I think you are talking about the Marnus Labuschagne incident at the MCG. Later in the day, we showed four balls from the bowler landing on the same pitch and in the same area and let go by the batsmen, all bouncing over the stumps, all of them. people only hear the comments and they go 'oh that must have been wrong'. That was one of the questions, there was one prediction that looked like it was going to hit the stumps but it went over.
Then 5th and 6th balls are bowled at the same spot, they are stopped, but you do your prediction and they are just like the four that went past. You might see an over where four balls are bowled, they hit around the same spot, the batsmen lets them go, and you actually see where they are going. What we see immediately is how the pitch is playing. We are tracking 560 balls every day, and you can play them back and you can play them forward. Whatever we say, people say we are making it up, but we are really confident. You speak about tracking 560 balls a day, what are the chances of Virtual Eye showing in excess of the accepted percentage per day? Three balls? Four balls? It’s really important that cameras are in the right place. We met with everybody and talked about it and the camera was moved to the correct place and it’s been fine ever since. That’s one of the first instances we had where we lost the tracking right at the start. In one of the grounds, the camera position was in the wrong place, we asked to move it and couldn’t move. They won’t let you put them there, they lock someone’s view out there or there's a corporate box or there's a sponsor's box. if you want 100% accuracy, then ICC would say 'the cameras go where the Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye tell you they must go'. this isn’t complaining but to put in context. So somewhere, there is always a chance something might happen in the condition that actually isn't ideal. We do all sorts of sports, that’s the only sport where we have to predict. Cricket is the only sport where not only you have to track the ball, but predict where it’s going. What has always concerned me is technology is always technology. Just like any kind of verification, if you are gonna qualify, you have to meet the standard that has been set. And so they set a standard, I still don’t know what the standard was. A few years down the track, the ICC decided that they needed to set a standard and measure the standard to make sure it was being met. we spent $1mn and that’s what we were using.
#Cricket 3d ball tracking upgrade
ICC didn’t pay any money for it at all and to upgrade to a standard, a standard we were happy with. Now it’s important, now it will decide the result of the match. We actually said to the ICC if you are going to do that, we have to go back again and we have to develop them at a whole other safety level. Out of the blue, the ICC thought well, why don’t we start using it for umpiring as well. Back in the very first early days, tracking was designed for enhancing television. The accuracy was set not by us, it was set by MIT. Does Virtual Eye have a similar margin of error? When The New Indian Express spoke to Hawk-Eye a few years earlier, they had said something about a 5mm margin of error. So now they see the ball from the time it leaves the hand to the hit, in four different places, the algorithm then triangulates that within half a second to create the 3D path the ball was travelling on. We went for an option that had four cameras specifically and solely dedicated to tracking and those four cameras see the entire pitch. We have got four high-speed cameras that are at roughly 40 degrees in each corner looking straight down that pitch so the only thing they see is the pitch, so nobody gets in the way of tracking. There are four cameras placed above so that they can look down. What happens is that we have an optimal position, no matter what. Do these change positions depending on venues? You spoke about placing these cameras in special positions. We are pretty happy with the result and so was MIT and they did the same with Hawk-Eye. It is a calibration, there are high-speed cameras in special positions that are only set up to track the ball. They made sure the system was working and that's kind of what everybody has gone through. They devised a system that they came up with, which we went through testing for over a week by bowling balls under really controlled conditions. A bit of background on Virtual Eye itself?īoth Hawk-Eye and us, the whole system has been tested by MIT.
0 kommentar(er)
