Topic: ENG vs IND series (Read 170561 times)

alexhilly1492 · « **Reply #1890 on:** March 25, 2021, 06:02:56 PM »

Quote from: Chompy9760 on March 25, 2021, 08:37:09 AM

I have heard that before, but have never seen any published info on how far out the tracking can be. If it's exactly half a ball width, that sounds like a strange co-incidence!

Interesting that in tennis they use what I would guess to be a very similar system, but have no trouble over-ruling an umpires call even if tracking shows the ball missing the line by a millimetre.
Tennis players and fans accept the system as being 100% accurate, while cricketers assume it's not accurate by half a ball width.

It's not the tracking that's the issue it's the predictor

And it's so many mm which equates to roughly half a ball.. it's mandated by Hawkeye themselves not the ICC or anyone in cricket

AJ2014 · « **Reply #1891 on:** March 25, 2021, 06:06:15 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawMark on March 25, 2021, 05:34:40 PM

Respectfully disagree. Would rather have technology questioned than the integrity and ability of an actual human being.

I understand where you're coming from, I respect your opinion.

Rez · « **Reply #1892 on:** March 25, 2021, 06:42:44 PM »

Quote from: Chompy9760 on March 25, 2021, 08:37:09 AM

I have heard that before, but have never seen any published info on how far out the tracking can be. If it's exactly half a ball width, that sounds like a strange co-incidence!

Interesting that in tennis they use what I would guess to be a very similar system, but have no trouble over-ruling an umpires call even if tracking shows the ball missing the line by a millimetre.
Tennis players and fans accept the system as being 100% accurate, while cricketers assume it's not accurate by half a ball width.

Do they really accept that it is 100% accurate? Surely nobody would believe that any tracking technology is 100% accurate? The tolerance and expected margin of variation is certainly open to debate but I'm pretty sure the developers of the technology would not claim 100% accuracy.

mo_town · « **Reply #1893 on:** March 25, 2021, 07:16:45 PM »

But nothing is 100%. When an umpire makes a judgement he is also taking a call with margin for error. I think they should really do away with the umpire's call bit; or atleast get away with the 50% ball hitting BS. Reduce that margin to maybe 5% i.e. if only 5% of the ball seems to be hitting the stumps then its umpire's call; else it is out. Some of the decisions that are adjudged as umpire's call and ridiculous to say the least.

Kez · « **Reply #1894 on:** March 25, 2021, 10:03:22 PM »

If anyone really wants to do some reading on the matter... https://resources.platform.pulselive.com/test/HawkEye/document/2015/08/27/76ee8967-f365-4b0a-9d29-13b4dab6232c/CricInfo_Hawkins_Responds.pdf

It�s a little out of date but answers some key questions.
No the system isn�t perfect. But personally it�s a far better than human umpires being left unchecked.
I would keep umpires call in LBW decisions. The rational for having DRS is to remove the howler... if the standing umpire makes a call and giving the current rules it comes back as �umpires call� regardless of decision. It would be a decision in which they could argue as to why that decision is made. If it�s 3 reds and they have given it not out. Obviously it�s a shocker over turn the decision.
More broadly at times the DRS system is only as good as the 3rd umpire. Other times it�s let down by poor camera work. And sometimes it�s just pure luck that the vital piece of information happens to be between frames.

Kez · « **Reply #1895 on:** March 25, 2021, 10:06:15 PM »

Another point to remember, the track shown on screen is just the most likely predicted trajectory. The margin for error isn�t shown on screen. It may help the understanding of umpires call if it was shown.

Chompy9760 · « **Reply #1896 on:** March 25, 2021, 11:38:41 PM »

Quote from: Kez on March 25, 2021, 10:03:22 PM

If anyone really wants to do some reading on the matter... https://resources.platform.pulselive.com/test/HawkEye/document/2015/08/27/76ee8967-f365-4b0a-9d29-13b4dab6232c/CricInfo_Hawkins_Responds.pdf

Interesting article - thanks!

Chompy9760 · « **Reply #1897 on:** March 26, 2021, 01:38:50 AM »

So to quote it's inventor Paul Hawkins in the above 2015 article - "2.2 mm is our tennis error. We have stated 5mm accuracy, and 10mm is some scenarios" (regarding cricket )

Those 'secenarios' I gather to mean where the ball has bounced less than 40 cm before impact. Anything above that and hawkeye has enough frames to accurately establish the current path, and thus the predicted path. So worst case scenario is still more than 3 X half a ball width.

Quote

Do they really accept that it is 100% accurate? Surely nobody would believe that any tracking technology is 100% accurate? The tolerance and expected margin of variation is certainly open to debate but I'm pretty sure the developers of the technology would not claim 100% accuracy.

Agreed, I didn't mean that Hawkeye is 100% accurate for tennis, the point I was trying to make is that the tennis community seem to accept hawkeye's results as accurate and have no qualms overturning the umpire's call if hawkeye shows the ball missed the line by a couple mm. 'Umpires call' counts for nothing in tennis!

billyb · « **Reply #1898 on:** March 26, 2021, 05:23:23 AM »

For me, I would trust Hawk Eye much more if it was 25% of the ball that must be hitting the stumps. I don't see why that improvement hasn't happened all those years later.

I would also want it to be independently tested against a real pitch in real life, I don't necessarily buy all their claims as a data person. It is the best out there, though!

mo_town · « **Reply #1899 on:** March 26, 2021, 08:07:49 AM »

Is England trying out worst case bowling scenarios in this series? How do the Curran brothers get picked again? I had expected one (probably Tom) to be replaced with a genuine quick bowler looking at India's struggles against pace. Instead they rest Wood and bring in Topley.

rickjames · « **Reply #1900 on:** March 26, 2021, 08:17:34 AM »

Brilliant start from Toppers

Jlscarroll17 · « **Reply #1901 on:** March 26, 2021, 08:22:19 AM »

Topley has definitely improved his skills ! Great start from him on his return to international cricket. Can�t believe Tom Curran is still in the side. A bowling lineup of archer, wood, topley & rashid could be very exciting

FattusCattus · « **Reply #1902 on:** March 26, 2021, 09:06:12 AM »

You need wickets to curb this Indian side though - you'll never keep their run rate down.

Be a very interesting game for Mo this - I feel like he needs a good one with the ball.

SouthpawMark · « **Reply #1903 on:** March 26, 2021, 09:23:54 AM »

The England team should ban these stupid headbands.

Real Munson · « **Reply #1904 on:** March 26, 2021, 09:30:33 AM »

Quote from: SouthpawMark on March 26, 2021, 09:23:54 AM

The England team should ban these stupid headbands.

For what reason??

Author Topic: ENG vs IND series (Read 170561 times)

alexhilly1492

Re: ENG vs IND series

AJ2014

Re: ENG vs IND series

Rez

Re: ENG vs IND series

mo_town

Re: ENG vs IND series

Kez

Re: ENG vs IND series

Kez

Re: ENG vs IND series

Chompy9760

Re: ENG vs IND series

Chompy9760

Re: ENG vs IND series

billyb

Re: ENG vs IND series

mo_town

Re: ENG vs IND series

rickjames

Re: ENG vs IND series

Jlscarroll17

Re: ENG vs IND series

FattusCattus

Re: ENG vs IND series

SouthpawMark

Re: ENG vs IND series

Real Munson

Re: ENG vs IND series