Please Explain How This Works In Cricket.

[waynegohl]

In the game of cricket they have a system where they superimpose the flight of the ball showing if it will hit the wickets or not but surely that cannot be correct as the surface of the pitch and shine of the ball and some other issues affect the flight of the ball.

How can they predict the unpredictable?

 

[HapticSimian]

Wiki - Hawk-Eye

Pretty awesome tech. It doesn't need to predict anything but the small distance from where an impact occurred. The biggest part of the ball's flight is tracked, not predicted.

 

[waynegohl]

thanks enigma

 

[hoegh]

I have heard that the hawk eye technology actually developed from missile tracking tech, so its pretty accurate! Its all a bit pointless in this current series against the indians as the cheeky buggers aren't letting us use the udrs

 

[R13...]

I have heard that the hawk eye technology actually developed from missile tracking tech, so its pretty accurate! Its all a bit pointless in this current series against the indians as the cheeky buggers aren't letting us use the udrs

might explain why their rockets keep exploding

 

[Ekstasis]

I have heard that the hawk eye technology actually developed from missile tracking tech, so its pretty accurate! Its all a bit pointless in this current series against the indians as the cheeky buggers aren't letting us use the udrs

well if it's so accurate then it makes only sense that the umpire on the field should refer the decision to a "3rd umpire" sitting with this fab tech on hand.
what's the point of having accurate tech if the ump. is still gonna let the batsman walk on lbw that was never lbw in the first place?

 

[hoegh]

Well that's why they want the udrs to be enforced for all tests now, not left up to the Teams playing to decide if it needs to be used, that shocker that AB got in the 2nd innings could have been reversed.

No point in referring every decision though, umpires do get it right 95% of the time

 

[techead]

not always 100% accurate in tennis

 

[Ekstasis]

that shocker that AB got in the 2nd innings could have been reversed.

+1000! ...Gee, I was cross with that one.

No point in referring every decision though, umpires do get it right 95% of the time

true, not all need to be referred. Some are dead obvious.

 

[Kornhub]

think we have one of those cams near our box

 

[SEF]

I don't trust the technology regarding lbw's.

 

[phoneJunky]

I don't trust the technology regarding lbw's.

It is the same technology that we use in missiles and the technology is really good. There is no extreme external influences on the ball and where lbw's are concerned the distance to the stumps are so little that the hawkeye will almost always be correct (if not always).

 

[ufis]

... where lbw's are concerned the distance to the stumps are so little that the hawkeye will almost always be correct (if not always).

If I have it correct they even cater for some form of error here. If hawkeye shows that "less than half the ball" would have hit the stumps the call remains as the umpire originally called it.

 

[waynegohl]

ok so the ball from Steyn hit the wicket but did not dislodge the bails can they ask the 3rd umpire for a ruling on that?

 

[manesan]

ok so the ball from Steyn hit the wicket but did not dislodge the bails can they ask the 3rd umpire for a ruling on that?

Yes, and the decision would have stood as the bails were not dislodged.

 

[Veroland]

If I have it correct they even cater for some form of error here. If hawkeye shows that "less than half the ball" would have hit the stumps the call remains as the umpire originally called it.

I think it a bit more than that, if the umpire gives the batsman out then the whole ball needs to miss the stumps if the decision is to be reversed but the other way around if the umpire gave the batsmen not out. Or something like that.