I get a strong desire to introduce Mr Foot to Mr TV - violently - when the Channel Nine commentators go with their Hawk Eye lie.
Matthew Hayden was NOT out. The ball turned from stump-line and would clearly have missed off stump. Yet the commentators went straight to the Hawk for confirmation that the ball would have hit off.
Lo and behold - with a "convenient" curve back - "The ball would have hit off." Rubbish!
PS: You just knew the only way Hayden was going to get out was via a dodgy decision.
PPS: Why the hell send Gilchrist in at four?!?
PPPS: This was supposed to post about six thirty, but the Drivel Warehouse was down. On the up side, I've watched The Natural, Men In Black II, The Dead Zone and now I'm watching Fargo.
You've watched men in black 2? Jeez mate, i know that i keep irregular hours and watch a load of absolute billabong but men in black 2?? Gilly in at 4? Why not? An hour or 2 of him up the order could knock the stuffing out of the munchers.....
Posted by: Brett Pee | 28 December 2003 at 01:03
Agreed. Sort of.
Haydos was out - I reckon it would have hit top of middle - but Hawkeye is as dodgy as fuck.. I've questioned quite a few of its “extrapolations” this summer.
Awesome technology, but. Give it time and hopefully it gets better.
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 28 December 2003 at 02:33
Hawkeye is only there to show background advertising for Channel 9 programs anyway.
Posted by: Adam | 28 December 2003 at 11:11
On second viewing, Big, it wasn't as rank a decision as I first thought. Still wouldn't have given it out though. And HE operates on the same projection estimates as an umpire. It shits me the way Nine commentators cite it as gospel.
Adam. no one in Australia does product placement as flagrantly as Nine.
Posted by: Tony.T | 28 December 2003 at 13:48
Come come. The big advertising on the "sightscreen" is a tad annoying. But aren't you even slightly aroused by Hawkeye?
I like it when they show the six balls of the over coming down at the same time. Imagine facing that? Yikes!
If I recall correctly, it was developed by some Pommie propeller head. He is licensing the technology to nine(?)
Sorta makes it hard for Nine to twist the truth, surely?
Issues I have:
How good is the tracking software?
How many frames per second does the software gather? What resolution?
How good is the calibration of the cameras?
The extrapolation is the easy part. It’s how the data that gets gathered prior that might need some tweaking.
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 28 December 2003 at 13:51
Yes Big, the Sightscreen ads are annoying, as are all Nine's obvious and blatant product placement. Channel Nine is really just one long ad break occasionally interrupted by entertainment.
"The extrapolation is the easy part. It's how the data gets gathered prior that might need some tweaking."
That's my point. At the moment it appears to operate along the same lines as those the umpy uses. Ie: It's looks like it's going in so and so direction, if it continues it'll hit the stumps. Although Nine uses the camera, I can't see Hawk projecting it any differently.
And Nine aren't twisting the truth, their just not letting it get the better of them.
There is nothing that has been said, written or shown that suggests Hawk Eye is more accurate than the human eye. The commentators carry on as if it is. Yet there is no calibratory proof.
Did you hear Tony Grieg yesterday when Steve Waugh was LB? According to me AND Tony AND the ump, the ball would have hit middle. Hawk showed it clearly missing off peg. Much to Tony's embarrassment.
To help indicate - if not prove - Hawks' consistency they should use it every time someone is bowled. But I've never seen it used for ONE bowled, let alone every time.
Naa, it's a typical Nine gimmick that needs way more development - and proof of success - before it's used on telly.
And yes, I am aroused. As an Electronic AND an Electrical Engineer, I will follow the development with enthusiasm - pointing the obvious faults as we go along - and then respect it's successful installation once it can be relied upon every time. Until then.....
Posted by: Tony.T | 29 December 2003 at 15:14
Bah!
Posted by: Big Ramifications | 31 December 2003 at 20:35
Stool?
Posted by: Tony.T | 01 January 2004 at 15:42