>Unluckiest Batsman

[rahulk666]

but if we do that, eventually there will be no umpires left, all be done by computers!

Thats true but hey if it improves the game then whats the problem?

 

[andrew_nixon]

Will the hawkeye technology be able to give the decision (I mean literally the umpire getting a response from thrid umpire) in less than 5 seconds of bowler appealing?? If not then its wasting time. We rather not want a match to halt every ball (worst case scenario where every ball hits the pads and bowler appeals) for minute or two for decision making.

As I said, Hawkeye can give a decision in seconds. I think the demonstration I saw was taking just over 3 seconds, on average. The maths to calculate it are done as quickly as any normal PC task. It's the rendering that takes the time.

 

[rahulk666]

As I said, Hawkeye can give a decision in seconds. I think the demonstration I saw was taking just over 3 seconds, on average. The maths to calculate it are done as quickly as any normal PC task. It's the rendering that takes the time.

In the demo you saw, did the thrid umpire convey the decision to the umpire on the field or was it just the hawkeye technology giving the result??

 

[andrew_nixon]

In the demo you saw, did the thrid umpire convey the decision to the umpire on the field or was it just the hawkeye technology giving the result??

It wasn't being done in a match situation, it was just showing the video of a recent match and showing how quickly hawkeye actually calculated the decision.

 

[rahulk666]

It wasn't being done in a match situation, it was just showing the video of a recent match and showing how quickly hawkeye actually calculated the decision.

Well that exactly is my point. Hawkeye may be able to make a decision quickly but the human factor involved may take significant time. The on-field umpire should take out his walkie-talkie and then speak to the third umpire and then the third-umpire will convey the hawkeye decision to the on-field umpire who will then raise his finger if the batsman is indeed out. All this will take atleast half-minute to even one minute depending on the voice clarity between the walkie-talkies (notwithstanding the crowd noise etc...). So I think even if hawkeye is able to make decision in seconds the human factor involved here would delay the decision making process. If there is a technology that will enable the on-field umpires to directly look at the hawkeye decision and remove the third umpire from this process then it certainy is a good thing to implement.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Well that exactly is my point. Hawkeye may be able to make a decision quickly but the human factor involved may take significant time. The on-field umpire should take out his walkie-talkie and then speak to the third umpire and then the third-umpire will convey the hawkeye decision to the on-field umpire who will then raise his finger if the batsman is indeed out. All this will take atleast half-minute to even one minute depending on the voice clarity between the walkie-talkies (notwithstanding the crowd noise etc...). So I think even if hawkeye is able to make decision in seconds the human factor involved here would delay the decision making process. If there is a technology that will enable the on-field umpires to directly look at the hawkeye decision and remove the third umpire from this process then it certainy is a good thing to implement.

It doesn't need that complicated system.

The 3rd umpire would be watching the game, and have a laptop with the Hawkeye software on it. As soon as there is an appeal for lbw, he presses a button, Hawkeye calculates if it has hit the stumps, he tells the on field umpire through an ear-piece, who can give it out without even asking the 3rd umpire for his opinion.

 

[rahulk666]

It doesn't need that complicated system.

The 3rd umpire would be watching the game, and have a laptop with the Hawkeye software on it. As soon as there is an appeal for lbw, he presses a button, Hawkeye calculates if it has hit the stumps, he tells the on field umpire through an ear-piece, who can give it out without even asking the 3rd umpire for his opinion.

Its worth implementing then. Although you would require a backup system in an unlikely event where the cameras stop working or something. I heard that ICC was keen to try out these things in the Super Series (Aus vs. ROW). has anyone heard more about it?

 

[Insomniac]

Another thing that can be done is third umpire looks at replay, and then pushes OUT button or NOT OUT button, instead of conveying to the on-field umpire, so the crowd knows the decision, and it would NOT take as long.

 

[angryangy]

while we're at it, they could use high speed cameras to judge run outs and stumpings.
the umpires could wear an earpiece wired to the effects mics, to better judge nicks and edges.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Another thing that can be done is third umpire looks at replay, and then pushes OUT button or NOT OUT button, instead of conveying to the on-field umpire, so the crowd knows the decision, and it would NOT take as long.

That ain't going to work, as you still need the on-filed umpire to see if the ball hit the pad first or not.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

But this will ruin the game as we know it! What about the human factor? What about luck and the benefit of the doubt. Wrong decisions are part of the game, and it should be left that way! On-field arguements, mind games and small battles between batsmen and bowlers, all would be lost! Why not put computers to judge catches, run-outs, stumpings, everything! Third umpire is more than enough, we don't need anything else. Cricket is fine the way it is.