1

RIZVI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERINGRIZVI COMPLEX, OFF CARTER ROAD,

BANDRA (W), MUMBAI-400050.

“IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN SPORTS”

S.E. (EXTC)

PRESENTED BY:

LOKESH CHATURVEDIAAMIR KHAN

PRATHAMESH GAWADEVRUSHAL CHURISWAPNIL MEHERVIBHAV PARAB

PRATHAMESH BELNEKARRAZA KHAN

RISHIKESH JATEKARPANKAJ KESARI

THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI2012-2013

2

RIZVI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERINGRIZVI COMPLEX, OFF CARTER ROAD,

BANDRA (W), MUMBAI-400050.

“IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN SPORTS”

S.E. (EXTC)

PRESENTED BY:

LOKESH CHATURVEDIAAMIR KHAN

PRATHAMESH GAWADEVRUSHAL CHURISWAPNIL MEHERVIBHAV PARAB

PRATHAMESH BELNEKARRAZA KHAN

RISHIKESH JATEKARPANKAJ KESARI

THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

3

2012-2013

Technologies Growing Impact In Sport

4

PREFACE

Technology has changed sport, look at rugby for instance you now have the tv ref who helps the on pitch ref make decisions. Also look at tennis where they can now question weather a shot was in or out and they check with the computer ang give the point accordingly. Now they made robots to play pool against. it can make a shot evey time!!! Also tv has changed sport, sports have been changed to make them more entertaining for viewers for instance they have made the goals in football bigger so more people can score making it a more exiting game to watch, technology has changed sports in endless ways.

Sport has rapidly developed from its humble beginnings at village festival events right up to the worldwide spectacle that is the Olympic games.

Hugely wealthy sport stars have replaced the amateurs who once graced the highest levels of sport. The sporting world has been dramatically changed by modern technology.

The world of sport is continually changing over the years, and the use of technology is just one of those areas that has made an impact on many sports in the modern day. One criticism of the use of technology is that it can slow down the speed of the game, but on the other hand for many people it makes watching it more enjoyable to see the correct decisions being made.

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Any accomplishment requires the effort of many people and this project is no different. Regardless of the source, we wise to express our gratitude to those who may have contributed to this work, even anonymously.

We gratefully acknowledge and express deep appreciation to many people who have made this project possible. Mere thanks to Mr.Sharad Tiwari, seem pretty small compared to the months of tremendous support and indulgence they gave.

Without their cheerful support and motivation this project would not have seen the light of the day, their review, comments, correction and suggestions have enormously enriched our project.

We are highly obliged to students of Rizvi College of Engineering for giving their opinion about the implementation of technology in sports, and library staff of Rizvi College of Engineering for providing us the information and data for our project.

We would also like to thank our Principal Mrs. Varsha Shah, H.O.D. Mr.Deshmukh and the entire teaching staff and non-teaching staff.

We express our gratitude to our very beloved family members without whose help and incomparable support it would not have been feasible for us to complete our project report on time.

6

Their ideas and moral support inspired us to work even harder and to achieve whatever we have today.

LIST OF CONTENT

Preface

Summary………………………………………………………………………………..8

1. Technological rise in sports…………………………………………9

2. Hawk-Eye…………………………………………………………………….112.1. Mechanism………………………………………………………………………..12

2.2. Use of Hawk-Eye in Cricket…………………………………………………………..13

2.3. Use of Hawk-Eye in Tennis……………………………………………………….…..15

2.4. Use of Hawk-Eye in other sports……………………………………………………….…..18

2.4.1. Snooker………………………………………………………………………………………….18

2.4.2. Gaelic games…………………………………………………………………………………..18

2.5. Doubt……………………………………………………………………………..…...20

3. What is goal line technology ?...................................................223.1. Goal-Ref………………………………………………………………………………243.2. Hawk-Eye…………………………………………………………………………….24

7

3.3. Turning Point………………………………………………………………….…..253.4. Jabulani football controversy………………………………………………26

4. Hotspot………………………………………………………………….………284.1. Use……………………………………………………………………………….…..….28

4.2. Mechanism………………………………………………………………….……....30

4.3. Advantages / Disadvantages………………………………………….………30

5. Snickometer……………………………………………………………………….........31

5.1.Use…………………………………………………………………………………….…32

6. Future of sport…………………………………………………………………………….33

7.Changing face of sport……………………………………………………………..….34

8.Challenging authority (Refree)…………………………………………………....36

9.Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………38

10.Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………….40

8

Summary

This report will examine technology’s influence throughout the sporting world and its current paramountcy on sporting matches and events. It will analyse current technological officiating methods concentrating on their level of success and how these could be imitated in football and other sports; using valued perspectives both for and against technological involvement in football and other sports. The paper will acknowledge each side of the argument in detail, deciphering factors that cause such strong opinions to be held around the debate of goal line technology or indeed the lack of it. The opinions of those whom are involved and will be effected by such a change in the world’s most popular game will be discussed in conjunction with the vast list of questions and issues surrounding the debate.

