No Hawk-eye for India - England series after DRS made mandatory

[Papa_Smurf]

Something is better than nothing. Are you guys so insecure that Swann might not get as many wickets now that the Hawk Eye isnt available? I know the Hawk Eye is the refined technology, but the BCCI dont agree with the usage of the Hawk Eye. Till now because of their objection, the entire DRS was not to be used. Now the Hot Spot and the audio tracking will be used. If this is not a forward step, what else is?

This has got nothing to do with Swann - I'm not even a big England supporter. Hawk-eye may not be 100%, but it's pretty damn close. And these errors are accounted for in the DRS - the on-field call still has an impact in the decision, and is the reason why the 2.5m rule exists. The evidence for Hawk-eye's accuracy is pretty damning. There is no logical reason for the BCCI to oppose it.

On top of that - HotSpot is rarely used in the DRS. Hawk-eye has been far more used technology. And it's not like the HotSpot system is 100% effective - just look at the Sangakarra decision during the Cardiff test.

This is worse than no DRS. It really is. The BCCI have taken a near-perfect system, and have turned it into one that would turn out to be really infuriating. Which would be a perfect platform for them to start criticizing it heavily.

DRS without HotSpot works. DRS without Hawk-Eye won't.

P.s: Stop getting personal. I dont need to say everything that most people say here.

I apologise - I was just seriously pissed off at the time. And more so to people wo believe this is a positive move. I'm sorry, but the following post really annoyed me when I read it (you posted it another thread).

DRS to be used without the Hawk Eye for this series. At least something to feel good about.

It's like you're defending the BCCI's bully attitude to get what it wants, as oppossed to what everyone else in the world does.

 

[sifter132]

This isn't a good step forward at all. This issue has highlighted how the BCCI holds way too much sway over the decision making of the ICC.

It should be all in, not a half measure like this.

I understand that viewpoint, but in reality Hawkeye will be used in every non-Indian series and Hotspot will be used in every series. In a couple of years India will probably cave to Hawkeye too and no one will remember the fuss.

Something is better than nothing. Are you guys so insecure that Swann might not get as many wickets now that the Hawk Eye isnt available? .

I certainly don't want Swann getting more LBWs That Hawkeye=LBWs thing is rubbish anyway. It's a chicken and egg thing. Umpires use Hawkeye when reviewing their performance to judge whether they made the right decision in a match. So doesn't it reason that they would now use Hawkeye's influence to make those decisions in the first place? In other words, umpires now make decisions that Hawkeye would make ie. more LBWs for spinners. So all BCCI is doing by banning Hawkeye is leaving the possibly awful decisions to stand. It's not going to change the philosophy of the on-field umpires LBW decisions.

Hawkeye isn't 100% accurate but I would think that that whole 50% of the ball rule would cover for that margin of error..

One aspect of Hawkeye I'm surprised didn't get in is the pitching area of the ball. Surely DRS could use the pitchmap to see if the ball pitched outside leg. If they don't like the projection of the ball tracking, fair enough I suppose, but why not use the footage up until the ball hits the pad? I guess they wanted an all or nothing LBW review system, but I thought it could have been an option to use ie. challenge that a ball pitched outside leg, but not be allowed to challenge if the ball would have hit the stumps.

 

[cricket_icon]

Something is better than nothing. Are you guys so insecure that Swann might not get as many wickets now that the Hawk Eye isnt available? I know the Hawk Eye is the refined technology, but the BCCI dont agree with the usage of the Hawk Eye. Till now because of their objection, the entire DRS was not to be used. Now the Hot Spot and the audio tracking will be used. If this is not a forward step, what else is?

P.s: Stop getting personal. I dont need to say everything that most people say here.

It's no ta step forward, because a technology that has been in use for the best part of the decade and is highly regarded by almost all cricketing nations, boards, players and umpires will not be used to appease India and their cricket board. This is 10 steps back if anything. A step forward would have been the ICC telling the BCCI to "@{} ~}+ :@~} *&.

 

[Themer]

Its not as if the absence of ball tracking is going to dilute the DRS.

Its the part of DRS that works the best and massively dilutes the effectiveness of the system.

 

[sifter132]

^I like Hawkeye too. I mean just watch the World Cup. There was no Hot Spot, Hawkeye was the main use of DRS and I think most people appreciated the presence of the DRS. The only time it was an issue was the Ian Bell incident, and that was because the rule was a bit vague, and none of the players knew the rule anyway. Both those things have changed.

The other good thing about Hawkeye is the way it involves the fans at the ground, by providing an animation. It's easy to show as the 3rd umpire goes through the process and it 'proves' to fans that the DRS is working - because they can see what the projection is. Hotspot on the other hand is a pain to watch at the ground. We saw in the Ashes last year that Ricky Ponting got upset about a DRS call because he and the other Aussies thought they'd seen a spot show up on the big screen, when in reality you could squint at the screen and think 'hmm that might be a hotspot'. It's only on a higher definition picture that you can tell for sure. Hotspot is a great tool and definitely should be in the DRS, but my point is that it's not as fan friendly for viewers - at the ground, or on TV sometimes.

 

[teamindia]

^I like Hawkeye too. I mean just watch the World Cup. There was no Hot Spot, Hawkeye was the main use of DRS and I think most people appreciated the presence of the DRS. The only time it was an issue was the Ian Bell incident, and that was because the rule was a bit vague, and none of the players knew the rule anyway. Both those things have changed.

Did yo stop watching the WC after Aus lost ( No worries I would have done the same if India crashed out)

Hawk-Eye company publishes analysis of Sachin Tendulkar lbw reprieve | Sport | The Guardian

Thankfully it did not blow up... But just google for the conspiracy theories.

