Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
Come on some1, you can do better, the guys who owned the hawk eye system knew that giving Indian cricket god out will mean the end of the hawk eye system. By now we would have had every Indian channel showing how wrong the hawk eye was.
Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
^ The battery of my sarcasm detector has died....so I am posting the following assuming you are serious :
The Indian God was already given OUT by the on-field Umpire. The HawkEye could have just confirmed the decison and nobody would have blamed the HawkEye for it. In fact the Indian God himself wasn't sure about asking for a review.
Now if the situation was different - say the Indian God was given NOT OUT by the on-field Umpire but HawkEye declared the Indian God OUT (upon review request by Pakistan)....then may be....just may be.....there would have been some discontent against HawkEye among sections of the Indian Media & Public. But this was not the case here.
Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
Come on some1, you can do better, the guys who owned the hawk eye system knew that giving Indian cricket god out will mean the end of the hawk eye system. By now we would have had every Indian channel showing how wrong the hawk eye was.
I think you guys give too much credit to conspiracy theories. First of all, Hawk Eye System is a technology used for review; the technology is not changed every time, depending on who the reviewer is. ICC (and other sports bodies inlcuing Tennis) decides to use that technology and when a review is aked for, this techonology is used to review with a third umpire to make a call based on the review.
Having said that, after watching the live appeal, my first instinct was that this was OUT. However, pleasant surprises happen.
Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
Come on some1, you can do better, the guys who owned the hawk eye system knew that giving Indian cricket god out will mean the end of the hawk eye system. By now we would have had every Indian channel showing how wrong the hawk eye was.
ehsan bhai im disappointed to see you suggesting conspiracy theories
Re: For you - the pedantic types…
As i’ve posted on another thread i think there are some flaws in regard to spin or Swing/Seam after pitching in relation to where the Batsmen is struck … if the distance between pitching and striking the batsmen is small (below 2 feet) then the system seems to be error prone and i’m not claiming it’s all wrong but the possibilty of an Error is higher coz the way-points for the calculation are too few to predict/project a highly accurate path …
If the ball has to travel more than 2-3 feet before hitting Bat/Batsmen then there are enough way point to project an accurate flight path
To compare it with tennis is a bit flawed here coz there the system has atleast 10m or more distance/space to calculate the path … In Tennis it’s important where the ball pitched and NOT which direction it would’ve gone to after pitching …
I don’t know what space is set between each way-point (calcualtion points in regard to surface) … the lower the space is set (in cm or inches) the higher te accuracy but also the higher the need for sophisticated equipement (More computing capacity, more high-speed cameras) … so it depends all on the system specification ICC has decided to use …
Channel 9 from Australia a few years back used a Super SloMo … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EznP02ZQOWE&feature=related
i don’t know whether they still use it coz its a very expensive Technology … Normal Cameras record pictures at 25 frames per second or 50 half frames per second … these cameras record pictures at 1000 frames per second and the problem is the Picture is too dark so u can’t use it during live telecast … it needs to be processed with software so one see a normal coloured picture
ENG vs. SL QF … Murli got Bopara LBW and the naked look at the delievery showed it pitch on middle-Leg and spun towards Leg (Murli was bowling from around) yet Hawk-Eye projected the path to heading towards middle-off … Bopara was struck low on the pad and the ball pitch 1 foot or so infront of him …
So there are flaws with this Technology for sure but when as a Cricket Board or Global Body u decide to abide by it then u buy all that comes with it (for u or against u)
my 2 cents 
Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
Hawkeye (now owned by Sony Corp.) has a monopoly. Only two choices for ICC, either use it or loose it. No way to argue with them because its not like there is another ball path tracking and prediction software using a different algorithm available which could be used to analyse same delivery and decision and them compare the two or three results for post match debates to improve the method.
Unlike stats, or vehicle dynamics or other fields where multiple softwares are available.
I agree with the argument of flaw w.r.t Zero_one. It seems Hawkeye does not have the ability to use as an input the type of delivery that was bowled. For example in this case, if Ajmal is saying that the ball was coming back in to the right hander, then that makes it a "doosra" but bowled on middle/leg. Which is what Ian Gould must of thought.
However the computer was dumb and did not have this permutation programmed in it. That is my best guess.
