DRS no longer mandatory

[Atharv]

You really do have no idea how Hawkeye works do you?

I don't need to . Predictions without real time data are never going to work. If hawk eye does use real time data on and around the pitch then there is no way it can predict the speed of the ball .

----------

So if they set up a video camera perpendicular to the pitch, and a video camera behind the bowler's arm, recorded 1000 deliveries, thus creating a 3D video picture of each delivery, then, using HawkEye sensors' results, and superimpose each delivery video and HawkEye pictures onto one another, showing 100% accuracy, you still wouldn't be happy with it?

Nope . That is not data . Those are pictures . For prediction you need real time data and for real time data you need sensors in and around the pitch. As I said it is just a digital "Join the dots and create a picture" and a stupid technology.

 

[Themer]

I don't need to .

How can you claim to be able to rubbish something without actually knowing how it works?

----------

As I said it is just a digital "Join the dots and create a picture" and a stupid technology

A stupid technology that when tested can deliver tracking results accurate to within 2.6 mm?

 

[Atharv]

How can you claim to be able to rubbish something without actually knowing how it works?

please read this post for the answer

A stupid technology that when tested can deliver tracking results accurate to within 2.6 mm?

Who says that the results are accurate . What ridiculous claim. Dude ,you do not have a technology to measure accuracy of ball tracking and the procedure used in ball tracking is even more ridiculous . There is no way it can be accurate.

I am sorry if you don't understand what I am saying or may be you are not reading what I have said in my previous posts .

 

[Themer]

Dude ,you do not have a technology

Do you?

If not how can you measure the accuracy of Hawkeye?

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20accuracy%20and%20believability2.pdf

 

[Manly]

I don't need to . Predictions without real time data are never going to work. If hawk eye does use real time data on and around the pitch then there is no way it can predict the speed of the ball .

----------



Nope . That is not data . Those are pictures . For prediction you need real time data and for real time data you need sensors in and around the pitch. As I said it is just a digital "Join the dots and create a picture" and a stupid technology.

What is it then? Data isn't necessarily numerical...

 

[Atharv]

Do you?

If not how can you measure the accuracy of Hawkeye?

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20accuracy%20and%20believability2.pdf

Why don't you figure out for yourself ?





----------

What is it then? Data isn't necessarily numerical...

I have already mentioned what real time data might be required.

 

[Themer]

Why don't you figure out for yourself ?

I can't figure out if its accurate as I don't have the technology to measure it, neither do you.

The people who have (yes it is possible to measure its accuracy) have shown it to be accurate to within 2.6mm but to be on the safe side a 5mm "margin of error" is inbuilt into the refferal system.

Pictures are real time data, I don't think you know what that means the way you keep saying it. Hawkeye is created by looking at the ball from 6 different angles and creating a 3d image of it. To test it they've put a block in the way so the camera believes that the ball has hit the pad.

They have secondary cameras recording where the ball goes after the ball has hit the block to test how accurate the "projection system" is. It's been found to be 2.6 accurate. How you can sit from your computer and deny it is beyond me especially as the experts have tested.

And to be perfectly honest if Hawkeye was to be even 15mm out it'd still easily be the best umpire in the world.

 

[Atharv]

I can't figure out if its accurate as I don't have the technology to measure it, neither do you.

The people who have (yes it is possible to measure its accuracy) have shown it to be accurate to within 2.6mm but to be on the safe side a 5mm "margin of error" is inbuilt into the refferal system.

Pictures are real time data, I don't think you know what that means the way you keep saying it. Hawkeye is created by looking at the ball from 6 different angles and creating a 3d image of it. To test it they've put a block in the way so the camera believes that the ball has hit the pad.

They have secondary cameras recording where the ball goes after the ball has hit the block to test how accurate the "projection system" is. It's been found to be 2.6 accurate. How you can sit from your computer and deny it is beyond me especially as the experts have tested.