Factors involving the various technologies available or in current development will be discussed as well as the way the politics, that have many believing are the sole source of football’s lack of technological input, effect companies’ and institute’s researching and developing of potential goal line technology. The head of the University of Loughborough's sporting development institute, Professor Mike Caine will speak of his personal stance on all of the controversy that has ignited the deliberation of the goal line technology debate in a phone interview conducted at the culmination of this dissertation.

9

The dissertation will conclude in successfully arguing for the implementation of goal line technology, hawk-eye technology ,hot-spot technology ,snicko-meter technology into the world of sport via video replay.

1. Technological rise in Sports

To analysis technologies influence in sport there is no better place to begin than the

Olympic games, an event that is currently held once every four years in a location

around the world. Without question the Olympic games is the most recognised as

well as being the oldest sporting occasion the world has ever known.

Technological implementations quickly began to transform the Olympic games.

Damian Farrow describes the evolution of technology in swimming, as an Olympic

10

sport, as demonstrating this most effectively. During what has been described as the

first of the modern games, Athens 1896, (Farrow, 2008), swimmers competing were

required to jump off boats out at sea and swim the required distance of the event in

the ‘Bay of Zea’ whilst wearing long cotton bathing suits.

In the 1912 games hosted in Stockholm, competition organisers made adjustments

to transfer from the open sea to an outdoor pool, and most competitors also swam in

the newly designed ‘short’ suits.

The change that really imprinted technologies footprint on the Olympics took place in the 1928 Amsterdam games where sport scientists employed high speed film to

assess performance. The rise of technological involvement continued four years later

with Los Angles hosting swimming events in an indoor pool; races were now timed

using stopwatches. Los Angles was also the first Olympics to employ photo finishes in closely contested races.

Water based events at the Olympics continued to develop at pace with new

inventions such as bubble machines to improve diver impact safety becoming

regular features in the high dive swimming disciplines, and new lane barriers that cut

turbulence between each swimmers lane. However the most significant development

11

in improving performances was the introduction of Speedo’s ‘Aquablade’ suit in

1996. The new suit restricted drag and allowed the wearer to cut through the water in

a more efficient fashion than before. (Farrow, 2008)

In order to justify just how these ‘new streamline technology suits’ have given the

user advantages one simply has to cast their eye upon the 2009 World swimming

championships. Each day a record was broken. All of the new records were set by a

swimmer wearing the newly designed 100% polyurethane suit.

12

2. Hawk-Eye

Hawk-Eye is a complex computer system used in cricket, tennis and other sports to visually track the trajectory of the ball and display a record of its most statistically likely path as a moving image. In cricket and tennis, it is now part of the adjudication process. Engineers at Roke Manor Research Limited , in Romsey , England, developed the system in 2001. Dr Paul Hawkins and David Sherry submitted a patent for the United Kingdom but withdrew their request. Later, the technology was spun off into a separate company, Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd., as a joint venture with television production company Sunset + Vine, which was bought outright by Sony in March 2011.

The Hawk Eye uses a camera taking 600 frames a second on the goal-line. The information is analyzed by computer and sent to the referee's headset or a device on his wrist.

13

2.1. MechanismAll Hawk-Eye systems are based on the principles of triangulation using the visual images and timing data provided by a number of high-speed video cameras located at different locations and angles around the area of play. For tennis there are ten cameras. The system rapidly processes the video feeds by a high-speed camera and ball tracker. A data store contains a predefined model of the playing area and includes data on the rules of the game.

In each frame sent from each camera, the system identifies the group of pixels which corresponds to the image of the ball. It then calculates for each frame the 3D position of the ball by comparing its position on at least two of the physically separate cameras at the same instant in time. A succession of frames builds up a record of the path along which the ball has travelled. It also "predicts" the future flight path of the ball and where it will interact with any of the playing area features already programmed into the database. The system can also interpret these interactions to decide infringements of the rules of the game.

The system generates a graphic image of the ball path and playing area, which means that information can be provided to judges, television viewers or coaching staff in near real time.

The pure tracking system is combined with a backend database and archiving capabilities so that it is possible to extract and analyse trends and statistics about individual players, games, ball-to-ball comparisons, etc.

14

2.2. Use of Hawk-Eye in Cricket

The technology was first used by Channel 4 during a Test match between England and Pakistan on Lord's Cricket Ground, on 21 May 2001. It is used primarily by the majority of television networks to track the trajectory of balls in flight. In the winter season of 2008/2009 the ICC trialled a referral system where Hawk-Eye was used for referring decisions to the third umpire if a team disagreed with an LBW decision. The third umpire was able to look at what the ball actually did up to the point when it hit the batsman, but could not look at the predicted flight of the ball after it hit the batsman.

