistent and that it will get more accurate as things evolve.

Josh Carney wrote:I am not saying that Hawkeye is more accurate only that it is more consistent and that it will get more accurate as things evolve.

More consistent than what?

I don't agree with the analysis hawkeye puts on things far more often than I disagree with an umpire's verdict.

Having said that, if the ICC is goingf to use technology (any technology) to remove doubt from decisions, then why have they enshrined 'doubt' in the process for LBW decisions that go to referral. It's crazy.

Effectively, for an umpire to give someone out, then it must be out in the umpires opinion. Yet the 'opinion' of the technology is being manipulated.

Just quietly, Hawkeye's projected trajectory is bullsh!t. Ollie wrongly survived, as did Sami.

Yeah, how easy would it be to pay a techie off?

Ask your nearest Bookie. Especially if he's called John.

And even easier to adjust the width of the 'mat' superimposed on the screen by a few pixels.

Are we giving Subis ideas here?

I can already see South Asian techies making mental notes. Wider mat for opposition bats, narrower for home bats.

I can see Channel Nein and Sky TV deciding to make sure Tests go into a fifth day.