Sony and Hawkeye

Following yesterdays news that Sony have bought Hawkeye, I've been pondering what Sony will do to extend Hawkeye into something worth more than the purchase price (yes, I am that sad!). I remember talking to Cricinfo many years ago about what I thought was a brilliant revenue opportunity for them - they claimed to record every international delivery, so the company I worked for at the time thought this data would be fantastic for gaming companies. That data would allow computer game players, for example, to face the exact balls that a particular international bowler bowled - surely if you're an English kid (or adult as gaming seems to have seeped into adulthood too, although not for me!), you'd love to face Mitchell Johnson's spell from Perth in the recent Ashes?

I wonder if Sony want to use the Hawkeye ball tracking technology for similar purposes?

Sony buy Hawkeye

It seems that the Winchester based company, Hawkeye Innovations, who provide the ball tracking part of the UDRS in some counties, have been bought by Sony.

What are the implications for cricket? I'd love to be able to tell you....I presume that with greater financial backing, Hawkeye Innovations will be able to afford to go further in demonstrating their technology for free during pitches. That was something of a stumbling block when dealing with FIFA in the past, as football's governing body wanted full demos paid for by pitching companies without any commitment to use the technology for goal line decisions even if the technology tested successfully. Hawkeye weren't willing to commit to a huge spend to do all the tests without any guarantee of business off the back of it.

I imagine that Sony will be able to utilise their greater international coverage too....it will be interesting to hear what they plan to do with Hawkeye know they've bought it.

Incidentally, this is an interesting piece I noticed having just gone to the Hawkeye site about issues with the Virtual Eye technology used in The Ashes. Worth a read if you're as sad as me....

BCCI reject technology again

Interesting to read the match report from Sri Lanka's win over India in the tri-series final. It appears there were a multitude of umpiring errors, and yet the BCCI aren't up for ensuring greater accuracy in their series against Australia. I hope they catch up with the rest of the cricketing world sooner rather than later....it sounds like Paul Hawkins is happy to sit down with India's leading players if necessary.

This morning's LBWs

Interesting watching the ball moving all over the place this morning as Pakistan bowl at the Australians - currently it's 50-5. There's been some good non-LBWs given such as Ponting's first ball that was going just over middle stump, but also one against Michael Clarke that looked out - and was according to Hawkeye - but wasn't given. Of the given LBWs, seen as live on TV the Katich one looked like one that the batsman would consider himself unlucky - I imagine the umpire would have loved to see a replay....Hawkeye showed it was hitting the outside of leg stump so in theory a good decision. I instinctively was thinking not out.

The Hussey one was sadly a wrong decision and as the finger went up I was saying (as a neutral) "no Rudi, no Rudi!" as it looked very leg-side and so it proved, missing leg stump according to Hawkeye. I would hate to be an umpire in these type of conditions as the ball's moving all over the shop - in effect when the ball is moving around so much the umpire is making decisions from extra cover or midwicket as the ball is moving at near on 45 degrees to the stumps by the time it hits the pad.

There's no way that human umpires could get all decisions right in such conditions. That's why technology would help....

Hawk-Eye on the offensive

Interesting to see that after criticism of Fifa for not bringing in goal line technology, Hawk-Eye have done two things. They've stuck their open letter to Sepp Blatter from September 2009 on their homepage, and they've also issued a press release ensuring that common objections to the use of goal line technology are countered.

Will the governing body listen? If they take action, it will be a case of better late than never. Time will tell....

Fifa rejection of technology shown up as farcical

You heard it here first....back in March I talked about goal line technology being rejected by Fifa and how rediculous it was. I gave the example of a Lampard like shot being critical in the World Cup final - it was only the last 16 and it's unlikely that it was critical as England were outplayed, but nevertheless observers like the BBC seem already to be suggesting that FIFA can no longer resist the need for technology after Lampard's goal that wasn't. And Fifa must be having nightmares after their own General Secretary said back in March that he hoped their decision not to adopt goal line technology would not come back to haunt them in the World Cup.

Although Germany were much the better side, would England have left themselves as open at the back as they did for the 3rd German goal (by pushing so many forward for a corner) had they been 2-2 as they should have been if goal line technology had been used? We will never know thanks to Fifa's idiocy.

Cook's decisions

Interesting to see that the first LBW shout to Alastair Cook was shown to have hit the inside edge within seconds by hotspot - I thought one of the objections to using that to help umpires was that it took too long.

Then he was given out by one that looked at first glance on TV to be going over the top and so Hawkeye thought too. No UDRS - more wrong decisions than is necessary.

Trott will no doubt get out now but he's looking quality early in his innings!

Hawk-Eye Lecture at Lords

Looks like an interesting one for those that are interested....a lecture from Paul Hawkins on Hawk-Eye and a panel discussion with Jonathan Agnew, Geoff Boycott and Billy Bowden - 25th May.

