Lillee blasts 'Hawkeye'

[Go_The_Mighty_Magpies]

Lillee condemns Nine's 'hawkeye'

Fox Sports

DENNIS LILLEE today slammed the growing use of technological gimmickry in Australian TV's coverage of international cricket.

Lillee (355 wickets in 70 Tests) condemned as "a blight" a device known as "hawkeye", used by Channel Nine to reconstruct and assess leg before wicket dismissals.

The device was used extensively after India's star batsman Sachin Tendulkar was given out leg before wicket controversially last week by West Indian umpire Steve Bucknor in the first Test against Australia in Brisbane.

"I have no problems with technology that assists in helping umpires adjudicate correctly on run-outs and stumpings, but I am afraid 'hawkeye' and his mate, the 'snickometer', are pure gadgetry," Lillee writes in The West Australian newspaper.

The "snickometer" purports to be able to determine whether the ball finely nicked the edge of the bat.

On the "hawkeye" issue, Lillee writes: "Some of Channel Nine's graphics regarding where the ball supposedly lands and travels after it bounces, are an insult to one's intelligence.

"'Hawkeye' is purely a guide for armchair buffs, yet it seems a hell of a lot of experienced commentators take it as the be all and end all.

"Blokes with that experience – and most of them are former Test captains – know full well that every ball does not continue through at the predicted height.

"From a fast bowler's perspective, there is no way 'hawkeye' can tell if a delivery is going to skid a bit more than normal or hit a crack, or a damp or worn patch, or a bit of grass on the wicket.

"Batsmen struggle with the unpredictability of bounce, so how on earth is 'hawkeye' going to know what every ball is going to do, how it comes out of the hand or is angled?"

[Donny]

A good point was brought up today on the ABC radio coverage about Hawkeye.

When batsmen are bowled, it would be good to see a Hawkeye replay to see just how accurate it is.

[Fradam]

Agree with Lillee. Well said

[commonwombat]

It is just a projection based on an assumption of the ball's trajectory and assuming even bounce. Cricket wickets and their relative behavior are however an inexact science let alone questions of bowlers variation in delivery.

Thank you, DK.

[Donny]

This is a subject of great interest.

Lillee's comments are a combination of over reaction from a cricket traditionalist and juicy subject matter for his column.

I find Hawkeye fascinating but I don't think it should be used in umpire adjudications. At least not yet.

This from an article by Rob Bonnet of BBC News :

"The computer-generated system traces the wicket-to-wicket flight of the ball, and projects its path when it is critically interrupted by the intervention of a pad.

According to inventor Dr Paul Hawkins, Hawkeye has applications beyond mere viewer enlightenment.

Why not, he asked, allow umpires to use it?

Especially since roughly half of the lbw dismissals reviewed by Hawkeye last year were deemed faulty, usually because the ball was shown to have been travelling over the stumps.

You've got to believe in the technology, of course, and while Dr Hawkins thankfully declined to confuse us with scientific mumbo-jumbo, he had me going a bit with claims of "100% accuracy to within 5 millimetres".

But believe it we increasingly do, leaving us with the practical objections of further delay to play.

No problem. Umpires can have access to a decision within two seconds on their own miniature monitor, without recourse to the third umpire."
-------------

It's my understanding Hawkeye is more sophisticated than Lillee's appraisal, "there is no way 'hawkeye' can tell if a delivery is going to skid a bit more than normal or hit a crack, or a damp or worn patch, or a bit of grass on the wicket.

"Batsmen struggle with the unpredictability of bounce, so how on earth is 'hawkeye' going to know what every ball is going to do, how it comes out of the hand or is angled?"

Hawkeye tracks the ball AFTER it pitches, as well as from the bowler's hand and in flight, so deviation and extra or less bounce IS taken into account.

As I wrote in a previous post, I'd like to see the Hawkeye replays when a batsman is bowled. If the actual point which the ball hits the stump/s consistently and conclusively proves to be the same as Hawkeye's virtual prediction, then Lillee's concerns are without substance.