 

[angryangy]

You mean this

He was hit in front of middle, but he was also out of his crease to a ball that was bowled from wide of the stumps. The ball had about two metres in which to continue to go down leg; something that is important but not always obvious on television due to foreshortening. It could be said that Tendulkar would have hit a perfectly straight ball with the shot he was playing, only deceived by the slight hint of turn that sent it past leg stump.

There were some shakes of the head and it was definitely close enough, but there was furore over this only because it was India and Pakistan in a final. Otherwise, it wasn't any more fortunate than the bucket-load of dropped catches he survived.

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

The Dhoni dismal is the best example why India was against the DRS. If some of you don't know what I am talking about then here it is.

Dhoni was caught and that ball was given as no ball first and umpire signalled it too. Then he went upstairs suddenly and the footage shown to third umpire was the footage of other ball and then the no ball was reversed and dhoni was given out.

If you want technology then what ████ is this? Wrong footage? Are you serious? Tony tried to defend the Ten Cricket channel but I think this is real shame on technology part. So what now? Technology can be tempered?

 

[shravi]

The Dhoni dismal is the best example why India was against the DRS. If some of you don't know what I am talking about then here it is.

Dhoni was caught and that ball was given as no ball first and umpire signalled it too. Then he went upstairs suddenly and the footage shown to third umpire was the footage of other ball and then the no ball was reversed and dhoni was given out.

If you want technology then what ████ is this? Wrong footage? Are you serious? Tony tried to defend the Ten Cricket channel but I think this is real shame on technology part. So what now? Technology can be tempered?

Uhh, no. Actually, it's not even an example at all. India is against the DRS because they aren't sure ball tracking technology is 100% accurate. They fully trust (apparently) the hot spot technology.

What happened was human error. The technology had nothing to do with it. IMG had access to the video evidence of that ball. The "technology" was there for them to use. They just didn't use it.

In the hypothetical situation that something similar happens with the DRS involved, even then the DRS is not at fault. The technology is there for you to use and you don't know how to use it, well, that's really no fault of the DRS. That's just plain stupidity.

 

[ferg512]

I find it funny how they are always moaning about the calls they get though (like Raina on Day 1) just use the damn thing, I seriously think if its available, the other team should be able to use it and just let India have the umpires make their decisions.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I actually totally agree with India's stance. Hawk-eye shouldn't be used.

you can't predict the future, and I personally don't think you should be using technology to confirm or contradict predictions, because it cannot 100% do that. it can only offer it's own prediction, you might argue that it's more often right than an umpire but I don't think anything should be allowed to completely supercede an umpire when it's really only offering an alternative opinion.

there is another factor, and that's what DRS was brought in for. I rarely lost any sleep about slightly iffy LBW decisions. What I wanted to see from DRS is the increasingly dreadful caught behind decisions ending. it's not fair if a bowler takes a nick and gets nothing and it's not fair if a batsman doesn't touch the ball and gets out. I can't say it smacks of the same level of unfairness with a very close lbw.

 

[teamindia]

I find it funny how they are always moaning about the calls they get though (like Raina on Day 1) just use the damn thing, I seriously think if its available, the other team should be able to use it and just let India have the umpires make their decisions.

If umpires make these kind of bad decisions often why not just replace them fully with DRS....this is just bad umpiring

 

[cricket_icon]

Saw an article by Harsha Bhogle on this matter. I normally respect hims a great deal but his argument is as flimsy as the BCCIs, very sad to read it.

 

[Sureshot]

If umpires make these kind of bad decisions often why not just replace them fully with DRS....this is just bad umpiring

In my best John MacEnroe accent, you cannot be serious?

I think Stinky has a point, and we shall still be able to get rid of the LBW that is given but was massively edged. On the other hand I don't see any evidence that shows the prediction part of Hawkeye is too poor to use, we might as well just get rid of LBW law if we cannot trust a Technology that is many many times more accurate than our own eyes. It's just frustrating so many because it's one voice out of ten that has stopped this.

Again on the 2.5m rule as it's popped up again. I don't see it's relevance to the use of Hawkeye in DRS. This is an advisory that umpires use anyway (and used before Hawkeye came along) regardless of Hawkeye. You couldn't have a system that could give out a batsman if he was so far down the wicket that no umpire would never consider giving it out. There has to be consistency with the rules and advisories already in place.

 

[sifter132]

I actually totally agree with India's stance. Hawk-eye shouldn't be used.

you can't predict the future, and I personally don't think you should be using technology to confirm or contradict predictions, because it cannot 100% do that. it can only offer it's own prediction, you might argue that it's more often right than an umpire but I don't think anything should be allowed to completely supercede an umpire when it's really only offering an alternative opinion.

there is another factor, and that's what DRS was brought in for. I rarely lost any sleep about slightly iffy LBW decisions. What I wanted to see from DRS is the increasingly dreadful caught behind decisions ending. it's not fair if a bowler takes a nick and gets nothing and it's not fair if a batsman doesn't touch the ball and gets out. I can't say it smacks of the same level of unfairness with a very close lbw.

Agree about LBWs - in an ideal situation DRS shouldn't be used for them as most LBWs are close calls, not the 'howlers' that were meant to be stopped. Teams are really using the challenges to get/stop important wickets with close LBW calls. I guess I don't mind that, it's a risk they are willing to take. Giving teams only one review would stop it.

But I can't see why technology can't be allowed to predict the future, while an umpire can. And more pertinently, that umpire will then use that same technology after the match to review whether he got that decision right...If Hawkeye's good enough to train and evaluate umpires, then it must be good enough to use on the field.