Goal line technology rejected by Fifa

We've had many debates about technology being used to increase the accuracy of decisions in cricket on Cricket Burble. It seems that even the simplest use of technology in football - goal line technology to check if the ball has crossed the line - has been rejected. Ironically, on that same day a Birmingham goal was ruled out by the officials who didn't have access to the TV replays.

Anything that allows the watching audience to check if the referee of umpire are correct should be considered in all sports, if the ruling bodies want to see the authority of referees and umpires to remain. The only question really needs to be how the technology can be used without a huge impact on the sport in question. Goal line technology is a no brainer - it's not going to be used very often so won't impact on the game much and when it is used, it won't take long at all - it either is a goal or isn't.

FIFA say "the door is closed" but it's only a matter of time before they are forced to put this in place - I'm not sure if it will be years or decades but it will happen. Imagine if the World Cup final hinged on a wrong refereeing decision about the ball being over the goal line! More poor leadership from a sporting body (note "leadership" as opposed to "management" - most can manage, it's harder to lead).

Real time stats/charts

For the statos amongst us, here's Hawkeye analysis available live. Check out each wagonwheel, beehive etc etc to your heart's content....

Cook wants correct referral decisions

Following on from the previous Burble about referrals, interesting to see the way Alastair Cook's comments have been reported in The Metro this morning. The title of the article by Cook says "Referral system just isn't working, so let's scrap it". He goes on to say:

"If the third umpire cannot use the full range of technology then the referral system should be scrapped."

That's a whole different comment and one that I've burbled about before - it's clearly insane to allow TV viewers access to technology that the 3rd umpire can't look at. But that's a problem of implementation - Cook isn't stupid and I don't think he would really think you can scrap the use of technology for good. It will keep coming back until it's eventually implemented properly.

Again, repeating previous Burbles the "human error" factor can be eliminated all together from LBWs - use Hawkeye or similar to show where the ball would have hit and then allow for a suitable amount of error. So for example, you might only give a batsman out if no part of the ball is outside of the outside of the off or leg stump, or over the top of the bails.

The ICC seem to have caught up with the correct objective - reducing the number of wrong decisions. They have belatedly realised that they can use technology to reach that objective. How long will it take them to come up with the right implementation plan? On current form, many years.

Ownership of the 3rd umpire referrals rule

Sri Lanka and India are about to play the first Test series in which players will be able to appeal decisions. England and South Africa could have been the first, but as the boards couldn't agree on the terms of how the 3rd umpire would be used, those plans were shelved. How Paul Collingwood must regret the fact that some non-players somewhere couldn't come to an agreement allowing players results to be based more on skill than luck. And the likes of Alastair Cook, Hashim Amla and Dale Steyn must be cursing too given poor decisions against the first two when they batted, and the last when he was bowling. Who knows how the game would have turned out if England's batting collapse on the first morning at Headingley hadn't been triggered by the wrong decision against Cook?

Sri Lanka and India have recognised that it's best for everyone when the ifs and buts are taken out of the equation, so it will be interesting to see how the trial goes. I'm not sure if there have been any trials in non-international 3 or 4 day matches, but if there have they've been kept pretty quiet. The wisdom in going straight to Test cricket, if that's what they've done, remains to be seen.

The issue that I think may emerge is that the 3rd umpire has access to less technology than the TV spectator - this is a recipe for problems. The spectator can see if there was a sound at the exact moment the ball passed the bat using the snickometer, and yet the 3rd umpire is only allowed to listen to the stump microphone. Equally, the spectator can see if the ball would have hit the stumps using Hawkeye, but the 3rd umpire is only allowed to see the trajectory of the ball until the moment it hits the pad. I'm totally confused why you wouldn't give the 3rd umpire access to any technology they'd like, but the boards have agreed these rules and someone like me who has wanted to see technology used for a while shouldn't complain! You can see how technology will be used here.

The other issue that I find intriguing is that Seenaka Weeraratne, a Sri Lankan lawyer who wrote a letter to various publications in 1997 entitled "Allow appeals to the 3rd umpire", is claiming ownership of the idea of using technology. He would like the use of technology to be given a term such as the "Weeraratne rule" just as was done with the Duckworth-Lewis method" of determining runs required when the weather intervenes during a match.

I'm no lawyer, and as Mr Weeraratne is then I suspect he knows his stuff, but this seems to fly in the face of common sense. Does it mean that if - for the sake of providing an example - I write to a few newspapers suggesting that a particular formula, which includes the number of spectators present and the likely TV audience, is used to evaluate whether players come off for bad light, that I now have some rights to the naming of the rule if it was put in place? And why would I want the rule named after me anyway....is there any financial benefit to having a rule named after you?

