After watching Sean William Scott's epic Wimbledon final against Roger Federer on Sunday, it was well worth a pause for thought to consider how well the sport of Tennis has embraced hawkeye. It doesn't take that long to make the correct calls and it engages the audience, both at the venue and on television.
The old argument from commentators is that Hawkeye isn't 100% accurate. That may be the case, but it's a fuckload more accurate than the human eye.
The ICC have been wanking about with the rules for Hawkeye and how it can be implemented. So far they've allowed the technology to determine whether the ball has pitched outside leg stump and / or hit the batsman in line.
You don't need anything other than a slow-mo replay to tell that.
When it comes to referrals, we think that the full potential of Hawkeye should be used, even if it shows that the ball is projected to only clip the left bollock of the off-bail. You're out.
Take a tip from tennis.
1 comments:
I'm mostly with you on this one. The only point on which we differ is the very close calls. The predicted trajectory would have a margin of error and I think its most fair to implement that so that only decisions that fall inside that margin would be given.
I mean, a ball can graze a stump and not remove the bail, so I wouldn't give those out.
Post a Comment