Technology in cricket September 6, 2011

'Tracking mistake' on Hughes lbw

  shares 92

Hawk-Eye's custodians have admitted the depiction of Phil Hughes' second-innings lbw dismissal in the Galle Test was rendered inaccurate by "a tracking mistake".

The visible discrepancy between Hawk-Eye's graphic and television replays led to the incident being referred to the ICC by the officiating umpires, under the governing body's conventions for the assessment of decisions made under the DRS.

Steve Carter, the managing director of Hawk-Eye Innovations, said the mistake had been the result of several factors, one of which was the fact the ball had travelled less than 40cm between pitching and striking Hughes' pad. Under Hawk-Eye's configuration for the Sri Lanka series, ball-tracking cannot be deemed conclusive if the distance between pitching and impact is less than 40cm.

"Yes, we made a tracking mistake, and the Hawk-Eye track didn't deviate enough off the wicket. We informed the ICC immediately after the game to make them aware that this was the case," Carter told ESPNcricinfo. "Despite the small distance from pitching to interception, and other mitigating circumstances that have been explained to the ICC, we should have done better. Lessons have been learnt from this instance and the probability of it happening again in the future is greatly reduced.

"Our track record as part of DRS is very good. This is our first error in a long time, and the ability of Hawk-Eye to reliably provide accurate and definitive decisions compares very favourably with other technologies and replay angles that are used to assist the umpire in different parts of the DRS protocol."

Hughes was given out lbw on the second evening when he attempted to sweep Tillakaratne Dilshan. Replays indicated that the delivery had spun appreciably from around middle stump towards off, but Hawk-Eye's prediction had the ball going straight on with the angle from round the wicket to strike leg stump. The decision was upheld not because of the errant Hawk-Eye tracking, but because the third umpire Tony Hill found insufficient evidence to reverse Richard Kettleborough's original call.

Carter said previous queries about Hawk-Eye's accuracy in the circumstances of the Hughes dismissal had led to the addition of a graphic to indicate that the point of impact was less than 40cm away from the point of pitching, meaning the onus for the decision would return to the on-field umpire's judgement. This graphic was not in place for Hughes' dismissal, however.

"There was less than 40cm of travel between the pitching point and the interception point," Carter said. "This has been an issue that has been raised in the past, and led to the implementation of the 40cm graphic. We are currently under instruction that the 40cm graphic shouldn't be displayed in the circumstances of the lbw appeal in question."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • hattima on September 8, 2011, 12:18 GMT

    @DVC I agree that DRS is good, but I am not convinced about Hawkeye, because we can clearly see that they are not telling the truth regardning the limitations of their product. To me it is not clear what exactly is human error and what else is not. Hawkeye & co suppresses many factors in selling their product; this was just one of them! It is not 'error', it is commercialism. If you read closely, you'll see that they say that such were "Hawk-Eye's configuration for the Sri Lanka series", i.e. it changes series by series. Why? Because of the picture quality (in terms of frame rate) available from the broadcaster. Oddly enough, the chief of Hawk-eye said a few days ago that frame rates do not matter. Now it clearly seems that it does.

  • D.V.C. on September 8, 2011, 11:22 GMT

    @hattima: It does *improve* on the umpires, nowhere in the article does it suggest otherwise. The DRS makes mistakes far less often than the umpires will. In fact, if you read the article carefully you will see that there should have been an indication given that the ball pitched closer than 40 cm, and that the trajectory should be regarded with caution, but that someone decided that wasn't needed. That's a human error.

  • ashvenky on September 8, 2011, 9:14 GMT

    If the decision works in favour of India then UDRS,Hawk eye, hotspot all are good. Otherwsie they are at fault and we don't want to use technology.

  • hyclass on September 8, 2011, 1:26 GMT

    When Hughes was dropped in England '09, he had just been given out for 17,to a ball that bounced well in front of Strauss at slip.Neither umpire,nor the England captain claiming the catch,noticed it bouncing.While DRS would have shown it, as the replays conclusively highlighted,how was it missed in the first place and why was there no comment after play by the Australia.One wonders at dropping Hughes,based on that knowledge and the message it sent.He was 20.It lead to two single Tests, far apart and 3 Ashes tests on the back of recovering from shoulder surgery.Fast forward to Galle,2011. Hughes and Sangakkarra, both left handers,are undone by length balls exploding at their heads off a highly sub standard pitch.As this article shows, both the umpire and the DRS were mistaken in Hughes second innings.Given the knowledge,that he was not responsible for either dismissal in this test,what message is Clarke sending to Hughes?Its time that the still only 22 year old,received better support.

  • __PK on September 7, 2011, 22:28 GMT

    OK, this actually gives me MORE confidence in the technology, now that the owners have finally been forced to disclose the error margin in their predictions. Until now, all we've heard is that the technology makes impossibly precise predictions with zero margin for error. That's rubbish, as any thinking person must realise - there's always error, and the less data you use to predict (eg the 40cm proviso) and the longer the prediction (ie distance to the stumps) the greater the error must be. The predicted path that Hawkeye shows should not be a constant width, it should start off as wide as the ball and then get wider to show the uncertainty - the channel in which it's 95% confident the ball will travel. If it's a straight ball which pitched on a good length, the channel will stay pretty narrow. If it's a spinning half-volley, the channel will get wide very quickly. The decision should be in favour of the batter if it's possible for the ball to travel in the channel and miss the stumps

  • meursault on September 7, 2011, 19:46 GMT

    Wait on, so the way it works the equally qualified umpire who gets to have multiple looks at a slow motion replay has to defer to the on-field umpire who got a fleeting live look in the case of any doubt. That's just crazy!

    If the on-field umpire had seen the slow motion replay, he could never have been sure enough to give that out. Why should his colleague with better access be prevented from helping him make the correct decision?

  • hattima on September 7, 2011, 10:55 GMT

    All the people bashing BCCI for 'supporting DRS during world cup': they did not support it then, either! It was an ICC tournament, not a bilateral series, and BCCI had no say over what technology was to be used. So Sachin survived because of his own good fortune, not any underhand dealing by the BCCI.

