HawkEye - absolute rubbish.

The Hilfenhaus appeal for LBW that was just turned down shows that HawkEye can be manipulated.

The initial HawkEye replay, supered over the TV image, showed the ball clearly pitching in line with leg stump. Seconds later, the HawkEye only replay showed a completely different trajectory, with the ball about 6 inches outside the line. Dodgy? You bet.

BTW which team turned down the appeals system for this series?

Hawkeye is rubbish, I agree. Four years ago it showed the ball missing off stump when it was lying on the ground after Katich had left it. People seem to believe it though. The tennis players feel it isn't accurate as well, and that's when it shows what actually happened, not predictions of what might happen.

Dunno, but I'm glad they did.

Yeah, I agree, but not about that one. Think there was a yorker that was blatantly swinging late and it was blatantly, going to keep going - yet HawkEye said it was going to straighten after pitching. Whatta load a cods.

Brass Monkey wrote:Yeah, I agree, but not about that one. Think there was a yorker that was blatantly swinging late and it was blatantly, going to keep going - yet HawkEye said it was going to straighten after pitching. Whatta load a cods.

That's not a Hawkeye thing. That's because the lbw law says that if hit on the full the umpire is to assume the ball goes straight on. It is one of the most idiotic laws in the game.

Shoeshine wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Yeah, I agree, but not about that one. Think there was a yorker that was blatantly swinging late and it was blatantly, going to keep going - yet HawkEye said it was going to straighten after pitching. Whatta load a cods.

That's not a Hawkeye thing. That's because the lbw law says that if hit on the full the umpire is to assume the ball goes straight on. It is one of the most idiotic laws in the game.

Yep, it's on a par with the run out law.

Shoeshine wrote:
That's not a Hawkeye thing. That's because the lbw law says that if hit on the full the umpire is to assume the ball goes straight on. It is one of the most idiotic laws in the game.

No, I know that, but it's doubtful that hawkeye would take that into account - it's not artificial intelligence.

I don't see why not, I wouldn't think it's hard to program that into it.

Shoeshine wrote:I don't see why not, I wouldn't think it's hard to program that into it.

Hmm, yeah possibly. I don't know the ins and outs of it.

which is more useless: HawkEye or Duckworth-Lewis?

Nath wrote:which is more useless: HawkEye or Duckworth-Lewis?

Ricky Ponting

Shoeshine wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Yeah, I agree, but not about that one. Think there was a yorker that was blatantly swinging late and it was blatantly, going to keep going - yet HawkEye said it was going to straighten after pitching. Whatta load a cods.

That's not a Hawkeye thing. That's because the lbw law says that if hit on the full the umpire is to assume the ball goes straight on. It is one of the most idiotic laws in the game.

The actual interpretation is that the ball will continue straight on its current path ...not go straight on ...

That's what I meant, but fair enough to clarify.

So then how is it idiotic?

The law you mean?

The way I understood the rule is that if you are hit on the full, between wicket and wicket, it is deemed that the ball will carry on to hit the stumps.

Shoeshine

yes ....how is the law idiotic?

taipan wrote:The way I understood the rule is that if you are hit on the full, between wicket and wicket, it is deemed that the day will carry on to hit the stumps.

Something like the break of day?

Zat wrote:

taipan wrote:The way I understood the rule is that if you are hit on the full, between wicket and wicket, it is deemed that the day will carry on to hit the stumps.

Something like the break of day?

Total blonde moment, thought I had caught it in time

Of course Hawkeye isn't accurate. It gets things wrong.

But it's more accurate more often than your average umpire.

taipan wrote:The way I understood the rule is that if you are hit on the full, between wicket and wicket, it is deemed that the day will carry on to hit the stumps.

it will continue straight on it's path is the interpretation ...although its commonly misquoted as straight onto the stumps

No chance.

Because it's artificial. For example, if you have a bowler turning the ball square you are asking the umpire to assume that when it would have pitched it won't do any of that, but will continue on the same line. So you're asking the batsman to take into account how much it will turn but the umpire doesn't have to. There's no reason at all you can't ask the umpire to consider off a full toss how far it would have pitched from the stumps and how the ball would have behaved from there.

If you get hit on the toe playing forward to someone who you know damn well is doing enough to take the ball way past the stumps, it's rather galling that the law in place decides to ignore any of that variation and give you out.

Edit: Oh right, you've deleted your question.

Shoeshine wrote:Because it's artificial. For example, if you have a bowler turning the ball square you are asking the umpire to assume that when it would have pitched it won't do any of that, but will continue on the same line. So you're asking the batsman to take into account how much it will turn but the umpire doesn't have to. There's no reason at all you can't ask the umpire to consider off a full toss how far it would have pitched from the stumps and how the ball would have behaved from there.

If you get hit on the toe playing forward to someone who you know damn well is doing enough to take the ball way past the stumps, it's rather galling that the law in place decides to ignore any of that variation and give you out.

Edit: Oh right, you've deleted your question.

The umpire has to make an assumption for every LBW decision ...if the assumption is "standardised" then there should be a consistency of LBW decisions