Hence, for now, when Chacha Hawkeye bolta heay **out heay* tay out heay...aur bolta heay not out tau not out....*
Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
Like I've said before, despite it's flaws, I'm all for use of technology... if it's crappy, it's consistently crappy for all decisions and all teams, so you can't complain about umpire bias etc.
That being said, like any other technology we should expect to see this one improve over time through feedback from players and umpires.
Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
Like I've said before, despite it's flaws, I'm all for use of technology... if it's crappy, it's consistently crappy for all decisions and all teams, so you can't complain about umpire bias etc. That being said, like any other technology we should expect to see this one improve over time through feedback from players and umpires.
Totally agree. Consistency is key here.
Re: For you - the pedantic types…
I dont necessarily support the views presented in this video but this is interesting.
Re: For you - the pedantic types…
VERY VERY insteresting…and I am sure Ehsan bhai will find it as well (don’t hit me ehsan bhai…:()
hawkeye working…(for the real purpose)
so dhoni fusses at beginning of tournment that DRS is not good…and guess what hawkdoctoreye provides some medicine.
Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
From the 1st frame it appears that the ball would have crashed into the stumps although one could not be 100% sure.
Hawkeye technology may not be foolproof but it is still more accurate than the naked eye as it is not prone to the subjective interpretation of a biased or poor umpire. Any mistakes or errors that are there are small and consistent and same for every player and team
Let's not make an issue out of a non issue or think that we lost the game because of this one decision. It was a 300-310 pitch and 260 was very gettable even with our erratic batting line-up. Not only that had we held our catches, India probably w'd not have made more than 210-220. 7 drops in a KO game is a crime. It was n't the pitch or the quality of bowling that undid us. It was a pressure-induced collective batting failure. Our batsmen simply did not apply themselves and gifted their wickets by playing stupid shots (in particular Hafeez and Afridi).
Re: For you - the pedantic types…
That is my point in my first post, how we are beating the dead wood here. Its gone, let it rest, coming here and trying to prove that the decision was right, who cares. 
Re: For you - the pedantic types…
this doesn’t really add up with your earlier comment “Come on some1, you can do better, the guys who owned the hawk eye system knew that giving Indian cricket god out will mean the end of the hawk eye system. By now we would have had every Indian channel showing how wrong the hawk eye was.”
Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
The very concept of lbw is based on an assumption that after pitching, a bouncing ball will undergo very little change once the post-pitch post-spin trajectory is established. This obviously is not a perfect assumption since what surface element the ball landed on and the edge that the landing point cut into the ball CAN in rare occasions introduce post-spin post-pitch in-flight change in trajectory. Neither human eyes not electronic projection technologies can be accurate about it.
Unless someone is going to claim that the hawkeye software was manipulated to suit Sachin, if hawkeyes are used for both teams, why the objection?
Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
this doesn't really add up with your earlier comment "Come on some1, you can do better, the guys who owned the hawk eye system knew that giving Indian cricket god out will mean the end of the hawk eye system. By now we would have had every Indian channel showing how wrong the hawk eye was."
It does, I know some1 and was showing my annoyance at him bringing up the issue. Read the first line of his reply. We have known each other for a long time.
Re: For you - the pedantic types…
I think this WC’s stories wl keep on going until the nxt WC starts…:halo:
Re: For you - the pedantic types.......
From the 1st frame it appears that the ball would have crashed into the stumps although one could not be 100% sure.
Hawkeye technology may not be foolproof but it is still more accurate than the naked eye as it is not prone to the subjective interpretation of a biased or poor umpire. Any mistakes or errors that are there are small and consistent and same for every player and team
Let's not make an issue out of a non issue or think that we lost the game because of this one decision. It was a 300-310 pitch and 260 was very gettable even with our erratic batting line-up. Not only that had we held our catches, India probably w'd not have made more than 210-220. 7 drops in a KO game is a crime. It was n't the pitch or the quality of bowling that undid us. It was a pressure-induced collective batting failure. Our batsmen simply did not apply themselves and gifted their wickets by playing stupid shots (in particular Hafeez and Afridi).
Nothing can be done now...but the video is definitely bringing some facts out to the fore. Both pov's are obvious
Re: For you - the pedantic types…
Well said
Re: For you - the pedantic types…
yep…and then we will be beaten again…lanat ha…anyway, it is time to go to bed i guess…after a 70-hr week, i am overly pessimistic right now…