  • hattima on September 7, 2011, 10:53 GMT

    @jfgvjksnkka, NDS and DVC: the technology is supposed to improve upon umpiring decisions, and it costs a large sum of money. If it is doing the opposite, what is the justification of using it? We now have two sets of people making wrong decisions instead of one, and costing the ICC much more than it previously used to.

  • sifter132 on September 7, 2011, 10:07 GMT

    "The decision was upheld not because of the errant Hawk-Eye tracking, but because the third umpire Tony Hill found insufficient evidence to reverse Richard Kettleborough's original call". Well there's only one thing that Tony Hill could have used as evidence - Hawkeye!! So saying Hawkeye's tracking had nothing to do with the decision being upheld is very misleading...

  • wrenx on September 7, 2011, 7:06 GMT

    @maddy20 the WC semi-final was hardly a drubbing, and Pakistan performed well above expectations throughout the tournament, and should have nothing to feel ashamed about. As for "getting over it", I imagine your (and many people's) tunes would be rather different if the shoe was on the other foot. The point isn't to argue that India didn't deserve to win the word cup, they were always favourites to go on and win. The point is that Hawk-Eye's intervention proved to be a severe detriment to the game in that instance, and it shouldn't be excusable, just because it supposedly works well some of the time. Human errors at crucial moments can sting and cause us to bristle with a sense of injustice, but we can move on. When it's the technology, that is boasting of accuracy and impartiality, that tilts a game, then it just takes all the fun out of cricket.

  • hattima on September 8, 2011, 12:18 GMT

    @DVC I agree that DRS is good, but I am not convinced about Hawkeye, because we can clearly see that they are not telling the truth regardning the limitations of their product. To me it is not clear what exactly is human error and what else is not. Hawkeye & co suppresses many factors in selling their product; this was just one of them! It is not 'error', it is commercialism. If you read closely, you'll see that they say that such were "Hawk-Eye's configuration for the Sri Lanka series", i.e. it changes series by series. Why? Because of the picture quality (in terms of frame rate) available from the broadcaster. Oddly enough, the chief of Hawk-eye said a few days ago that frame rates do not matter. Now it clearly seems that it does.

  • D.V.C. on September 8, 2011, 11:22 GMT

    @hattima: It does *improve* on the umpires, nowhere in the article does it suggest otherwise. The DRS makes mistakes far less often than the umpires will. In fact, if you read the article carefully you will see that there should have been an indication given that the ball pitched closer than 40 cm, and that the trajectory should be regarded with caution, but that someone decided that wasn't needed. That's a human error.

  • ashvenky on September 8, 2011, 9:14 GMT

    If the decision works in favour of India then UDRS,Hawk eye, hotspot all are good. Otherwsie they are at fault and we don't want to use technology.

  • hyclass on September 8, 2011, 1:26 GMT

    When Hughes was dropped in England '09, he had just been given out for 17,to a ball that bounced well in front of Strauss at slip.Neither umpire,nor the England captain claiming the catch,noticed it bouncing.While DRS would have shown it, as the replays conclusively highlighted,how was it missed in the first place and why was there no comment after play by the Australia.One wonders at dropping Hughes,based on that knowledge and the message it sent.He was 20.It lead to two single Tests, far apart and 3 Ashes tests on the back of recovering from shoulder surgery.Fast forward to Galle,2011. Hughes and Sangakkarra, both left handers,are undone by length balls exploding at their heads off a highly sub standard pitch.As this article shows, both the umpire and the DRS were mistaken in Hughes second innings.Given the knowledge,that he was not responsible for either dismissal in this test,what message is Clarke sending to Hughes?Its time that the still only 22 year old,received better support.

  • __PK on September 7, 2011, 22:28 GMT

    OK, this actually gives me MORE confidence in the technology, now that the owners have finally been forced to disclose the error margin in their predictions. Until now, all we've heard is that the technology makes impossibly precise predictions with zero margin for error. That's rubbish, as any thinking person must realise - there's always error, and the less data you use to predict (eg the 40cm proviso) and the longer the prediction (ie distance to the stumps) the greater the error must be. The predicted path that Hawkeye shows should not be a constant width, it should start off as wide as the ball and then get wider to show the uncertainty - the channel in which it's 95% confident the ball will travel. If it's a straight ball which pitched on a good length, the channel will stay pretty narrow. If it's a spinning half-volley, the channel will get wide very quickly. The decision should be in favour of the batter if it's possible for the ball to travel in the channel and miss the stumps

  • meursault on September 7, 2011, 19:46 GMT

    Wait on, so the way it works the equally qualified umpire who gets to have multiple looks at a slow motion replay has to defer to the on-field umpire who got a fleeting live look in the case of any doubt. That's just crazy!

    If the on-field umpire had seen the slow motion replay, he could never have been sure enough to give that out. Why should his colleague with better access be prevented from helping him make the correct decision?

  • hattima on September 7, 2011, 10:55 GMT

    All the people bashing BCCI for 'supporting DRS during world cup': they did not support it then, either! It was an ICC tournament, not a bilateral series, and BCCI had no say over what technology was to be used. So Sachin survived because of his own good fortune, not any underhand dealing by the BCCI.

  • hattima on September 7, 2011, 10:53 GMT

    @jfgvjksnkka, NDS and DVC: the technology is supposed to improve upon umpiring decisions, and it costs a large sum of money. If it is doing the opposite, what is the justification of using it? We now have two sets of people making wrong decisions instead of one, and costing the ICC much more than it previously used to.

  • sifter132 on September 7, 2011, 10:07 GMT

    "The decision was upheld not because of the errant Hawk-Eye tracking, but because the third umpire Tony Hill found insufficient evidence to reverse Richard Kettleborough's original call". Well there's only one thing that Tony Hill could have used as evidence - Hawkeye!! So saying Hawkeye's tracking had nothing to do with the decision being upheld is very misleading...