Its major use in cricket broadcasting is in analysing leg before wicket decisions, where the likely path of the ball can be projected forward, through the batsman's legs, to see if it would have hit the stumps. Consultation of the third umpire, for conventional slow motion or Hawk-Eye, on leg before wicket decisions, is currently sanctioned in international cricket even though doubts remain about its accuracy in cricket.

Due to its realtime coverage of bowling speed, the systems are also used to show delivery patterns of bowler's behaviour such as line and length, or swing/turn information. At the end of an over, all six deliveries are often shown simultaneously to show a bowler's variations, such as slower deliveries, bouncers and leg-cutters. A complete record of a bowler can also be shown over the course of a match.

Batsmen also benefit from the analysis of Hawk-Eye, as a record can be brought up of the deliveries batsmen scored from. These are often shown as a 2-D silhouetted figure of a batsmen and colour-coded dots of the balls faced by the batsman. Information such as the exact spot where the ball pitches or speed of the ball from the bowler's hand (to gauge batsman reaction time) can also help in post-match analysis.

15

Position of cameras in Haek-Eye

16

2.3. Use of Hawk-Eye in Tennis

In Serena Williams's quarterfinal loss to Jennifer Capriati at the 2004 US Open, many crucial calls were contested by Williams, and TV replays demonstrated that some were indeed erroneous. Though the calls themselves were not reversed, the chair umpire Mariana Alves was removed from consideration for further matches at that year's U.S. Open. These errors prompted talks about line calling assistance especially as the Auto-Ref system was being tested by the U.S. Open at that time and was shown to be very accurate.

In late 2005 Hawk-Eye was tested by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) in New York City and was passed for professional use. Hawk-Eye reported that the New York tests involved 80 shots being measured by the ITF's high speed camera, a device similar to MacCAM. During an early test of the system during an exhibition tennis tournament in Australia (seen on local TV), there was an instance when the tennis ball was shown as "Out", but the accompanying word was "In". This was explained to be an error in the way the tennis ball was shown on the graphical display as a circle, rather than as an ellipse. This was immediately corrected.

Hawk-Eye has been used in television coverage of several major tennis tournaments, including Wimbledon, the Queen's Club Championships, the Australian Open, the Davis Cup and the Tennis Masters Cup. The US Open Tennis Championship announced they would make official use of the technology for the 2006 US Open where each player receives two challenges per set. It is also used as part of a larger tennis simulation implemented by IBM called PointTracker.

The 2006 Hopman Cup in Perth, Western Australia, was the first elite-level tennis tournament where players were allowed to challenge point-ending line calls, which were then reviewed by the referees using Hawk-Eye technology. It used 10 cameras feeding information about ball position to the computers. Michaëlla Krajicek was the first to use the system.

In March 2006, at the Nasdaq-100 Open in Miami, Hawk-Eye was used officially for the first time at a tennis tour event. Later that year, the US Open became the first grand-slam event to use the system during play, allowing players to challenge line calls.

17

The 2007 Australian Open was the first grand-slam tournament of 2007 to implement Hawk-Eye in challenges to line calls, where each tennis player on Rod

Laver Arena was allowed 2 incorrect challenges per set and one additional challenge should a tiebreaker be played. In the event of an advantage final set,

challenges were reset to 2 for each player every 12 games, i.e. 6 all, 12 all.

Controversies followed the event as at times Hawk-Eye produced erroneous output. In 2008, tennis players were allowed 3 incorrect challenges per set instead. Any leftover challenges didn't carry over to the next set. Once, in one of Amélie Mauresmo's matches, she challenged a ball that was called in, Hawk-Eye showed the ball was out by less than a millimeter but the verdict was called in. As a result, the point was replayed and Mauresmo didn't lose an incorrect challenge.

Ball compared with impact.

The Hawk-Eye technology was used in the 2007 Dubai Tennis Championships with some minor controversies. Defending champion Rafael Nadal accused the system of incorrectly declaring an out ball to be in following his exit. The umpire had called a ball out; when Mikhail Youzhny challenged the decision, Hawk-Eye said it was in by 3 mm. Youzhny said afterwards that he himself thought the mark may have been wide but then offered that this kind of technology error could easily have been made by linesmen and umpires. Nadal could only shrug, saying that had this system been on clay, the mark would have clearly shown Hawk-Eye to be wrong. The mark left by the ball on a hard court is a subset of the total area that the ball was in contact with the court (a certain amount of pressure is required to create the mark.

The 2007 Wimbledon Championships also implemented the Hawk-Eye system as an officiating aid on Centre Court and Court 1, and each tennis player was allowed 3 incorrect challenges per set. If the set produced a tiebreaker, each player was given an additional challenge. Additionally, in the event of a final set (third set in women's or mixed matches, fifth set in men's matches), where there is no tiebreak, each player's number of challenges was reset to three if the game score reached 6-6, and again at 12-12. Teymuraz Gabashvili, in his 1st round match against Roger Federer, made the first ever Hawk-Eye challenge on Centre Court. Additionally, during the finals of Federer against Rafael Nadal, Nadal challenged a shot which was called out. Hawk-Eye showed the ball as in, just clipping the line. The reversal agitated

18

Federer enough for him to request (unsuccessfully) that the umpire turn off the Hawk-Eye technology for the remainder of the match.