D.K. wrote: "Batsmen struggle with the unpredictability of bounce, so how on earth is 'hawkeye' going to know what every ball is going to do ?" May I remind you, old warhorse and forever one of my very favourite bowlers, computers can process hundres of millions of pieces of info in a second. We humans aren't quite up to that.

Let's hear your opinions but please, can we be spared the, "but it will waste too much time" comments.

As stated in the Rob Bonnet article: "No problem. Umpires can have access to a decision within two seconds on their own miniature monitor, without recourse to the third umpire."

[commonwombat]

Basically, am in agreement with yr viewpoint. Such technology is useful and may be the way to go in the future. However there ARE questions that legitimately have to asked and answered re its applications, accuracy and limitations.

Whilst DK may be proven wrong, he should be thanked for putting this debate into focus. People and commentators are talking as if it is infallable and the greatest thing since canned beer whereas there is no definitive proof, essentially just publicity bumpf.

There are too unreasonable extremes in this; those "diehard traditionalists" and those who would rush in something that is not fully tested. Case in point is tennis where it took 10-15 years to get Cyclops right.

If this techology is up to scratch then certainly go with it, but have it tested fully and not just rely on maufacturers/developers salestalk.

BTW, re the great DK. Would consider him less of a diehard than most and would always listen to what he had to say on cricket, something I would not extend to many others that you may care to name.

[Donny]

From an article by Amit Varma who is managing editor of Wisden Cricinfo in India.

"The technology behind Hawk-Eye, contrary to what its opponents claim, is sound. It is not a gimmick based on graphics.

Its accuracy has been proved in empirical tests under scientific conditions (see article below), and all the standard objections about it (it does not tell us what the ball might have done after hitting the pads) apply equally to the umpire.

Everything the umpire can do, Hawk-Eye can do better. Only those who have not bothered to examine the science behind it, and who stick to archaic luddite prejudices about technology, can disagree with that."
-------------------------------------------

Give Hawk-Eye a chance

S Rajesh

December 18, 2003

A spate of controversial umpiring decisions has opened up the debate over the use of technology to assist the officials. Many – including, most recently, Dennis Lillee – have rubbished the accuracy of Hawk-Eye, a system which tracks the path of the ball and then predicts its trajectory had it not been intercepted by the batsman.

After reading Lillee's comments, Paul Hawkins, managing director of Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd, wrote to Wisden Cricinfo. Here is an attempt to respond to the charges made by Lillee, and answer a few other queries about the technology.

Predicting bounce:

Lillee had questioned any gadget's ability to accurately predict the bounce off the pitch. "From a fast bowler's perspective, there is no way Hawk-Eye can tell if a delivery is going to skid a bit more than normal or hit a crack, or a damp or worn patch, or a bit of grass on the wicket," said Lillee. "Batsmen struggle with the unpredictability of bounce, so how on earth is Hawk-Eye going to know what every ball is going to do, how it comes out of the hand or is angled?"

Hawkins's response:

"Hawk-Eye does not try to predict the path of the ball after the bounce. Instead, the Hawk-Eye cameras track the ball both before and after the bounce, so the correct trajectory of the ball leaving the wicket is determined.

Hawk-Eye simply observes and then calculates the actual trajectory of the ball. Whether the cause of this trajectory was due to atmospheric conditions, the wicket, or the ball hitting the seam is irrelevant from a Hawk-Eye perspective. Hawk-Eye just tracks what happened - it does not try to predict nor to answer why it happened."

So, if the ball rears up unexpectedly after hitting the seam or a crack on the pitch, Hawk-Eye will track the trajectory off the pitch to predict the future course of the ball. Similarly, the tracking system will come into play if the balls shoots along the ground after hitting a dry spot on the pitch.