  • wrenx on September 7, 2011, 7:06 GMT

    @maddy20 the WC semi-final was hardly a drubbing, and Pakistan performed well above expectations throughout the tournament, and should have nothing to feel ashamed about. As for "getting over it", I imagine your (and many people's) tunes would be rather different if the shoe was on the other foot. The point isn't to argue that India didn't deserve to win the word cup, they were always favourites to go on and win. The point is that Hawk-Eye's intervention proved to be a severe detriment to the game in that instance, and it shouldn't be excusable, just because it supposedly works well some of the time. Human errors at crucial moments can sting and cause us to bristle with a sense of injustice, but we can move on. When it's the technology, that is boasting of accuracy and impartiality, that tilts a game, then it just takes all the fun out of cricket.

  • ABMAN on September 7, 2011, 6:37 GMT

    THE BEST EXAMPLE OF UDRS FLAWS IS THE TENDULKAR'S LBW BY SAEED AJMAL. NO ONE CAN IMAGINE THE REACTION OF HAWK EYE ON THAT DELIVERY. OTHERWISE INDIA WILL NOT REACHED IN FINAL.

  • threeheadedmonkey on September 7, 2011, 6:23 GMT

    This test had 3-4 odd moments with hawk eye, is the equipment less sophisticated in sri lanka? India had problems with it at one point here too didn't they? There was a Copeland LBW appeal that comes to mind that in 2 hawk eye replays was CLEARLY pitching within the line but then on the third and final the ball had moved to outside the line and was given not out, the game footage also looked like the ball was in line. I heard from multiple people that they'd seen the same with this appeal but it was hushed hushed by the commentators... And don't get me started on Hussey's dismissal...

  • Chris_P on September 7, 2011, 5:44 GMT

    First of all, how about everyone who bad mouthed Simon Taufel offer an apology? Secondly, at least with this kind of instance, it can be corrected to improve the overall accuracy moreso, human error can't, unfortunately, be improved the same manner. All the top umpires on the elite panel favour its use, so why do the mere mortals claim we don't need it? It isn't 100%, but it gets a lot more right than even the top umpires.

  • chandau on September 7, 2011, 4:35 GMT

    It has always been known that the HAWKEYE prediction would be wrong the further the distance the ball had to travel. An example of this is the depictions of some balls from spinners, which when predicted by HE seem to go over the keepers head! However it is interesting that the prediction is wrong for smaller distance as well (or at least once). People who have studied PHYSICS know that any projectile travels in a parabolic trajectory and not in a straight line as sometimes shown by HE. This is due to gravity pulling it down from the air and the atmospheric pressure previnting it going into orbit (unless released at a certain speed). So when a cricket ball pitches and moves towards the keeper it must travel in a parabolic trajectory. something which seems to have escaped HE. If u doubt me watch any depiction of a bouncer or any ball for that matter. That is one reason LBWs where the ball is hitting top of stumps is allowed to be umpires call. He is a better judge than the system :)

  • on September 7, 2011, 3:51 GMT

    @jfgvjksnkka, that's because they said technology was fool-proof and would not create any mistake...

  • jfgvjksnkka on September 7, 2011, 3:29 GMT

    Heres an idea. Bowl 1000 balls and cut off the footage at about the 2 meter mark from the stups. Feed it through hawkeye, match up the results vs what really happened... and PUBLISH THE RESULTS

  • jfgvjksnkka on September 7, 2011, 3:26 GMT

    The funny thing about technology is that it only has to be wrong once and everyone wants to throw it out. Umpires (are amazing but) are wrong every game so maybe we should not have them either. I remember when there was no review for run outs. There was similar opposition when they started to review the decision with similarly illogical reasoning like it takes too long, views can be obstructed etc.

  • D.V.C. on September 7, 2011, 3:20 GMT

    This is quite pathetic. The authorities admit Richard Kettleborough made a mistake and yet they are persisting with him. If he's made one mistake he must have made thousands more. What of India's position now that it has been shown that umpires can be wrong? If one umpire can be wrong then all umpires can be wrong. Why are we using such a FLAWED system!? /irony

  • Rooboy on September 7, 2011, 3:08 GMT

    'This is our first error in a long time' ... lol, hilarious!

  • here2rock on September 7, 2011, 1:26 GMT

    Everybody was bagging India for not supporting DRS, where are they now?

  • on September 7, 2011, 1:22 GMT

    I still remember when umar gul took 6 wickets against England at oval. Bresnan was cleaned up by an in swinger which hit the middle and leg but hawk eye shown it to be missing leg comfortably. And i remember it wasn't 40 cm close.I still remember when umar gul took 6 wickets against England at oval. Bresnan was cleaned up by an in swinger which hit the middle and leg but hawk eye shown it to be missing leg comfortably. And i remember it wasn't 40 cm close.

  • on September 7, 2011, 0:57 GMT

    Are we forgetting that "failures are the pillars of success"! The Hawk-Eye system now needs to evolve from its own admission and resurrection.

  • Marz22 on September 7, 2011, 0:45 GMT

    This is quite pathetic, its now preety obvious...the drs authorities now admit that there is a flaw wid da drs...where as they knew it all along in the saeed ajmal dismissal of tendulkar...they just didnt want to create a situation during the world cups coz surely india wud hav never made it to the finals...i hope that the indian supporters wud agree wid me on dis...the best evidence was Ian Gould's reaction to the DRS wen it gave suchin not out....after wat it seemed to be quite a plum LBW.....pathetic....

  • cenitin on September 7, 2011, 0:43 GMT

    I think its not about 1 or 2 mistakes. Its about the doubt in the UDRS o/p. Suppose on field upmire given not out as he think ball is above the stump height or missing the leg stump and on review UDRS shows that it is hitting the stump now your are not 100 % guranteed that UDRS is correct. May be ball actaully missing the stumps but UDRS wrongly tracking it. Even sometime we can't figure out from naked eye whether ball is just missing the stump or not. In Hughes case there was big difference between ball actual path and that showed by Hawak eye and that's why everbody figured out that there is something wrong with hawkeye. But when those different will be less no body can be sure whether tracking is correct or not.