In the 2009 Australian Open fourth round match between Roger Federer and Tomáš Berdych, Berdych challenged an out call. The Hawk-Eye system wasn't available when he challenged, likely due to a particularly pronounced shadow on the court. As a result, the original call stood.

In the 2009 Indian Wells Masters quarterfinals match between Ivan Ljubičić and Andy Murray, Murray challenged an out call. The Hawk-Eye system indicated that the ball landed on the center of the line despite instant replay images showing that the ball was clearly out. It was later revealed that the Hawk-Eye system had mistakenly picked up the second bounce, which was on the line, instead of the first bounce of the ball. Immediately after the match, Murray apologized to Ljubicic for the call, and acknowledged that the point was out.

The Hawk-Eye system was developed as a replay system, originally for TV Broadcast coverage. As such, it initially couldn't call ins and outs live, only the Auto-Ref system could produce live in/out calls as it was developed for instant line calling. Both systems can produce replays.

The Hawk-Eye Innovations website states that the system performs with an average error of 3.6 mm. The standard diameter of a tennis ball is 67 mm, equating to a 5% error relative to ball diameter. This is roughly equivalent to the fluff on the ball.

19

2.4. Use of Hawk-Eye in other sports

2.4.1. Snooker

At the World Snooker Championship 2007, the BBC used Hawk-Eye for the first time in its television coverage to show player views, particularly in the incidents of potential snookers. It has also been used to demonstrate intended shots by players when the actual shot has gone awry. It is now used by the BBC at every World Championship, as well as some other major tournaments. The BBC uses the system sporadically, for instance in the 2009 Masters at Wembley the Hawk-Eye was at most used once or twice per frame. In contrast to tennis, the Hawk-Eye is never used in snooker to assist referees' decisions.

20

2.4.2. Gaelic GamesIn Ireland, Hawk-Eye is being introduced for all championship games in Croke Park during 2012 and 2013. This follows consideration by the Gaelic Athletic Association for use in Gaelic football and Hurling. A trial took place in Croke Park, Dublin on 2nd April, 2011. The double header featured football between Dublin and Down and hurling between Dublin and Kilkenny. Over the last two seasons there had been many calls for the technology to be adopted especially from Kildare fans who saw two high profile decisions go against their team in important games.The GAA will review the issue after the Sam Maguire cup is presented in 2013.

Hawk-Eye Camera

21

2.5. DoubtsHawk-Eye is now familiar to sport fans around the world for the views it brings into sports like cricket and tennis. Although this new technology has for the most part been embraced, it has been recently criticised by some, particularly some specific, high profile calls. The Australian media in cricket were critical of a specific LBW appeal made by Anil Kumble when Andrew Symonds was batting. The ball, as suggested by Hawk-Eye, would have bounced over the stumps, but to the naked eye looked absolutely out. In the Nadal-Federer final at Wimbledon in 2008, a ball that appeared out was called in by 1 mm, a distance smaller than the advertised margin of error (3.6 mm). Some commentators have criticized the system's 3.6 mm statistical margin of error as too large. Others have noted that while 3.6 mm is extraordinarily accurate, this margin of error is only for the witnessed trajectory of the ball. Its use in broadcasts to predict the trajectory of a ball had it not hit a batsman is less certain, especially in situations where the conditions of the turf would affect its future trajectory, i.e. where the ball is headed to the ground or has only a short hop before hitting the batsman. Currently, the system is not used officially in such circumstances, though it is used in television broadcasts and analysis.

In 2008, an article in a peer-reviewed journal consolidated many of these doubts. The authors acknowledged the value of the system, but noted that it was probably fallible to some extent, and that its failure to depict a margin of error gave a spurious depiction of events. The authors also argued that the probable limits to its accuracy were not acknowledged by players, officials, commentators or spectators. They hypothesised that Hawk-Eye may struggle with predicting the trajectory of a cricket ball after bouncing: the time between a ball bouncing and striking the batsman may be too short to generate the three frames (at least) needed to plot a curve accurately. However, the paper did not attempt to establish the accuracy of the system, and the only technical information presented was taken from an article on the Cricinfo website.

The article also argued that Hawk-Eye's depiction of line decisions in tennis ignored such factors as the distortion of the ball on bouncing and the less-than-complete precision with which the lines on the court are drawn. The makers of Hawk-Eye strongly attacked many of these claims, but the authors have not withdrawn them.

