arh a classic internet forum post... it has all the hall(?) marks of a classic, a sort of interesting but slightly ambiguous opening question, some slightly miss understood assertions, a few sensibleness comments and debate, and some (No Swearing Please) mouthing off at other people...
For what its worth, I did research project on "error analysis in a kimentice tracking system", or some such title, - basically Hawk Eye - , at the University of Leeds, c2002.
It was used by the LTW when they looked at using Hawkeye or not, and I think someone at the ICC might have read it because the rules they have picked are not a million miles away from what you would get to if you created a set of rule on my work - having said that I'm sure you could come to them independently if you had knowledge of what was going on - I know people how work at the ICC, so hence why I think they must have seen my paper!!! lol!!!
I wont bore you all with the details, but I'll question a few things that have been said so far: - BTW this is not an attack on any one, all good natured!!! :-)))
"2. How accurate is the Hawk eye? Is the ball projection is always correct and can't be manipulated? . Also the qustion is how to ensure that it won't be manipulated ? As it does open a new angle for controversies..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b86yWY-HDYoe"
I get the question your asking, but the video here shows that either, the law was followed correctly, and there was no error, or that an error was made by the 3rd umpire, in which case, we can conclude that errors can also be made using DRS... image!...TV replay for a catch anyone?
hawkeye is as accurate as they come. The technology was used for missile tracking lol!
Hawkeye. might be the best, I don't know, but suggestion its "Accurate" because it use the same technology as missile tracking, is like saying SAAB car, Aeroplane thing, its just not relevant...and in the case of Hawkeye, I SUSPECT it not even really true...
the difference in tennis is that it is just for line calls and it is after the ball has actually landed - in cricket there is the element of guess work on the future path of the ball.
This is a Key point, Tracking is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH easier than Predicting. Also not there are 2 players on a tennis court, and you know where they will be 90% of the time, and its often not near the path of the ball (i.e. as it comes over the net), players can get it the way very easily in cricket.
Basically the predictive element of hawk-eye, means that by LOGICAL ANALYSIS ONLY you can discount many of its predictions, as guesses. Why this is never discussed (on the TV etc) I don't know... BTW this is a limit of physics, not the hawk-eye system solely.
So anyway, it all good fun, I agree with what most people are saying, its basically a good thing, that still needs some work in how its used... I guess that is that hard part.
One thing I would say though is that they need to get rid of video replays for catches!! its embarrassing!
Author
Topic: DRS (Read 13726 times)