4 ms·

The article might have been better served by using Hawk-eye as an example. The technology behind Hawk-eye started out as television gimmick, back in 2001, to s

The article might have been better served by using Hawk-eye as an example. The technology behind Hawk-eye started out as television gimmick, back in 2001, to show cricket fans the ball trajectory for a LBW call. Now it is being used for challenging line calls in tennis and checking goals in football. It has evolved into a useful case for other sports. While in cricket it still leads to some controversial umpiring in instances called "umpires call" where Hawk-eye prediction falls in a 50-50 probability range.

rakejake 4y ago
DRS (Hawk-eye + Ultraedge) has transformed cricket in my opinion. Where before, one erring umpire can change the course of a game, now there is the option to challenge calls. And guess what, if you land up in that 50-50 umpire's call territory, you don't lose the challenge, which is fair. Compare this to the officiating in a modern NBA game and it is night and day. Refs have made NBA games almost unwatchable IMHO. Even if you win a coach's challenge, you don't get to retain it, forcing the coach to keep the challenge for crunch time even if a foul-call is egregious.
IMSAI8080 4y ago
It's interesting the extent to which the players trust Hawkeye. Particularly in the tennis, there is no more McEnroe screaming the ball was on the line. The computer says it was out and that's the end of the matter.
shrikant 4y ago
Yeah good point -- and AFAIK, cricket is the only sport in which Hawk-Eye is used predictively, i.e., attempts to show what could have happened if the batter hadn't obstructed the path of the ball. Every other sport that uses Hawk-Eye only uses it to show what already happened.
- thisisit 4y ago
  That is incorrect. Hawk-eye shows the most likely path in all the sports with 3.6 mm margin for error. The issue is that other sports don't deal with a 50-50 probability decision. In tennis, if the ball is 50% on the line and 50% outside the line it is still "in". That is not the case with LBW decision. If the ball is hitting 50% on the stumps and 50% outside theb both sides can argue their case. So, often it is left as "umpire's call".

rakejake 4y ago

DRS (Hawk-eye + Ultraedge) has transformed cricket in my opinion. Where before, one erring umpire can change the course of a game, now there is the option to challenge calls. And guess what, if you land up in that 50-50 umpire's call territory, you don't lose the challenge, which is fair. Compare this to the officiating in a modern NBA game and it is night and day. Refs have made NBA games almost unwatchable IMHO. Even if you win a coach's challenge, you don't get to retain it, forcing the coach to keep the challenge for crunch time even if a foul-call is egregious.

IMSAI8080 4y ago

It's interesting the extent to which the players trust Hawkeye. Particularly in the tennis, there is no more McEnroe screaming the ball was on the line. The computer says it was out and that's the end of the matter.

shrikant 4y ago

Yeah good point -- and AFAIK, cricket is the only sport in which Hawk-Eye is used predictively, i.e., attempts to show what could have happened if the batter hadn't obstructed the path of the ball. Every other sport that uses Hawk-Eye only uses it to show what already happened.

thisisit 4y ago
That is incorrect. Hawk-eye shows the most likely path in all the sports with 3.6 mm margin for error. The issue is that other sports don't deal with a 50-50 probability decision. In tennis, if the ball is 50% on the line and 50% outside the line it is still "in". That is not the case with LBW decision. If the ball is hitting 50% on the stumps and 50% outside theb both sides can argue their case. So, often it is left as "umpire's call".