27 Feb 2012,World Cup, Ind vs Eng

The England chase began in a masterful manner. England’s captain Andrew Strauss (who went on to score 157 in 145 balls) was anchoring their innings. At the end of 24.5 overs England had scored 163 for the fall of just 2 wickets. Andrew Strauss was on 92. Ian Bell was on 17 and facing the last ball of Yuvraj Singh’s 3rd over. The ball was pitched on off stump. Ian Bell stretched out to attempt a sweep shot. He

22

missed, and the ball struck his pads. There was a loud appeal for LBW. Umpire Billy Bowden said ‘not out’. The Indian captain called for a review of the decision by the third umpire.

The TV replays using the Hawk-Eye technology showed the ball pitching on off stump and going on to hit the middle stump. Commentators passed the verdict. Ian Bell started walking away. But the third umpire Rod Tucker did not over-rule Billy Bowden’s decision. The reason: the ball had struck the batsman’s pads more than 2.5 meters in front of the stumps. Ian Bell stayed on for 18 more overs, scoring 52 more runs, to reach 69 in 71 balls and leave England in a commanding position to win the game. A sudden batting collapse and a last minute recovery resulted in the match ending in a thrilling draw. But cricket fans all over the world will wonder if the decision with regard to Ian Bell was correct, and if the “not-out” decision on Ian Bell robbed India of the match.

23

3. What is goal line technology?

Goal line technology is a technology that is being ivestigated to be used in football. It has come into the spotlight because of recent incidents where in games, the ball has crossed the line, but has not been noticed by the referee, and so the goal was not given. Sometimes when the ball crosses the line by a couple of inches before being hoofed out by a defender, it is difficult for the ref to see. Examples of this include:

Roy Carrol famously carried the ball over the line after a 50 yard shot by Pedro Mendes in 2005, with the score at 0-0 between Manchester United and Tottenham - the goal would have given Tottenham the win.

In association football, goal-line technology is a technology which determines when the ball has completely crossed the goal line, assisting the referee in calling a goal or not. In the wake of controversial calls made in the Premier League, 2010 World Cup and the Euro 2012, FIFA (previously against the technology) is testing potential candidates for goal-line technology. Nine systems were initially tested, but only two remain.

24

On July 5, 2012, IFAB officially approved the use of goal line technology. The two systems approved in principle were involved in test phase 2: GoalRef and Hawk-Eye.

25

3.1. GoalRef

GoalRef features a microchip in the ball and low magnetic waves around the goal. Any change in the field on or behind the goalline determines the scoring of a goal.

26

A microchip in the ball

3.2. Hawk-EyeThe Hawk-Eye system was first developed in 1999. Hawk-Eye is an existing technology currently used in cricket, tennis and snooker. It is based on the principle of triangulation using the visual images and timing data provided by high-speed video cameras at different locations around the area of play. The system uses high frame rate cameras to triangulate and track the ball in flight. The software calculates the ball’s location in each frame by identifying the pixels that correspond to the ball. The software can track the ball and predict the flight path, even if several cameras are being blocked. The system also records the ball's flight path and stores it in a database that is used to create a graphic image of the flight path, so the images can be shown to commentators, coaches and audiences. The data from the system can also be used to determine statistics for players and analyse trends. The proposal involves placing seven cameras for each goal mouth around the stadium. The system is near real-time and referees will be notified on their encrypted watch in less than one second from the ball crossing the line. Critics of the system claim the system will slow down the game and that the statistical margin of error is too large.Both Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have criticised the accuracy of the system in tennis (though Roger Federer now supports the use of the system in football).

3.3. A turning point?

27

FIFA, the world’s football governing body, has resisted the introduction of goal-line technology for some years. In March 2010, the International Football Association Board (IFAB), responsible for establishing the laws of the game, voted not to use the technology as they felt it was not good for the game. Following a number of controversial refereeing decisions at the 2010 FIFA World Cup™, however, FIFA has agreed to revisit the issue. Just days before the end of the tournament, FIFA General Secretary Jerome Valcke said, “I would say that it is the final World Cup with the current refereeing system.” He added, “The game is so fast, the ball is flying so quickly, we have to help them [the referees].”

Goal-line incidents have been the subject of great controversy and debate for many years. The most famous goal-line decision concerned the third goal scored by England (Geoff Hurst) in the 1966 World Cup final against West Germany. While 44 years ago the technologies available were limited, today the technological landscape is vastly different offering a range of possibilities that can assist referees in their decisions.

The two main candidate technologies for use in football are those produced by U.K. company Hawk-Eye Innovations and German company Cairos Technologies AG.

3.4. Jabulani football controversy

28

However, advances in technology and their implementation in official sport is not without controversy. One example of just how much disrepute a new technological implementation can have on a sport is the incident of the Jabulani 2010 world cup football.

Despite a number of high profile players from various playing positions having endorsed the ball before its use in the South African world cup it is the perfect example of how technology has and can complicate sports. (WeAreSBK1, 2010). (Wing, 2009). (Okwonga, 2010). (You and Yours, 2010).