  • bul98 on September 7, 2011, 0:21 GMT

    Hawk Eye Should apologize PAKISTAN and Saeed Ajmal - Thanks to Hawk Eye India WON the WC and nobody said any thing. If it was other way and has Sachin Tendulkar been given out on a Not out decision and PAKSITAN would have WON the game Indian Media and Fans would have been gone nuts and Hawk Eye would have been out of Business. Indian 2011 WC victory needs an * infront of WIN. *(Thanks to Hawk Eye)....

  • johnathonjosephs on September 6, 2011, 23:53 GMT

    @TRAM We don't need UDRS for that, its called replaying the ball and pausing it/rewinding it and pausing it. Umpires do that when hawk eye/hot spot don't show conclusive information (what many Indian fans don't realize after that Dravid dismissal in the 1st ODI)

  • johnathonjosephs on September 6, 2011, 23:47 GMT

    Every piece of technology has its parameters. Meaning that it is only succesful with a given range of input. For example, Hot Spot does not show faint edges because the energy of the ball hitting the bat doesn't produce that much energy/heat to pass the threshold for the "white spot" that shows up. For Hawk Eye, the ball must be pitched from 2.5 Meters to 40 centimeters within impact (.04, 2.5 meters). For Snicko, there can not be any proximity of other stuff (pad) that interferes with the background noise. Even with the umpires, the human eye can see only so much. The thing most users must understand is that we need to KNOW These parameters and JUDGE accordingly. 2.5 Meter rule came out in the World CUp, and now we know the 40 cm rule. Also Hot Spot doesn't show faint edges, but we now know and shouldn't bash the technology. Stop moaning and crying about Hawkeye because its here to stay and is GREAT IF USED PROPERLY

  • maddy20 on September 6, 2011, 22:09 GMT

    Can't believe that the Pakistanis still haven't gotten over their wc drubbing. Get over it people, India was always saying hawkeye was not perfect. If people had listened to them the hawkeye wouldn't have been used for the WC in the first place. Besides he was playing forward and I guess that meant the turn of the ball will make it miss the leg as Ajmal is an off-break bowler. A few manipulated youtube videos are really riling up this un-necessary nonsense!

  • TRAM on September 6, 2011, 21:57 GMT

    They use 2 dozen cameras to create this ANIMATION, right?????? Why cant they show the actual ball up to the point of impact?? We software engineers know an animation can be shown even if no ball was bowled. An animation IS an animation. The software can be manipulated all the time. Stop this nonsense please. SHOW THE ACTUAL BALL that you recorded uptill the point of impact. After that show the animation.

  • Philip_Gnana on September 6, 2011, 20:47 GMT

    If the DRS was not in place, the batsman would sitll be out. Kettlborough had made huge mistakes in this game. Even ball hitting middle of middle stump was not given out by him. Kettleborough should be shown the door just as Asoka De Silva was.

    Technology has to evolve and we need to accept that there is going to be improvement, just as we had the avancements in run outs, stumping, fielding etc.

    Sri Lankans have not complained about the bad decisions so far by Kettleborough. I hope they do make it in their reports. Cricket needs strong and good umpires. Philip Gnana, Surrey

  • on September 6, 2011, 17:24 GMT

    we all must appriciate the guy who atleast accepted the error in DRS,thankfully a Pakistani politician didnt make it otherwise there would have been yet another commission set on this agenda with no solution

  • on September 6, 2011, 17:17 GMT

    saeed Ajmal got tendulkar out but this tracking system made india to win WC , now target is achieved so plz change it now.(it says it all)

  • on September 6, 2011, 16:47 GMT

    The way I see it DRS is never going to be perfect, but it can and will be improved. What it does do is level the playing field for everyone. The mistakes DRS makes will be made for everyone. As is the case with cricket the home teams seem to benefit the most from mistakes/errors. DRS will and has significantly reduce umpire errors already.

  • on September 6, 2011, 16:04 GMT

    OH SO WHEN SAEED AJMAL GOT TENDULKAR, THERE WAS COMPLAIN ON THE SYSTEM BUT THEY DID NOT TAKE SERIOUS NOTICE. SO THERE IS AN ERROR, SO INDIA WON THE WORLD CUP FOR NOTHING, THIS IS AN ERROR!!! REPLAY THE WORLD CUP IN 2012!!!

  • on September 6, 2011, 15:19 GMT

    There's a 40cm error thing in HawkEye? Then stop using it now!!

  • oranjizer on September 6, 2011, 15:18 GMT

    All of these were human errors, error in implementing an incomplete technology to error in making the right decisions or error in not following rules as to how the overruling of a decision should happen. To err is human but not to learn from mistakes is stupid.

  • on September 6, 2011, 14:57 GMT

    When Dhoni complained about the DRS, everyone was up to their favourite pastime of India-bashing, and now Hawk Eye folks have themselves admitted that there was a mistake. Shall we just say that the Hawk Eye team is "not acting in the spirit of the game"?

  • on September 6, 2011, 14:32 GMT

    Saeed Ajmal got tendulkar out but this tracking system made india to win WC , now target is achieved so plz change it now.

  • on September 6, 2011, 14:24 GMT

    If you made a mistake, that is enough to call it off the DRS .Se how many times Dravid given out.they did not even given him benifit of doubt.so stop this DRS atleast for now, work on it and make it perfect then put it into the game,because one wrong decision will kill a batsman's enitre cricket life.this should not( DRS)become another software job for the developer

  • spongebat_squarestumps on September 6, 2011, 14:07 GMT

    I think the answer is now glaringly obvious to anyone; ICC needs Hawkeye to monitor Hawkeye. To get rid of howlers. You know - refer decisions. One Hawkeye for the batting team. And one Hawkeye for the fielding team. Each Hawkeye can refer it's own referrals to a third Hawkeye umpire twice per innings...

    Someone get me Andy Zaltman on the phone...

  • on September 6, 2011, 13:31 GMT

    Are they seriously using billions of cricket lovers to test this freaking system ???? Unbelievable !!!

    PS: GUYS !! Stop with the WC thingy already...its reeeely stupid

  • cricket_for_all on September 6, 2011, 13:03 GMT

    Tracking mistake? what? This is not technology not human. So somebody can adjust the Hawk eye to make mistake?.