And to be perfectly honest if Hawkeye was to be even 15mm out it'd still easily be the best umpire in the world.

Pictures are not real time data. They just show what is happening . Pictures are not inputs that would influence the output . The inputs that would influence the output are moisture on the pitch,hardness and wear and tear of the pitch , windspeed , humidity , the speed and angle with which ball hits the pitch etc. These are the factors that will influence the trajectory of the ball . Clicking pictures ,superimposing them and claiming to track the ball is just ridiculous . It is childish . It is amusing to see falling for this kind of stuff.

 

[Sedition]

Don't forget crack cam.

 

[6ry4nj]

Pictures are not real time data. They just show what is happening . Pictures are not inputs that would influence the output . The inputs that would influence the output are moisture on the pitch,hardness and wear and tear of the pitch , windspeed , humidity , the speed and angle with which ball hits the pitch etc. These are the factors that will influence the trajectory of the ball . Clicking pictures ,superimposing them and claiming to track the ball is just ridiculous . It is childish . It is amusing to see falling for this kind of stuff.

You are criticizing ball tracker technology for not having these things, then recommending relying on the umpire's judgment. The umpire doesn't have sensors built in to the ball and the pitch either, does he?

To recommend a worse system because the better system is not perfect, is simply stupid. I don't know how often you spout the BCCI line straight from the horse's orifice, but that's what you're doing in this case. In doing so, you open yourself up to the ridicule that you seem so fond of trying to dish out.

 

[Atharv]

You are criticizing ball tracker technology for not having these things, then recommending relying on the umpire's judgment. The umpire doesn't have sensors built in to the ball and the pitch either, does he?

To recommend a worse system because the better system is not perfect, is simply stupid. I don't know how often you spout the BCCI line straight from the horse's orifice, but that's what you're doing in this case. In doing so, you open yourself up to the ridicule that you seem so fond of trying to dish out.

hmmm . Very strong emotional outburst.
Arrey dude , why are you so angry . I am talking about the technology . Please don't get worked up . I am sorry if I have hurt the feelings you have for the ball tracking technology . I had no idea you were so enamoured by it . Anyways thank you for the concern about my well being .

I am not recommending any system . Maintain the status quo . The umpires are doing a decent job, so why mess up something that is good. And if ICC wants to replace/complement Umpires then they should use some real, substantial technology, not some fluff stuff.
The human system is far better than any half cooked childish technology . Humans also have sensors and most of the times these sensors are right. Taking pictures and predicting path is just ridiculous . Just because you(not you,) package some obsolete stuff in tech jargon does not make it technology.

I don't know how often you spout the BCCI line straight from the horse's orifice, but that's what you're doing in this case.

I do not really understand what you are saying here because my English is a bit iffy , but looks like something that is not good.

So , Back at You .

 

[puddleduck]

Atharv are you a genuine moron? Sorry to be so blunt, but your grasp of technology is about as good as my great grandmothers grasp on reality. Considering she used to throw her own feces at the wall and talk to her crockery, I'd suggest you need some kind of mental help.

Basically Atharv, everyone has given you some links to some evidence, you've provided nothing other than your own personal half-baked theories. In this instance I think I'll follow the technology system ahead of 'some half cooked childish' opinion.

----------

What you are unaware of is that Hawkeye works in the way you seem to imply it doesn't. It uses incredibly powerful and detailed cameras to record more than just images. The little graphic that is bought up is nothing more than a graphical interface inserted over the top of reams of data and numbers.

It wouldn't be quite as interesting to look at though...

 

[sifter132]

Pictures are not real time data. They just show what is happening . Pictures are not inputs that would influence the output . The inputs that would influence the output are moisture on the pitch,hardness and wear and tear of the pitch , windspeed , humidity , the speed and angle with which ball hits the pitch etc. These are the factors that will influence the trajectory of the ball . Clicking pictures ,superimposing them and claiming to track the ball is just ridiculous . It is childish . It is amusing to see falling for this kind of stuff.

