Do you believe your eyes or Tony Greig’s 250 camera shots?

I should point out that I’ve never been contracted to the BCCI.

But I still don’t overly trust the DRS, or UDRS, or anything with the word eye on the end.  Perhaps it has something to do with a ban batch of fish fingers from birdseye as a child.

With that in mind, here is a photo of the Nathan Lyon referral decision that was reversed because the ball pitched outside legstump according to the computer mapping system.

This photo was taken by Andy from his TV in the UK.

So you can’t trust your eyes, you can’t trust Tony Greig, you can’t trust 3rd umpires, you can’t trust virtualeyes, you can’t trust 250 shots from an expensive camera and let’s be honest, you can’t trust a picture lifted from a TV you found on twitter.

You also can’t trust me, because I’m actually a BCCI sleeper agent. Codename Bedibot.

Advertisements
Tagged , ,

21 thoughts on “Do you believe your eyes or Tony Greig’s 250 camera shots?

  1. premchandkephatejoote says:

    why tony greig reference?????

  2. s.khaja shariff says:

    that’s clearly notout….it goes missing the leg stump…

  3. skankh says:

    Uh.. am I missing something? It looks like more than half of the ball is outside leg to me. You’ve just got a boner legspin…

    • skankh says:

      I wait I think I get it. There are two balls in the pic, one is real the other one computer generated. But didnt the ball turn back in and the real ball is just “ahead” of the CG one?

  4. screen grab from the replay on willow – http://t.co/gViDRp31

  5. Shahir Ahmed says:

    The naked, human eye. That has eye at the end. Are you saying you trust that over UDRS?

  6. Warlock says:

    The ball was outside leg in the same way that I’m outside if I go to the front door to call the cat in.

  7. […] to the decision at hand) was at odds with the spot where the ball actually landed. Jarrod Kimber provides us with video evidence and asks a simple question: do you trust the wanted 250 frames-per-second cameras, or the naked […]

  8. Micky_Jay says:

    As much as I agree with your thoughts that Tony Grieg should never be trusted (I choose to not listen to him to avoid temptation) I am not convinced that this picture shows that the UDRS is wrong.

    Look at this pic (stolen from @dougierydal) http://img.ly/brZk which definitively shows the ball pitching. The angle of the bat in Andy’s photo and that in Dougie photo disagree.

    I don’t know what angle Dougies pic is taken from (it does seem to be off centre) and it may prove your point right. But I am still to be convinced that it definitively pitched in line or outside legstump.

    I think the true outcome of this is that listening to Tony talking about the superb technology (or Sri Lankan holidays, or cover drives hit as clean as a whistle right off the meat of the bat), no matter how true his words will be the death of Test cricket.

    • skankh says:

      Well done on not listening to him. Next step; don’t talk about him or the things you didn’t hear him say. I went through the same thing with Pommie Mbangwa and I still hate him.

  9. mustafa says:

    ball slightly on leg side but i m doubt may be ball pitching on line

  10. Nick says:

    wish there was another 1 more Test match :(

  11. Sriram says:

    This is a query on how things work.

    — How much error in orienting the cameras can we tolerate to say with any degree of confidence that half the ball is hitting the stumps. From some crude calculations, it seems to me that cameras need to be positioned and oriented very precisely (around/within a degree of error).

    — First qn: How is this done? Is there any document describing this?

    — Second qn: Even if we managed to do this, how can we be sure that the accuracy is maintained over the course of the match? Can someone/something accidentally move the camera by a degree or so and make it go wrong? If so, what precautions are taken? If not, how are such deviations avoided?

    I don’t know how hard it is to do all this. I just want to know if there’s anything describing how it’s done in the public domain (and proving rigorously that we can, with acceptable accuracy, claim that half the ball is hitting the stumps).

  12. That’s how Hawkeye works, they literally have a hawk look at it and explain what he sees. Needless to say, there will be errors.

  13. Deepak says:

    Does not surprise me that now all the proponents of this “fantastic” technology are beginning to have doubts. Did not believe in DRS, Hawk or Eagle Eye since long. Subject to human error as much as an Umpire Eye. May as well stay with Ump. Here are my thoughts on the topic that I blogged earlier.
    http://deepcricket.blogspot.com/2011_08_07_archive.html

  14. Shaitaan says:

    The funny thing was how Mr Grovel was yapping on earlier, during his endorsement of HotSpot and Virtual/HawkEye, about people who have problems with ball tracking not “using the best technology”. I know Jrod had said something similar in an article on cricinfo, but there needs to be some ‘fair-play’ disclosure on what the commentators are being paid to endorse on air. A lot of noise about Shastri and Gavaskar pushing the BCCI agenda, but their contracts were overt (not justifying the conflict of interest). No one knows who’s paying who else to say what.

  15. k says:

    that is going to miss leg stump whichever is the true ball

  16. rustyintheuk says:

    Well put Jrod. I haven’t been as anti-DRS etc., as you over the years, but watching the last two test series played by Australia, I am less convinced by it – not just the Lyon reversal. There was one with Clarke that was going to smash through middle that apparently was going a few inches over in Hobart, among others.

    It was about half way through the Hobart test when I finally started to believe that the BCCI might actually be on to something with this.

  17. Eagerbrad says:

    Pretty hard to say tbh.need to know which ball it is and see where it actually pitches.

    My cricket blog: http://internationalcricketblog.wordpress.com/

    Please check it out!

  18. Howe_zat says:

    Have we considered that the Eagle-Eye camera and TV camera, both being sizeable objects (presumably) consisting of matter, may not be in the same place yet?

    Seems a simpler answer than reaching for the tinfoil hats.

  19. Most of the time DRS helps, very occasionally it screws up.

    Such is life.

Comments are closed.