Hawk Eye Admits Error in Hughes’ Decision
Sreelata Yellamrazu: In what has to be an awkward moment for Hawk Eye and the Umpire Decision Review System, the men behind the Hawk Eye technology have acknowledged that the Hawk Eye had failed in the case of Australian batsmen, Phil Hughes, during the first Australia Sri La Sreelata Yellamrazu:
In what has to be an awkward moment for Hawk Eye and the Umpire Decision Review System, the men behind the Hawk Eye technology have acknowledged that the Hawk Eye had failed in the case of Australian batsmen, Phil Hughes, during the first Australia Sri Lanka Test at Galle.
The umpires, including Simon Taufel, had referred Hughes’ decision to the ICC for review after it was reckoned that the ball had suggested appreciable turn, which the Hawk Eye failed to depict and therefore, aid the third umpire in the case of the Umpire Decision Review System.
An obvious decision, it seemed that the first real glaring error on the part of Hawk Eye had been captured in an international match. Naturally the umpires took immediate cognizance of the fact and brought it to the notice of the ICC to the aberration.
However, in a rare admission, the people behind the Hawk Eye technology are willing to acknowledge the glaring oversight although they are also quick to point out that this was the first real error in the few that have been exposed since Hawk Eye came to occupy a place within cricket’s increasing use of technology.
Hawk Eye has been at the centre of controversy with the Indian cricketers and the BCCI opposed to its use which led to a stand off where India stood against the Umpire Decision Review System even as the rest of the cricket world seemed generally in agreement that the use of technology would significantly improve decision making in the sport. However, this was perhaps one of the most glaring errors that have been captured with regard to Hawk Eye.
Hawk Eye has claimed that the error is a result of the pitching and impact being too close in distance terms although the Hawk Eye has generally not shown up errors in such obvious manner since its inception. For Hawk Eye to come out and take responsibility for the error rather than await further post mortem appears to be a case of nipping the problem in the bud although it is being claimed that the error was brought to the notice to the ICC almost immediately even as the umpires were framing their report to the ICC.
Either way, what is relevant at the moment that the Hawk Eye has also shown rather clearly in this instance it is not beyond factual reproach which is enough as far as its detractors are concerned to say, ‘Told you so’. What is more important now is how the BCCI views this latest piece of evidence and confession and how it will go about the review that it is promising to conduct to constantly improve the game. The ICC has been generally in favour of the Hawk Eye, coming out even recently to state that given the rate of decision making that has been improved upon since the Hawk Eye was brought into the game, it would look to better upon the glitches that do come up, steering clear of criticizing the technology altogether.