While the Australians were busy in the business of humbling the Sri Lankans at Galle, there was a bunch of wise men sitting not very far away from the stadium discussing the effectiveness of the wonderful modern technology called HawkEye. Nothing wrong with that except the very fact that the seminar was necessitated fairly puts in question all the vociferous arguments in favour of invasive implementation of the technology in cricket. The report submitted by the wise men, top umpires of the game, did not make a good case for the technology in question either. Going by whatever is available in public domain about the findings of the report, it can be construed that the umpires are not great fans of HawkEye themselves. If the judge’s confidence on the evidence is not without a shred of doubt, the case is usually dismissed in a court of law. Cricket, funny game that it is, has other ways.
Before passing a judgement on the veracity of HawkEye, it would be wise to understand the beast. HawkEye was initially researched at the Roke Manor Research Ltd. funded by The Television Corporation. After its implementation during the 2001 Ashes series by Channel 4, an eponymous company was spun off to market the technology. Since then, the technology has found acceptance in decision making processes of Tennis and Cricket. The way this technology works is not much unlike the GPS system. Only, instead of the satellites we have TV cameras placed at strategic locations around the stadium to track the movement of the ball. The idea being, based on the behaviour of the ball before impact as captured by the cameras from different vantage points, its flight path can be reconstructed from the point of impact till the natural end of the projectile. There are many sources and documents available on the internet that say that at a minimum there must be six such cameras capturing action at 230 FPS or more for HawkEye to successfully predict the trajectory of the ball. As anyone who has studied graphs in a mathematics course would tell, a curve is best drawn when there are maximum plotting co-ordinates available. The six cameras referenced here are the source of those plot points. The FPS rate decides how many assisting co-ordinates are available for the software to predict the trajectory of the ball once its natural motion has come to an end.
Now the reason why the world is divided over the usage of this technology in the UDRS is because of the cameras used in the live telecast of the matches. Under ideal conditions, the Hawk Eye should not be dependent on the live feed provided by the telecasters at all. There should be special standardized HawkEye cameras located as per guidance provided by the technology provider that capture the action independently and ensure that no matter where the game is played and which broadcaster is involved, Hawk Eye works on its own. Sadly, the extreme competition in cricket broadcasting business mandates that the only cameras used for a given match are the ones that the broadcaster uses. Different broadcasters use different cameras. So, HawkEye has to deal with varying standards of inputs provided to it to make the all important decisions involving LBWs. The issue here is, different broadcasters use cameras of different standards. The difference in quality is obvious when you find certain channels offering High Definition as well as normal quality telecast while others do not. The difference in quality of cameras used means the FPS specifications are different thereby severely affecting the quality of decision made by Hawk Eye. This perhaps also explains the reason why BCCI has placed itself firmly against the inclusion of this system. Please remember that all matches in India are broadcast by Nimbus whose broadcast quality certainly leaves a lot to be desired. What with long term broadcast contracts running into millions of dollars, who is to say that this business aspect of the game does not play a role in certain cricket boards’ aversion to the technology.
Then again, there are the many cases of erroneous predictions outputted by Hawk Eye even when working with best broadcast conditions. The most recent one was in the first test match between Australia and Sri Lanka where an LBW appeal against opener Philips Hughes was referred to the UDRS. Naked eyes all around vouched for the turn that came after the ball had pitched but not Hawk Eye. Since Ten Sports, the broadcasters here, are not so far behind when it comes to quality of broadcast, this prediction raises further questions on the veracity of the extrapolations that Hawk Eye makes.
Even as this post goes live, there has been another fiasco of sorts in the ODI between England and India. This time though the technology in question was Hot Spot and implemented on one of its more frequent customers, Rahul Dravid. The ever so enthusiastic Stuart Broad appealed for a caught behind to umpire Doctrove who decided against it before being challenged with the UDRS. Hot Spot replays showed naught for a nick as was the slow motion trajectory of the ball, which was sans any deviation as ball crossed the bat. The only dissenting evidence was in audio. The third umpire, without the assistance of the snickometer which has been kept out of the UDRS for it takes a long time to reconstruct the Snicko images, had only the Hot Spot and the slow motion capture to go by and inexplicably declared Dravid out. The quick justification given by some of the English commentators, no less enthusiastic about UDRS than Stuart Broad, was that the audio evidence was conclusive. Here are two questions:
- In a live cricket match, a sound could come from anywhere. Can such an input be treated as bonafide? Case in point, when Dravid walked in the test match mistaking the sound from his shoelaces for a genuine nick, had the referral been asked and audio input been available, would he have been declared out even though all other evidences pointed otherwise?
- If audio evidence is to be the deciding factor, isn’t it best left to the on field umpire to take the call on that as he hears and sees action from the closest proximity?
One of the observations in the Umpire’s Seminar in Sri Lanka was the lack of uniformity in the decision assist systems used in different matches. While at some place Hawk Eye is in, it is Hot Spot elsewhere and Snicko in some other match. This, along with the inconsistent quality of feeds, makes the life of all concerned very difficult. The BCCI, in spite of all its inverted intelligence, might be right in suggesting not to use such technologies until they are deemed fool proof. The premature implementation of technology not only makes the present controversial but also creates an atmosphere of mistrust for technologies of future. In an effort to fix what ain’t exactly broke, technology may become its own slayer. So, when the next time David “Bumble” Lloyd goes on to defend such highly debatable decisions simply because he is a believer he better realize that in his defence he is undoing his case.
UPDATED 10 Nov, 2011
A. FPS rates affect the quality of projection of the HawkEye system quite a bit[6]. This is not a wild conjecture as accused by some fans of this technology in a particular cricket forum.
B. HawkEye cannot correctly predict the ball trajectory if the distance between the ball's pitch and impact is less than 40cm[7]. This has been admitted by HawkEye innovations in the aftermath of the Hughes dismissal fiasco in Sri Lanka earlier this year.
C. HotSpot's fallibility has been brought under focus once again in the first test match Australia and South Africa at NewLands, Cape Town in the appeal for a caught behind against Peter Siddle off a Morkel delivery. Siddle tried to play a cross batted swat shot off the ball and missed it with Boucher pocketing it safely. Morkel's appeal for a caught behind was denied by the umpire before being referred for a UDRS. The slow motion replays did not reveal a conclusive nick but there was a faint noise as ball crossed bat. A HotSpot image would have nailed it but surprisingly there was none. Per TV commentators HotSpot was not "within the range"!!!!! Why on earth nobody specified what "ranges" does HotSpot operate within? Sadly, the commentators will not discuss it for a moment even.
D. HotSpot also happens to be terribly expensive as inconclusive. The most "accurate" 4 camera setup costs the organizers USD 10,000 per day, meaning $50,000 for a Test match. Many broadcasters do find this exorbitant[8].
Sources
1. http://virtualeye.tv/index.php/the-news/75-virtual-eye-response-to-hawkins-open-letter
2. http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~mdisney/teaching/1006/papers/collins_hawkeye.pdf
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12670063
4. http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk
5. http://www.howitworksdaily.com/technology/top-five-facts-controversial-hawk-eye-moments/
6. http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/523336.html
7. http://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-australia-2011/content/story/531324.html
8. http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/470808.html
No comments:
Post a Comment