Almost as soon as the world cup began on Friday 11th June 2010 there was no shortage of complaints aimed at the Jabulani ball from managers to goalkeepers to strikers. The comments are not just from average role players looking for excuses but from some of the most talented players on the planet. Julio Cesar, Brazil’s first choice goalkeeper and current holder of UEFA’s prestigious ‘UEFA club goalkeeper of the year’ award described the ball as “A ball you would find in a supermarket..”

These comments were backed up further by fellow international goalkeeper David James who is quoted as saying the ball is “Dreadful and horrible”. It was not just the goalkeepers that were publicly criticizing the ball, highly experienced and respected

England manager and former Italian international midfielder commented that the ball was “The worse ball I have ever seen”.

Former Manchester City player and record breaking English transfer fee signing Robinho also voiced his displeasure saying “The guy who designed this never played football”. (Johnston, 2010).

29

The opinions voiced above portray a very vivid image of the displeasure the apparent most accurate ball ever, a point given further ballast by German football captain Michael Ballack “Because the ball goes where you want you can’t have excuses”. (adidas footballtv , 2009), (Wing, 2009).

The alteration of such a vital piece of equipment in sport, whether it be an improvement from the former product or not, is always likely to incite controversy as time is needed for players to adapt. England midfielder Frank Lampard clarifies this point during the testing of the ball, “in the modern day, the newer the balls are there’s always a slightly different feel...” (lborouniversity , 2009).

This period of alteration raises another element of debate with the jabulani football atits epicenter.

30

4. Hot Spot

Hot Spot is an infra-red imaging system used in cricket to determine whether the ball has struck the batsman, bat or pad. Hot Spot requires two infrared cameras on opposite sides of the ground above the field of play that are continuously recording an image. Any suspected snick or bat/pad event can be verified by examining the infrared image, which usually shows a bright spot where contact friction from the ball has elevated the local temperature. Where referrals to an off-field third umpire are permitted, the technology is used to enhance the on-field umpire's decision-making accuracy. Where referrals are not permitted, the technology is used primarily as an analysis aid for televised coverage.

4.1. Use Its principal application in cricket is in deciding whether the ball has struck the batsman's bat or pad — this determination being critical in determining if a batsman is dismissed or not on appeal for LBW or caught.

In considering whether a batsman is out when the ball strikes bat then caught by a member of the fielding team or caught in front of the stumps when ball hits pad, one of the most difficult decisions is whether the ball struck the pad only, or the bat only, or (if it struck both) whether the pad or the bat was struck first. If the ball strikes the bat only, or strikes the bat followed by the pad, then the batsman could be out caught but not LBW. If the ball strikes the pad in front of the stumps or inline with stumps, then the batsman could be out LBW but not

31

caught. If the ball strikes the pad followed by the bat, then the batsman could be out LBW or out caught if a fielder catches the ball. The batsman's bat and pad are often close together, and it can be very hard to determine by eye which was struck first, whereas the hotspot technology can often resolve the question.

Hot-spot imagery is also used to show which part of the cricket bat hit the ball, as ideally the batsmen try to "middle" the ball i.e. hit it where the sweet spot lies. Hot spot camera provides some valuable information while analyzing the strokes played by a batsman.

32

4.2. Mechanism

Hot Spot uses two infra-red cameras positioned at either end of the ground. These cameras sense and measure heat from friction generated by a collision, such as ball on pad, ball on bat, ball on ground or ball on glove. Using a subtraction technique a series of black-and-white negative frames is generated into a computer, precisely localising the ball's point of contact.

4.3. Advantages/Disadvantages

Hot Spot has two main advantages over its competing technology, the Snickometer, which is a sound-detection based system. Snickometer often produces inconclusive results indicating contact (potentially any combination of bat, pad and ball) only, whereas the Hot Spot clearly shows exactly what the ball strikes. Precise synchronisation of the Snickometer sound with associated pictures takes time, making it currently not suitable for use in the umpire decision review system.

Hot Spot technology, even though claimed to be extremely accurate, is not used in many matches. The main reason for this is its expense: $6000 per day for the use of two cameras and $10000 for the use of four cameras. Warren Brennan,

33

the owner of BBG Sports, said the unwillingness of the International Cricket Council or national cricket boards to pay to use the expensive technology had restricted its use: "We won't be supplying Hot Spot to the World Cup next year, even for the semis or finals, if the cricket boards want a feed of that for adjudication purposes, they should contribute to the costs. The Ashes could be the last hurrah."

In the India-England ODI Series in 2011, there were controversial decisions based on the Hot Spot technology going against India's Rahul Dravid on more than one occasion where Hot Spot replays proved inconclusive and yet Dravid was given out. On one occasion, there seemed to be a nick which Hot Spot wasn't able to detect. These incidents threw the role of Hot Spot technology into doubt once again.

