Once and For All Hawk Eye Cannot Accurately 'Predict'

Joined
Sep 6, 2014


As we know the debate on Hawk Eye to be able to 'predict' the path a ball will take after impact with the pads has been called into question, and is the primary reason BCCI refuses to use Hawk Eye. BCCI says that Hawk Eye is fine for capturing the actual path the ball has travelled, or the actual trajectory of the ball, but when it comes to predicting the path of the ball upon impact, the Hawk Eye cannot possibly do it. This vid is a clear example of that. There is no way that the ball is bouncing that high.

I don't care what the damn machine says, that ball would never miss the stumps, never by that much, no way. Don't rely on what hawk eye is telling you, just for once, use your own heads.

This vid once and for all clearly shows that Hawk Eye cannot, and no iffs and buts, it cannot 'predict' the path of the ball accurately.
 
add to that watch this,it is in the same match on day3 when SL were bowling watch the bounce on hawkeye to a similar delivery, it cant vary that much in a day unless due to weather.
watch at 33 minute mark
 
Last edited:
Totally agree with this. But thing like this do happen at times. We cannot prevent it. But it is correct 90% of the time and helps prevent most of the howlers.
 
But it is correct 90% of the time and helps prevent most of the howlers.
How do you know it is 90% correct because the same professionals operating it say so. that first post would fall under correct category.
Its the basic the computer says so mentality.

I know a bit about physics simulation in computers and its nowhere near perfect especially in terms of approximating minute surface conditions and details and in that limited time frame. you need to run the approximations at-least a few thousand times and then approximate the trajectory, all real-time prediction algorithms have a good deal of error in general.

Obviously they can never factor in the conditions properly especially bounce of particular areas of pitches the drift by wind etc.


The new trend is to push half baked technologies on the fly to consume.
 
Totally agree with this. But thing like this do happen at times. We cannot prevent it. But it is correct 90% of the time and helps prevent most of the howlers.

90% based on what? The evidence of Hawk Eye itself, but that is what is under question.

Lets say there is a student (Hawk Eye), and a teacher (Umpire). The teacher says where is the capital of Australia - Student says Adelaide. Now if you have total confidence on the student and use him as a base, the Student is right, even when it is wrong.

That is what is the problem with these 90% more accurate stats. Every time Hawk Eye differs from the Umpire, you just assume Hawk Eye is right and the Umpire wrong. You are relying on the very student being tested for the accuracy his answers.

Also that vid you posted, if it is right, and hawk eye can be manipulated that easily, and I don't want Hawk Eye used ever again anyway.
 
But thing like this do happen at times.

I personally think that vid was comical actually if you watch the vid in slow mo carefull he ball impacts only around middstump with sachin's pads, just because they stopped the vid to show pitching area doesn't mean the ball has impacted then and i love the way the guy making video has paused and zoomed then to show it as original impact area...the extent the sachin crazies will sink to :facepalm

Hawk eyes is technologically as well as the way it is used is wrong, but to make it another Big bcci manipulates it conspiracy is pathetic
 
I personally think that vid was comical actually if you watch the vid in slow mo carefull he ball impacts only around middstump with sachin's pads, just because they stopped the vid to show pitching area doesn't mean the ball has impacted then and i love the way the guy making video has paused and zoomed then to show it as original impact area...the extent the sachin crazies will sink to :facepalm

Hawk eyes is technologically as well as the way it is used is wrong, but to make it another Big bcci manipulates it conspiracy is pathetic
I apologise if I sound like a Sachin-hater, which I am not. This was probably the first video that came to my mind when I thought of a hawk-eye blunder. Ajmal himself said the ball he bowled was a doosra and the ball is spinning like a normal offspiner.
 
Was just stating that the video is a bad example, probably made by some one with a vendetta against bcci or sachin, much like the people who shout every match India win is fixed.From the video its clear even though the revs are not clear we surely can say the ball was turning in rather than away. Only having a go at the video and whoever made it so that he can generate some revenue of youtube ads, not yourself mate:).
 
I apologise if I sound like a Sachin-hater, which I am not. This was probably the first video that came to my mind when I thought of a hawk-eye blunder. Ajmal himself said the ball he bowled was a doosra and the ball is spinning like a normal offspiner.

No its not about being a sachin hater, and even if that vid is correct (which I highly doubt), its not sachin himself who was manipulating that vid :) He was out in the field and really no sane person can accuse him of doing something in that vid. I know there is a conspiracy theory that BCCI manipulated the vid, but I mean come on even that is clutching at straws. BCCI cannot for all its clout manipualte DRS reviews on the spur. They didn't know that that particular delivery was going to be an LBW appeal, and were ready with all its manipulation beforehand. Remember replays are avaliable within in a few seconds and you cant really manipulate Hawk eye like that within seconds. So its a bit of a stretch of a conspuracy theory at best. Knowing BCCI if they could do that, then they would adopt Hawk Eye immediately and no Indian batsman will ever be lbw ever again :D

That being said the larger point is well taken though. its hard to believe that the ball would turn that much. I remember that match well (naturally Ind Pak, WC S-F, what kind ofa afan will not remember it), and even at the time it was hard to believe, that the ball would miss by tht much. Its an honest mistake of Hawk Eye rather than some conspiracy.