  • The_Wog on September 6, 2011, 12:51 GMT

    Umpires, mostly, aren't that stupid. The ball was almost a half volley AND totally obscured from the camera by bat, gloved and arm. Hawkeye looked clearly wrong, which was self-evident to the commentators. Hill would certainly have ignored it and formed his own opinion visually as to whether it was missing off or not.

    It wasn't, Hughes was plumb. It wasn't hitting where Hawkeye said but it was certainly hitting. The decision was correctly upheld.

    The only interesting bit is why Hawkeye was told to turn off the 40cm graphic. Surely the ICC (and you can't spell "BCCI" without "ICC") wouldn't be deliberately sabotaging the UDRS would they?

    Mistakes by Hawkeye - no incorrect overrule has ever been demonstrated. (At worst the SRT overrule was plausible if not proven.) Umpire howlers corrected by Hawkeye - countless. Grow up BCCI and admit that you just don't like the Umpire, Don't Remove Sachin system because it's harder to intimidate / replace than human umpires.

  • on September 6, 2011, 12:35 GMT

    The premise that India would not have won the World Cup if Tendulkar had been given out assumes a lot, but if it makes the day for these frenetic fans, dream away. Going forward rather than backward, we need to get the players out of it and leave it to the 2 on-field umpires and the third umpire working together. The third umpire has to be pro-active not reactive. How bizarre that a batsman might be given out off a no-ball if it's not checked.

  • landl47 on September 6, 2011, 12:27 GMT

    Yet again most people don't understand what happened here. Hughes was given out by the umpire. The DRS did not overturn the decision. If there was no DRS, Hughes would still have been out. The third umpire correctly judged that there was insufficient evidence to overrule the umpire's decision. This is how decisions should be made, with the technology being used by the umpires only to the extent that it is helpful. As for Jayaraj Mj, he doesn't even understand what we are talking about. Dravid's decisions were nothing to do with Hawk-Eye, and one of them was nothing to do with DRS at all. The 'shoelace' dismissal wasn't reviewed, Dravid walked without a review after consulting Tendulkar. The second incident the umpires got right, because Dravid admitted he nicked it, so that leaves one doubtful dismissal (which snicko indicated was also out). It's better to have technology than not- it's just that it should be up to the umpires to decide how to use it, as they did in Hughes' case.

  • oranjizer on September 6, 2011, 12:10 GMT

    Now with hawk-eye being accurate only between 40cm to 2.5 m, and ICC still insists on using it, poor umpires will have to 1st check the distance, then decide to go by hawk-eye only if it falls in this range else go with the original decision !! funny... interesting to see how many inaccuracies would crop up in future.

    Now think about this as well, when they say "DRS track record is good", i hope they are not calculating efficiency based on number of wrong decisions by total reviews but they should instead check how many errors in tracking were caused for every single ball bowled, hawk-eye is may be lucky as a very less % of balls hit the pad and raises an appeal.

  • CharlieAlanJakeHarperFamily on September 6, 2011, 11:41 GMT

    It seems as pak fans are hell bent that tendulkar was the reason why they lost SF when they clearly missed the point that they dropped 5-6 dollies I mean they wont reflect that but cry about which is not in their hands sore grapes pals :) I would not bother if I was indian as we were the ones who rejected hawk-eye/virtual-eye or whatever winning and losing is on ones own hand not some error_performing technician even dhoni was falsely gives out but wrong no-ball replay in WI dravid had atrocious hotspots It seems as pak fans are hell bent that tendulkar was the reason why they lost SF when they clearly missed the point that they dropped 5-6 dollies I mean they wont reflect that but cry about which is not in their hands sore grapes pals :) I would not bother if I was indian as we were the ones who rejected hawk-eye/virtual-eye or whatever winning and losing is on ones own hand not some error_performing technician even dhoni was falsely gives out but wrong no-ball replay in WI dravid had

  • John-Price on September 6, 2011, 11:15 GMT

    Let's not make too much of one or two errors. The key is that DRS has improved the percentage f correct decisions appreciably so it has worked. In other words, without DRS there will be more errors - if anyone thinks that is a good thing, they have a different perspective on the game to me..

  • on September 6, 2011, 11:07 GMT

    it means that sachin tendulker was also out that means india doesnt deserve world cup we do wat a shame the hawk eye technology sucks man it is better to instruct a robot rather based upon the brains of aleem dar the best umpire alive on the fce of earth better then simon taufel and asad rauf and ian gould

  • perl57 on September 6, 2011, 11:01 GMT

    Why is it that these morons want to dissect the DRS now when India has been saying all along. I know, because Oz are on the receiving end. So, if we do our match properly for a test that was won Oz are making so many noises, What would have happened had they lost it?

  • on September 6, 2011, 11:00 GMT

    this UDRS (UNFORTUNATE DRAVID REMOVING SYSTEM) S/B equele for every match or dont need for any match, different matches it use different system, AUS SL match SL 2nd inings also TARANGA & SANGA got same bowl but 1out other one not out, ENG Vs IND - Dravid got 3 wrong decision from this UDRS, this udrs good for ENG AUS to beat asian country, but unfortunately other asian cant understand becaues they also going ENG & AUS ways.

  • pradeepbhat on September 6, 2011, 10:54 GMT

    it was against the same 'weak' bowling attack, pakistan failed to win the same and defnitely pakistan didnt deserve the world cup with such a shoddy and flopping fielders and batters..

  • on September 6, 2011, 10:52 GMT

    I don't understand why ICC is not banning the predictive part of the hawk-eye immediately. It should be unacceptable to use a 'technology' that overturns correct decisions made by on-field umpires.

  • atuljain1969 on September 6, 2011, 10:45 GMT

    As suggested by me many times earlier, best thing is to avoid referring LBW decisions to DRS/HAWK EYE, however Teams should have the right to get it reviewed for any touch by BALL to any other thing other then the Pads.

    Further wherever, 3rd umpire is unable to give any concrete advise to onfield umpire, decision by the onfield umpire should remain.