I'm going to try to track down Mr Weeraratne's original letter - as a lawyer I wonder if he had a view on whether cricketers could sue for loss of earnings if adversely affected by wrong decisions that could have been easily corrected. That's something I've considered myself and believe should logically be the case, but I'm told by lawyers I know is not the case. I'll post a link to the letter if I can find it at some point....

Irrespective of the name of the rule, at least technology is being used. I know some people see the use of referrals as a step backward, but personally I think it's one small step forward, when about 100 steps would be easily possible if the cricketing world (by that I mean the ICC and their full members) got their act together.

Using technology to the full

It's interesting watching the use of technology in other sports and I praised the use of Hawkeye in tennis, allowing players to appeal decisions and get them overturned. Players have a maximum of 3 unsuccessful appeals in each set, unless it goes to tie break when they get an extra appeal. At 6 all in the 5th set yesterday in the Wimbledon men's final, both players started again with 3 appeals.

As anyone that reads Cricket Burble will know, I'm a big fan of doing whatever it takes to get decisions right - tennis have done their best by using large numbers of judges on the various lines and, previously, someone to call for lets. Even with these large numbers of judges, they haven't been able to get things right all of the time, and naturally so as they are only human. The appeals system using Hawkeye seemed to be a step in the right direction.

But I'd like them to take the use of Hawkeye further. Given the importance of the match yesterday, there were some rediculous cases where the player didn't challenge despite the fact that the call would have been overturned. That's not surprising - like the line judges, the players are only human. The commentators picked up on this straight away - long before the server set up to start the next point. Given that it's so quick to find out if the ball is out, why have the appeals system at all? The umpire should have a little screen, same as the commentators, where Hawkeye indicates to him if the ball is in or out. No more need for line judges....just one umpire.

I wonder if two umpires will always be required in cricket?

Nit-picking

I wasn't watching quite as intently as I could have been, but did anyone else notice in the Wimbledon ladies doubles final the commentator's cricketing mistake? As the William's sisters cruised to victory one of their serves was edged into the crowd where a spectator took a catch. The commentator suggested that the ball had been caught at "deep backward short leg", or so it sounded to me....

I also watched a bit of the U18 girls final in which Laura Robson won to much acclaim. Hawkeye was used successfully by both girls to overturn wrong line calls - how simple and effective it all seemed....I hope cricket can follow suit and use technology in an appropriate way to overturn wrong decisions.

After a week of cricket tour which had excellent weather, I'm looking forward to next year already. In 4 games I managed to bowl no deliveries and face just two balls, which were both reverse swept and I remain without a tour average. But I got to wicket-keep twice - something that I haven't done for years. Without any pace bowling to worry about I was able to stand up throughout but that left me with bruises and seam marks on my forearms - wicket-keepers have my sympathy! My record was 0 byes in the first game, and 6 in the second (4 from one ball) and a missed stumping.....I think I might be known as a "stopper" given the number of times I fumbled the ball! Fortunately I didn't do my hands any damage like this guy.

Atherton argues for caution over use of technology

As all Cricket Burble's readers know, I'm very much a champion of the use of technology to aid umpiring decisions. It is only a matter of time and, in my opinion, discussions should be turning to how to allow umpires use of technology while not slowing down the game every time an appeal is made. At the present rate of change, that's a decade away though.

However, in the interests of a balanced argument, I'd urge you to read Mike Atherton's article in The Times today. He urges caution but he also makes clear that some errors were made in the England v New Zealand Test at Lords.....errors, I should add that haven't been added to the list of Cricket Burble wrong decisions yet (they will be when I get time!). Both Vaughan and McCullum should have been out in their 30s which would have made for an entirely different Test match. This seems to me to make the case for further use of technology, but Atherton does a good job of explaining the high skill level of the two umpires, Bucknor and Taufel in difficult circumstances and makes a good argument for caution.

However, when it is agreed that 3 out of 13 close decisions were wrong, it just goes to show that even the very best umpires in the world don't stand a chance without the aid of technology. That's over 23%!! Those concerned over the impact technology could have on the game often quote figures in the high 90%s for accurate decision making, but that is a meaningless stat given the optimism of many appeals. When you start considering that getting on for a quarter of the decisions from "proper" appeals are wrong, the argument for using technology appears to me to be an unstoppable one, especially if you read the article titled "Hawk-Eye goes to College" in this month's Wisden Cricketer which suggests that in tests Hawk-Eye was about a centimetre out only.

Unless you aren't interested in the best team winning, or for individual's results to be a true reflection of their skill, the argument for technology seems to be stronger than ever to me, even if it doesn't to Mike Atherton.