So thats just another proof that the Hawk Eye cannot predict.
 
I believe the manufacturers of Hawkeye say the prediction part is 95% accurate. You are never going to get a technology that is completely and utterly perfect. What you have to do is put your faith in the best technology available. There were several bad umpiring decisions in the England v India Test series that DRS would have sorted out. Until they start using DRS, I hope India get some absolute stinkers in every game they play.
 
Again this is not about being Anti DRS, but just taking of that dodgy prediction system and retain the rest of the hawkeye feature which will improve the hawkeye system for better, most umpiring errors with LBW is with respect to missing out inside edges and not knowing where the ball pitched or hit rather than not being able to judge how the ball will go.

The percentage thing is as dodgy as DRS, with reference to what who checked it? Im sure that prediction path is dodgy as hell at best no way am i going to believe it can factor bounce properties of a pitch in different parts of the pitch effectively as an umpire can, without solid proof.

When a system can so easily be improved as well as made better when used by proper personal instead of players as well as a tool instead of HAL im always right, why do we have to be forced to use it as a lottery system for a first as some sort of reality show lifeline.
 
Why does system have to spit on the human being that stands still on the field with little appreciation the whole day, "you got it wrong loooser"

instead why cant it put an arm around the umpire as a friend and feed him inputs," hey see you made that decision but i think it may be wrong as its impacting down the legside what do you think?"

Every umpire at international level wants to make the right calls, with proper help they will instead of punishing and humiliating them.[DOUBLEPOST=1410173040][/DOUBLEPOST]
There were several bad umpiring decisions in the England v India Test series that DRS would have sorted tweaked about and imbalanced the game a whole lot.
fixed:p
 
Even if hawkeye isn't perfect, and there are mistakes now and again, the frequency of such mistakes is FAR less than that of a human umpire's eyesight. That alone justifies it's inclusion to me.

I also hope sides which refuse to use DRS fall victim to some absolutely shocking umpiring.
 
I believe the manufacturers of Hawkeye say the prediction part is 95% accurate. You are never going to get a technology that is completely and utterly perfect. What you have to do is put your faith in the best technology available. There were several bad umpiring decisions in the England v India Test series that DRS would have sorted out. Until they start using DRS, I hope India get some absolute stinkers in every game they play.

Even if hawkeye isn't perfect, and there are mistakes now and again, the frequency of such mistakes is FAR less than that of a human umpire's eyesight. That alone justifies it's inclusion to me.

I also hope sides which refuse to use DRS fall victim to some absolutely shocking umpiring.

India have gotten a fair share of stinkers, and Sachin has always been in his career the Umpire's fav bunny, especially steve bucknor, and I remember Ganguly given out LBW once by Asoka De Silva, for a perfect forward defense, off the middle of the bat, and no one likes those.

However, I am as much against those decisions as I am against DRS. All these 95% stats or 'FAR less' stats are meaningless when they are based on what Hawk Eye itself is saying.

As I wrote above, if a student (hawk eye), is asked what is the capital of Australia and he says Adelaide, and you just go by whatever he says, then the student is naturally going to be right a lot of the times, even when he is wrong.

Also lets face it, the manufacturers of Hawk Eye are always going to push up the numbers when it comes to accuracy. They are never going to say, yeah we have no clue what we are doing.

Hawk Eye just doesn't have a clue. Especially if what @Davoo said is right -
Ajmal himself said the ball he bowled was a doosra and the ball is spinning like a normal offspiner (in hawk eye graphic).

Atleast a human umpire can tell the difference between a ball that is a doosra and that is an off spinner, and which way it will turn. If the Hawk Eye cannot even tell the difference between two different types of deliveries, and which way the ball will be turning, then its just ridiculous, and should be thrown out immediately.

Yes no one likes wrong decisions, but DRS is not the way to go about correcting them. Involving DRS itself has led to some shocking decisions, especially all through the Ashes last year.
 
I also hope sides which refuse to use DRS fall victim to some absolutely shocking umpiring.
Again this has to go to BCCI/India instead of looking to improve a faulty system, the one team that
is saying the world is not square will always get ridiculed.

It is still far better than having an faulty element tilting the game balance hugely, you know a faulty car can reach its destination if you know about it, a faulty car claiming to be perfect will make sure your journey is spoiled even though it may work well 95% of the time.

speaking of percentages

Even if hawkeye isn't perfect, and there are mistakes now and again, the frequency of such mistakes is FAR less than that of a human umpire's eyesight. That alone justifies it's inclusion to me.

It is based on the assumption it is right rather than actual deal, how are you sure about percentage the only scale of reference you have is the hawkeyes its that colored line on screen to judge whether an umpire has got it wrong or not.


Im not anti DRS but saying of now the system is dodgy as hell and cant be trusted, it certainly hasnt bettered the game only made it more unbalanced and controversial of now but it can certainly be improved, this is not just about technology but the whole system.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top