  • hattima on September 6, 2011, 10:44 GMT

    @Shahwaiz It most probably was. Let us not forget that it is that decision, ironically, the primary reason the Indian cricketers (and BCCI, and many of us) doubt the quality of this beautiful piece of junk!

  • hattima on September 6, 2011, 10:40 GMT

    It confirms what many of us kept saying for a long time: hawk-eye is not as accurate as they try to make you believe. It does not work if the pitching distance is less than 40cm, it is unacceptably erroneous if the pitching distance is more than 2.5m. It uses a variable frame rate depending upon the quality of cameras (eg. Ten sports provides worse frame rates than Sky) and claims, laughably, that frame rate has nothing to do with accuracy of their decisions. They are a business depending on money from cricket boards that is better spent elsewhere. They have a shameful marketing scheme based on questionable fine prints. If you go to their website, you'll find their accuracy rates widely vary over various situations but they only highlight the best case scenario. I think it is high time the English commentators/ex-players who kept criticising the BCCI and the Indian cricketers on TV for having doubt about this system, using words unbecoming of a civilised society, should apologise.

  • on September 6, 2011, 10:36 GMT

    @Cuedin: You, sir/madam made my day. Lol, I think having DRs is better nevertheless because umpires tend to be under pressure of losing their jobs nowadays if they give a powerful player out and replays show it missing the stumps. For example , in the england vs Bangla series in Bangla about 6-7 lbw decisions went against Bangladesh in 1st test In SA vs PAK several LBW decisions went against PAK. In india vs SA series, again SA were on the receiving end of several howlers. So i prefer technology because it leaves no pressure on anybody. The only thing that needs to be changed is the ``on-field call" thingy. If the ball is clipping the stumps, either give it out or not out. Else we have the same situation of umpires giving out/not out under pressure. And let me tell you, lot harder for an umpire to give sachin out when the ball is clipping rather than, say, G.Smith or Michael Clarke or Tamim Iqbal out on the similar situation.

  • on September 6, 2011, 10:24 GMT

    may be they need to look at Tendulkar not out decision in the semi final of the world cup against Pakistan when an LBW was changed as hawk eye showed a complely different trajectory.

  • on September 6, 2011, 10:03 GMT

    well hawk eye is not conclusive when less than 40 cm more than 2.5 m this is a system that cant be used and if u want to ignore hot spot tell it so that than money can be used to a better cause

  • Ben1989 on September 6, 2011, 9:52 GMT

    I'm really all for this system, but this just seems like another flaw... can't be more than 2.5mtrs down the pitch, ball must have traveled furthur than 40cm to be reliable, getting a bit ridiculous, surely in this day in age there must be some form of technogology that can read the ball of the pitch regardless of the above issue's & the ICC need to start assisting in funding furthur research for this...

  • rhtdm302 on September 6, 2011, 9:41 GMT

    "the fact the ball had travelled less than 40cm between pitching and striking Hughes' pad" This is absolutely BCCI's Fault, I see BCCI's hand in making the ball travel less then 40cm beween pitching and striking Hughes pad.

    I am pretty Sure My English Brothers would Agree.

  • indyarox on September 6, 2011, 9:13 GMT

    And people still blame BCCI for not accepting Hawk Eye. This whole thing is a scam to sell half baked technologies by these organisations. Carter says "Lessons have been learnt from this instance and the probability of it happening again in the future is greatly reduced". How can they treat international games as testing grounds to find out flaws of a system.They should be charged heavy penalties for any such faults occuring in future. They will automatically withdraw Hawk Eye from distribution stating that it has some obvious flaws.

  • pradeepbhat on September 6, 2011, 8:59 GMT

    from now on cricket will be mentioned in terms of cm and metres and not as wickets and runs..too much complexities..

  • on September 6, 2011, 8:58 GMT

    Sehawag off Murali, Srilanka v India comes to mind, and may be Tendulkar off Ajmal, World Cup Semi @ Mohali????Well well well.

  • Raju_Iyer on September 6, 2011, 8:48 GMT

    Lots of technical jargon, blah,blah,blah.. Bottom line? Even after spending a fortune, mistakes can and will happen. Then why not do away with this silliness in the first place. Just give umpires the benefit of TV replays (exactly like with run outs and stumpings) when they call for it, not when players challenge them. Saves a lot of headaches and heartburns, makes the game simpler.

  • drsamprasad on September 6, 2011, 8:32 GMT

    The HAWK eye cannot predict if the impact is less than 40 cm.. and it cannot predict if the impact is more 250 cm from the stumps.. !!! Then why the hell are the boards breaking their heads with the DRS.. day after day questions are raised about the reliability.. INDIA was so god damn right in refusing this... Cricket did just fine for two centuries without this.. And as for ENGLAND.. DRS is the only way they can remove DRAVID...

  • on September 6, 2011, 8:29 GMT

    One error in the last 1000+ reviews. Not bad. But ammunition for the luddites all the same (and a shame for Hughes - that guy needs a break at test level)

  • on September 6, 2011, 8:28 GMT

    hawk eye is inaccurate... as we saw in d semifinal regarding sachin tendulkar's lbw of saeed ajmal

  • wrenx on September 6, 2011, 8:25 GMT

    Been caught out here, but they still swear up-and-down that the system is flawless. I don't recall any admissions of fault during that World Cup semi-final Tendulkar decision, despite it being a clear cock-up. They went as far as trying to publish further evidence that they had got it right. They were like a kid caught with their hands in the cookie-jar with crumbs all over their face, shaking their heads and denying that it was them. Here, they call it a 'mistake' and try to brush it aside ass if that makes it ok.

    Fact is, the Hawk-Eye folks need to stop pretending that they have a reliable system and just fess-up that it is at best a speculative guideline, open to a sizeable margin of error, manipulation and interpretation.

  • on September 6, 2011, 8:24 GMT

    What about the controversial decision of reversal of the LBW of Tendulkar in the Semi Finals of the World cup 2011? That was another glaring mistake. Even the on field umpire was disgusted.

