Dr Paul Hawkins, Inventor of Hawk-Eye
Next to us in the Hawk-Eye truck sits the computer which receives all of the Channel 4 viewer emails. Inspired by Friday's incident involving the dismissal of Marcus Trescothick and the subsequent discussion during the rain break, over 700 people emailed us within 20 minutes to give their views on using technology as an umpiring aid.
For the benefit of many of the people who contacted us and for many of the journalists who often write ill-informed pieces on this subject, this article gives some information to consider when forming your own views.
No Balls
Firstly, to give some indication of the scale of the problem, on average about 20 no-balls are being missed per day.
Many people have suggested using a laser beam similar to Cyclops in tennis. This technology works on a beam of light being broken by a moving object, but unfortunately the non-striking batsmen would break this light beam regardless of where the bowler's front foot is.
Hawk-Eye developers Roke Manor Research could develop vision technology to track the bowler's foot which would give an accurate real-time response. However, this would be quite a substantial piece of development and since it adds little value to television coverage we can't expect a TV company to foot the bill.
The third umpire watching the appropriate camera has been suggested by many people as a potential solution. Having spent some time in the TV production van myself, I know it is very difficult to make the correct call when watching this camera in real time.
However, it is possible to access the correct piece of footage and display the slow-motion replay very quickly. It would be possible for the third umpire to make an accurate no-ball decision within two seconds of the bowler's front foot landing. This is less time than it takes for an umpire to make an LBW decision, but too slow for the batsman to be able to change his shot (relevant for those who think that batsmen currently have time to change their shot).
Edges
Mike Atherton's dismissal in the first innings at Trent Bridge prompted mixed views about slowing down the game to get accurate decisions. Once again Roke Manor Research could develop technology which would provide a real-time decisive answer to what the ball hit, but again adds little value to a TV production, so who pays for it?
Many of the people who expressed an opinion seemed to be unaware of some of the middle ground options which aim to find the correct compromise between speed and accuracy.
One option is to set an upper time limit for the third umpire to make a decision. If it is not clear within this time, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt. A TV production company is unlikely to further display the replays once this time has passed because it would highlight their inability to get the correct replays to screen quickly. It would also create new drama of a countdown clock.
A further option is to provide the umpires in the middle with the audio of the stump microphone direct to their ear-piece. Audio technology could emphasise the different types of sounds he might hear. This option is very much an umpire assistant rather than replacement, which is important for some people.
LBWs
For those of you who email us saying that using Hawk-Eye will slow down the game, may I emphasise that the people in the Hawk-Eye production unit know the correct answer in less time than it takes for an umpire to make a decision. Hawk-Eye has been proved to be accurate by the half mix with the Red Zone camera now used on Channel 4.
One thing is for sure. Everyone has a view and if it was an election issue it would create a high turn out at the polls!
5 Aug, 2001
|