5. Snicko-Meter A Snickometer, commonly known as Snicko, is used in televising cricket to graphically analyse sound and video, and show whether a fine noise, or snick, occurs as ball passes bat. It was invented by English computer scientist Allan Plaskett in the mid-1990s. Plaskett also invented another device for aiding television commentary on cricket: Flightpath, and is the author of 'H-Trauma: The General Theory of Evil', a work in the field of psychoanalysis. The snickometer was introduced by Channel 4 in the UK, who also introduced the Hawk-Eye and the Red Zone, in 1999. Snickometer is used to graphically analyze sound in situations like when ball hits the wickets, bat edge. It was developed in mid 1990s but only popularly known in recent decade.

Commentators use this tool to tell if the ball did hit the bat before the keeper caught the ball to tell if the batsman is out or not. The type of waveform tells what type of contact was made with the ball, whether the pads or bat etc.

34

5.1. Uses The Snickometer is often used in a slow motion television replay by the third umpire to determine if the cricket ball touched the cricket bat on the way through to the wicketkeeper. The commentators will listen and view the shape of the recorded soundwave. If there is a sound of leather on willow, which is usually a short sharp sound in synchrony with the ball passing the bat, then the ball has touched the bat. Other sounds such as the ball hitting the batsman's pads, or the bat hitting the pitch, and so on, tend to have a fatter shape on the sound waveform.

If, in the umpire's opinion, this is the case, and the ball was a legal delivery that was caught before touching the ground, then the batsman is given out by the umpire. The umpire does not have the benefit of the Snickometer, and must instead rely on his senses of sight and hearing, as well as his judgement.

Channel 4 in the UK and Channel Nine of Australia, amongst others, have used it to determine if the batsman was out or not.

35

6. Future for sports

Realistically there are three possible routes to embrace within sport currently. “One, at present taken by football, is to keep things as they are, accepting that mistakes are part of the game and, since that game is the most successful in the world, it would be foolish to tamper with it.

The second option, currently adopted by a number of sports, is to admit a limited amount of technology into the process of adjudication: for instance, deciding tries in rugby, whether a catch is held in cricket or whether an athlete has false started.

The third option is to embrace the technology of adjudication wholeheartedly.” – Ross S., (2008). Explained by

36

Stewart Ross, the option that the majority of sports are employing is the second of the three.

Smart ball tracking technology

7. Changing face of sport

The key is to contain the technology and not give it the license to completely change

the face of a sport. Games like rugby, cricket and tennis are already fairly, stop, start

and therefore the reviewing of decisions does not seem to affect the flow of the

sport. (Inverdale, 2010).

Many who voice concern, most notably Michel Platini and Sepp Blatter do so with the

worry that decision referral technology will cause the match to be slowed down and

37

interrupted. A valid element of apprehension and one those involved with tennis

have expressed their annoyance at. Players believe opponents are using the review

system technology tactically, trying to disrupt the momentum of the match. This of

course is mainly directed at the fairly newly adopted hawk eye referral system in the

power of each player’s hands. (Crowther, 2007), (Garland et al. 2000). The hawk eye

referral system was first introduced during the 2006 US Open, (Pratiyogita Darpan,

2006). Player/team reviewing will be further discussed in depth towards the end of

the chapter.

Both current world number 2 and 3, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic, have both

conveyed their opinions against the use of Hawk eye in tennis. (Independent.co.uk,

2010). Federer, arguably the greatest tennis player of all time and a long time critic

of the hawk eye system says: "We have electronic line calling even though we don't

need it… One forehand down the line doesn't change the outcome of the match..” –

Roger Federer. (Davis, 2010).

Taking in to account the breaking down of the flow of the game the technology may

38

cause, John Inverdale (TV broadcaster for the BBC and columnist) has reported on

the issue with a view that the stoppage needed for technology referral would not

impair the game in the slightest.

Using his experience of watching an experimental implementation of video referral

technology in international hockey, he claims the time it takes for the event to be

viewed via a monitor is less than the period taken up from mass protests the referee

has to deal with from players over the alleged incident. “A goal is awarded but a

member of the defending team is convinced an infringement took place. He asks the

officials to refer it to the video evidence. The answer comes back. The goal stands or

it doesn't.” -John Inverdale. (Inverdale, 2010).

The argument of technology in sport being ‘good or bad’ is at the forefront of many

sports currently, however in the interview conducted with Professor Mike Caine he

says “you can’t say technology is good or bad its just a tool, and its how the tool is

implemented that determines whether you get a positive or negative outcome”.

39

8. Challenging authority (Refree)

Obviously the use of technology has drastically decreased incorrect decisions, but many are worried about the impact this has upon the authority of referees. (Gardiner, 2006). (Ch'ng et al. 2008).

“Many argue that allowing tennis players to challenge the officials calls… Undermines their authority and brings the sport into disrepute” – (Ross, 2010) (Beloff, 2005).

Tennis is arguably the scene of the most vivid outburst in professional sport history,here we are referring to the infamous John McEnroe umpire dispute.

