Doubt it was Aus who vetoed it, based on public statements. Mind you, considering India actually played under it in their last series, would have been weird had they vetoed it. They had a few go against them though, didn't they? It's the only reason I could think of why they would have said no, didn't see much of the series though.
We've got Sunil Gavaskar on ours, starting to take a liking to him. Never really heard him commentating much prior to last night.
Yea, I wouldn't think either of them would veto it, which is why I was surprised that it was not implemented.
Yeah, get the feeling that it would usher in a new era for spinners. Let's face it, LBW laws have been working against spinners for many years. I know everyone blames covered pitches for nullifying them but the LBW rule hasn't helped matters either. So many LBW's given not-out which, on replay, were gone, just because the batsman bent his front-leg.
I watched the whole thing, and yes, SL came out on top with more of their referrals going their way - but that's going to happen. To me it was an unqualified success. It protects umpires from ruining matches, it keeps controversy to a minimum (it will never go away), and it allows people with better views to have an input. It's ridiculous that twenty million people can find out how big of a muppet the umpire is five seconds after a decision, including people watching upstairs, yet nothing can be done about it.
Absolutely.
Agreed, there's no defensible reason to not use referrals.
Up to that point.
Just the point up to which it hits the pad, mate.
Unless pitched really full, you'd expect a ball's track to descend, though. Don't find it unreasonable, especially if Hawkeye uses the speed of the ball as it changes after pitching. As we've seen for a while, there's a pretty dramatic drop in speed from when the bowler lets go of the ball to when it reaches the batsman and with that speed drop, you'd expect the impetus keeping the ball moving and airborne to drop, resulting in correponding declination in flight. Not by much but if the ball hits Ponting just above the line of the stumps (especially on a slow pitch), I'd have no trouble accepting that with two metres left to travel, the flight of the ball would decline. Didn't see the incident in question, though.
I think Hayden might've been spared, so maybe the other decisions would never have happened. It's hard to judge.
See, I see that as a cop-out. The calculations to predict the path of the ball wouldn't be that complex. Would think it'd be perfectly defensible to use it. Certainly would trust it more than another old set of eyes in front of a monitor.
I do think that Hawkeye is more accurate than most people give it credit for. I'd certainly trust it more than most umpires. But I am fine with not using the predictive parts. It makes the luddites feel better.
Late. As usual.