  • on September 6, 2011, 8:16 GMT

    The report on the faulty tracking by Hawkey reads in part : "The decision was upheld not because of the errant Hawk-Eye tracking, but because the third umpire Tony Hill found insufficient evidence to reverse Richard Kettleborough's original call." But, surely if the tracking had been correct and the ball was indeed going to miss the off-stump there would have been conclusive evidence to overturn the on-field 'out' decision. It's all getting very fuzzy, and such excuses to say that it wouldn't have really mattered are lame to say the least.

  • NumberXI on September 6, 2011, 8:10 GMT

    This isn't the first error from Hawk Eye either. Those who watched NZ v SA in the world cup quarters will recall Duminy being bowled by Nathan McCullum - Duminy was bowled off stump to one which went straight - and I don't think he played on. Hawk Eye shows that one as turning from outside Duminy's off stump and missing his leg stump. What makes that whole sequence even more weird is that Nathan Mac is an off-spinner and that ball was shown on Hawk Eye as a right-hander's leg break. Evidence of this can be found on Cricinfo's match page of that game where you can still see the Hawk Eye track. In a sense I think the real test of Hawk Eye's accuracy is not LBW - it is the bowled. And in this instance it fails rather spectacularly.

  • on September 6, 2011, 8:03 GMT

    How do we know this is the first error in a long time? who has been checking this?

  • khurramsch on September 6, 2011, 7:57 GMT

    improve it man. they should improve it if they want it to continue

  • sithnico on September 6, 2011, 7:11 GMT

    Now there's all the fuss about the Hawkeye and tracking error, because an australian was mistakenly given out. Why the cricket official have double standards and are shaken up against the super powers of cricket world? If the decision were made against any other teams than Aussies, India or England, there are n redemption or excuses given from the Hawk eye custodians?I remember distinctively the world cup semi final and the overturn of the decision of Tandoulkir's LBW against Saeed Ajmal's ball. From the naked eye it was clear the ball straingthened after pitching, and thus umpire givne him out. While, the tracking "unmistakenly" showed the ball to be an off break moving towards leg. Now, why this custodian did not give any explanation of excuses for mistake in the tracking at that time? only because the decision was in favor of India. i would really like to see, if a srilankan is given out by such kind of error, what will be the reaction of the Hawkeye custodian?please publish this.

  • D.V.C. on September 6, 2011, 6:55 GMT

    "We are currently under instruction that the 40cm graphic shouldn't be displayed in the circumstances of the lbw appeal in question."

    In other words there was a safeguard put in place by the people who wrote the software and knew the Physics, but they were over-ruled by Cricket Administrators. Hmm.

  • davidallan on September 6, 2011, 6:54 GMT

    You can experiment at international level Mr. Steve Carter, the managing director of Hawk-Eye,good to hear that you learnt a lesson,but think this could cause a match to AUS.do your experiments at domestic level and come with 99% accurate or else stop selling your product.

  • johnathonjosephs on September 6, 2011, 6:45 GMT

    For the first time since the UDRS's use (probably 4-5 years), the company admits they made an error. This shows that UDRS is better than no UDRS as one mistake in 4 years is acceptable. Umpires w/out UDRS makes about 2-3 decisions per series (usually about 9-10 series a year). Tell me whats better

  • on September 6, 2011, 6:43 GMT

    Why are we insisting on use of DRS when it has so much "fine-print" associated with it whether it is hawkeye or hotspot or anything else? The cricket world has been seduced and hoodwinked by technologies that promise a lot but deliver far below what is acceptable which pretty much needs to be 100% correctness.

    Time to stay with video evidence and a third ump who can overrule an onfield ump when there is a howler decision. That is all you need. No need for challenges and other silly stuff that cricket has surrounded itself with.

  • Rahul_78 on September 6, 2011, 6:33 GMT

    This is an absolute shame..if this 40 cm criterion was known then why it wasnt informed to the umpires in advance? Ian bell was given not out in world cup cause the distance between the impact of the ball on the pad and stumps was more and hawk eye couldn't predict it with 100% accuracy. Same thing was expected here. On cricinfo ones harsha bhogle chated with associated persons from hawk eye and hot spot and it was very much evident that both the technologies have some serious limitations...I never backed BCCI in their apposition of technology but now I think they must be having a last laugh as technology it self is having howlers and turning a correct decisions given by on field umpire into a incorrect one..this very much nullifies the whole purpose of using the technology to get accurate decisions.

  • on September 6, 2011, 6:31 GMT

    Well I find it a little troubling that they don't show this 'less than 40cm' graphic if it is in fact being taken into account in the decision making process. It just further adds to confusion around the use of technology at a time when clarity is of the utmost importance.

  • on September 6, 2011, 6:29 GMT

    I wonder if Tendulkar's lbw reprieve off ajmal during the WC semi was a "tracking error" aswell.

  • straight_drive4 on September 6, 2011, 6:23 GMT

    you see ive never been a fan of hawkeye - it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the technology, its purely because its changing the way the umpires are umpiring the game. IMO, there is a tendancy for umpires to be critiszed when they give an incorrect "out" decision as opposed to "not out". when they are given not out, commentators and the like come up with the same old excuses "there was some doubt" etc etc. therefore as a driect result of this, i feel that umpires are giving far less decisions than they were 10 years ago. im not a fan of it. id prefer them to call it how they used it. a perfect example is when a batter doesnt offer a shot - previously umpires would trigger and everyone would agree... nowadays a batter trying to play a shot (when the ball hits them JUST outside the line) doesnt get any preference over someone literally kicking the ball away - i know this is an exaggeration but im trying to point out the faults. point being i feel umpires are scared to make a call

  • Cluedin on September 6, 2011, 6:20 GMT

    We may reach a situation where in a chip is embedded in the ball transmitting its position and then tracked like a GPS system ;)

  • on September 6, 2011, 6:16 GMT

    This was not the first time that the Hawk eye has got it wrong.... Just remember the decision of Sachin tendulker in the semi final of the world cup 2011 in which the hawk eye showed that the ball was missing the wicket which was definitely not that case.... so the indians were lucky to win that match and eventually the world cup which they definitely not deserve to win with such weak bowling attack.

