UDRS or No UDRS ?? - Detailed look on Hawk Eye

[platoon]

UDRS , probably the most controversial thing in today cricket. Even in the match between Pak and SA there were several controversial UDRS decisions against Pakistan. Following details is about Hawk Eye technology which is used in UDRS.

Source: My Zone: The Hawk Eye Technology

Technology has become an integral part of our lives. The use of technology in sports have also been increased. At first it was about broadcasting events worlwide. But in the modern times technology is used to increase the fare-play in sports. Cricket has been one of the sports that uses technology extensively. The first instance of using technology in cricket may be the third umpire concept which was first used in a test match in 1992. Although it was just a simple TV replay it helps a lot to take correct decisions on run outs and stumping and sometimes the legality of catches and to decide about boundaries.
But within the last few years more sophisticated technologies have been emerged and they are now been used in the game of cricket. One such technology is the hawk eye technology which is used in UDRS (Umpire Decision Review System).

History

Dr.Paul Hawkins
Hawk-Eye is a ball tracking system which is also used in other sports such as tennis. This technology is controlled by the Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd which is a part of Sony Europe. Initially this was used as a broadcasting tool in cricket LBW decisions and now has become an important part in the decision making process in cricket matches.
The initial research for the Hawk-Eye technology began in 1999 by Dr.Paul Hawkins at Roke Manor Research Ltd. In the year 2001 channel 4 used this technology in broadcasting the Ashes series. In February 2002 this technology was first used in tennis broadcasting. In 2005 Hawk-Eye was permitted to be used as an officiating aid in tennis. This is mainly used to detect the line-calling decisions. In 2007 MCC world cricket committee announces that the Hawk-Eye will be used in the Decision Review System used in cricket. In 2011 Hawk-Eye was used in a Cricket World Cup for the first time in history. Also there are plans to use Hawk-Eye in Soccer. This is still at the testing stages of FIFA and if the results are successful, this will be used in 2014 world cup.

Technology

Camera Placement in Tennis

The Hawk-Eye uses six high speed vision processing cameras positioned at different places in the ground along with two broadcast cameras to calculate the trajectory of the ball. Although there are 8 cameras available only 5 cameras are used depending on the side of the wicket that?s been used. In tennis there are around 10 cameras to track the ball. These cameras obtain a 3D visualization of the path of the ball after it?s been bowled. There will be two trajectories for each ball one for releasing the ball by the bowler up to pitching and another one for pitching the ball up to hitting the batsmen. Using this technology the speed of the ball, the swing of the ball from the bowler?s hand to the pitching point, the pitching point, the bounce of the ball, the spin or deviation of the ball can be obtained. Based on the second trajectory the expected path of the ball will be calculated and used to determine whether it will hit the stumps. This is widely used to decide LBW decisions.

Camera Placement in Cricket


Controversies

When technology is used in a sport there will be three very important things to consider. First it should be accurate. Then it should be fast enough so that the momentum of the game is not lost due to technology and finally it should be economically and technically affordable to use in normal games.
Hawk-eye is financially feasible. It is a low cost solution which only needs several cameras and some computers to do the calculation. Since cameras will be always available in an international sporting event the installing cost is very low. Also the time taken to calculate the path of the ball is short but sometimes this may damage the momentum of the game. This is one reason that the number of challenges by the players against the normal decisions taken by umpires or referees is limited. In cricket this is two reviews per team in each inning. Also in tennis the player will get two incorrect challenges per and three challenges in a tie break.
But the problem with the Hawk-eye is its accuracy. Although in tennis they have proved that it has an accuracy of 3.6mm in line calling decisions Hawk-Eye has failed to obtain the trust among players, referees and the general public. Also there are few instances in cricket that the decision given by the hawk-eye system is different than what most of the people expected.

Source: My Zone: The Hawk Eye Technology

 

[puddleduck]

Very nice bold generalisation there to suggest hawkeye has failed to obtain trust among players, referees and the general public. I think you'll find most players, referees and the general public are actually fully behind hawkeye, there is just a small select few who are still refusing to get behind it.

 

[platoon]

Very nice bold generalisation there to suggest hawkeye has failed to obtain trust among players, referees and the general public. I think you'll find most players, referees and the general public are actually fully behind hawkeye, there is just a small select few who are still refusing to get behind it.

Hawk Eye should be there and I am a great supporter of UDRS.