Testing the accuracy of Hawk-Eye

It appears that the ICC have decided to test the accuracy of Hawk-Eye in May but somehow doubts still remain as to whether or not to use Hawk-Eye for predicting where the ball would have gone. What if it isn't shown to be 100% accurate? That's easy isn't it....just use it to give decisions to the appropriate level of accuracy. If you believe Hawk-Eye to be accurate to the width of a stump (and this accuracy level is what needs to be tested and scientifically proven), then the decision is only out if Hawk-Eye suggests the ball was hitting the outside stump full on - any suggesting that the ball would have just clipped the stumps makes the decision not out.

What is in no doubt is the accuracy of Hawk-Eye to show accurately where the ball bounced prior to hitting the batsman. Pitched outside leg? That type of wrong decision could be instantly made a relic of the past and we'll laugh at the rediculousness of the fact that players had to put up with wrong decisions that changed the results of matches for years, before finally technology was used to help.

It all seems so simple to me - I'm totally confused as to why the cricketing world are being so pondorous. Is there any other event or business that, when offered the chance to take a significant step forward, would back away from that opportunity? The answer is that there will always be those that resist change, but it is up to the those in the senior positions to drive through change anyway, and Hawk-Eye is just one of many required. That is what top managers are paid to do isn't it? If they do nothing until there is a huge groundswell of opinion emploring them to make a change, that's not leadership - that's administration - and their pay should reflect their lack of leadership and foresight.

Boycott supports Hawkeye use by umpires

Comments like these from Geoff Boycott are like music to my ears. Whatever I think of him, the more cricketing personalities that support allowing umpires use of technology, the better. He doesn't suggest that they use snickometer and hot spot, but I do. Anything that can help them make a decent decision - anything that aids that has to be a good thing...

To see the consequences of not using technology, see the list of Cricket Burble wrong decisions.

Quote unquote

You may or may not be a reader of Cricinfo's "quote unquote" but if you'd like to take a look click here.

My top 3 are:

"In terms of sporting endeavour and prestige, the IPL is to cricket what diarrhoea is to dodgy curry houses - an unfortunate by-product." Paul Lewis, in the New Zealand Herald, clearly doesn't care much about developments in India.

"I've seen him spray it worse than that, so I'd suggest it was quite a good start for him." Michael Vaughan on Steve Harmison after his fast bowler opened his New Zealand tour with four wides and two sets of four byes.

"I think Hawk-Eye must have had a late night." Ian Botham explains why a ball he thought was going "way down" was shown hitting leg stump by Hawk-Eye.

"Hawk-Eye is rubbish" - Dickie Bird

Yep, that's the view of Dickie Bird - typically straight forward I suppose! The run of wrong decisions in the England v India Test series has heightened debate in India, not surprisingly, and you can read the article in full here. They being the country that leads the way for cricket financially, this will only accelerate the use of technology for making decisions. A few months ago, I did remark to a few people that technology would come in on all decisions if India were denied victory in the World Cup final through a bad decision, but that of course never happened as India didn't even make it through the group stages. Test matches are never quite as contentious, unless there are a lot of wrong decisions, so I didn't think they would be as high risk, but the run of poor decisions recently has heightened the Indian scrutiny.

Clearly, there are times when the replay tools (of which Hawk-Eye is just one), are unable to demonstrate whether the batsman was out or not for sure. In that case the decision is simple - not out. There are also times when Hawk-Eye shows the ball may "clip" the off or leg stump, or the bails, but as Dickie Bird is keen to point out, Hawk-Eye is not perfect and where the replays show the ball clipping, we can't give the batsman out because the technology is not accurate enough to be sure. However, where the ball is hitting two-thirds up middle, as it was on Sunday when Panesar hit Jaffer on the pad, or months ago when Dhoni was absolutely plumb to Rafique in a one day international for India against Bangladesh that he went on to win for them by scoring 91*, there can be no doubt. Hawk-Eye isn't that inaccurate!

So I put it to you that all that remains is for the cricket authorities to task an independent group to review test matches that have used technology to aid TV commentary and to review what should and shouldn't be given out to keep the balance between bat and ball. By that I mean that they may decide that the outside of the ball must be inside the outside of the leg stump to constitute an LBW, or they may decide that the inside of the ball must be inside the inside of the leg stump to constitute an LBW, etc etc. It would be up to that independent group to make a recommendation based on understanding the limitations in the technology and reviewing matches where the technology has been used.

OK, so I've never done that sort of thing before but it sounds better than proper work. I'm available!

Indian reporting of Sunday's wrong decisions

Having spent a bit of time in India recently, it comes as no surprise how the latest wrong umpiring decisions are being reported there. If you go to this page on India Times Cricket you can not only read the brief article, but can view a video (on the right of the page) of how the story is being reported on Indian TV.

Paraphrased, they are saying "the world's best umpire goofed not once, but twice in one day". I suppose it's too much to hope that cricket can spare itself the decade of speculation, before finally bowing to the inevitable of using technology to aid all decisions.