  • harrdstone on September 6, 2011, 5:53 GMT

    Pl check from Saeed Ajamal,He still believes he had Tendulkar during the world cup semi final.What impact on the match if he had been given out.These things need to be sorted out.

  • oranjizer on September 6, 2011, 5:45 GMT

    This is not right, be it 40cm or 0cm, anybody who knows cricket should have known about such factors that an LBW can happen with/without the ball pitching, or at the same time it pitches. Distance between the pitch and the impact can be anything and should have been taken into account. This is why i strongly feel that ICC should review the technology for its correctness in implementation before using it. This is why those who write the code should have a good sense of cricket. Imagine Shane Warne giving it a real rip on the ball, it pitches just ahead of the toe and spins, distance between the pitch and the impact on the pad is just a few cms, still the ball would have spun enough not the hit the stumps, a replay would clearly show the amount of spin but Hawk Eye then shows this as going straight on to hit the stumps. Umpire raises his finger. This cannot be justified.

  • on September 6, 2011, 5:45 GMT

    Less than 40cm, my foot. The whole reason is that Hughes gloves got in front of the ball. Hawkeye decided this was the point of impact, instead of where it spun into the pad around off stump. That Hawkeye said that it hit his gloves should have been enough to turn the decision over though, bat first is not lbw.

  • dsig3 on September 6, 2011, 5:30 GMT

    Cool Story Bro, ICC should employ Hawkeye's competitor and see if they make the same mistake. If it was raised as an issue before why was nothing done about it. This guy is a salesman, isnt he the one telling us that having increased FPS does not help the accuracy?

  • mensan on September 6, 2011, 5:29 GMT

    Hawk-Eye benefitted Tendulkar in world cup semi-final when he was clearly LBW against Pakistan. But wrong Haw-Eye saved him.

  • on September 6, 2011, 5:26 GMT

    This not the first mistake...may be first mistake which has been caught....what about LBW decision of Sachin in WC semi vs Pak...

  • on September 6, 2011, 5:22 GMT

    "The decision was upheld not because of the errant Hawk-Eye tracking, but because the third umpire Tony Hill found insufficient evidence to reverse Richard Kettleborough's original call" I wonder if a certain Mr. Eramus missed that part of the guidelines. Umpiring blunders are part of the games. DRS blunders is, in fact against the spirit of the game.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on September 6, 2011, 5:22 GMT

    "The decision was upheld not because of the errant Hawk-Eye tracking, but because the third umpire Tony Hill found insufficient evidence to reverse Richard Kettleborough's original call" I wonder if a certain Mr. Eramus missed that part of the guidelines. Umpiring blunders are part of the games. DRS blunders is, in fact against the spirit of the game.

  • on September 6, 2011, 5:26 GMT

    This not the first mistake...may be first mistake which has been caught....what about LBW decision of Sachin in WC semi vs Pak...

  • mensan on September 6, 2011, 5:29 GMT

    Hawk-Eye benefitted Tendulkar in world cup semi-final when he was clearly LBW against Pakistan. But wrong Haw-Eye saved him.

  • dsig3 on September 6, 2011, 5:30 GMT

    Cool Story Bro, ICC should employ Hawkeye's competitor and see if they make the same mistake. If it was raised as an issue before why was nothing done about it. This guy is a salesman, isnt he the one telling us that having increased FPS does not help the accuracy?

  • on September 6, 2011, 5:45 GMT

    Less than 40cm, my foot. The whole reason is that Hughes gloves got in front of the ball. Hawkeye decided this was the point of impact, instead of where it spun into the pad around off stump. That Hawkeye said that it hit his gloves should have been enough to turn the decision over though, bat first is not lbw.

  • oranjizer on September 6, 2011, 5:45 GMT

    This is not right, be it 40cm or 0cm, anybody who knows cricket should have known about such factors that an LBW can happen with/without the ball pitching, or at the same time it pitches. Distance between the pitch and the impact can be anything and should have been taken into account. This is why i strongly feel that ICC should review the technology for its correctness in implementation before using it. This is why those who write the code should have a good sense of cricket. Imagine Shane Warne giving it a real rip on the ball, it pitches just ahead of the toe and spins, distance between the pitch and the impact on the pad is just a few cms, still the ball would have spun enough not the hit the stumps, a replay would clearly show the amount of spin but Hawk Eye then shows this as going straight on to hit the stumps. Umpire raises his finger. This cannot be justified.

  • harrdstone on September 6, 2011, 5:53 GMT

    Pl check from Saeed Ajamal,He still believes he had Tendulkar during the world cup semi final.What impact on the match if he had been given out.These things need to be sorted out.

  • on September 6, 2011, 6:16 GMT

    This was not the first time that the Hawk eye has got it wrong.... Just remember the decision of Sachin tendulker in the semi final of the world cup 2011 in which the hawk eye showed that the ball was missing the wicket which was definitely not that case.... so the indians were lucky to win that match and eventually the world cup which they definitely not deserve to win with such weak bowling attack.

  • Cluedin on September 6, 2011, 6:20 GMT

    We may reach a situation where in a chip is embedded in the ball transmitting its position and then tracked like a GPS system ;)

  • straight_drive4 on September 6, 2011, 6:23 GMT

    you see ive never been a fan of hawkeye - it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the technology, its purely because its changing the way the umpires are umpiring the game. IMO, there is a tendancy for umpires to be critiszed when they give an incorrect "out" decision as opposed to "not out". when they are given not out, commentators and the like come up with the same old excuses "there was some doubt" etc etc. therefore as a driect result of this, i feel that umpires are giving far less decisions than they were 10 years ago. im not a fan of it. id prefer them to call it how they used it. a perfect example is when a batter doesnt offer a shot - previously umpires would trigger and everyone would agree... nowadays a batter trying to play a shot (when the ball hits them JUST outside the line) doesnt get any preference over someone literally kicking the ball away - i know this is an exaggeration but im trying to point out the faults. point being i feel umpires are scared to make a call