But the problem is how it is used in cricket. It was introduced to minimize the controversial decisions. But it has generated more controversial decisions.

 

[puddleduck]

It has minimised them massively, but certain circles with hidden agendas within cricket have attempted to create controversy as though the massive reduction in howlers and more noticeable marginal decisions is a justifiable reason to halt progress.

It was never made to stop controversial decisions, it was introduced to remove shocking decisions. Which it does.

 

[platoon]

It has minimised them massively, but certain circles with hidden agendas within cricket have attempted to create controversy as though the massive reduction in howlers and more noticeable marginal decisions is a justifiable reason to halt progress.

It was never made to stop controversial decisions, it was introduced to remove shocking decisions. Which it does.

Yes I agree with it.
but some of the rules associated with UDRS are not fair. As an example the number of DRS calls are limited. Especially in ODIs only one chance is given to a team in an innings. Sometimes they may loose the review results in "an on field call ". I think this is very unfair.

 

[puddleduck]

Well that's the teams fault. It's not there for marginal decisions. It's there for howlers, if a team has blown their load too early and end up on the receiving end of a shocker then that is their fault.

 

[sifter132]

^Quite right. Players is where the buck stops. If you want to waste 2 reviews on marginal LBWs in the first 2 overs, fine, but you have to live with it.

I'm a big fan of Hawkeye, it's proven to be quite accurate, and you get a lovely visual representation so that it's clear to fans what is happening. I even think it could be used more eg. maybe every batsman gets 1 LBW review, and conversely the fielding team gets 1 LBW review for each batsman. But check whether the balls hitting the stumps FIRST, before checking for inside edges and noballs - that will speed up reviews.

The problem with DRS right now is Hotspot. They need to sort out the guidelines on how much evidence is needed to confirm/overturn catches when Hotspot and vague snicking sounds are involved.

I think generally Cricket fans/commentators/players are torn between wanting EVERY decision right, and eliminating the howlers. The sooner that is decided the better. At the moment, players are gambling with it and by extension, trusting that the umpires won't give them a howler later. So if anything, it shows how much the players trust the umpires.

 

[Owzat]

I have long since maintained the only real issues I have with DRS are the way it is implimented (two appeals per side per innings) and over reliance on technology.

That said it is better to have than have not, even if only a few mistakes are corrected it is better than none. BUT the calls being with the players means some mistakes may go uncorrected, whether it is the umpire making a mistake or a player not having any calls left to correct it, if there are any then the DRS is not a complete success.

Captains do use it as a tactic, a close LBW call and they take a punt on it being given out. As two people have said that wasn't the intention, but why limit the use to just avoiding "howlers" when you could reduce other mistakes to virtually zero. I don't advocate frivilous appealing and checking, but if the only intention is to avoid "howlers" then it most certainly isn't being used that way.

Close calls or "howlers" are reviewed on the say so of the captain, it is a tactical use and the reward for being right, whether through luck or judgement, is you retain your remaining reviews.

Oh and there is a third "beef" I have with DRS, the umpire making a mistake can still impact on reviews and indeed (as someone else said) the calls that are called "umpires call" can be pivotal. If the ball was hitting leg and the umpire gives it not out, the fielding side appeal and it stays not out because it was only "half" hitting leg then that's plain wrong. Had it been given out and the batsman reviewed it then it would stay out due to "umpire's call". How can the same delivery be both out and not out?

There is the "controversy" people are seeking, that and the aforementioned reviews being exhausted. You can argue the reviews should be used more wisely, but the point of DRS is to eliminate "howlers" and if "howlers" happen after a side has lost its reviews, even if by virtue of "umpire's call", then mistakes can still happen. Object defeated.

I prefer the umpires to have control, umpires on field call for a review if they are not sure or it is close and can be measured on over or under use of that system. The third umpire has time between deliveries to have a look, let him have a look at a replay after the incident while the bowler is walking back, onfield umpire delays play a few seconds maybe and the third umpire gives the if they can continue.

At the moment DRS is too much like a tactic, like fielding restrictions, bowling changes or power plays. They might not face a "howler", they use the reviews to their tactical advantage without wanting to waste them. I'd be very interested if s*y or whoever listed the number of decisions that either side could have appealed per innings and how many they did with the outcome. Point being to see how much it could be used, how much it was and how many bordeline decisions/howlers there are per innings. You set out your objective and adjust to achieve that objective, I'd say the objective is closer but not achieved and may never be as the system is used currently