AGB Cricket

LEG BEFORE BOWLED

A typically thought-provoking post from The Old Batsman:

The power of suggestion

In a few days time, we will farewell the first decade in the history of Test cricket that has seen more batsmen dismissed LBW than bowled.

This revelation would seem to be supported by an answer Daryl Harper gave last year to a question about Hawkeye:

HARPER'S BIZARRE

I probably do give more lbws because of Hawk-Eye than I did ten years ago. My personal feeling is that the ball hitting the leg stump a decade back would very rarely be given out lbw because of the feeling that the ball was sliding down leg. But now we've seen so many times from the replays that the ball hits leg stump very often, and we give it not out much more than [the ones hitting] off stump. I've subconsciously made that adjustment.

I wouldn't say I have become bolder, but more accurate. I normally store the Hawk-Eye situation, and use that bank of information along with little details like the bounce, the pitches, and use that to make the right decision in the field.

LLLOOKED OUT

Welsh boffins have investigated Hawk-Eye:

We CAN be serious: Cardiff University disputes Hawk-eye's Wimbledon line call

Ahead of Wimbledon fortnight (23 June to 6 July), researchers from Cardiff University are advising that sports decision aids such as the Hawk-Eye system should come with a ‘health’ warning attached.

Hawk-Eye, and similar officiating tools which are used to supplement or replace decision-making by umpires and referees, are becoming an increasingly common part of televised sports coverage. But the new technology has also attracted its critics.

(Thanks to Alistair A. for the link.)

Pity the article is concerned with tennis. I would have preferred to read what it says about cricket - where it matters and where it is sometimes way out - but you need to subscribe to read the whole study.

Hawk works well enough in tennis, anyway, and I'm inclined to agree with its inventor:

Keeping the Hawk-Eye on the ball

Paul Hawkins said: "Anyone living in the sane world would say Hawk-Eye is sufficiently accurate."

"No system is ever going to have zero margin of error but at some point you have to make a decision. What are you going to do - go up to the net and start having a debate or asking fans to phone in and vote?"

"But isn't it wonderful that we live in such a developed world where university professors can spend their time researching something that doesn't need to be researched. Do they really have nothing more important to do?"

The 3.6 mm margin for error and the 5 mm International Tennis Federation limit are reasonable; especially as the Cardiff academics claim "the real figure could be either higher or even lower than 3.6mm." That's hardly a debunking of the earth-is-round variety.

No, Hawk's disputed margins for error in tennis don't worry me, my concerns lie elsewhere.  First, Super Slo Mo would work better. Track the ball, zoom in, show where it lands. Perfect. But what administrator could resist a CGI ball zooming down the court, the ball's meteor trail, and the fans' sound-effects? The main reason tennis uses Hawk is not because it works better than any other method, but because it looks sexy. Second, Hawk has been sold to us by commentators as the last word in accuracy. At least now the cricket commentators - even those at Nine, Hawk's traditional spruikers - express skepticism, if not outright contempt.

Mind you, an inventor settling for "sufficiently accurate" and sneering "Do they really have nothing more important to do?" at university professors sounds about as clever as a driver sneering "Haven't you got any murderers to catch?" at a traffic cop.

HARPER'S BIZARRE

Which Hawk-Eye has Daryl Harper been looking at?

'The on-field umpire is in the best position'

Do you currently use Hawk-Eye graphics as part of your preparation process? And do you think umpires have become bolder in giving lbws thanks to exposure to Hawk-Eye graphics?

Bowden: No. It is just a gadget for commentators to use to explain to the viewers what might or could have happened, not what would happen. It's all subjective, and lbws will always be a matter of opinion. One thing that is definite is, there is no doubt the on-field umpire is in the best position and has the best view to make an lbw decision

Only statistics will show if the percentage of lbws given by umpires has increased overall since Hawk-Eye's introduction. One thing is for sure, Hawk-Eye shows a lot more balls hitting the stumps than I believe. This does not really persuade me to give more lbw decisions. It's never been proven that it is 100% accurate. I call it the "Guessereye". Leg-befores will always be open to debate. There is no final outcome or definite conclusion. It's in the opinion of the umpire - who is in the best position, and not Hawk-Eye, to make the final decision. This will always be the case.

Harper: I probably do give more lbws because of Hawk-Eye than I did ten years ago. My personal feeling is that the ball hitting the leg stump a decade back would very rarely be given out lbw because of the feeling that the ball was sliding down leg. But now we've seen so many times from the replays that the ball hits leg stump very often, and we give it not out much more than [the ones hitting] off stump. I've subconsciously made that adjustment.

I wouldn't say I have become bolder, but more accurate. I normally store the Hawk-Eye situation, and use that bank of information along with little details like the bounce, the pitches, and use that to make the right decision in the field.

HI, TECH

For a moment I thought the bit below read "allowing each team to lodge up to three challenges per innings". Fat lot of good that would have done in Sydney. Naturally, I read it again. Three "unsuccessful" challenges works for me. (Who will be the first team to call for more?)

Australia wary of ICC proposal 

ALREADY under unprecedented pressure, Test umpires may have their decisions challenged by players under an International Cricket Council proposal for expanded use of technology, which has drawn scepticism from Australian coach Tim Nielsen. 

Cricket Australia is reserving its judgement until director Mark Taylor, a member of the ICC's cricket committee, presents the detailed recommendations upon his return from Dubai. 

But Nielsen warned that such a system, allowing each team to lodge up to three unsuccessful challenges per innings, could slow down the game and create more intense conjecture about decisions.

Similarly, I'm not philosophically opposed to a predictless Hawkeye.

It is expected umpires would have at their disposal "Hawk-Eye" to judge whether a batsman has been struck in line with the stumps in leg-before-wicket decisions, stump microphones to determine whether there is an edge in caught behind appeals, and "Super Slow-Mo" for close bat-pad decisions. 

They could not, however, use Hawk-Eye to predict the trajectory of the ball in lbw calls. Nor could they use "Snicko" or the infra-red "Hot Spot" technology used in television broadcasts.

As we are all aware around these parts, the problem with Hawk, apart from it being a sly excuse for Nine to plug ACA, CSI and other upcoming programs, is its inability to accurately predict trajectory after the ball has bounced; especially when the spinners are on. But using it, for instance, to see if the ball has pitched outside leg is definitely a valid application. Not that you couldn't do that with super slow-mo or freeze-frame. I generally try to avoid getting between Nine and a good gadget.

I wonder why the umpires will be allowed to use stump microphones and won't be allowed to use Hot Spot. I'm not wild about Snicko.

Anyhoo, what's Tim Nielsen been smoking?

Nielsen warned that such a system... could create more intense conjecture about decisions.

A crack research team comprised of Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, James Cook, Hercule Poirot, Phileas Fogg and every single winner of The Price Is Right would struggle to unearth any more "intense conjecture about decisions" than existed last summer.