However, it is now the general opinion that the accuracy of the hawk eye technology has aided the game to diminish outbursts such as this, (Henshaw, 2006). The interview conducted with Professor Mike Caine demonstrates how he believes the technology helps prevent players from psychologically believing all the calls are going against them, making for a more respective approach when opposed to the official.

“I mean if you think about the use of line calls in tennis, I’m thinking of Wimbledon now, there’s a very straight forward procedure whereby the players have a challenge system in place and because its very straight forward the ball is either in or the ball is either out, I don’t think it undermines the officials at all. They appreciate that it’s a subjective call and that the human eye isn’t infallible and whilst the technology’s not infallible either, it is certainly unbiased if that makes sense. I think one of the problems a player has, think about a McEnroe scenario, is that they get it into their mind that they’re being victimised, all the positive call are

40

going in favour of their opponent, all the negative calls are going in favour of them or against them rather, and so it upsets them psychologically and therefore they have an outburst at the particular umpire. Since the technology has been implemented there’s no outburst at the umpire; instead of undermining you’ve actually got something that’s complimenting the authority of the official…” So despite the opposition from some of the top players in the world that it is not an aspect that is particularly essential in the game, there is a very limited lobby that believes the technology can cause ‘incorrect’ decisions.

The issue of being certain about a decision is still subjective in the case of the third umpire (Ross, 2008). This issue arises because even with the technological components at their disposal it is still down to the third official to make a judgment call. Compare this to tennis where there is a technology that shows whether a ball is either in or out. (Gardiner, 2006).

Referring again to Professor Mike Caine “when you look at say a sport like cricket where they’ve followed a similar procedure but effectively it is a more complex call where there are multiple facets to whether a person is out or not. The umpire is making a judgement, the players can then challenge it but there’s then still subjectivity in the technology, so unlike in tennis when its in its out everyone moves on very quickly, there is then a debate about whether the 3rd official…is looking at the right things…now what’s happening is the player’s are challenging the interpretation of the technology...”

Mike Caine is referring in particular to the ashes here, his comments aimed at the captain of the Australian cricket team, Ricky Ponting who made an outburst after the third umpire ruled out a catch. (TheMasterBucks, 2010). In this case an umpire then becomes the middleman who feels the wrath of the abuse when it is not even they who have come to the decision.

Cricket is not a sport known for its outbursts and seen as to many as the ‘gentleman’s’ game, (Poll, 2010). However since the introduction of the technology and the ability to review decisions it’s an addition to the game seen a lot more of recently.

41

Ronaldo disappointed with refree’s decision

9. Conclusion:

Technology has brought about a significant change in the world of sports. Though originally the use of technology had its share of detractors, their argument being technology slowing down the speed of the game, no one can deny that the right of a sports team or a sportsperson’s right to a fair game devoid of incorrect decisions. Technology has done away with all the squabbles regarding match decisions. In the earlier days, whatever decision was made by the match officials was considered the last word. Though efforts had been made by all the great sports

42

governing bodies of the world to do away with bias, yet the element of human error still remained, and will continue to exist. What technology strives to do is to remove the element of human error in the course of a match being played. Today, in the world of sports, technology has become a part and parcel of the entire event. Other than in the area of broadcasting and televising a sporting event, technology also plays an extremely important part in game play. In soccer matches, the problems which have plagued the game, since the beginning, are slowly being eliminated. Instant replays can be used by referees to decide about goal line conflicts, penalty decisions, off-sides, handball and other crucial decisions. Future prospects include a football with a microchip embedded in it, which can track whether the ball has crossed the goal line or not. Hawk-Eye is a revolutionary technology which can provide a computer generated image of the ball movement using sensors placed in the playing field. This technology has been recently included in the game of tennis, in the form of a referral system and has made a huge impact on the game. This has led to the adoption of this technology in cricket.

The marriage of sports and technology has indeed proved to be fruitful. The reliance of sports on technology is here to stay.

INDEX

A: I:Australian Open ICC

B: ITF BBC IBM

C: IFAB Cairos Technoligies Infrared

Channel 4, England M:

Channel 9, Australia Manchester United

43

D: Microchip

Davis Cup P:

F : Polyurethane FIFA R:

G: Real time

Goal-line Technology U:

Gaelic Games UEFA

GAA US Open

H: W: Hawk-Eye Technology Wimbeldon

Hot-Spot Technology

Hopman Cup

Bibliography

Books:1) Ross S. (2010), Sports Technology , London ,Evans Brother Ltd.202) Ross S. (2010),Sports Technology , London ,Evans Brother Ltd.83) Beashel P., Sibson A. and Taylor J. (2001) The World of Sport examined 2nd edition ,

Nelson Thorns Ltd.

Newespaper: 1) Times Of India

2) Mumbai Mirror

44

Websites:1)http://news.bbc.co.in/

2)www.wikipedia.org

3) http://www.topendsports.com/

4) http://www.scienceclarified.com/

5) http://dsc.discovery.com/technology/tech-10/sports-tech/

6) http://www.popularmechanics.com/