You know a good way to measure the speed and angle with which the ball hits the pitch? I dunno, but maybe taking some pictures at each stage of the ball's flight might be a good start. How would you measure the speed and angle with which the ball hits the pitch Atharv?

"Pictures are not real time data. They just show what is happening ." I'm pretty sure that's what real time data is - showing what is happening...

 

[Atharv]

Atharv are you a genuine moron? Sorry to be so blunt, but your grasp of technology is about as good as my great grandmothers grasp on reality. Considering she used to throw her own feces at the wall and talk to her crockery, I'd suggest you need some kind of mental help.

Basically Atharv, everyone has given you some links to some evidence, you've provided nothing other than your own personal half-baked theories. In this instance I think I'll follow the technology system ahead of 'some half cooked childish' opinion.

----------

What you are unaware of is that Hawkeye works in the way you seem to imply it doesn't. It uses incredibly powerful and detailed cameras to record more than just images. The little graphic that is bought up is nothing more than a graphical interface inserted over the top of reams of data and numbers.

It wouldn't be quite as interesting to look at though...

My grasp of technology is OK . Whether your understanding of technology is good or not good ,is for you to decide . Hope you arrive at the correct decision.
I need not provide any links because I know what I am talking about .

You know a good way to measure the speed and angle with which the ball hits the pitch? I dunno, but maybe taking some pictures at each stage of the ball's flight might be a good start. How would you measure the speed and angle with which the ball hits the pitch Atharv?

"Pictures are not real time data. They just show what is happening ." I'm pretty sure that's what real time data is - showing what is happening...

About the angle of impact .

You can get the point of release of the ball(height from which the ball is released) . You can measure the horizontal distance(along the pitch) between point of ball release and the point of impact .
Then using Tan Theta = (Opposite side(the height of ball release in this case)/Adjacent side(the horizontal distance along the pitch) will get you the angle of impact .
There are number of ways to calculate speed of the ball in the air, just before the impact.

Well you got the speed and angle of impact .

After this you will need the other real time data and an algorithm that will use these inputs to predict the trajectory.And for real time data you need sensors in and around the pitch . Even this may not guarantee an accurate result but I guess it will be more accurate than technology that only uses pictures .

I am not saying a pictures are not data . But basing a whole prediction technology just on pictures is ridiculous.

 

[6ry4nj]

About the angle of impact .

You can get the point of release of the ball(height from which the ball is released) . You can measure the horizontal distance(along the pitch) between point of ball release and the point of impact .
Then using Tan Theta = (Opposite side(the height of ball release in this case)/Adjacent side(the horizontal distance along the pitch) will get you the angle of impact .
There are number of ways to calculate speed of the ball in the air, just before the impact.

Well you got the speed and angle of impact .

After this you will need the other real time data and an algorithm that will use these inputs to predict the trajectory.And for real time data you need sensors in and around the pitch . Even this may not guarantee an accurate result but I guess it will be more accurate than technology that only uses pictures .

I am not saying a pictures are not data . But basing a whole prediction technology just on pictures is ridiculous.

You know what are genuinely ridiculous? Your arguments! How can you use trigonometry when the ball does not travel in a straight line (due to both gravity and swing)???!!! Your attempt to blind us with science and establish your academic credentials is a massive fail!

There is a margin of error (as has always been admitted) with the technology. That's why batsmen should be given the benefit of the doubt when the ball is predicted to barely clip a stump or bail. That's because of the effect of (unpredictable/random) swing (and freak gusts of wind etc. lol) after impact.

But the margin of error of an umpire is greater than that of the technology. It is not possible for an umpire to predict better than the technology when it is working correctly. Not unless the umpire has psychic powers, that is. We all know that most umpires perform much worse than the technology, and just about every innings of cricket without DRS has one or more decision that is endlessly debated - rationally - without resolution.

You just keep reinforcing the impression that you will agree with the BCCI whether they say that the earth is flat or black is white.