In fact, Hawk-Eye has shown that balls pitched on roughly the same area on the wicket have passed the stumps at widely varying heights. And in tests conducted, thousands of deliveries were bowled from a bowling machine and filmed by Hawk-Eye. The camera feeds were cut about two metres from the stumps, approximately the point where the batsman would normally intercept the ball. When the ball hit the wicket, Hawk-Eye was able to determine, to within about 5 mm, the point of impact.

What if the ball hits the pads on the full?

Hawkins's reply: "If the ball hits the batsman on the full, then Hawk-Eye performs the same function which the laws ask of the umpire – to assume that the ball would have continued on its current path.

"Hawk-Eye requires between 1 to 2 feet of travel after the ball has pitched to be able to accurately track the ball out of the bounce (this is significantly less than an umpire requires). In instances when this does not happen, a Hawk-Eye replay is not offered to TV (and if used by the umpire the benefit of doubt would go to the batsman)."

Isn't the umpire in the best position to judge lbws?

The umpire does stand right in line with the stumps, but the fact that he stands upright means his eyes are not at stump level, which could lead to incorrect judgement regarding the height of the ball. Experiments were carried out with three umpires – one in the normal standing position, one squatting down in front of him, and one at square leg.

Results proved that the umpire squatting, who was level with the wickets, could judge the height of the ball most accurately. The umpire standing behind the stumps often ruled the ball to be hitting, when it was actually going over the top – exactly what happened in Sachin Tendulkar's case at the Gabba.

To accusations that use of such technology would reduce the on-field umpires to glorified counting machines, Hawkins responds: "By no means is it the intention of Hawk-Eye to undermine the role of the umpire. In a very high percentage of cases the Hawk-Eye replay confirms the umpires' decision to have been correct.

Hawk-Eye has helped to highlight just how difficult their job is – it is the only decision in any sport which requires a predictive element and from the umpires' angle predicting height is very difficult."

S Rajesh is assistant editor of Wisden Cricinfo.

[The Prototype]

I'm not a real fan of Hawkeye, I'm amazed how they can accurately judge where the ball was going to end up after it hit the pads, or the bat. But hey, it's still an interesting thing to have, some of the people at home that wonder why the LBW was turned down gets to know why, when they show where the ball pitched. Though I think it's a little overused some days.

[JLC]

I have heard a lot of comments from the media re these devices and have seen them on ch 9 in operation.

I think if we were playing on concrete and the bounce was predictable then the device would be great. However when cricket pitches wear and tear and bounce becomes unpredictable i fail to see how this contraption could retain its accuracy.

Its great for TV audiences but i wouldnt be taking that as the gospel as many commentators appear to be doing.

jlc

[Donny]

JLC, one of the reasons I submit articles is so our readers have access to information.

Four posts above this one, you'll find all the info you need. Like this, for instance:

"Hawk-Eye does not try to predict the path of the ball after the bounce. Instead, the Hawk-Eye cameras track the ball both before and after the bounce, so the correct trajectory of the ball leaving the wicket is determined."

[Fradam]

If hawkeye was an umpire all sides would be bowled out for under 100 every innings.

A good example of how un accurate hawkeye is is Tendulkars 6 at the MCG last week. The height of the ball over the sightscreen was much different on hawkeye to how it actually got there.

I think the umpires are using hawkeye to do some local umpiring cos I've been given out to some shockers this year.

[JLC]

Any benefit of the doubt should be going the batsmans way with LBW decisions. If the ball is only going to clip the bails then imo thedoubt still exists and it should be given not out. Whereas the commentators just because it hits the bails imply that its a bad decision if given not out.

jlc

[The Prototype]

If Hawkeye was bouncing on the same pitch as the actual ball the was bowled, then it would probably be more accurate then it is, but it's still close to where the bowl had pitched. I'm surprised how they can make a firm judgment where the bowl would of gone if it didn't hit the pads. Like when Hayden bats out of his crease, even if it hits in line, it's still got a fair way to travel before hitting the stumps.

[Fradam]

I think they use Hawkeyes as Victorias fixed speed cameras

No wonder theyre all getting fined when theyre innocent